text:
# Superfield Lagrangian Quantization with Extended BRST Symmetry

## 1. Introduction

In the past few years two tendencies have made themselves manifest in the development of covariant quantization methods based on (extended) BRST symmetry : one is introduction of gauge with the help of equations imposed on gauge-fixing functionals ; the other is formulation of superfield quantization rules . Recently both these concepts have been combined within the modified superfield formalism , which generalizes the previous studies  dealing with different modifications of the BV quantization  for general gauge theories in the framework of the standard BRST symmetry .

In , it was shown that the BV approach can be formulated in such a way that the entire gauge-fixing part of the quantum action is subject to a special generating equation analogous to the usual generating equation that determines the quantum action. It was demonstrated that this concept of gauge-fixing guarantees the independence of the vacuum functional under infinitesimal gauge variations, which, by virtue of the equivalence theorem , implies the gauge-independence of the $`S`$-matrix.

In , a superfield form of the BV quantization rules was proposed. The variables of the BV approach were combined into superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ and superantifields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )`$ with opposite Grassmann parities, defined in a superspace with one anticommuting coordinate $`\theta `$. A superfield representation of the usual antibracket $`(,)`$ and the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ was found. The vacuum functional is given as a functional integral over $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )`$. The components of superfields and superantifields are interpreted as the usual field-antifield variables $`\varphi ^A`$, $`\varphi _A^{}`$ as well as the Langrange multipliers $`\lambda ^A`$ and the sources $`J_A`$ to the fields. The fact that the components of the supervariables play different roles in the BV approach leads to a difference in the treatment of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )`$. Thus, to obtain the correspondence with the BV vacuum functional one has to impose the constraint $`J_A=0`$ which is introduced in a manifestly superfield form by adding an integration density depending on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )`$. In the space of the supervariables, the transformations of BRST symmetry are realized in terms of variations induced by supertranslations along the Grassmann coordinate. The generators of supertranslations naturally possess the properties of nilpotency and anticommutativity with each other as well as with the delta-operator, and their properties of differentiating the antibracket are identical with the well-known property of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The superfield BRST transformations were shown to encode the gauge-independence of the vacuum functional and, consequently, that of the corresponding $`S`$-matrix.

Finally, in  the superfield formalism  was modified in such a way that the gauge-fixing quantum action $`X`$ in the vacuum functional was required to satisfy a special generating equation,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(X,X)UX=i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }X,`$ (1.1)
expressed in terms of the generator $`U`$ of supertranslations in the space of superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$, and formally analogous to the equation  for the quantum action $`W`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(W,W)+VW=i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }W,`$ (1.2)
containing the generator $`V`$ of supertranslations in the space of superantifields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )`$. The above generating equations (1.1) and (1.2) make it possible to encode the gauge-independence of the $`S`$-matrix in terms of the transformations of BRST symmetry, realized as a combination of supertranslations along the Grassmann coordinate and anticanonical transformations generated by the antibracket,

$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mu U\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )+(\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta ),XW)\mu ,`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mu V\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )+(\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta ),XW)\mu ,`$ (1.3)
where $`\mu `$ is a constant anticommuting parameter. The modified superfield formalism  is equivalent to the gauge-fixing procedure  and contains the original superfield approach  as a special case of solutions to the generating equation for the gauge functional $`X`$.

Note that there exists an alternative approach  to superfield quantization of gauge theories, following from a superfield Hamiltonian formalism  for constrained dynamical systems in the framework of BRST symmetry.

Consider the most important differences between the methods  and . First, the set of supervariables required for the construction of the vacuum functional in the covariant formulation  is composed by field-antifield pairs111We assume the separation of variables in terms of Darboux coordinates. For illustrative purposes, we have replaced the original notations  by those of , also in terms of the usual field-antifield variables $`\varphi ^A`$, $`\varphi _A^{}`$ and their superpartners $`\lambda ^A`$, $`J_A`$, despite these latter do not admit of the interpretation  from the viewpoint of the BV method. Note that the variables $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )`$ considered in  are formally related to those introduced in  by transposition of the components $`\varphi _A^{}`$ and $`J_A`$. $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )`$ with the same Grassmann parity. Second, the method  is formally a direct extension of the BV approach, with the field-antifield variables replaced by their superfield counterparts. As a consequence, at the component level, the corresponding antibracket and delta-operator  are extensions of the original BV objects, constructed with the help of the superpartners $`\lambda ^A`$, $`J_A`$ of the usual field-antifield variables $`\varphi ^A`$, $`\varphi _A^{}`$. As another consequence, the vacuum functional is given by a functional integral over the superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ with the variables $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )`$ placed on a specified gauge hypersurface.

Although essentially different at the superfield level, the proposals  are equivalent to each other in the sense that they parameterize the BV vacuum functional after imposing appropriate restrictions on the solutions of the generating equations.

As in the case of the standard BRST symmetry realized in the reviewed papers , there have been studies  devoted to the implementation of these concepts of gauge-fixing  and superfield quantization  on the basis of extended BRST symmetry .

In the framework of the triplectic  and modified triplectic  methods, the idea of imposing a generating equation on the gauge-fixing part of the quantum action was incorporated into the $`Sp(2)`$ covariant formulation  of extended BRST symmetry for general gauge theories. One of the ingredients of the triplectic (also called “completely anticanonical”) approach is to consider part of the antifields and Lagrange multipliers of the $`Sp(2)`$ covariant formalism  as anticanonically conjugated variables, which involves the corresponding redefinition of the original  extended antibracket and delta-operator, retaining, however, their essential algebraic properties.

In , a superfield form of the $`Sp(2)`$ covariant quantization rules was proposed along the lines of the papers . The variables of the $`Sp(2)`$ covariant approach were combined into a set of superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ and supersources $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )`$, with the same Grassmann parity, defined in a superspace with two anticommuting coordinates $`\theta ^a`$. The components of the superfields and supersources are interpreted as the fields $`\varphi ^A`$, the antifields $`\varphi _{Aa}^{}`$, $`\overline{\varphi }_A`$, the Lagrange multipliers $`\pi ^{Aa}`$, $`\lambda ^A`$, and the sources $`J_A`$. The transformations of extended BRST symmetry are realized in terms of supertranslations in superspace with the corresponding generators $`U^a`$ (in the space of superfields) and $`V^a`$ (in the space of supersources) possessing the properties of generalized nilpotency and anticommutativity. The algebraic properties of the operators $`U^a`$ and $`V^a`$ with respect to the extended antibracket $`(,)^a`$ and the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ naturally generalize the corresponding properties of the operators $`U`$ and $`V`$ with respect to the objects $`(,)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the superfield quantization rules .

As compared to the superfield procedures , where the component representation of the antibracket and delta-operator is identical with the corresponding objects of the BV formalism, the superfield procedure  applies an extended antibracket $`(,)^a`$ and operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ whose component representation turns out to coincide with the objects of the completely anticanonical approach , rather than with their original counterparts of the $`Sp(2)`$ covariant scheme .

Note that within the superfield methods , based on the standard BRST symmetry, where the superspace contains a single anticommuting coordinate, there exists only one possibility of constructing the antibracket $`(,)`$ and the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with the algebraic properties , under such natural requirements as a specific Grassmann parity and locality in $`\theta `$. In this sense, there is a unique realization of the superfield rules , given the set of supervariables, the general form of the vacuum functional and the generating equations.

In the case of a superfield formalism based on the extended BRST symmetry, the situation appears to be more complicated, because a superspace with two Grassmann coordinates admits different possibilities of constructing objects with the properties  of the extended antibracket $`(,)^a`$ and the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$. Thus, in the recent paper , a superfield form of the $`osp(1,2)`$ covariant quantization rules  was proposed, where another realization of superfield objects with the given properties was found. Moreover, the component form of the these objects is identical with the original extended antibracket $`(,)^a`$ and the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$, as defined in .

In this paper we investigate possible superfield representations of extended BRST symmetry for general gauge theories within the principle of gauge-fixing based on a generating equation for the gauge functional.

To this end, we generalize the superfield $`Sp(2)`$ covariant scheme  along the lines of the modified superfield approach , taking into account the arbitrariness in a specific choice of its basic objects. Thus, we postulate generating equations for the superfiled quantum action $`S(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ and the gauge-fixing functional $`X(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ in a form analogous to eqs. (1.1) and (1.2), i.e. expressed in terms of an extended antibracket $`(,)^a`$ and operators $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$, $`U^a`$, $`V^a`$. While the manifest form of the operators $`U^a`$ and $`V^a`$ is determined by their interpretation as generators of supertranslations, there is still an ambiguity in the choice of the extended antibracket $`(,)^a`$ and the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ with the given algebraic properties .

In this connection, we consider possible representations of these objects, and observe that they are reduced to two admissible choices, whose component form in one case coincides with the extended antibracket and delta-operator of the original $`Sp(2)`$ covariant scheme , and in the other case, with their counterparts of the triplectic approach . Defining the vacuum functional as a straightforward, in the sense of , extension of the vacuum functional , we demonstrate that only one of the two choices for the objects $`(,)^a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$, namely, the one applied by the completely anticanonical procedure , is compatible with the requirement of extended BRST symmetry considered as a generalization of eqs. (1.) in the form of variations of superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ and supersources $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )`$ induced by supertranslations combined with anticanonical transformations generated by the extended antibracket $`(,)^a`$. Furthermore, we show that the postulated form of extended BRST symmetry encodes the gauge-independence of the $`S`$-matrix.

We demonstrate that, on the one hand, the resulting quantization rules provide a superfield form of the modified triplectic approach , and, on the other hand, they contain the superfield $`Sp(2)`$ covariant scheme  as a particular case of solutions for the gauge-fixing functional $`X`$.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we introduce the basic objects $`U^a`$, $`V^a`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$, $`(,)^a`$ with the algebraic properties  and give their manifest superfield representation. In Section 3 we extend the quantization rules  along the lines of  and determine the choice of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ and $`(,)^a`$ compatible with the given form of extended BRST symmetry. In Section 4 we demonstrate the gauge-independence of the $`S`$-matrix in the proposed superfield formalism. In Section 5 we discuss the connection of our formalism with the methods . In Appendix we analyze the properties of the operators $`U^a`$, $`V^a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ from the viewpoint of Lie superalgebras.

We use the condensed notations  and the conventions adopted in .

## 2. Main Definitions

Consider a superspace ($`x^\mu `$, $`\theta ^a`$), where $`x^\mu `$ are space-time coordinates, and $`\theta ^a`$ is an $`Sp(2)`$ doublet of anticommuting coordinates. Note that any function $`f(\theta )`$ has a component representation,

$$f(\theta )=f_0+\theta ^af_a+\theta ^2f_3,\theta ^2\frac{1}{2}\theta _a\theta ^a,$$

and an integral representation,

$$f(\theta )=d^2\theta ^{}\delta (\theta ^{}\theta )f(\theta ^{}),\delta (\theta ^{}\theta )=(\theta ^{}\theta )^2,$$

where raising and lowering the $`Sp(2)`$ indices is performed by the rule $`\theta ^a=\epsilon ^{ab}\theta _b`$, $`\theta _a=\epsilon _{ab}\theta ^b`$, with $`\epsilon ^{ab}`$ being a constant antisymmetric tensor, $`\epsilon ^{12}=1`$, and integration over $`\theta ^a`$ is given by

$$d^2\theta =0,d^2\theta \theta ^a=0,d^2\theta \theta ^a\theta ^b=\epsilon ^{ab}.$$

In particular, for any function $`f(\theta )`$ we have

$$d^2\theta \frac{f(\theta )}{\theta ^a}=0,$$

which implies the property of integration by parts

$$d^2\theta \frac{f(\theta )}{\theta ^a}g(\theta )=d^2\theta (1)^{\epsilon (f)}f(\theta )\frac{g(\theta )}{\theta ^a},$$

where derivatives with respect to $`\theta ^a`$ are taken from the left.

According to , we now introduce a set of superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$, $`\epsilon (\mathrm{\Phi }^A)=\epsilon _A`$, with the boundary condition

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )|_{\theta =0}=\varphi ^A$$

and a set of supersources $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )`$ of the same Grassmann parity, $`\epsilon (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A)=\epsilon _A`$.

Denote by $`U^a`$ and $`V^a`$ doublets of Fermionic operators  generating transformations of superfields and supersources induced by supertranslations $`\theta ^a\theta ^a+\mu ^a`$ along the Grassmann coordinates,

$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _a{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}{\theta _a}}=\mu _aU^a\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta ),`$
$`\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _a{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}{\theta _a}}=\mu _aV^a\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta ).`$
The generators $`U^a`$ and $`V^a`$ can be represented as first-order differential operators, having the form of $`\theta `$-local functionals,

$`U^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\theta \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}{\theta _a}\frac{\delta _l}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}},`$
$`V^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\theta \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}{\theta _a}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}},`$ (2.1)
where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _l\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^B(\theta ^{^{}})}}=\delta (\theta ^{^{}}\theta )\delta _B^A={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^B(\theta ^{^{}})}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_B(\theta ^{^{}})}}=\delta (\theta ^{^{}}\theta )\delta _A^B.`$
From eqs. (2.) follow the algebraic properties

$`U^{\{a}U^{b\}}=0,V^{\{a}V^{b\}}=0,V^aU^b+U^bV^a=0.`$ (2.2)
Let us introduce a doublet of Fermionic second-order differential operators $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ with the properties of generalized nilpotency and anticommutativity

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\{a}\mathrm{\Delta }^{b\}}=0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\{a}V^{b\}}+V^{\{a}\mathrm{\Delta }^{b\}}=0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\{a}U^{b\}}+U^{\{a}\mathrm{\Delta }^{b\}}=0,`$ (2.3)
where the curly brackets denote symmetrization over $`Sp(2)`$ indices, $`A^{\{a}B^{b\}}=A^aB^b+A^bB^a`$.

Note that the relations (2.2), (2.) imposed on arbitrary linearly independent Fermionic doublets $`U^a`$, $`V^a`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ define a set of nilpotent Lie superalgebras $`𝒢`$, with $`6\mathrm{dim}𝒢8`$ (see Appendix).

The action of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ on the product of any two functionals $`F`$, $`G`$ defines an antibracket operation $`(,)^a`$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^a(FG)=(\mathrm{\Delta }^aF)G+F(\mathrm{\Delta }^aG)(1)^{\epsilon (F)}+(F,G)^a(1)^{\epsilon (F)}`$ (2.4)
with the properties

$`\epsilon ((F,G)^a)=\epsilon (F)+\epsilon (G)+1,`$
$`(F,G)^a=(1)^{(\epsilon (F)+1)(\epsilon (G)+1)}(G,F)^a,`$
$`D^{\{a}(F,G)^{b\}}=(D^{\{a}F,G)^{b\}}(F,D^{\{a}G)^{b\}}(1)^{\epsilon (F)},`$ (2.5)
$`(F,GH)^a=(F,G)^aH+(F,H)^aG(1)^{\epsilon (G)\epsilon (H)},`$ (2.6)
$`((F,G)^{\{a},H)^{b\}}(1)^{(\epsilon (F)+1)(\epsilon (H)+1)}+\mathrm{cycle}(F,G,H)0,`$ (2.7)
where $`D^a=(\mathrm{\Delta }^a,U^a,V^a)`$. Note that eqs. (2.) follow immediately from the definition (2.4) and the relations (2.). Eq. (2.6) is the consequence of the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ in eq. (2.4) is assumed to be a second-order differential operator, while the generalized Jacobi identity (2.7) follows from eqs. (2.)–(2.6).

Finally, in terms of $`U^a`$, $`V^a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ we define the operators

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^a=\mathrm{\Delta }^a+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}V^a,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^a=\mathrm{\Delta }^a{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}U^a`$ (2.8)
with the properties

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{b\}}=0,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{b\}}=0,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{b\}}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{b\}}=0$$

and

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}(F,G)^{b\}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}F,G)^{b\}}(F,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}G)^{b\}}(1)^{\epsilon (F)},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}(F,G)^{b\}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}F,G)^{b\}}(F,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}G)^{b\}}(1)^{\epsilon (F)},`$
following from eqs. (2.2), (2.) and (2.).

An explicit form of the extended operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ and the corresponding extended antibracket $`(,)^a`$ with the given properties is not unique.

Consider the class of Fermionic second-order differential operators (in the space of superfields and supersources) such that the dependence on the components of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )`$ enters only through the derivatives

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )},\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}.$$

In the specified class there exist only two linearly independent $`Sp(2)`$ doublets having the form of $`\theta `$-local functionals and possessing the algebraic properties (2.) of the extended delta-operator.222In all, the specified class contains four linearly independent $`Sp(2)`$ doublets having the form of $`\theta `$-local operator functionals. The possibilities are limited to integrands constructed from the functional derivatives $`\frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}`$, $`\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}`$ and different combinations of $`\theta ^a`$, $`\frac{}{\theta ^a}`$. Note that the analysis of such combinations is simplified due to integration by parts and the use of the anticommutator $`\{\theta ^a,\frac{}{\theta ^b}\}=\delta _b^a`$. Due to an additional property of anticommutativity with each other, these operators span a two-dimensional linear space of operators with the properties of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$. The basis elements $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^a`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^a`$ of this space can be chosen in the form

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^a={\displaystyle d^2\theta \frac{\delta _l}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}\frac{}{\theta _a}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}},`$ (2.9)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^a={\displaystyle d^2\theta \frac{\delta _l}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}\frac{^2}{\theta ^2}\left(\theta ^a\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}\right)},`$ (2.10)
where

$$\frac{^2}{\theta ^2}\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{ab}\frac{}{\theta ^b}\frac{}{\theta ^a}.$$

The extended delta-operators (2.9) and (LABEL:DeltaaExSQ2) generate the corresponding extended antibrackets

$`(F,G)_1^a={\displaystyle }d^2\theta \{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta G}{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}}(1)^{\epsilon _A+1}(FG)(1)^{(\epsilon (F)+1)(\epsilon (G)+1)}\}`$ (2.11)
and

$`(F,G)_2^a={\displaystyle }d^2\theta \{\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\theta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}}\right)\theta ^a{\displaystyle \frac{\delta G}{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}}(1)^{\epsilon _A}(FG)(1)^{(\epsilon (F)+1)(\epsilon (G)+1)}\}.`$ (2.12)
The choice of the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ and the antibracket $`(,)^a`$ in the form (2.9), (2.11) is identical with the one used in , whereas the other choice, in the form (LABEL:DeltaaExSQ2), (2.12), was made in .

Despite the fact that the specific representations (2.9), (LABEL:DeltaaExSQ2) of the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ both satisfy eqs. (2.), they are nevertheless not equivalent at the algebraic level. Namely, it can be shown that these choices select two different Lie superalgebras associated with the whole set of relations (2.2), (2.) for the operators $`U^a`$, $`V^a`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ (see Appendix).

## 3. Quantization Rules. Extended BRST Symmetry

Consider a generalization of the superfield $`Sp(2)`$ covariant quantization rules  modified along the lines of . Define the vacuum functional $`Z`$ as the following path integral:

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }𝑑\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\rho (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left[W(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})+X(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }\right]\right\}},`$ (3.1)
where $`W=W(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ is a quantum action that satisfies the generating equation

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^a\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}W\right\}=0,`$ (3.2)
and $`X=X(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ is a Bosonic gauge-fixing functional subject to the equation

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^a\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}X\right\}=0,`$ (3.3)
with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^a`$ defined by eqs. (2.8). Eqs. (3.2) and (3.3) are equivalent to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(W,W)^a+V^aW`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }^aW,`$ (3.4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(X,X)^aU^aX`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }^aX.`$ (3.5)
In eq. (3.1), we have used the notation $`\rho (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ for a functional which defines the weight of integration over the supersources $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )`$ and has the form of a functional $`\delta `$ function,

$`\rho (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})=\delta ({\displaystyle d^2\theta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\theta )}).`$ (3.6)
We have also introduced the functional

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle d^2\theta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}.`$ (3.7)
Define the transformations of extended BRST symmetry as the following transformations of global supersymmetry:

$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )=\mu _aU^a\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )+(\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta ),XW)^a\mu _a,`$
$`\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )=\mu _aV^a\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )+(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta ),XW)^a\mu _a.`$ (3.8)
On the one hand, eqs. (3.) provide a straightforward generalization of eqs. (1.) introduced in . One the other hand, the choice of extended BRST symmetry in this particular form is motivated by the fact that in case the transformations (3.) do realize the invariance of the integrand (3.1), then in combination with the generating equations (3.2) and (3.3) they also guarantee the gauge-independence of the vacuum functional.

Note that prior to introducing the symmetry transformations (3.) the explicit choice of the extended antibracket $`(,)^a`$ in the form (2.11) has no clear advantage over the other choice (2.12). Let us show, however, that eq. (2.11) does meet the above requirement of extended BRST symmetry, while eq. (2.12) does not.

Consider the change of the integrand in eq. (3.1) under the transformations (3.). To examine the change of the exponential in eq. (3.1), note that the variation of an arbitrary functional $`F`$ under the transformations

$$\delta _{(1)}\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )=\mu _aU^a\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta ),\delta _{(1)}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )=\mu _aV^a\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta ),$$

induced by supertranslations, has the form

$$\delta _{(1)}F=\mu _a(U^a+V^a)F.$$

In particular, for the functional $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (3.7) we have

$$\delta _{(1)}(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi })=0.$$

At the same time, in both cases (2.11) and (2.12) of explicit representation of the extended antibracket the anticanonical transformations

$$\delta _{(2)}\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )=(\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta ),Y)^a\mu _a,\delta _{(2)}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )=(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta ),Y)^a\mu _a,\epsilon (Y)=0$$

generate the corresponding transformations of an arbitrary functional $`F`$

$$\delta _{(2)}F=(F,Y)^a\mu _a.$$

As a result, eqs. (3.) lead to the variation $`\delta =\delta _{(1)}+\delta _{(2)}`$

$`\delta (W+X+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _a\left((W,W)^a(X,X)^a+(U^a+V^a)(W+X)\right)+`$ (3.9)
$`+`$ $`\mu _a(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi },WX)^a.`$
To examine the change of the integration measure in eq. (3.1), note that in both cases (2.11) and (2.12) the weight functional $`\rho (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ is invariant under the transformations (3.), $`\delta \rho (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})=0`$, while the corresponding Jacobian $`J`$ has the form

$`J=\mathrm{exp}(2\mu _a\mathrm{\Delta }^aW2\mu _a\mathrm{\Delta }^aX).`$ (3.10)
Denote by $`I`$ the integrand in eq. (3.1). Then, by virtue of eqs. (3.4), (3.5), (3.9) and (3.10), its variation $`\delta I`$ under the transformations (3.) is given by

$`\delta I=i\mathrm{}^1\mu _aI\left((U^aV^a)(WX)+(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi },WX)^a\right),`$ (3.11)
and hence the condition of invariance of the integrand takes the form

$`(U^aV^a)(WX)+(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi },WX)^a=0.`$ (3.12)
The fulfillment of eq. (3.12) obviously depends on a specific choice of the extended antibracket. Thus in the case of the antibracket (2.11) the above condition is satisfied due to the identity

$$(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi },F)^a=(V^aU^a)F,$$

which, according to eq. (3.11), implies the invariance of the integrand in eq. (3.1) under the transformations (3.).

On the other hand, in the case of the antibracket (2.12) we have

$$(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi },F)^a(V^aU^a)F,$$

which means that eq. (3.12) does not hold identically, and therefore the integrand is not invariant under the transformations (3.) without additional restrictions on the functionals $`W`$ and $`X`$.

## 4. Gauge Independence

Let us study the dependence of the vacuum functional $`Z`$ (3.1) on the choice of gauge, using the explicit form of the extended antibracket (2.11) and the corresponding extended delta-operator (2.9), which provide the invariance of the integrand (3.1) under the transformations (3.).

Note, first of all, that any admissible variation $`\delta X`$ of the gauge functional $`X`$ must satisfy the equation

$$(X,\delta X)^aU^a\delta X=i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }^a\delta X,$$

which can be represented in the form

$`\widehat{Q}^a(X)\delta X=0.`$ (4.1)
In eq. (4.1), we have introduced an operator $`\widehat{Q}^a(X)`$ possessing the property of generalized nilpotency,

$`\widehat{Q}^a(X)=\widehat{}^a(X)i\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^a,\widehat{Q}^{\{a}(X)\widehat{Q}^{b\}}(X)=0,`$ (4.2)
where $`\widehat{}^a(X)`$ stands for an operator acting by the rule

$$(X,F)^a\widehat{}^a(X)F$$

and possessing the property

$$\widehat{}^{\{a}(X)\widehat{}^{b\}}(X)=\widehat{}^{\{a}(\frac{1}{2}(X,X)^{b\}}).$$

By virtue of the operator $`\widehat{Q}^a(X)`$ in eqs. (4.2), any functional

$`\delta X={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon _{ab}\widehat{Q}^a(X)\widehat{Q}^b(X)\delta F,`$ (4.3)
parameterized by an arbitrary Boson $`\delta F`$, satisfies eq. (4.1). Furthermore, by analogy with the theorems proved in , it can be established that any solution of the equations (4.1), vanishing when all the variables entering the functional $`\delta X`$ are equal to zero, has the form (4.3) with a certain Bosonic functional $`\delta F`$.

Denote by $`Z_XZ`$ the value of the vacuum functional (3.1) corresponding to the choice of gauge condition in the form of the functional $`X`$. In the vacuum functional $`Z_{X+\delta X}`$ we first make the change of variables (3.) with $`\mu _a=\mu _a(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$, and then the additional change of variables

$$\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A=(\mathrm{\Phi }^A,\delta Y_a)^a,\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A=(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A,\delta Y_a)^a,\epsilon (\delta Y_a)=1$$

with $`\delta Y_a=i\mathrm{}\mu _a(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$. We get

$$Z_{X+\delta X}=𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }𝑑\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\rho (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left(W+X+\delta X+\delta X_1+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\},$$

where

$$\delta X_1=2\left((X,\delta Y_a)^aU^a\delta Y_ai\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }^a\delta Y_a\right)=2\widehat{Q}^a(X)\delta Y_a.$$

Having eq. (4.3) in mind, choose the functional $`\delta Y_a`$ in the form

$$\delta Y_a=\frac{1}{4}\epsilon _{ab}\widehat{Q}^b(X)\delta F.$$

Then we find that $`\delta X+\delta X_1=0`$ and conclude that the relation $`Z_{X+\delta X}=Z_X`$ holds true. This implies that the symmetry transformations (3.) do encode the gauge-independence of the $`S`$-matrix within the proposed superfield formalism, and therefore they play the role of the transformations of extended BRST symmetry.

## 5. Discussion

In this paper we have extended the $`Sp(2)`$ covariant superfield approach  to general gauge theories on the basis of fixing the gauge in terms of a special generating equation (3.3) imposed on the gauge functional. We have observed that the possibilities of explicit representation of the formalism in terms of the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ and the extended antibracket $`(,)^a`$ with the given algebraic properties  are reduced to two different choices . We have shown that only one of the two possibilities, in fact , is compatible with the requirement of extended BRST symmetry (3.) realized in terms of supertranslations along the Grassmann coordinates of the superspace. We have demonstrated that this form of symmetry transformations ensures the gauge-independence of the $`S`$-matrix.

On the one hand, the quantization rules based on the manifest form of the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ and the extended antibracket  actually contain the superfield $`Sp(2)`$ covariant scheme  as a particular case of gauge-fixing. Indeed, any functional

$$X(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{ab}U^aU^bF(\mathrm{\Phi }),$$

parameterized by an arbitrary Boson, $`F=F(\mathrm{\Phi })`$, is a solution of the generating equation (3.5) and represents the exact form of the gauge functional used in .

On the other hand, the proposed method can be considered as a superfield form of the modified triplectic approach suggested in . Indeed, consider the component representation of superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ and supersources $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )`$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^A+\pi ^{Aa}\theta _a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda ^A\theta _a\theta ^a,`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\varphi }_A\theta ^a\varphi _{Aa}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _a\theta ^aJ_A.`$
The set of variables ($`\varphi ^A,\pi ^{Aa},\lambda ^A,\varphi _{Aa}^{},\overline{\varphi }_A,J_A`$) is identical with the sets of variables applied by the $`Sp(2)`$ covariant , triplectic  and modified triplectic  quantization schemes.

Denote $`F(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})\stackrel{~}{F}(\varphi ,\pi ,\lambda ,\overline{\varphi },\varphi ^{},J)`$. Then the component representation of the extended antibracket (2.11)

$$(F,G)^a=\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{F}}{\delta \varphi ^A}\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{G}}{\delta \varphi _{Aa}^{}}+\epsilon ^{ab}\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{F}}{\delta \pi ^{Ab}}\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{G}}{\delta \overline{\varphi }_A}(\stackrel{~}{F}\stackrel{~}{G})(1)^{(\epsilon (F)+1)(\epsilon (G)+1)}$$

and the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ (2.9)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^a=(1)^{\epsilon _A}\frac{\delta _l}{\delta \varphi ^A}\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _{Aa}^{}}+(1)^{\epsilon _A+1}\epsilon ^{ab}\frac{\delta _l}{\delta \pi ^{Ab}}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\varphi }_A}$$

coincides with the corresponding objects used in . The form of the integration measure in eq. (3.1)

$`d\mathrm{\Phi }d\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\rho (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})=d\varphi d\varphi ^{}d\pi d\overline{\varphi }d\lambda dJ\delta (J)`$
and the component representation of the operator $`V^a`$ in eq. (2.)

$$V^a=\epsilon ^{ab}\varphi _{Ab}^{}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\varphi }_A}J_A\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _{Aa}^{}}$$

imply that, when $`J_A=0`$, the generating equation (3.4) for the action $`𝒲=W|_{J=0}`$ coincides with the one used in  when formulating the rules of the modified triplectic approach. As for the equation used to define the gauge functional $`X`$ (3.5), note, first of all, that the operator $`U^a`$ (2.), having the component representation

$$U^a=(1)^{\epsilon _A}\epsilon ^{ab}\lambda ^A\frac{\delta _l}{\delta \pi ^{Ab}}(1)^{\epsilon _A}\pi ^{Aa}\frac{\delta _l}{\delta \varphi ^A},$$

coincides, when $`\lambda ^A=0`$, with the operator $`U^a`$

$`U^a=(1)^{\epsilon _A}\pi ^{Aa}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _l}{\delta \varphi ^A}},`$ (5.1)
used in the generating equation that determines the gauge in . Further, note that the functional $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in (3.7) is given by

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }=\overline{\varphi }_A\lambda ^A+\varphi _{Aa}^{}\pi ^{Aa}J_A\varphi ^A.$$

Then we can see that the generating equation for the functional $`𝒳=X+\overline{\varphi }_A\lambda ^A`$ has the form of eq. (3.5) with the truncated operator $`U^a`$ (5.1), which is formally identical with the generating equation of the modified triplectic approach . As a consequence, the vacuum functional

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi 𝑑\varphi ^{}𝑑\pi 𝑑\overline{\varphi }𝑑\lambda \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left[𝒲(\varphi ,\pi ,\varphi ^{},\overline{\varphi })+𝒳(\varphi ,\pi ,\varphi ^{},\overline{\varphi },\lambda )+\varphi _{Aa}^{}\pi ^{Aa}\right]\right\}}`$
is identical with the one used in , limited to the case when the action $`𝒲`$ does not depend on the variables $`\lambda ^A`$.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the referee for helpful criticism. The work was partially supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), project 99-02-16617, as well as by the Russian Ministry of Education (Fundamental Sciences Grant E00-3.3-461). The work of P.M.L. was also supported by INTAS, grant 99-0590, and by the joint project of RFBR and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), 99-02-04022.

Appendix A

Consider a set of linearly independent Fermionic doublets $`D^a=(\mathrm{\Delta }^a,U^a,V^a)`$ subject to eqs. (2.2) and (2.). Let us introduce two Bosonic objects $`C^{(1,2)}`$ by the rule

$`C^1`$ $`=`$ $`\{U^1,\mathrm{\Delta }^2\}=\{U^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^1\}0,`$
$`C^2`$ $`=`$ $`\{V^1,\mathrm{\Delta }^2\}=\{V^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^1\}0.`$
It is straightforward to check that $`C^{(1,2)}`$ commute with $`D^a`$, and, consequently, also with each other

$`[C^{(1,2)},D^a]=[C^1,C^2]=0.`$ (A.1)
In general, the objects $`C^{(1,2)}`$ may be linearly dependent, i.e.

$`C^1=C^2=0,`$ (A.2)
$`C^1=\alpha C^20,`$ (A.3)
$`C^1=0,C^20,`$ (A.4)
$`C^10,C^2=0`$ (A.5)
and linearly independent, i.e.

$`C^10,C^20,C^2\alpha C^1.`$ (A.6)
The above possibilities imply, by virtue of eqs. (2.2), (2.), (A.1), that the whole set of Fermions $`D^a`$ and Bosons $`C^{(1,2)}`$ generally spans five different Lie superalgebras: a six-dimensional one (A.2), three seven-dimensional ones (A.3)–(A.5), and an eight-dimensional one (A.6).

From eqs. (2.2), (2.) and (A.1) it follows that each of the resulting superalgebras $`𝒢`$ is nilpotent (see, e.g., ) with respect to the supercommutator $`[,\}`$, namely, for the sequence $`𝒢^{[i]}`$

$$[𝒢,𝒢\}=𝒢^{[1]},[𝒢,𝒢^{[i1]}\}=𝒢^{[i]},𝒢𝒢^{[0]},i1$$

there exists an integer $`n`$ such that $`𝒢^{[n]}=\{0\}`$. Thus, in the case (A.2), we have $`n=1`$, while in the other cases (A.2)–(A.6), $`n=2`$. On the other hand, all the given superalgebras possess a non-trivial ideal , namely, there exists a non-trivial subalgebra $``$

$$𝒢,\{0\},𝒢,[,\}$$

such that $`[𝒢,\}`$. Thus, for the superalgebra (A.2) the ideal $``$ is given by the linear span of any five elements from the set ($`U^a`$, $`V^a`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$), and for the remaining cases (A.3)–(A.6), by the linear span of $`C^{(1,2)}`$. The existence of a non-trivial ideal $``$ implies that the above superalgebras do not belong to simple Lie superalgebras, described by the standard classification . Note also that these superalgebras are not semi-simple  either, because the ideal $``$ is solvable, i.e. for the sequence $`^{(i)}`$

$$[,\}=^{(1)},[^{(i1)},^{(i1)]}\}=^{(i)},^{(0)},i1$$

there exists an integer $`n`$ such that $`^{(n)}=\{0\}`$. Thus, in all cases (A.2)–(A.6), we have $`n=1`$.

Let us turn to the manifest representation of the operators $`U^a`$ and $`V^a`$ as generators of supertranslations (2.) and consider the explicit choices $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^a`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^a`$ for the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ in the form (2.9), (LABEL:DeltaaExSQ2), respectively. It is straightforward to check that the cases (2.9) and (LABEL:DeltaaExSQ2) lead to different superalgebras. Thus, in the case (2.9) we have a realization of the form (A.3), with

$`C^1=C^2={\displaystyle d^2\theta \frac{\delta _l}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )}\frac{^2}{\theta ^2}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\theta )}(1)^{\epsilon _A}},`$ (A.7)
while in the case (LABEL:DeltaaExSQ2) we arrive at the realization (A.4), with $`C^2`$ given by (A.7). Finally, note that non-vanishing linear combinations of the operators $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^a`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^a`$ are restricted to the seven-dimensional superalgebras (A.3)–(A.5).


format: text

text:
# Order parameter of quasi-one-dimensional superconductors: symmetry features in quasiparticle density of states and spin susceptibility

\[

## Abstract

Recent experiments indicate that the Bechgaard Salts $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{ClO}_4`$ and $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{PF}_6`$ may be unconventional triplet superconductors. The quasiparticle density of states and the uniform spin susceptibility tensor are computed at low temperatures for order parameter symmetries, as an attempt to narrow the number of possibilities based on current experimental evidence.

\]

In early theoretical investigations of quasi-one-dimensional superconductors (of the Bechgaard family $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{ClO}_4`$ and $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{PF}_6`$) in the presence of an external magnetic field, the possibility of triplet behavior in these systems was suggested . The present experimental evidence indicates that these quasi-one-dimensional superconductors are indeed unconventional . For instance, Lee et. al.  measured the magnetic field versus temperature phase diagram for $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{PF}_6`$ under pressure of 6 kbar. They found that the upper critical fields along the usual $`𝐚`$, $`𝐛^{}`$, and $`𝐜`$ direction are highly anisotropic. Furthermore, the Pauli paramagnetic limit is exceeded by a factor of 3 or 4. In addition, Lee et. al.  found that there is no Knight shift in $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{PF}_6`$ for fields $`𝐇\widehat{b}^{}`$ at pressures $`P6\mathrm{kbar}`$. This suggests the existence of a triplet superconducting phase in this system. The temperature versus magnetic field phase diagram of $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{ClO}_4`$ at ambient pressure was also measured by Lee et. al. , for $`𝐇\widehat{b}^{}`$. These measurements seem to indicate that the Pauli paramagnetic limit is exceeded in this compound, which suggests triplet superconductivity. Furthermore, Belin and Behnia  reported measurements of the thermal conductivity in the superconducting state of $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{ClO}_4`$, indicating their data is inconsistent with the existence of gap nodes at the Fermi surface. These experimental results combined suggest the existence of a fully gapped triplet superconducting state in $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{ClO}_4`$. Although the similar crystal structure of these systems suggests, from a simple group theoretical point of view, that the origin of the pair interaction is the same, the role of the proximity to an SDW phase in $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{PF}_6`$, for instance, needs to be investigated both theoretically and experimentally. Furthermore, the order parameter symmetry also needs to be investigated via phase sensitive experiments like those performed in cuprate oxides .

In this paper we are concerned with the symmetry of the order parameter of a triplet quasi-one-dimensional superconductor at zero magnetic field and we have three main goals. First, we perform a group theoretical analysis of the possible symmetries of the order parameter for an orthorhombic quasi-one-dimensional superconductor at zero magnetic field. Second, we calculate the quasiparticle density of states at zero temperature and the uniform spin susceptibility tensor at low temperatures for various candidate symmetries of the order parameter consistent with our group theoretical analysis. Third, we make connections to scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) of quasiparticle density of states and Knight shift measurements of the spin susceptibility tensor.

We study quasi-one-dimensional systems with a single band, in an orthorhombic lattice, and allow for singlet or triplet pairing. We consider the following dispersion

$$ϵ_𝐤=|t_x|\mathrm{cos}(k_xa)|t_y|\mathrm{cos}(k_yb)|t_z|\mathrm{cos}(k_zc),$$
(1)
where $`|t_x||t_y||t_z|`$. In the limit of weak interactions and low densities these quasi-one-dimensional systems exhibit a well defined Fermi surface which is open, being formed of two separate sheets which intersect the Brillouin zone boundaries. We work with the Hamiltonian $`H=H_{kin}+H_{int},`$ where the kinetic energy and the chemical potential contribution are $`H_{kin}=_{𝐤,\alpha }(ϵ_𝐤\mu )\psi _{𝐤,\alpha }^{}\psi _{𝐤,\alpha },`$ and the interaction is

$$H_{int}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}𝐪}{}\underset{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }{}V_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(𝐤,𝐤^{})b_{\alpha \beta }^{}(𝐤,𝐪)b_{\gamma \delta }(𝐤^{},𝐪)$$
(2)
with $`b_{\alpha \beta }^{}(𝐤,𝐪)=\psi _{𝐤+𝐪/2,\alpha }^{}\psi _{𝐤+𝐪/2,\beta }^{},`$ where $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ are spin indices and $`𝐤`$, $`𝐤^{}`$ and $`𝐪`$ represent linear momenta. In the case of weak spin-orbit coupling and triplet pairing, the model interaction tensor can be chosen to be

$$V_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(𝐤,𝐤^{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }V_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤,𝐤^{})\varphi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤)\varphi _\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(𝐤^{}),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }=𝐯_{\alpha \beta }𝐯_{\gamma \delta }^{}/2`$ with $`\mathrm{v}_{\alpha \beta }=(i\sigma \sigma _y)_{\alpha \beta }`$. In addition, the interaction $`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ corresponds to the irreducible representation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with basis function $`\varphi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤)`$ representative of the orthorombic group. In the case of strong spin-orbit coupling the interaction

$$V_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(𝐤,𝐤^{})=V_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤,𝐤^{})\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤)𝐯_{\alpha \beta }\right]\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(𝐤^{})𝐯_{\gamma \delta }/2\right]$$

where the interaction $`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ corresponds to the irreducible representation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with basis function vector $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤)`$ representative of the orthorombic group.

In both weak and strong spin-orbit coupling, we can use either the equation of motion method  or the functional integration method  in the zero center of mass momentum pairing approximation (which corresponds to the BCS limit in weak coupling) to obtain the anomalous Green’s function

$$F_{\alpha \beta }(𝐤,i\omega _n)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }(𝐤)}{\omega _n^2+E_𝐤^2},$$
(3)
and the single particle Green’s function

$$G_{\alpha \beta }(𝐤,i\omega _n)=\frac{i\omega _n+\xi _𝐤}{\omega _n^2+E_𝐤^2}\delta _{\alpha \beta },$$
(4)
where $`\xi _𝐤=ϵ_𝐤\mu `$, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, $`E_𝐤=\sqrt{\xi _𝐤^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2}`$ is the quasiparticle excitation energy, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2\mathrm{𝑇𝑟}\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}(𝐤)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐤)\right]/2`$. The matrix $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐤)`$ has matrix elements $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }(𝐤)`$. The expressions for the single particle (Eq. 4) and for the anomalous (Eq. 3) Green’s functions are valid only in the unitary case where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}(𝐤)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐤)`$ is diagonal. We will not discuss here the non-unitary case. Using the single particle and anomalous Green’s functions defined above and standard many body methods  we obtain the familiar forms

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }(𝐤)=\underset{𝐤^{}}{}V_{\beta \alpha \gamma \delta }(𝐤,𝐤^{})\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma \delta }(𝐤^{})}{2E_𝐤^{}}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{E_𝐤^{}}{2T}\right),$$
(5)
$$N\underset{𝐤}{}n_𝐤=\underset{𝐤}{}\left[n_{qp}(𝐤)+n_{qh}(𝐤)\right],$$
(6)
where $`n_{qp}(𝐤)=\left(1+\xi _𝐤/E_𝐤\right)f(E_𝐤)`$ and $`n_{qh}(𝐤)=\left(1\xi _𝐤/E_𝐤\right)\left(1f(E_𝐤)\right),`$ for the order parameter and number equations, respectively.

Next we consider the allowed symmetries of the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }`$ for an orthorhombic crystal , with a conventional symmetry normal state. Here, the relevant crystallographic point group is $`\mathrm{D}_{2\mathrm{h}}`$, which has only one dimensional representations . This implies that the order parameter matrix in the triplet channel,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐤)=i\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{tr}(𝐤)𝐝(𝐤)\sigma \right)\sigma _y,$$
(7)
must transform according to the one dimensional representations of the orthorhombic point group $`\mathrm{D}_{2\mathrm{h}}`$, under the assumption that the order parameter does not break the crystal translational symmetry, i.e., the order parameter is invariant under all primitive lattice translations. Under the transformation $`𝐤𝐤`$ the three-dimensional vector $`𝐝(𝐤)`$ is antisymmetric (odd), while the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{tr}(𝐤)`$ is symmetric (even).

Here, we will be interested in triplet states which do not break time reversal symmetry, and our analysis will be confined to zero magnetic field only. In Tables I and II we summarize the group theoretical analysis for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐤)`$, in the weak and strong spin-orbit coupling cases respectively. The tables include the state nomenclature, the vector $`𝐝(𝐤)`$, and the type of zeros of the quasiparticle excitation spectrum $`E_𝐤`$, when $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\mu \mathrm{min}[ϵ_𝐤]`$ is positive. In Table I, the vector (0,0,1) is indicated up to an arbitrary rotation in spin space. In Table II, the numerical coefficients A, B and C are determined through Eqs. (5) and (6). It is crucial to emphasize that the basis functions $`X(𝐤),Y(𝐤)`$ and $`Z(𝐤)`$ transform like $`k_x,k_y`$ and $`k_z`$ under the crystallographic point group operations. However, these functions cannot be chosen to be equal to $`k_x,k_y`$ and $`k_z`$ as done in the work by Lebed, Machida, and Ozaki  (LMO), since the Fermi surface $`ϵ(𝐤)=\mu `$ intersects the Brillouin zone along the y and z directions. Thus, it is necessary to take into account the periodicity of the order parameter matrix $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐤)`$ and of the order parameter vector $`𝐝(𝐤)`$ in reciprocal (momentum) space. As a result, the minimal basis set must be periodic and may be chosen to be $`X(𝐤)=\mathrm{sin}(k_xa)`$, $`Y(𝐤)=\mathrm{sin}(k_yb)`$ and $`Z(𝐤)=\mathrm{sin}(k_zc)`$.

For weak spin-orbit coupling (Table I) the only candidate for weak attractive interaction ($`\stackrel{~}{\mu }>0`$) is the state $`{}_{}{}^{3}B_{3u}^{}(a)`$, where the quasiparticle excitation spectrum $`E_𝐤`$ has no zeros and is fully gapped. For strong spin-orbit coupling (Table II) there are three candidates for weaker attractive interaction ($`\stackrel{~}{\mu }>0`$), i.e., the states $`A_{1u},B_{1u}`$ and $`B_{2u}`$, where the quasiparticle excitation spectrum $`E_𝐤`$ may have no zeros and may be fully gapped. When $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }>0`$, the state $`A_{1u}`$ is fully gapped only for $`A0`$ and for any value of $`B`$ and $`C`$; the state $`B_{1u}`$ is fully gapped only for $`B0`$ and for any value of $`A`$ and $`C`$; and the state $`B_{2u}`$ is fully gapped only for $`C0`$ and for any value of $`A`$ and $`B`$. Note that in the case of strong attractive interactions where $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }<0`$, the excitation spectrum $`E_𝐤`$ is fully gapped  for all states in both tables.

Next we turn our attention to the calculation of the quasiparticle density of states (QDOS) and uniform spin susceptibility at low temperatures for two potential triplet candidate states, which are fully gapped: a) the weak spin-orbit coupling state $`{}_{}{}^{3}B_{3u}^{}(a)`$; b) the strong spin-orbit coupling states $`A_{1u}`$

The QDOS for these different symmetries can be obtained from the single particle Green’s function as

$$𝒩(\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{𝑇𝑟}\underset{𝐤}{}\mathrm{𝐼𝑚}G_{\alpha \beta }(𝐤,i\omega _n=\omega +i\delta ),$$
(8)
where $`G_{\alpha \beta }(𝐤,i\omega _n)`$ is defined in Eq. (4). The QDOS, shown in Fig. 1 can be measured in STM experiments. Although these experiments have not yet been performed in $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{ClO}_4`$ and $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{PF}_6`$, our theoretical predictions can serve as qualitative guides for the extraction of gaps and symmetry dependent features when experimental results become available. In particular, STM measured gaps could be compared with gaps measured either thermodynamically (e.g., specific heat) or in transport experiments (e.g., thermal conductivity ).

We compare in Fig. 1 the QDOS for the states $`{}_{}{}^{3}B_{3u}^{}(a)`$ (weak spin-orbit coupling) and $`A_{1u}`$ (strong spin-orbit coupling) for various values of the constants A, B, and C. The symmetry dependent features of the QDOS are manifested through the magnitude of the order parameter vector $`𝐝(𝐤)`$. For the $`{}_{}{}^{3}B_{3u}^{}(a)`$ state $`|𝐝(𝐤)||\mathrm{sin}(k_xa)|`$, while for the $`A_{1u}`$ state $`|𝐝(𝐤)|\sqrt{A^2|\mathrm{sin}(k_xa)|^2+B^2|\mathrm{sin}(k_yb)|^2+C^2|\mathrm{sin}(k_zc)|^2}`$. In Fig. 1 (b), (c) and (d), we study only the case corresponding to $`C=0`$, where $`AB`$, $`A=B`$, and $`AB`$, respectively. Notice that Fig. 1(d) is nearly identical to Fig. 1(a) given that $`|𝐝(𝐤)|`$ is essentially the same in this case. Furthermore, notice that while the position of the peaks in Figs. 1 (a), (b), (c) and (d) are essentially the same in scaled units ($`\omega _p/\mathrm{\Delta }_0\pm 1.40`$), the corresponding gap sizes in scaled units are respectively $`\omega _g/\mathrm{\Delta }_0=1.32;0.01;0.94,1.32`$. Gap sizes, peaks and the general shape of the QDOS should be in principle identifiable in an STM experiment. However, such experiments alone cannot uniquely determine the symmetry of the order parameter in triplet quasi-one-dimensional superconductors, since the QDOS depends only on $`|𝐝(𝐤)|`$.

Now, we turn our attention to the calculation of the spin susceptibility tensor, which explicitly depends on both the magnitude and direction of $`𝐝(𝐤)`$, and, thus, may help ellucidate the symmetry of the order parameter in quasi-one-dimensional superconductors. The spin susceptibility tensor for a triplet superconductor is

$$\chi _{mn}(q_\mu )=\mu _B^2(P_{mn})_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\left[A_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(q_\mu )+S_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(q_\mu )\right],$$

where we use the Einstein summation convention, and the four-vector $`q_\mu =(𝐪,i\nu )`$. The tensor $`(P_{mn})_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }=(\sigma _m)_{\alpha \beta }(\sigma _n)_{\gamma \delta }`$, contains Pauli spin matrices, and the tensors

$$A_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(q_\mu )=\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{𝐤,i\omega }{}F_{\alpha \gamma }^{}(𝐤+𝐪,i\nu +i\omega )F_{\beta \delta }(𝐤,i\omega ),$$

$$S_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(q_\mu )=\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{𝐤,i\omega }{}G_{\delta \alpha }(𝐤𝐪,i\nu +i\omega )G_{\beta \gamma }(𝐤,i\omega )\delta _{\delta \alpha }\delta _{\beta \gamma }$$

contain the Green’s functions described in Eqs. (3) and (4), and $`\beta =1/k_BT`$. For $`\omega 0`$ and $`𝐪\mathrm{𝟎}`$,

$$\chi _{mn}(\mathrm{𝟎},0)=\underset{𝐤}{}\left[\chi _{mn,1}(𝐤)+\chi _{mn,2}(𝐤)\right],$$
(9)
where the $`𝐤`$-dependent tensors have the forms

$$\chi _{mn,1}(𝐤)=\chi _{}(𝐤)\mathrm{𝑅𝑒}\widehat{d}_m^{}(𝐤)\widehat{d}_n(𝐤),$$

$$\chi _{mn,2}(𝐤)=\chi _{}(𝐤)\left(\delta _{mn}\mathrm{𝑅𝑒}\widehat{d}_m^{}(𝐤)\widehat{d}_n(𝐤)\right),$$

with $`\widehat{d}_n(𝐤)=d_n(𝐤)/|d_n(𝐤)|`$. The parallel component is

$$\chi _{}(𝐤)=2\mu _B^2\frac{f(E_𝐤)}{E_𝐤},$$
(10)
while the perpendicular component is

$$\chi _{}(𝐤)=2\mu _B^2\frac{d}{d\xi _𝐤}\left[\frac{\xi _𝐤}{2E_𝐤}\left(12f(E_𝐤)\right)\right].$$
(11)
This result is more general than the expression quoted in LMO  in a couple of ways. First, the expression derived in Eqs. (9), (10), and (11) includes particle-hole symmetry effects. Second they are valid at finite T. They do not include, however, Fermi liquid corrections.

In Fig. 2, we show the theoretical uniform $`\chi _{mn}`$ only for the $`{}_{}{}^{3}B_{3u}^{}`$ and $`A_{1u}`$ states , where triangles correspond to $`\chi _{11}`$ circles to $`\chi _{22}`$, and squares to $`\chi _{33}`$. It is known experimentally (Knight shift)  that the spin susceptibility of $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{PF}_6`$ for $`𝐇\widehat{b}^{}`$ is very close to $`\chi _N`$. Experiments for magnetic field along other directions have not yet been performed. Thus, for definiteness, we choose the unit vectors $`\widehat{3}`$ $`(m=3)`$, $`\widehat{2}`$ $`(m=2)`$ and $`\widehat{1}`$ $`(m=1)`$ to point along the $`b^{}`$, $`a`$ and $`c`$ direction, respectively.

For the orthorhombic symmetry $`\chi _{mn}`$ is diagonal, and is calculated here under the assumption of constant $`𝐝(𝐤)`$, i.e., the direction of $`𝐝(𝐤)`$ is not changed upon application of a small magnetic field. In the case of state $`A_{1u}`$ (strong spin-orbit coupling) a small magnetic field cannot rotate $`𝐝(𝐤)`$ which is pinned to a particular lattice direction. Here, $`\chi _{mn}`$ is still diagonal, however the diagonal components are not equal in general. Thus, the experimentally measured $`\chi _{mn}^{ex}`$ and the theoretically calculated $`\chi _{mn}^{th}`$ (at constant $`𝐝(𝐤)`$) should agree for small enough magnetic fields. However, in the case of state $`{}_{}{}^{3}B_{3u}^{}(a)`$ (weak spin-orbit coupling) a small magnetic field can always rotate $`𝐝(𝐤)`$ to be perpendicular to $`𝐇`$, and thus minimize the magnetic free-energy $`F_{mag}=H_m\chi _{mn}H_n/2`$. In this case, $`\chi _{mn}^{ex}\chi _N\delta _{mn}`$, where $`\chi _N`$ is the normal state value, for any direction $`𝐇`$. Thus, $`\chi _{mn}^{ex}`$ and $`\chi _{mn}^{th}`$ (shown in Fig. 2) are different.

In conclusion, we have studied order parameter symmetry features in the quasiparticle density of states and spin susceptibility tensor of orthorhombic quasi-one-dimensional superconductors. We studied both the weak and strong spin-orbit coupling cases from a group theoretical point of view at zero magnetic field. Based on experimental evidence, we would like to suggest that the weak spin-orbit coupling state $`{}_{}{}^{3}B_{3u}^{}(a)`$ is the best candidate for the order parameter symmetry for these systems since this state is: (1) fully gapped and consistent with thermal conductivity measurements ; (2) characterized by weak spin-orbit coupling and consistent with weak spin-orbit coupling fits of $`T_c(H)`$ for $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{PF}_6`$  at low magnetic fields; (3) consistent with no observable Knight shift when $`𝐇\widehat{b}^{}`$, and predicted to have no observable Knight shift for any direction of $`𝐇`$.

We would like to thank the Georgia Institute of Technology, NSF (Grant No. DMR-9803111), and NATO (Grant No. CRG-972261) for financial support.