format: text

text:
# Results of a LMXB survey: variation in the height of the neutron star blackbody emission region

## 1 Introduction

Low mass X-ray binaries (LMXB) may be classified according to inclination angle and according to colour-colour properties. Frank et al. (1987) explained the markedly different light curves of LMXB in terms of a model of varying inclination. Sources having inclination angles between zero and $`65^{^{}}`$ will show no orbital related variability, sources with inclination of 65–$`80^{^{}}`$ will exhibit X-ray dipping, and sources with inclinations of 80–$`90^{^{}}`$ will be Accretion Disk Corona (ADC) sources. Strong orbital-related variability is seen in the light curves of the dipping and ADC sources, but not in the other sources which are viewed from above the orbital plane. The second type of classification is based on examining the behaviour of LMXB on X-ray colour-colour diagrams. Hasinger et al. (1989) first used the term “Z-track” to describe the evolution on a colour-colour diagram of bright LMXB such as Sco X-1 and Cyg X-2, the sources clearly undergoing marked spectral changes as they moved along the horizontal, normal and flaring branches. The Atoll sources were similarly recognised as having different colour-colour tracks (Hasinger & van der Klis 1989). Associated with tracks in the Z-track and Atoll sources was correlated timing behaviour, especially of QPOs (e.g. van der Klis 1995).

Clearly, strong spectral changes take place during track movement, but these are not understood. A number of surveys of the spectra of the Atoll and Z-track sources have been made, including that based on Exosat data (White et al. 1988). Schulz et al. (1989) classified a large number of sources in terms of colour-colour diagrams, and carried out spectral fitting using a blackbody plus cut-off power law model. A similar blackbody plus power law model was used by Schulz (1999) in a Rosat survey of LMXB. Christian & Swank (1997) produced a compilation of the properties of LMXB from the Einstein solid state and monitor proportional counter detectors.

There are considerable differences between the emission models that have been proposed for LMXB in general. A disk blackbody plus a Comptonized blackbody model was proposed by Mitsuda et al. (1989). A model also based on accretion disk blackbody emission was applied by Czerny et al. (1986) to Einstein data. The generalised thermal model (White et al. 1985) was used by White et al. (1988), with a blackbody added for high-luminosity sources which was not required for the lower luminosity burst sources, from which they concluded that spectral formation was dominated by Comptonizaton in the inner accretion disk. More recently, a two-component model proposed by Church and Bałucińska-Church (1995) has been shown to explain spectral evolution in the dipping LMXB sources, consisting of point-source blackbody emission identified with the neutron star plus Comptonized emission from an extended ADC modelled by a cut-off power law (Church & Bałucińska-Church 1993, 1995; Church et al. 1997, 1998a,b; Bałucińska-Church et al. 1999, 2000, 2001).

For the dipping LMXB sources, spectral analysis is more strongly constrained because of the requirement that a model fits not only the non-dip spectrum but also several levels of dipping. A major advantage of investigating spectral evolution in these sources is that dipping is characterised by the slow removal of Comptonized emission, and measurement of dip ingress times proves that the Comptonizing ADC has radial extent typically 50,000 km (Church 2000), which is strongly inconsistent with Comptonization models involving a small region in the locality of the neutron star, allowing such models to be discounted.

The success of this emission model with the dipping sources suggests that the model be tested with the other classes of LMXB, i.e. the Z-track and Atoll sources specifically. Other authors have successfully applied two-component blackbody + Comptonization models to Z-track and Atoll sources (above, and e.g. Hasinger et al. 1990, Barret et al. 2000). However, these often ascribe emission regions to the blackbody and Comptonized emission such as the accretion disk and a localised inner region respectively, e.g. Barret et al. (2000), and so physically, these models differ radically from ours and are also inconsistent with our measured ADC sizes. Recently, the comptt implementation of the Titarchuk (1994) Comptonization model has been used (together with a blackbody term) to fit BeppoSAX data on LMXB sources (e.g. in’t Zand et al. 1999). It has been suggested that comptt is preferable to the cut-off power law which may overestimate the spectrum at low energies because of lack of soft seed photons. However, it is easy to calculate the spectrum of the disk (expressed as the photon number flux per keV) integrated to a radius equal to our measured ADC sizes, by combining the temperature gradient $`T(r)`$ from standard thin disk theory with Planck’s equation. This shows that for typical LMXB luminosities, the integrated spectrum forms a broad peak between 0.001 and 0.1 keV, thus producing a huge sea of soft photons, so that the cut-off power law is perfectly good above $``$0.1 keV. However, fitting the comptt model has produced high values of average $`kT`$ for the seed photons, e.g. 1.0–2.0 keV (Guainazzi et al. 1998) which are $`>>`$ than the above expected values and inconsistent with the assumption of Titarchuk (1994) that the seed photons are very soft: $`kT`$ $`<<`$ $`kT_\mathrm{e}`$ (the electron temperature). This will lead to a substantial underestimation of the Comptonized spectrum at $``$1 keV as the Wien approximation (good for $`h\nu `$ $`>>`$ kT) is used in comptt to describe the seed photon spectrum.

In this paper, we apply the blackbody plus cut-off power law model to as many non-dipping Atoll and Z-track sources observed using ASCA as possible plus the non-dip spectra of two dipping sources. We show that the model provides a good description of the spectra of these sources.

## 2 Analysis and Results

The observations of 10 LMXB with ASCA (Tanaka et al. 1994) were made between 1993, June and 1995, September as shown in Table 1. The designation “probably atoll” was taken from van der Klis (1995) when the type is not well known. For each source, raw data files containing less than 100 counts were deleted, and the temperature-based gain correction was made. Screening was carried out after inspection of plots of the housekeeping parameters. Data were selected with the source less than $`0.01^{^{}}`$ from the telescope pointing direction, elevation above the Earth’s rim more than $`5^{^{}}`$ and geomagnetic rigidity more than 6 GeV/c. Particle background was rejected for values of the background monitor rate of more than 200 count s-1 in most cases. Source data were selected from a 6 radius circular region in the image. Many of the sources were bright and so background subtraction was not important; when necessary, background data were extracted from an appropriate 6 region. Deadtime correction was performed on both light curves and spectra; this enabled high and medium bit rate data to be combined in a single light curve. In all cases except one, GIS2 data were used; in the case of X 1746-371, GIS3 data were used because of problems with the GIS2 raw data.

Light curves were extracted in the total GIS energy band and also in 3 standard bands: 0.7–4.0 keV, 4.0–7.0 keV and 7.0–10.0 keV. These were used to examine source variability and to construct colour-colour diagrams using the ratio of count rates 7.0–10.0 keV/4.0–7.0 keV and 4.0–7.0 keV/0.7–4.0 keV. Generally, there was little evidence for movement on the colour-colour diagrams during observations; some of the sources were constant, some showed slow drifts in intensity and some more rapid variability. To ensure that data could not be mixed from different intensity states, spectra were selected from appropriately narrow intensity bands for all sources, for example, in the band 75–80 count s-1 for GX 13+1. Response files were constructed appropriate to the position of each source in the image, and the latest corrections applied to the responses to correct for known differences between the detectors.

Spectra were grouped to a minimum of 100 counts per bin for strong sources and to 20 counts per bin for faint sources, and systematic errors of 2% added (Fukazawa et al. 1997). For each source, a range of models was tried including simple one-component models such as absorbed power law (ab\*pl, where ab is the absorption term and pl the power law), absorbed

blackbody (ab\*bb) and absorbed bremsstrahlung (ab\*br). The absorbed blackbody model always gave totally unacceptable fits with $`\chi ^2`$/degree of freedom (dof) typically 10; for the bremsstrahlung models the fits were also not acceptable with $`\chi ^2`$/dof varying between 1.2 and 2.0. Two-component models consisting of blackbody plus a Comptonized component were tried, in the forms ab\*(bb + pl) and ab\*(bb + cpl). The first form was used to approximate a cut-off power law at energies well below the Comptonization break. In several cases discussed below, it was necessary to add lines to the continuum model to obtain an acceptable fit. Results for the absorbed power law, absorbed cut-off power law and two-component models are given in Table 2 and these were obtained with lines added if appropriate.

In most sources, there was clear curvature, i.e. downcurving, in the spectrum between 1 and 10 keV (see Fig. 1), such that the ab\*pl model gave poor fits as can be seen from the $`\chi ^2`$ values in Table 2. The generalised thermal (model ab\*cpl, where cpl is a cut-off power law), provided good fits to all of the spectra. However, in the cases of several sources, particularly GX 13+1, X 2127+119, GX 5-1 and Cyg X-2, this was only achieved with very small and even negative values of the power law index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which may be regarded as improbable. The values of cut-off energy $`E_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ are all very small ($``$few keV) which is typical of this model. However, we know from work on several dipping sources using BeppoSAX that the break energy is often much greater than 10 keV (Church et al. 1998b; Bałucińska-Church et al. 1999, 2000) and so the low values in most cases are unlikely to be real, but result from this model fitting the curvature between 1 and 10 keV actually due to the presence of a blackbody. Fitting a two-component model showed that in all cases, either the blackbody plus power law model or the blackbody plus cut-off power law model gave a fit as good or better than the ab\*cpl model, but without requiring any odd values. In most cases, the simpler ab\*(bb + pl) model gave a fit equally as good as the ab\*(bb + cpl) model showing that $`E_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ was $`>>`$ 10 keV and so not possible to be determined using ASCA. In the case of GX 9+9 and Cyg X-2 this was not the case, showing that $`E_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ was less than 10 keV. Fitting for these sources, was carried out with $`E_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ fixed at a sequence of values as discussed below.

Lines were detected in the sources GX 13+1, Aql X-1, Ser X-1 and XB 1254-690, and the energies, widths and equivalent widths are shown in Table 3. These agree generally with the detections made in the extensive study of lines in LMXB using ASCA by Asai et al. (2000). There was also evidence for a weak line in XB 1746-371 at $``$6.4 keV also detected in SIS by Asai et al., and a possible weak detection of a line at $``$1.5 keV in GX 13+1. In Ser X-1, the iron feature detected was broad, and the width was not well-constrained using GIS data; consequently, to obtain the best continuum fit, the line energy and width $`\sigma `$ were set to the values determined by Asai et al. The best-fit two-component model for each source is shown in Fig. 1.

### 2.1 X 1746-371, XB 1254-690

Spectral analysis results of the ASCA observations of these dipping sources have not previously been presented. These sources were well fitted by the two-component model. In XB 1746-371, the best-fit results were obtained by simultaneous fitting of the non-dip spectrum and the deepest dip spectrum. This technique has previously been used to constrain emission parameters better in dipping sources (e.g. Bałucińska-Church et al. 1999).

### 2.2 GX 9+9, Cyg X-2

In GX 9+9 and Cyg X-2 the blackbody plus power law model gave a substantially worse fit than the single component cut-off power law model showing that $`E_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ is not $`>>`$ 10 keV. The model ab\*(bb + cpl) gave improved qualities of fit. It was difficult to determine the cut-off energy because of the competition in modelling the 1–10 keV curvature between the blackbody and the Comptonization down-curving, and so $`E_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ was fixed at a series of values: 10, 8, 6, 4 and 2 keV. In GX 9+9, $`\chi ^2`$ became as good as for the cut-off power law model for $`E_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ $``$6 keV. For smaller cut-off energies, $`\chi ^2`$ continued to improve, however the power law index decreased to $`<`$ 1 which is unlikely to be real. For Cyg X-2, stepping in $`E_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ gave acceptable $`\chi ^2`$ for $`E_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ $``$3 keV. This cut-off energy agrees well with the value of 3.32 keV obtained by Smale et al. (1993) from BBXRT. Thus, our preferred values of cut-off energy are $``$6 keV and $``$3 keV in GX 9+9 and Cyg X-2 respectively. Clearly, these should be re-measured in a wider band. However, test showed that the results presented below are not sensitive to the value of $`E_{\mathrm{CO}}`$.

### 2.3 Disk blackbody modelling

Finally, we tested the model consisting of disk blackbody emission plus a Comptonization term in the form of a cut-off power law, adding lines as before to the sources requiring lines. The 10 sources studied in the present ASCA survey were fitted, plus 3 sources recently studied using BeppoSAX (Bałucinska-Church et al. 1999, 2000; Church et al. 1998b). Results shown in Table 4 include values of inner disk radius $`r_\mathrm{i}`$ obtained from the normalization of the blackbody via: $`r_\mathrm{i}`$ = $`(\mathrm{norm}/\mathrm{cos}i)^{1/2}d`$, where i is the inclination angle of the binary system and d is the source distance. Inclination angles were assumed of 0 – $`70^{^{}}`$ for Atoll and Z-track sources, 70 – $`80^{^{}}`$ for dipping sources, except for X 1624-490 where 60 – $`65^{^{}}`$ was assumed, the upper limit being set by the absence of X-ray eclipses. For Cyg X-2, we use the range 58.5 – $`66.5^{^{}}`$ (Orosz & Kuulkers 1999). Thus for each source a range of $`r_\mathrm{i}`$ values is shown, with 90% confidence uncertainties derived from the normalization uncertainties shown for the larger value in each case. Although good or acceptable fits were obtained, the results in many cases had improbably small or negative values of power law index. The values of $`r_\mathrm{i}`$ were in 8 out of 13 cases unphysical, i.e. $`<`$ the radius of the neutron star $`R_{}`$, in 5 of these, $`r_\mathrm{i}`$ being 10 times smaller than $`R_{}`$. In 5 other cases, GX 9+9, GX 13+1, GX 5-1, Cyg X-2 and 4U 1636-536, $`r_\mathrm{i}`$ was not clearly unphysical, but the power law index was small or negative. We also note a tendency using ASCA to underestimate $`\mathrm{kT}_\mathrm{i}`$ and overestimate $`r_\mathrm{i}`$ compared with BeppoSAX as shown by restricting the BeppoSAX band to 1–10 keV, so in some cases, the $`r_\mathrm{i}`$ values in Table 4 may be too large. It is known that the multi-temperature disk blackbody model used can underestimate $`r_\mathrm{i}`$, however, maximum correction factors of $``$2–4 may be calculated based on the published work of Merloni et al. (2000) and Kubota et al. (2000). Allowing for this, the very small values of $`r_\mathrm{i}`$ in Table 4 make it unlikely that the blackbody emission is from the disk.

We have shown that the two-component model

(either as bb + pl or as bb + cpl) gives very good fits to all of the sources in our survey. In all cases, a blackbody component is required, and we next examine the properties of this component.

### 2.4 The Blackbody-Total Luminosity Relation

In Fig. 2 the variation of blackbody luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ in the band 1 – 30 keV with the total luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{Tot}}`$ in the same band is shown. Also plotted in Fig. 2 are additional points from our analyses of the BeppoSAX observations of XB 1916-053 (Church et al. 1998b), XB 1323-619 (Bałucińska-Church et al. 1999) and X 1624-480 (Bałucińska-Church et al. 2000) and for XBT 0748-676 from ASCA data (Church et al. 1998a). These points are useful because the sources are weaker, and spectral parameters well-determined from the broadband BeppoSAX data. Source distances were taken from the Einstein Observatory survey of LMXB of Christian & Swank (1997). In the case of XB 1323-619, a distance of 10 – 20 kpc was derived by Parmar et al. (1989) based on the measured peak burst flux assumed to be Eddington-limited. As this may have underestimated the peak flux, we have assumed a value of 10 kpc. We also assumed 10 kpc for XBT 0748-676, the distance of which is not known. The sources in the present survey cover the luminosity range $`5\times 10^{36}`$ to $`5\times 10^{38}`$ erg s-1. Errors in $`L_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ are derived from the 90% confidence limits in the blackbody normalization; similarly the errors in $`L_{\mathrm{Tot}}`$ were obtained from the 90% errors in power law normalization. Possible errors in source distance will move points equal amounts on both axes.

Additionally, a line is drawn showing the Newtonian value of 50% of $`L_{\mathrm{Tot}}`$ that should remain at the inner disk and be available for neutron star emission. In fact, the ratio of the energy available to the star to the energy in the disk depends on the spin of the neutron star (Sunyaev & Shakura 1986), varying from 2.2 for a slowly spinning star to small values for a star spinning rapidly, implying in the first case that the star can receive 69% of the energy. It can be seen that there is systematic behaviour in Fig. 2 such that the brighter sources approach the 50% line whereas the weaker sources fall increasingly below this line. Schulz et al. (1989) and Hasinger et al. (1990) found a similar variation of the blackbody luminosity with the total luminosity in Cyg X-2. It should be stressed that we do not claim a simple relationship between $`L_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{Tot}}`$, but rather a broad band in the Figure where the sources lie. We next examine the reasons for the variation in blackbody luminosity over the sources investigated.

### 2.5 Blackbody Properties

Table 5 lists the blackbody parameters derived from spectral fitting. Included here are the blackbody temperature $`kT_{\mathrm{BB}}`$, the blackbody luminosity in the band 1 – 30 keV and the blackbody radius $`R_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ defined by the relation $`L_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ = $`4\pi R_{\mathrm{BB}}^2\sigma T^4`$, where $`\sigma `$ is Stefan’s constant. Also shown is the half-height h of the emission region assumed to be an equatorial strip on the neutron star. It can be seen that $`L_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ is reasonably well correlated with $`R_{\mathrm{BB}}`$. In Fig. 3 we show the variation of blackbody temperature with blackbody radius. It is striking that the major cause of variation is the emitting area. As the $`L_{\mathrm{Tot}}`$ increases as we move from the the extreme left of Fig. 3 (XB 1323-619) to the extreme right (GX 5-1), $`kT_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ falls by 40%, so that $`T^4`$ decreases by a factor of 8. $`R_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ however, increases by a factor of $``$75 and emitting area by a factor of 5400 so that $`L_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ increases by a factor of $``$700, consistent with the change of $`L_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ between these sources in Fig. 2.

Thus, the large variation in emitting area is responsible for the large change in blackbody level. At low luminosity, the emission is from an equatorial strip on the star, which increases in height till at the higher luminosities, all of the star is emitting.

### 2.6 Accretion Disk Properties

We next express the blackbody emitting area in terms of the half-height h of the emitting strip assumed to be an equatorial strip of varying height. The area is $`4\pi hR_{}`$ (for a sphere intersected by two parallel planes) equal to $`4\pi R_{\mathrm{BB}}^2`$. Thus, the half-height h is related to $`R_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ by

$$h=R_{\mathrm{BB}}^2/R_{}.$$
(1)
Values of h obtained in this way are included in Table 5.

Next, we compare h with the half-height of the inner radiatively-supported accretion disk. For a wide range of mass accretion rates, the inner disk is radiatively supported with half-height H given by

$$H=\frac{3\sigma _\mathrm{T}\dot{M}}{8\pi m_\mathrm{p}c}\left[1\left(\frac{R_{}}{r}\right)^{1/2}\right]=H_{\mathrm{eq}}\left[1\left(\frac{R_{}}{r}\right)^{1/2}\right]$$
(2)
where $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$ is the Thomson cross section, $`\dot{M}`$ is the mass accretion rate and $`m_\mathrm{p}`$ is the proton mass (Frank, King & Raine 1992). The disk height H is zero at the surface of the star, but increases rapidly until it becomes independent of $`r`$ having the equilibrium value $`H_{\mathrm{eq}}`$. Most of the increase takes place between r = 10 and r = 20 km, i.e. within 10 km of the stellar surface. In weak sources, with $`L`$ $`5\times 10^{36}`$ erg $`\mathrm{s}^1`$, radiative support is over a limited radial extent so that $`H_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ is never achieved. In bright sources, $`H_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ is achieved, and radiative support continues typically to a radial distance of 400 km (for $`L_{\mathrm{Tot}}`$ = $`10^{38}`$ erg $`\mathrm{s}^1`$). Values of $`H_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ are, of course, much larger than the height of the gas-dominated thin disk calculated using the solution of Shakura & Sunyaev (1976) which for luminosities between 1036 and 1038 erg s-1, gives a half-height at a radius close to the neutron star ($`1.01R_{}`$) varying between $``$ 25–50 m.

As a first approximation, in Fig. 4 (left), we show the variation of h with $`H_{\mathrm{eq}}`$, which was calculated using the total luminosity of each source to give $`\dot{M}`$ via $`L_{\mathrm{Tot}}`$ = $`GM_{}\dot{M}/R_{}`$. It can be seen that there is agreement between $`h`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{eq}}`$; however, the lower luminosity points fall below the line $`h`$ = $`H_{\mathrm{eq}}`$. This would be expected, since for lower luminosities $`H_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ is never achieved since the disk is radiatively-supported over an insufficient radial extent.

We calculate the actual maximum height of the disk in such cases as follows. The disk continues to be thick while the radiation pressure $`p_\mathrm{r}>>p_\mathrm{g}`$, the gas pressure. Czerny & Elvis (1987) discuss the transition from a thin disk to a thick disk. From their Eqn. 19, it can be seen that the disk height becomes 90% of $`H_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ for $`p_\mathrm{r}/(p_\mathrm{r}+p_\mathrm{g})`$ = 10. For a calculation of disk height accurate to $``$10%, we have derived the radius $`r_{10}`$ at which $`p_\mathrm{r}`$=10 $`p_\mathrm{g}`$, using the expressions for radiation pressure and gas pressure given by Shakura & Sunyaev (1976), to be $`r_{10}`$ = $`10.1M_1^{3/21}\alpha ^{2/21}\dot{M}_{16}^{16/21}f^{4/21}`$ km, where $`M_1`$ is the mass of the neutron star in Solar masses, $`\alpha `$ is the viscosity parameter, $`\dot{M}_{16}`$ is in units of 1016 g s-1 and $`f`$ = $`[1(R_{}/r)^{1/2}]^{1/4}`$. This equation can be solved numerically for $`r_{10}`$ for particular values of $`\dot{M}`$. For example, using $`\dot{M}`$ values of $`10^{17}`$ and $`10^{18}`$ g s-1 equivalent to total luminosities of $`2\times 10^{37}`$ and $`2\times 10^{38}`$ erg s-1, and assuming $`\alpha `$ = 0.1, $`r_{10}`$ is $``$50 km and $``$300 km respectively, but for $`3\times 10^{36}`$ erg s-1, $`r_{10}`$ = 10.4 km only. The actual maximum height of the disk will be $`H(r_{10})`$. In Fig 4 (right) we show the variation of $`h`$ with $`H(r_{10})`$, the more realistic calculation of disk height. It can be seen that there is remarkably good agreement between the height of the emission region and the height of the radiatively-supported disk, most points lying close to the line h = H.

In the case of GX 5-1, the agreement with h = H is poor, as h = 110 km and H = 43 km. However the blackbody radius in this case is 33 km showing that the emission is from a sphere three times larger than the star. There is a clear implication that the accretion flow is so strong that a spherical cloud of matter around the star has formed which is responsible for the blackbody emission. If we compare H with the height of this sphere, i.e. $`R_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ = 33 km, there is much better agreement between these quantities, again suggesting that the height of the disk determines the height of the emission region. In Fig. 4 we plot triangles for GX 5-1 and the other very bright source GX 13+1 to show their expected positions at h = $`R_{\mathrm{BB}}`$. Overall, there is good agreement between h and H in Fig. 4 (right) over about 3 orders of magnitude on each axis which is strong evidence for the significance of the agreement. Appropriate errors are shown for all points derived from 90% confidence limits in spectra parameters. Error in source distance will affect both h and H; adopting 10 km for the stellar radius will affect h, a value of 12 km reducing heights by 20%. It is also clear that we may introduce error by using the luminosity in the band 1–30 keV for calculating H, but this range was chosen to avoid extrapolating ASCA results too far above 10 keV. Using our work on XB 1916-053 from BeppoSAX (Church et al. 1998a) we have estimated possible errors. For this source, with $`E_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ = 80 keV, and the total luminosity would have been underestimated by 28% using the band 1–30 keV. For $`E_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ = 20 keV, the error falls to 8% and for $`E_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ = 10 keV, the error is 1%. Thus there can be a further source of error in H requiring points to be moved to the right by up to 30%. Clearly, broadband spectral analysis is desirable for all sources in the survey. The implications of Fig. 4 will be discussed in the next section.

## 3 Discussion

We have shown that the two-component blackbody plus Comptonization model gives a good description of the ASCA spectra of the Atoll and Z-track sources analysed in this survey. We thus now propose that this model suggested by us as a unifying model for the dipping sources (Church & Bałucińska-Church 1995) gives a good description of LMXB in general. Fitting results for the disk blackbody plus Comptonization model were in 8 out of 13 cases unphysical having values of inner accretion disk radius substantially smaller than the neutron star radius making it unlikely that the blackbody emission originates in the disk. Our previous results for the dipping sources in particular (see Sect. 1), prove that the Comptonizing region is extended, indicating a flat, vertically shallow ADC above the inner accretion disk. Thus we do not expect significant Comptonization of blackbody emission from the neutron star in such an ADC since it is geometrically unlikely that blackbody photons will pass through this region. It is similarly unlikely that substantial Comptonization of the neutron star emission takes place in the inner radiatively-supported disk as this would require long path lengths of photons through the disk.

Next, we have shown that use of the two-component model reveals a broad dependence of the blackbody luminosity on the total luminosity not previously known for LMXB in general, the blackbody luminosity falling more rapidly than the total luminosity as the mass accretion rate decreases. The major change in blackbody emission has been shown to result primarily from changes in the emitting area, not the temperature. Assuming that the emission originates in an equatorial belt on the neutron star having radius $``$10 km, we have shown that its height agrees well with the height of the radiatively-supported inner accretion disk. This agreement extends to the less luminous sources where the radiatively-supported disk does not achieve its equilibrium height, and there is good agreement between h and $`H`$ calculated at the position where $`p_\mathrm{r}`$ = $`10p_\mathrm{g}`$.

Possible explanations of the result that h = H are of two types; those in which the accretion disk height directly determines $`H`$, and those in which it does not. The direct mechanism requires radial (advective) flow of material between the inner disk edge and the star. Although there has been a very large amount of theoretical work on advective flow in black hole binaries (e.g. Abramowicz et al. 1996, and references therein), little work has been carried out for LMXB. It is not known whether the sonic point lies within the inner disk or within the star. However, Popham & Sunyaev (2000) show that the radial velocity increases by two orders of magnitude in the inner disk, but it is not known whether accretion flow can cross the gap between the inner disk edge and the star. Resolving this question will require detailed two- or three-dimensional hydrodynamic modelling.

Inogamov & Sunyaev (1999) have recently shown that accretion flow meeting the surface of the neutron star in the equatorial plane will spread over the surface of the star producing regions of enhanced X-ray brightness of vertical extent increasing with luminosity, as is the case in our observational result. The mechanism proposed is independent of the accretion disk height and so the h = H agreement would result from H being a measure of L. Preliminary work shows encouraging agreement between the emitting height on the neutron star predicted by Inogamov and Sunyaev. A detailed comparison between the present results and this theory will be made in a further paper.

The above results have a bearing on alternative models for LMXB. Our results are very inconsistent with models in which the blackbody originates in the accretion disk, and the agreement of h = H is positive evidence for neutron star blackbody emission. Additionally, we have used the timescales for dip ingress and egress in several observations of dipping sources (Church 2000) to obtain the radius of the extended Comptonizing ADC region: $`r_{\mathrm{ADC}}`$, typically $`5\times 10^9`$ cm. These measurements are supported by the fact that the Comptonized emission component is gradually covered during dipping. Thus the ADC is 5,000 times larger than the neutron star, and this rules out models in which Comptonization is supposed to take place in the neighbourhood of the neutron star.

We clearly need to improve our knowledge of the emission parameters of some of the sources studied by obtaining broadband spectra extending to $``$100 keV, allowing the cut-off energy to be measured, which has not in general been possible in the present work. Further investigation of both very bright sources and very weak sources will also be of interest. A complete description of the blackbody and Comptonized emission in LMXB must be more complicated than given here. For example, during flaring, major changes take place on the neutron star and inner disk and this is investigated in work currently taking place (Bałucińska-Church et al. 2001).

###### Acknowledgements.

MJC and MBC thank the Royal Society and the British Council for financial support, and Andrew King, Włodek Kluźniak, Nail Inogamov and Rashid Sunyaev for helpful discussions.


text:
# CPHT S 009.0201 KEK-TH-746 Dispersion Relations and Sum Rules for the 𝜋⁰→𝛾𝛾^∗ and 𝛾^∗→𝛾𝜋⁰ Form Factor

## 1 The Isovector Matrix Element

The electromagnetic hadronic current is decomposed into two parts, the isovector and isoscalar contributions. The lowest number of pion contributions are, respectively, two and three pion states. These are the most important states because they are associated with, respectively, the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ vector mesons. Dispersing in the photon mass one must take into the contributions of the 2$`\pi `$ and 3$`\pi `$ states with the total angular momentum corresponding to the photon or $`J=1^{}`$ states. Because of the G-Parity invariance for strong interaction, these two states are orthogonal and we can therefore consider their contribution separately. The final result for the form factors $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi `$ or $`\pi \gamma \gamma ^{}`$ is the algebaic sum of their contributions.

The isovector and isoscalar contributions are denoted, respectively, as $`F^3(q^2)`$ and $`F^0(q^2)`$. More explicitly the isovector contribution to the matrix element can be written as:

$$M^3(\pi (p))\gamma (k)\gamma ^{}(q))=ϵ^{\mu \nu \sigma \tau }e_\mu k_\nu ϵ_\sigma q_\tau F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3(q^2)$$
(1)
and similarly the corresponding amplitude for the isoscalar contribution is denoted by $`F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^0(q^2)`$. In the following, for convenience, we set $`q^2s`$.

At zero momentum transfer $`s=0`$, the off-shell photon becomes the on-shell photon and hence the matrix element in Eq. (1) is just given by the matrix element of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ and is given by the chiral anomaly:

$$F_{\gamma \gamma }=\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2f_\pi }$$
(2)
where the number of color $`N_c=3`$ has been used and $`f_\pi =93MeV`$ is the pion decay constant and $`e`$ is the electric charge. It is generally assumed that the matrix element for the physical pseudoscalar $`\pi ^0`$ is not very much different from its chiral value, Eq. (2). This is a plausible assumption, which will be used in this article, because it is well verified for $`\pi ^02\gamma `$ decay.

It is clear that $`F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3(s)`$ is an analytic function in the complex $`s`$ plane. Depending on the assumption on its asymptotic behavior and the precision of the calculation, an unsubtracted, once or twice subtracted dispersion relation for $`F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3`$ can be written. Similarly its first, second … derivatives at any point except on the positive real axis with $`s4m_\pi ^2`$ can be written in terms of its imaginary part. For simplicity in writing we shall drop, at the moment, the superscript and subscript of the funcion $`F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3`$ and simply write it as $`F(s)`$.

Because the form factor $`F(s)`$ is an analytic function with a cut from $`4m_\pi ^2`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$, the $`n^{th}`$ times subtracted dispersion relation for $`F(s)`$ reads:

$$F(s)=a_0+a_1s+\mathrm{}a_{n1}s^{n1}+\frac{s^n}{\pi }_{4m_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ImF(z)dz}{z^n(zsiϵ)}$$
(3)
where $`n0`$ and, for our purpose, the series around the origin is considered. Because of the real analytic property of $`F(s)`$, it is real below $`4m_\pi ^2`$. By taking the real part of this equation, $`ReF(s)`$ is related to the principal part of the dispersion integral involving the $`ImV(s)`$ apart from the subtraction constants $`a_n`$.

The polynomial on the R.H.S. of Eq. (3) will be referred in the following as the subtraction constants and the last term on the R.H.S. as the dispersion integral (DI). The evaluation of DI as a funtion of $`s`$ will be done later. Notice that $`a_n=F^n(0)/n!`$ is the coefficient of the Taylor series expansion for $`F(s)`$, where $`F^n(0)`$ is the nth derivative of $`F(s)`$ evaluated at the origin.

In theoretical work such as in perturbation theory, the number of subtractions is minimal in the sense that it just makes the DI converges. In general, the more subtractions we make, the better is the suppression of the high energy contribution which, in general,is difficult to calculate. This high energy suppression makes the calculation more reliable, but at the same time, makes the calculation less predictive because of the introduction of extra parameters.

$`ImF(s)`$ can be evaluated using the unitarity relation. Instead of taking a complete set of intermediate states in the unitarity relation, we truncate the summation and keep only the two pion $`P`$ state. We shall show below that this approximation is sufficiently accurate to analyse the data for $`s`$ below 1 $`GeV^2`$.

It is straightforward to show in this case:

$$ImF(s)=\frac{e}{96\pi }\frac{(s4m_\pi ^2)^{3/2}}{s^{1/2}}V^{}(s)G_1(s)$$
(4)
where $`V(s)`$ is the vector pion form factor with the normalisation $`V(0)=1`$ and $`G_1(s)`$ is the P-wave projection of the invariant amplitude for $`\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$:

$$M(\gamma (k)\pi ^0(q_+)\pi ^+(p_+)\pi ^0(p_0))=iϵ^{\mu \nu \sigma \tau }q_0^\nu q_+^\sigma q_{}^\tau G(s,t,u)$$
(5)
where $`ϵ`$ is the photon polarisation, $`s=(k+q_+)^2`$, $`t=(p_+q_+)^2`$ and $`u=(p_0q_+)^2`$. Because all particles involved are on shell, one has $`s+t+u=3m_\pi ^2`$. In the center of mass system, in terms of the scattering angle $`\theta `$, we have:

$`t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3m_\pi ^2s}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(sm_\pi ^2)\sqrt{14m_\pi ^2/s}\mathrm{cos}\theta `$
$`u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3m_\pi ^2s}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(sm_\pi ^2)\sqrt{14m_\pi ^2/s}\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (6)
The partial wave expansion for $`G(s,t,u)`$ is given as follows :

$$G(s,t,u)=\underset{oddl}{}G_l(s)P_l^{}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )$$
(7)
where $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle and hence

$$G_1(s)=\frac{3}{8\pi }𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta G(s,t,u)$$
(8)
In terms of the function $`G(s,t,u)`$ the differential cross section for the process $`\gamma \pi ^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0`$ is

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }=\frac{1}{1024\pi }(sm_\pi ^2)\frac{(s4m_\pi ^2)^{3/2}}{s^{1/2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta G(s,t,u)^2$$
(9)
In Eq. (4), the elastic unitarity relation for the vector pion form factor requires that the phase of $`V(s)`$ is the phase of the P-wave $`\pi \pi `$ strong interaction $`\delta (s)`$. Similarly, the phase of for the P-wave amplitude $`G_1(s)`$ of the amplitude $`\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ is also $`\delta (s)`$. The product $`V(s)^{}G(s)`$ is therefore real and hence we can rewrite Eq. (4) as:

$$ImF_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3(s)=\frac{e}{96\pi }\frac{(s4m_\pi ^2)^{3/2}}{s^{1/2}}V(s)G_1(s)$$
(10)
where we have restored the subscripts and superscripts. This equation is ambiguous to a plus or minus sign. In the following we take the positive sign by convention. Hence $`ImF(s)`$ is only given in terms of the measurable quantities, $`V(s)`$ and $`G_1(s)`$.

There are excellent experimental data on the vector pion form factor but accurate experimental data on $`\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ are not available. To proceed, at this stage, one has to use some theoretical studies on this process which will be discussed below.

Besides the 2$`\pi `$, there are higher mass states contributing to the unitarity relation for $`ImF_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3(s)`$. For example, the $`K\overline{K}`$ or the 4$`\pi `$ states in the form of the $`\omega \pi `$ or the $`\rho \pi \pi `$ states etc. could become important at an energy above 1 $`GeV`$. As long as we are interested in the phenomology below this energy region, it may be safe to take only into account of the lowest intermediate states which, for the isovector contribution, is the interacting two pion state or the $`\rho `$ vector meson, and for the isoscalar contribution, the interacting three pion states or the $`\omega `$ vector meson.

If we want to find out how important is the 2$`\pi `$ contribution in the form of $`\rho `$ compared with the higher intermediate states, we can write an unsubtracted dispersion relation for $`F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3(s)`$ and then evaluate this amplitude at $`s=0`$ to compare with the amplitude of $`\pi ^02\gamma `$. Needless to say, such an use of an unsubtracted dispersion relation can be opened to criticisms because the higher intermediate states are not strongly suppressed; we can only hope that, at low energy, their contributions are small compared with the 2$`\pi `$ and hence can be neglected. This is the spirit of the Vector Meson Dominance model in the more precised language of the dispersion theory.

On the other hand if the $`e^+e^{}`$ spectrum in the $`\pi ^0\gamma e^+e^{}`$ process is to be calculated the higher intermediate states are then suppressed by a factor $`s^2`$ (see below) which makes the result more reliable. The higher the derivative is at $`s=0`$, the larger is the suppression of the high energy contribution.

We shall parametrize phenomenologically the pion form factor data below 1.1 $`GeV`$ by the following formula  which agrees well with the experimental data :

$$V(s)=\frac{1+0.16s/s_R}{1s/s_R\frac{1}{96\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}\{(s4m_\pi ^2)H_{\pi \pi }(s)+2s/3\}}$$
(11)
where $`f_\pi =0.093GeV`$, and $`s_R=30.2m_\pi ^2`$ which gives a good fit to the modulus of the pion form factor below 1.1 $`GeV`$ and the P-wave $`\pi \pi `$ phase shifts in this energy range. $`H_{\pi \pi }(s)`$ is a well-known integral over the phase space factor:

$$H_{\pi \pi }(s)=(22\sqrt{\frac{s4m_\pi ^2}{s}}log\frac{\sqrt{s}+\sqrt{s4m_\pi ^2}}{2m_\pi })+i\pi \sqrt{\frac{s4m_\pi ^2}{s}}$$
(12)
Neither good experimental data on $`G(s,t,u)`$ nor its P-wave amplitude $`G_1(s)`$ are available. In fact, the data on the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \pi \gamma )`$ are in contradiction . Once the experimental data on $`G_1(s)`$ are available they can directly be used in Eq. (10) to calculate the $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ form factor.

For the time being, it is reasonable to use some theoretical models to parametrize $`G_1(s)`$. This can be done by assuming the elastic unitarity relation and dispersion relation for this process. A more complicated singular integral equation than that of the Muskelishvili-Omnes type is obtained . Given the experimental P-wave $`\pi \pi `$ phase shifts, its solution, which is related to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \pi \gamma )`$ width, can be obtained by a numerical method and is a sensitive function of the second derivative of $`G_1(s)`$ with respect to $`s`$ at $`s=m_\pi ^2`$. This problem is related to the existence of the contact term in the photon-3$`\pi `$ coupling . Because $`G_1(s)`$ is an analytic function in the $`s`$ variable with a unitarity right hand cut extending from 4$`m_\pi ^2`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$, and a left hand cut on the negative s axis. On the right cut this function, by unitarity, must have the phase of the strong P-wave $`\pi \pi `$ interaction $`\delta (s)`$. The left hand cut is due to the t and u channel contributions. From general grounds, the P-wave amplitude can be written as a product of the two cuts, the right and left hand cuts. For our purpose, the left hand cut contribution will be, phenomenologically, represented by the product of a double pole and a term linear in $`s`$. We have hence:

$$\frac{G_1(s)}{G_1^0}=V(s)c\frac{a^2}{(a+s)^2}(1s/b)$$
(13)
where $`c,a,b`$ are real and $`G_1^0`$ is the chiral anomaly of $`\gamma 3\pi `$:

$$G_1^0=\frac{e}{4\pi ^2f_\pi ^3}$$
(14)
Eq. (13), with the real parameters $`a,b,c`$, is flexible enough to fit the solution of the theoretical calculation. It also gives the correct phase for the P-wave amplitude of the process $`\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ which are the P-wave $`\pi \pi `$ phase shifts below 1.1 $`GeV`$. This parametrization is most accurate in the energy range $`0.20GeV^2<s<0.8GeV^2`$ where its contribution to the following low energy sum rules is most important.

Instead of characterizing the results of the theoretical calculation as a function of the input second derivative values at $`s=m_\pi ^2`$, it is more physical to express them as a function of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \pi \gamma )`$ width which is defined by the value of Eq. (13) compared with its corresponding Breit-Wigner formula at $`s=m_\rho ^2`$.

In Table 1, we give the values of the parameters as a function of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \pi \gamma )`$ widths.

Rewriting Eq. (10) in the unit of $`F_{\gamma \gamma }`$ as given by Eq. (2) one has:

$$\frac{ImF_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3(s)}{F_{\gamma \gamma }}=\frac{1}{96\pi f_\pi ^2}\frac{(s4m_\pi ^2)^{3/2}}{\sqrt{s}}V(s)^2c\frac{a^2}{(a+s)^2}(1s/b)$$
(15)
Now knowing $`ImF_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3(s)`$ we can write down sum rules and dispersion relation.

Let us begin with testing the notion of the vector meson dominance, which can be translated into the dispersion language, by assuming an unsubtracted dispersion relation for $`F(s)`$. This allows us to find out how much the contribution of $`ImF_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3(s)`$ is in the $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ amplitude.

Writing an unsubtracted dispersion relation for $`F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3(s)`$ and set $`s=0`$ we have:

$$F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3(0)=\frac{1}{\pi }_{4m_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s\frac{ImF_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3(s)}{s}$$
(16)
The use of an unsubtracted dispersion relation requires that $`F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3(s)0`$ as $`s\mathrm{}`$. It is model dependent because the high energy contribution to $`ImF_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3`$ is only suppressed by a factor of $`s`$ in the sum rule, Eq. (16).

With this reservation, using $`ImF_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3(s)`$ as given by Eq. (10), with the pion form factor $`V(s)`$ given by Eq. (11) and with the $`\gamma \pi \pi \pi `$ amplitude given in Table 1, the matrix element of the isovector $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ can be calculated as a function of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \pi \gamma )width`$. The results of our calculation are given on the 5th column of the Table 1.

We now want to calculate the energy dependence or the pair $`e^+e^{}`$ in $`\pi ^0\gamma e^+e^{}`$ at low energy. This can sufficiently be done by evaluating the first derivative of $`F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3(s)`$ at the origin:

$$F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^{3}{}_{}{}^{^{}}(0)=\frac{1}{\pi }_{4m_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s\frac{ImF_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3(s)}{s^2}$$
(17)
and if more precision is needed one could include higher derivatives. For example the second derivative is given by:

$$F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^{3}{}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }}(0)=\frac{2}{\pi }_{4m_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s\frac{ImF_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3(s)}{s^3}$$
(18)
The sum rule for the first derivative at $`s=0`$ of $`F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3`$ is quite reliable because the unknown high energy contribution is suppressed by the factor $`1/s^2`$ in Eq. (17). The slope is usually expressed in terms of of the slope parameter $`\beta ^i`$ defined as $`\beta ^is/m_{\pi }^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ with $`i=0,3`$ for, respectively, the isoscalar and isovector contributions.

In table 1, the slope parameter for the isovector contribution is also given in the 5th column. The precision of the experimental data do not allow us to compare the second derivative of $`F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^3`$. We shall compare the values of the matrix elements and slopes after our calculation of the isoscalar contribution.

In evaluating the RHS of Eq. (16) or Eq (17), the P-wave phase space factor in Eq. (10) suppresses strongly the low energy contribution of the modulus of the amplitude $`\gamma \pi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. They are therefore very insensitive to the low energy behavior of this amplitude. The well-known problem of reconciling Vector Meson Dominance and the $`\gamma 3\pi `$ chiral anomaly is not a problem here. It will be discussed in a separate study .

## 2 The Isoscalar Matrix Element

Dispersing in the isoscalar photon mass, we have to take into account of the lowest intermediate state in the unitarity relation, the 3$`\pi `$ states. The total isospin of the 3 pions is $`I=0`$ and its total angular momentum is $`1^{}`$ hence they are spacely completely antisymmetric. The elastic unitarity contribution to the isoscalar amplitude is: $`F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^0(s)`$.

$$ImF_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^0(s)=<\gamma 3\pi ><3\pi \gamma \pi >$$
(19)
Again, after integrating over the internal variables for the 3 pion system, we can establish the phase theorem for $`<\gamma 3\pi >`$ as in the case of the 2 pion contribution to the isovector form factor. The RHS of Eq. (19) is therfore real and we can rewrite it as:

$$ImF_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^0(s)=<\gamma 3\pi ><3\pi \gamma \pi >$$
(20)
Hence $`ImF_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^0(s)`$, similar to the isovector case, can be directly obtained from experimental data. There are good data for the process $`\gamma ^{}3\pi `$ which shows a complete dominance of the $`\omega `$ contribution.

The process $`\gamma \pi 3\pi `$ has not been measured. However, the 3 pion resonance is such a narrow one that it is possible to approximate it accurately by the $`\omega `$ meson. This is also true for the photon 3 pion vertex.

Defining the photon $`\omega `$ coupling as $`em_\omega ^2/g_\omega `$  with the photon invariant mass squared equal to the $`\omega `$ mass the $`g_\omega `$ can be determined from its leptonic width: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega e^+e^{})=(4\pi \alpha ^2/3)(m_\omega /g_\omega ^2)`$. The $`\omega \pi ^0\gamma `$ width is given by: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega \pi ^0\gamma )=g_{\omega \pi \gamma }^2E_\gamma ^3/(12\pi )`$. Using the experimental values, $`m_\omega =782MeV`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega =8.41\pm .09MeV`$ and the branching ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \pi \gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega =8.5\pm .5\%`$, one can easily verify:

$$F_{\gamma \gamma }^0=0.50\pm 0.02F_{\gamma \gamma }(1+\frac{s}{m_\omega ^2})$$
(21)
hence the $`\omega `$ contribution is just half of the $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ anomaly, Eq. (2). The imaginary part of the isoscalar form factor can be straightforwardly deduced from this result:

$$\frac{ImF_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^0(s)}{F_{\gamma \gamma }}=(0.50\pm .02)\frac{m_\omega ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega (s)}{(m_\omega ^2s)^2+(m_\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega (s))^2}$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)`$ is strongly dependent on $`s`$ due to the three pion phase space. We shall neglect altogether the real part of the $`\omega `$ self energy correction.

## 3 Sum of the isovector and isoscalar matrix elements

Knowing the imaginary part of the form factor, Eqs. (15, 22) and using dispersion relation, there is no difficulty in calculating the form factor in the interval $`1GeV^2<s<1GeV^2`$. The energy dependence of the $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma ^{}`$, as will be shown below, requires us to take the same sign for the imaginary part of the isoscalar and isovector contributions.

### 3.1  $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma ^{}`$

Let us first examine the $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma ^{}`$ amplitudes. The observable matrix element $`F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}(s)`$ is the sum of the isoscalar and the isovector matrix elements. They cannot experimentally be separated from each other. We want to find out how much the two and three pion intermediate states (in the form of $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$) contributing to the $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ amplitude. Using Eq. (21) and the results given on the fifth column of the Table 1, the total matrix elements are given in Table 2. They should be compared with experimental value

$$F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}(s)=1+(0.032\pm .004)s/m_{\pi ^0}^2$$
(23)
Comparing this result with those given by Table 2 it is clear that the matrix element corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \pi \gamma )=92KeV`$ is favored. The experimental errors are, however, large.

Because we have more faith in the slope sum rule than the unsubtracted dispersion relation due to the suppression of the high energy contribution the prediction on the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \pi \gamma )`$ width can reliably be made once the slope is better measured.

### 3.2 Time-Like and Space-Like $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ Form Factor

:

Using the imaginary part of the isovector and isoscalar contributions to the form factor $`F^{\gamma \gamma ^{}}(s)`$ as given by Eqs. (15, 22) we can calculate the s-dependence of the form factor from $`1GeV^2<s<1GeV^2`$ with reliability by the following subtracted dispersion relation:

$$\frac{F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}(s)}{F_{\gamma \gamma }}=1+\frac{s}{\pi }_{4m_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ImF_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}(z)dz}{z(zsiϵ)}$$
(24)
where $`ImF_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}(s)`$ is given by the sum of the RHS of Eqs. (15, 22).

Because of the overwhelmed dominance of the $`\omega `$ contribution to the form factor $`F_{\gamma \gamma }(s)`$ around the $`\omega \rho `$ region, there is little hope to get physics out of the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ region unless the accuracy of the cross section measurement can be improved to a few percents. Likewise, an improvement in the determination of the space like behavior of the form factor will enable us also to determine accurately the $`\rho \pi \gamma `$ width.

## 4 Conclusion and Acknowledgements

The main point of this paper is to show the usefulness of the dispersion relation approach which has not effectively been used in the literature for this problem. It allows us to relate various experimental measurements without making strong assumptions. The non perturbative effects due to strong interaction are straightforwardly handled by dispersion relation and unitarity.

Part of this is done at the Institute for Nuclear and Particle Studies at the KEK High Energy Accelerator Research Organization. The author would like to thank Professors M. Kobayashi and H. Sugawara for hospitality.

| $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \pi \gamma )`$ | $`c`$ | $`a`$ | $`b`$ | Isovector Matrix Element ($`\pi \gamma \gamma ^{})`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 60 | 1.01 | 80 | 80 | $`0.40+0.0145s/m_{\pi ^0}^2`$ |
| 77 | 0.97 | 80 | 100 | $`0.44+0.0154s/m_{\pi ^0}^2`$ |
| 92 | 1.06 | 50 | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`0.49+0.0171s/m_{\pi ^0}^2`$ |
| 110 | 1.04 | 60 | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`0.55+0.0193s/m_{\pi ^0}^2`$ |

Table 1:Parameters describing the P-wave amplitude for $`\gamma \pi \pi \pi `$ and the isovector matrix element in the unit of the anomaly $`F_{\gamma \gamma }`$ Eq. (2); $`a`$ and $`b`$ are in the units of $`m_{\pi ^+}^2=1`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \pi \gamma )`$ are in the unit of KeV.

| $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \pi \gamma )`$ | Total Matrix Element ($`\pi \gamma \gamma ^{})`$ |
| --- | --- |
| 60 | $`(0.90\pm .036)+(0.0292\pm .0012)s/m_{\pi ^0}^2`$ |
| 77 | $`(0.94\pm .037)+(0.030\pm .0012)s/m_{\pi ^0}^2`$ |
| 92 | $`(0.99\pm .04)+(0.032\pm .0013)s/m_{\pi ^0}^2`$ |
| 110 | $`(1.05\pm .04)+(0.034\pm .0014)s/m_{\pi ^0}^2`$ |

Table 2: Total matrix element is the sum of isovector and isoscalar matrix elements in the unit of the anomaly $`F_{\gamma \gamma }`$ Eq. (2). $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \pi \gamma )`$ are in the unit of KeV. The errors come from those of the isoscalar contribution.


text:
# 𝒩=1 Supersymmetric Path-Integral Poisson-Lie Duality

## 1 Introduction

Poisson-Lie (PL) duality  extends the notion of duality of $`\sigma `$-models to target spaces without isometries, replacing the isometry condition by the weaker PL condition. It includes ordinary abelian as well as non-abelian duality. After its construction two obvious extensions seemed desirable: a quantum formulation and an application to supersymmetric models.

The quantum setting has been treated in , of which the most relevant reference for our discussion is the path-integral treatment in . Supersymmetric extensions have been discussed in .

In the present article we give an extension of the path-integral treatment of PL duality to $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric non-linear $`\sigma `$-models. We further comment on some questions of general relevance to PL duality, namely we give an explicit realization of the generators of the Drinfel’d double for non-abelian duality and we look for possible roles in PL duality for the extended currents that result when the Lie derivative of the background antisymmetric tensor field $`b`$ satisfies $`b=d\omega `$ . We also discuss the relation between $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric PL duality and non-abelian duality at the level of actions. To make the presentation more readable we have included background material on isometries, actions on group manifolds, non-abelian duality and PL duality. An introduction on duality which may serve as further background is found in .

The outline of the paper is the following. We start by giving some background material on isometries and actions on group manifolds. Then in sect.3 we give the basics of non-abelian duality. In sect.4 we give a short summary of PL duality including the Drinfel’d double and the path-integral derivation of Tyurin and von Unge . In sect.5 we generalize this path-integral to $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry. The non-abelian limit of the $`𝒩=1`$ is presented in sect.6 in where we explicitly construct a set of generators spanning the Drinfel’d double $`GU(1)^{dimG}`$, where $`G`$ must be a compact group. We also find the gauge fixed action in the non-abelian limit. In two appendices we discuss a modified current as well as $`WZW`$ models in the PL setting.

## 2 Actions and isometries

A string propagating in a curved background with metric $`g_{ij}`$, $`NS`$ antisymmetric tensor field $`b_{ij}`$ and dilaton $`\varphi `$, has a bosonic part given by the $`\sigma `$-model action

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _W}d^2\sigma (\sqrt{h}h^{mn}_mx^i_nx^jg_{ij}(x^k)+ϵ^{mn}_mx^i_nx^jb_{ij}(x^k)`$ (1)
$`\alpha ^{}\sqrt{h}R^{(2)}\varphi (x^k)),`$
where $`x^i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},\text{dim}T`$) are the coordinates on the target space $`T`$ (spacetime), $`h_{mn}`$ is the auxiliary world-sheet metric, and $`R^{(2)}`$ the corresponding curvature. With application to strings in mind we thus study the $`\sigma `$-model (in units where $`\alpha ^{}=1/2\pi `$)

$$S[x]=_Wd^2\xi x^i(g_{ij}+b_{ij})(x)\overline{}x^j=_Wd^2\xi x^if_{ij}(x)\overline{}x^j,$$
(2)
which is (1) in conformal gauge, light-cone coordinates $`\xi =\frac{1}{2}(\tau +\sigma )`$ and $`\overline{\xi }=\frac{1}{2}(\tau \sigma )`$ and with the dilaton field $`\varphi `$ set to zero (later we comment briefly on non-zero $`\varphi `$).

We shall be interested in the case when (some of) the $`x^i`$’s are acted on by a Lie-group $`G`$ with Lie-algbra $`𝒢`$ generated by $`\{t_a\}`$

$$[t_a,t_b]=f_{ab}^ct_c.$$
(3)
The relevant part of (2) may then be written as

$$S[g]=_Wd^2\xi (g^1g)^aE_{ab}(g)(g^1\overline{}g)^b,$$
(4)
where the correspondence is via the left and right invariant forms on $`𝒢`$

$$L=g^1dg=t_aL_i^adx^i;R=dgg^1=t_aR_i^adx^i.$$
(5)
The coordinates $`x^i`$ parametrize the group manifold $``$, the group action is

$$\delta x^i=ϵ^aR_a^i,$$
(6)
and

$$E_{ab}=L_a^if_{ij}L_b^j.$$
(7)
For the special case of interest for strings when (1) corresponds to a $`WZW`$-model, the correspondence is

$$S[g]=_Yd^2\xi Tr(g^1g)(g^1\overline{}g)+\frac{1}{3}_YTr(g^1dgg^1dgg^1dg),$$
(8)
with

$$g_{ij}=L_i^a\eta _{ab}L_j^b=R_i^a\eta _{ab}R_j^b,$$
(9)
and $`\eta _{ab}=Tr(t_at_b)`$ the Cartan-Killing metric. Further, the torsion is in this case given by the left or right invariant forms as $`H_{ijk}=\frac{1}{2}L_i^aL_j^bL_k^cf_{abc}=\frac{1}{2}R_i^aR_j^bR_k^cf_{abc}`$ which gives the $`\mathrm{"}x\mathrm{"}`$-version of the last term in (8) as

$$S_{WZW}[x]=\frac{1}{3!}_Yd^3yϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }H_{ijk}_\mu x^i_\nu x^j_\lambda x^k=_{W=Y}d^2\xi x^ib_{ij}\overline{}x^j,$$
(10)
where we assume conditions such that the last integral is well-defined .

As a first example of a group $`G`$ we consider (generalized) isometries of the $`\sigma `$-model (2). We thus take the right-invariant forms (say) to be Killing vectors $`R_a^i=k_a^i`$ and the algebra is $`[k_a,k_b]=f_{ab}^ck_c`$. The action (2) or (8) is now invariant under the group action (6), $`\delta x^i=ϵ^ak_a^i`$, due to the generalized isometry conditions

$$_{k_a}g_{ij}=0,_{k_a}H_{ijk}=0.$$
(11)
The latter of these is equivalent to

$$_{k_a}b_{ij}=_{[i}\omega _{j]a},$$
(12)
for some one-forms $`\omega _{ia}`$. Note that $`b_{ij}`$ is defined only up to (spacetime) gauge transformations $`b_{ij}b_{ij}+_{[i}\lambda _{j]}`$, where $`\lambda _j`$ are the components of some one-form $`\lambda `$. Under this gauge transformation the $`\omega _{ai}`$ transform as $`\omega _{ai}\omega _{ai}+_{k_a}\lambda _i`$.

For the $`WZW`$-model the $`WZW`$-term (10) varies into

$$\delta S_{WZW}=\frac{1}{2!}_Wd^2\sigma ϵ^ak_a^iH_{ijk}_\mu x^j_\nu x^kϵ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(13)
This integral vanishes (up to a surface term) if $`k_a^iH_{ijk}=_{[j}v_{k]a}`$ , where $`v_{ia}`$ is a component of a 1-form. This is again satisfied under (11) and (12).

In general the Noether currents corresponding to the symmetries generated by $`k_a^i`$ are

$$\widehat{J}_a=x^if_{ij}k_a^j+\omega _{ai}x^i;\widehat{\overline{J}}_a=k_a^if_{ij}\overline{}x^j\omega _{ai}\overline{}x^i.$$
(14)
The equation of motion state that this current is conserved

$$\widehat{\overline{J}}_a+\overline{}\widehat{J}_a=0.$$
(15)
## 3 Non-abelian dualization

When a $`\sigma `$-model has generalized isometries as described above it may be dualized . In this section we give a brief description of this non-abelian dualization. First the fields $`x^i`$ in (2) are separated into those acted on by the isometry $`x^{\widehat{i}}`$ and those not acted on $`x^\alpha `$ (spectators)

$$S[x^{\widehat{i}},x^\alpha ]=d^2\xi \left[x^{\widehat{i}}f_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}\overline{}x^{\widehat{j}}+x^{\widehat{i}}f_{\widehat{i}\beta }\overline{}x^\beta +x^\alpha f_{\alpha \widehat{j}}\overline{}x^{\widehat{j}}+x^\alpha f_{\alpha \beta }\overline{}x^\beta \right].$$
(16)
Secondly, the isometry

$$\delta x^{\widehat{i}}=ϵ^a(\xi ,\overline{\xi })k_a^{\widehat{i}}(x^{\widehat{j}},x^\alpha )$$
(17)
is gauged. The gauging of the symmetric part of the action (16) by minimal coupling is straight forward, but to gauge the antisymmetric part by minimal coupling the torsion potential must be well-defined and Lie-invariant (i.e. $`_{k_a}b_{ij}=0`$) . Letting $`x^{\widehat{i}}x^{\widehat{i}}+A^aL_a^{\widehat{i}}`$ and $`\overline{}x^{\widehat{i}}\overline{}x^{\widehat{i}}+\overline{A}^aL_a^{\widehat{i}}`$ gives the gauged version of (16). A first order action is found by fixing a gauge $`(x^{\widehat{i}}=\overline{}x^{\widehat{i}}=0)`$, and adding a term including Lagrange multipliers

$`S^{(1)}[x,A,\lambda ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\xi \left[A^aE_{ab}\overline{A}^b+A^aF_{a\beta }^R\overline{}x^\beta +x^\alpha F_{\alpha b}^L\overline{A}^b+x^\alpha f_{\alpha \beta }\overline{}x^\beta \right]}`$ (18)
$`+{\displaystyle d^2\xi \lambda _af^a},`$
where we have defined $`E_{ab}=L_a^{\widehat{i}}f_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}L_b^{\widehat{j}}`$, $`F_{a\beta }^R=L_a^{\widehat{i}}f_{\widehat{i}\beta }`$ and $`F_{\alpha b}^L=f_{\alpha \widehat{j}}L_b^{\widehat{j}}`$. Here $`\lambda _a`$ are Lagrange multipliers that take values in the Lie-algebra $`𝒢`$ and transforms in the adjoint representation. The field strength is $`f^a=\overline{A}^a\overline{}A^a+f_{bc}^aA^b\overline{A}^c`$ where the gauge-fields $`A^a`$, $`\overline{A}^a`$ take values in the Lie algebra of the isometry group.

Varying the first-order action w.r.t. $`\lambda _a`$ one obtains, at least locally, $`A^a=(g^1g)^a`$, $`\overline{A}^a=(g^1\overline{}g)^a`$. So modulo global issues  the first order action goes into the original one when substituting this solution. If one instead integrates out the gauge fields $`A^a`$, $`\overline{A}^a`$ one should get the “dual” action. However, the symmetry of the background that is used in the abelian case to dualize back to the original action is non-local in the non-abelian case. Dualization of this non-local symmetry does not recover the original action .

In the abelian case where $`k_a^i`$ commute the original $`f_{ij}`$ and dual $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ij}`$ backgrounds are related via the Buscher transformation

$`\stackrel{~}{f}_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}`$ $`=`$ $`(f^1)_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}};\stackrel{~}{f}_{\widehat{i}\beta }=(f^1)_{\widehat{i}}^{\widehat{j}}f_{\widehat{j}\beta };`$
$`\stackrel{~}{f}_{\alpha \widehat{j}}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\alpha \widehat{i}}(f^1)_{\widehat{j}}^{\widehat{i}};\stackrel{~}{f}_{\alpha \beta }=f_{\alpha \beta }f_{\alpha \widehat{i}}(f^1)^{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}f_{\widehat{j}\beta }.`$ (19)
The transformation maps manifolds without torsion ($`f_{\widehat{i}\beta }=f_{\beta \widehat{i}}`$) on to manifolds with torsion ($`\stackrel{~}{f}_{\widehat{i}\beta }=\stackrel{~}{f}_{\beta \widehat{i}}`$).

## 4 Poisson-Lie duality

A more general and useful scheme for finding dual actions, not based on the existence of generalized isometries, is the PL duality  where the isometry is replaced with a weaker condition. This duality is most easily discussed in terms of the would-be Noether currents of the transformations $`\delta x^i=ϵ^aR_a^i`$;

$$J_a=x^if_{ij}R_a^j;\overline{J}_a=R_a^if_{ij}\overline{}x^j.$$
(20)
Since $`_{R_a}f_{ij}0`$ these transformations are no-longer a symmetry of the action (for constant $`ϵ^a`$), in fact

$$\delta S=d^2\xi x^i\overline{}x^jϵ^a(_{R_a}f_{ij}),$$
(21)
and the field equations

$$\overline{J}_a+\overline{}J_a_{R_a}f_{ij}x^i\overline{}x^j=0,$$
(22)
no-longer look like Bianchi identities. However, Klimčik and Ševera  introduced the following generalization of the isometry condition for the background

$$_{R_a}f_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}=f_{\widehat{i}\widehat{k}}R_b^{\widehat{k}}\stackrel{~}{f}_a^{bc}R_c^{\widehat{l}}f_{\widehat{l}\widehat{j}},$$
(23)
which turns (22) into

$$\overline{J}_a+\overline{}J_a+J_b\stackrel{~}{f}_a^{bc}\overline{J}_c=0.$$
(24)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{f}_c^{ab}`$ are structure constants in a dual Lie algebra, and Klimčik and Ševera went on to show that the condition (22) can be solved and the dual model found provided that the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ and its dual $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}`$ form what is called a Drinfel’d double  which we now briefly decribe.

Let $`G`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ be symmetry groups of the original $`\sigma `$-model and the dual one, respectively, with $`\text{dim}G=\text{dim}\stackrel{~}{G}`$. The corresponding Lie algebras are $`𝒢`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}`$. Then the Drinfel’d double $`DG\stackrel{~}{G}`$ and comes equipped with an invariant inner product $`,`$ and the corresponding algebra $`𝒟`$ consists of the two subalgebras $`𝒢`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}`$ that are null-spaces w.r.t. this product. We choose two sets of generators $`\{T_a\}`$ and $`\{T^a\}`$ so that $`\{T_a\}`$ span $`𝒢`$ and $`\{T^a\}`$ span $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}`$. The set $`T_A\{T_a,T^b\}`$ then span $`𝒟`$. The Lie algebra of the Drinfel’d double generated by $`T_a`$ and $`T^a`$ $`(a=1,\mathrm{},\text{dimG})`$, is

$`[T_a,T_b]`$ $`=`$ $`f_{ab}^cT_c,`$
$`[T^a,T^b]`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{f}_c^{ab}T^c,`$
$`[T_a,T^b]`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{f}_a^{bc}T_cf_{ac}^bT^c,`$ (25)
where $`f_{ab}^c`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_c^{ab}`$ are the structure constants of $`𝒢`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}`$, respectively, and satisfy the bi-Lie algebra $`(𝒢,\stackrel{~}{𝒢})`$ consistency condition

$$f_{dc}^a\stackrel{~}{f}_a^{rs}=\stackrel{~}{f}_c^{as}f_{da}^r+\stackrel{~}{f}_c^{ra}f_{da}^s\stackrel{~}{f}_d^{as}f_{ca}^r\stackrel{~}{f}_d^{ra}f_{ca}^s.$$
(26)
This condition arises in the PL duality context as the condition $`[_{k_a},_{k_b}]=f_{ab}^c_{k_c}`$ applied to (23). The invariant inner product between the generators has the following properties

$$T_a,T_b=T^a,T^b=0,T_a,T^b=\delta _a^b$$
(27)
and obeys the invariance condition

$$𝒳T^A𝒳^1,T^B=T^A,𝒳^1T^B𝒳,$$
(28)
where $`𝒳`$ is any element of the Drinfel’d double or one of its subgroups.

We define,

$`\mu ^{ab}(g)`$ $`=`$ $`gT^ag^1,T^b;\nu _b^a(g)=gT^ag^1,T_b;`$
$`\alpha _b^a(\stackrel{~}{g})`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{g}T_b\stackrel{~}{g}^1,T^a;\beta _{ab}(\stackrel{~}{g})=\stackrel{~}{g}T_a\stackrel{~}{g}^1,T_b`$ (29)
which obey $`\mu (g^1)=\mu ^t(g)`$, $`\nu (g^1)=\nu ^1(g)`$, $`\alpha (\stackrel{~}{g}^1)=\alpha ^1(\stackrel{~}{g})`$ and $`\beta (\stackrel{~}{g}^1)=\beta ^t(\stackrel{~}{g})`$ where $`t`$ stands for transpose.

We now return to the solution of (23) given by Klimčik and Ševera. With $`f_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}=L_{\widehat{i}}^aE_{ab}L_{\widehat{j}}^b`$ as in (7) the solution is

$$E_{ab}=((E^0)^1+\mathrm{\Pi })_{ab}^1;\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}=\mu ^{ac}\nu _c^b.$$
(30)
Similarly, in the dual theory one has relations corresponding to (23) and (24) and

$$\stackrel{~}{E}^{ab}=[(E^0+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }})^1]^{ab};\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{ab}=\beta _{ac}\alpha _b^c.$$
(31)
The abelian and non-abelian dualities described previously are special cases of the more general PL duality. In the non-abelian case we have $`\mu ^{ab}=0`$, $`\alpha _b^a=\delta _b^a`$ and $`\beta _{ab}=f_{ab}^c\stackrel{~}{x}_c`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{x}_c`$ is the dual non-inert coordinates, so that $`E_{ab}=E_{ab}^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}^{ab}=[(E^0+f^c\stackrel{~}{x}_c)^1]^{ab}`$.

As described above PL duality acts at the classical level. An important step towards the quantum implementation was taken in , where it was shown how PL duality can be derived from a constrained $`WZW`$-model defined on the Drinfel’d double $`D`$, starting from the path-integral

$$𝒵=𝒟l𝒟x\delta [l^1l,T^aE_{ab}^0+x^\alpha F_{\alpha b}^Ll^1l,T_b]e^{I[l,x]},$$
(32)
where

$$I[l,x]=I[l]+d^2\xi [l^1l,T^aF_{a\alpha }^R\overline{}x^\alpha +x^\alpha \widehat{f}_{\alpha \beta }\overline{}x^\beta ],$$
(33)
and $`lD`$. It should be stressed that $`\widehat{f}_{\alpha \beta }`$ is generally not equal to $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ that appears in (18)111In  this is not clear.. The WZW-model $`I[l]`$ on the Drinfel’d double can be written

$$I[l]=d^2\xi l^1l,l^1\overline{}l+d^3yl^1_tl,[l^1l,l^1\overline{}l].$$
(34)
We also note that the path-integral (32) can be obtained from the path-integral

$$𝒵=𝒟l𝒟x𝒟\overline{c}e^{I[l,x,\overline{c}]},$$
(35)
where

$$I[l,x,\overline{c}]=I[l,x]+d^2\xi [l^1l,T^aE_{ab}^0+x^\alpha F_{\alpha b}^Ll^1l,T_b]\overline{c}^b$$
(36)
by integrating out the Lagrange multiplier $`\overline{c}^b`$ (We use (36) in section 6 where we study the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric generalization of non-abelian duality).

The dualization process goes as follows. The original action is recovered when the group element $`l`$ in (32) is decomposed as $`l=\stackrel{~}{h}g`$. This makes the left-invariant Haar measure split into $`𝒟(\stackrel{~}{h}g)=𝒟\stackrel{~}{h}𝒟gdet(\nu ^1)`$, where $`\nu \nu _b^a`$ is defined in eq.(4). By letting $`Tr,`$ in the Polyakov-Wiegmann formula

$$S[g_1g_2]=S[g_1]+S[g_2]+d^2\xi Tr(g_1^1g_1\overline{}g_2g_2^1)$$
(37)
and using the inner product defined in (27) the two first terms of $`I[\stackrel{~}{h}g]`$, namely $`I[\stackrel{~}{h}]`$ and $`I[g]`$, are zero. Integrating out $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ from the remaining part of $`I[\stackrel{~}{h}g]`$ gives back the original action (16). When we decompose $`l`$ as $`l=h\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and integrate out $`h`$ we obtain the dual action.

This procedure gives non-trivial Jacobians that must be regularized in the quantum theory. Using heat kernel regularization, it was shown in  that as a result the dilaton in both the original and the dual theory gets an extra shift. In the original theory the shift is

$$\varphi =\varphi ^0+\mathrm{ln}detE(g,x^\alpha )\mathrm{ln}detE^0(x^\alpha )$$
(38)
while in the dual theory it transforms as

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\varphi ^0+\mathrm{ln}det\stackrel{~}{E}(\stackrel{~}{g},x^\alpha ).$$
(39)
In the non-abelian limit when $`E(g,x^\alpha )=E^0(x^\alpha )`$ we see that we have the usual transformation law between $`\varphi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$, namely

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\varphi +\mathrm{ln}det\stackrel{~}{E}(\stackrel{~}{g},x^\alpha ),$$
(40)
where $`\stackrel{~}{E}^{ab}=[(E^0+f^c\stackrel{~}{x}_c)^1]^{ab}`$.

## 5 $`𝒩=1`$ Supersymmetric Poisson-Lie Duality

In this section we present PL duality in a supersymmetric setting. For $`(1,0)`$ and $`(1,1)`$ supersymmetry this is discussed at the classical level in . The path-integral formulation is new.

The presence of one supersymmetry on the world-sheet introduces additional spinors that transform under the action of the Drinfel’d double but otherwise changes very little. This is similar to the non-abelian duality, where the gauging of isometries needed follow essentially the bosonic pattern for $`𝒩=1`$ . Hence, the presentation of the basics of the Drinfel’d double given above can be taken over to the $`𝒩=1`$ case. However the elements of the Drinfel’d double $`D`$ and its subgroups $`G`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ are now real $`𝒩=1`$ superfields.

The $`𝒩=1`$ generalization of the bosonic action in (2) is222We write the algebra as $`\{D_A,D_B\}=2i_{AB}`$; $`_{AB}=(\gamma ^m)_{AB}_m`$, where $`(\gamma ^m)_A^B=(\sigma ^2,i\sigma ^1)`$. We further define $`(\gamma )_A^B=\sigma ^3`$ and we raise and lower indices using $`C_{AB}=C^{AB}=\sigma ^2`$.

$$S=\frac{1}{4}d^2\sigma d^2\theta \left[G_{ij}(X)D^AX^iD_AX^jB_{ij}(X)D^AX^i(\gamma D)_AX^j\right],$$
(41)
where $`A,B`$ are spinor indices, $`G_{ij}`$ and $`B_{ij}`$ are the metric and the torsion potential, respectively, and $`X^i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},\text{dim}T`$) are real scalar superfields. The $`\theta `$-independent components of $`X^i`$ is $`x^i`$. The $`\theta `$-independent components of $`G_{ij}`$ and $`B_{ij}`$ are $`g_{ij}`$ and $`b_{ij}`$, respectively. For our discussion it is convenient to rewrite the action using the $`\pm `$-notation. Seperating out the spectators $`(X^\alpha )`$ we get

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle }d^2\xi d^2\theta [D_+X^{\widehat{i}}F_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}D_{}X^{\widehat{j}}+D_+X^{\widehat{i}}F_{\widehat{i}\beta }D_{}X^\beta +D_+X^\alpha F_{\alpha \widehat{j}}D_{}X^{\widehat{j}}`$ (42)
$`+D_+X^\alpha F_{\alpha \beta }D_{}X^\beta ],`$
where $`F_{ij}=G_{ij}+B_{ij}`$ and $`i=(\widehat{i},\alpha )`$.

Again we want to study the case when the $`x^{\widehat{i}}`$ transform under some group $`G`$, and thus study the $`\sigma `$-model on some group manifold $``$. The fields are $`𝒩=1`$ real scalar group-valued superfield, $`UG`$, whose $`\theta `$-independent part is $`g`$, and the spectators $`X^\alpha `$ which are $`𝒩=1`$ real superfields. The corresponding action on $``$ may be written

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle }d^2\xi d^2\theta [(U^1D_+U)^aE_{ab}(U^1D_{}U)^b+(U^1D_+U)^aF_{a\beta }^RD_{}X^\beta `$ (43)
$`+D_+X^\alpha F_{\alpha b}^L(U^1D_{}U)^b+D_+X^\alpha F_{\alpha \beta }D_{}X^\beta ].`$
To make contact between (42) and (43) we follow the same route as in the bosonic case. The superfields $`X^{\widehat{i}}`$ in (42) are thus taken to transform under $`G`$ and are related to $`U`$ via left invariant one-form $`U^1D_\pm U=T_aL_{\widehat{i}}^aD_\pm X^{\widehat{i}}`$. Varying the action under

$$\delta X^{\widehat{i}}=ϵ^a(\xi ,\overline{\xi },\theta )R_a^{\widehat{i}}(X^{\widehat{j}},X^\alpha )$$
(44)
gives the field equations

$$D_{(+}J_{a)}\underset{i=(\widehat{i},\alpha )}{}_{R_a}F_{ij}D_+X^iD_{}X^j=0,$$
(45)
where the “currents”

$$J_{a+}=(D_+X^{\widehat{i}}F_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}+D_+X^\alpha F_{\alpha \widehat{j}})R_a^{\widehat{j}};J_a=R_a^{\widehat{i}}(F_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}D_{}X^{\widehat{j}}+F_{\widehat{i}\beta }D_{}X^\beta ),$$
(46)
are Noether currents when $`R_a^{\widehat{i}}`$ generates an isometry. For these currents to satisfy a Maurer-Cartan equation we again introduce a PL condition. The supersymmetric version of the Maurer-Cartan equation (24) is

$$D_{(+}J_{a)}J_{b+}\stackrel{~}{f}_a^{bc}J_c=0,$$
(47)
and the PL condition for the background that ensures that (45) is equivalent to (47) are

$`_{R_a}F_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\widehat{i}\widehat{k}}R_b^{\widehat{k}}\stackrel{~}{f}_a^{bc}R_c^{\widehat{l}}F_{\widehat{l}\widehat{j}};_{R_a}F_{\widehat{i}\beta }=F_{\widehat{i}\widehat{k}}R_b^{\widehat{k}}\stackrel{~}{f}_a^{bc}R_c^{\widehat{l}}F_{\widehat{l}\beta };`$
$`_{R_a}F_{\alpha \widehat{j}}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\alpha \widehat{k}}R_b^{\widehat{k}}\stackrel{~}{f}_a^{bc}R_c^{\widehat{l}}F_{\widehat{l}\widehat{j}};_{R_a}F_{\alpha \beta }=F_{\alpha \widehat{j}}R_b^{\widehat{j}}\stackrel{~}{f}_a^{bc}R_c^{\widehat{l}}F_{\widehat{l}\beta },`$ (48)
which is the supersymmetric version of (23).

Now we want to extend the analysis given in  to $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry. A direct generalization of (32) to $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry is the following constrained $`𝒩=1`$ functional

$$𝒵=𝒟L𝒟X\delta [L^1D_+L,T^aE_{ab}^0+D_+X^\alpha F_{\alpha b}^LL^1D_+L,T_b]\mathrm{exp}(I[L,X]),$$
(49)
where the action

$$I[L,X]=I[L]+id^2\xi d^2\theta \left[L^1D_+L,T^aF_{a\beta }^RD_{}X^\beta +D_+X^\alpha \widehat{F}_{\alpha \beta }D_{}X^\beta \right],$$
(50)
and where $`I[L]`$ is an $`𝒩=1`$ WZW model on the Drinfel’d double. Here $`E_{ab}^0`$, $`F_{\alpha b}^L`$, $`F_{a\beta }^R`$ and $`\widehat{F}_{\alpha \beta }`$ depend on the spectator superfields $`X^\alpha `$.

The element $`LD`$ in (49) can be decomposed near the identity in two ways; $`L=\stackrel{~}{V}U=V\stackrel{~}{U}`$, where $`UG`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}\stackrel{~}{G}`$. To derive the original action we decompose $`L`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{V}U`$. After integrating out $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ via a change of variables we can read off the metric and the torsion potential:

$`F_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}`$ $`=`$ $`L_{\widehat{i}}^aE_{ab}L_{\widehat{j}}^b;`$
$`F_{\widehat{i}\beta }`$ $`=`$ $`L_{\widehat{i}}^aE_{ab}(E_{bc}^0)^1F_{c\beta }^R;`$
$`F_{\alpha \widehat{j}}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\alpha a}^L(E_{ab}^0)^1E_{bc}L_{\widehat{j}}^c;`$
$`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{F}_{\alpha \beta }+F_{\alpha a}^L((E^0)^1E(E^0)^1(E^0)^1)^{ab}F_{b\beta }^R.`$ (51)
The dual theory is found by decomposing $`L`$ as $`V\stackrel{~}{U}`$. When we integrate out $`V`$ again by changing variables we find the background

$`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{L}_a^{\widehat{i}}\stackrel{~}{E}^{ab}\stackrel{~}{L}_b^{\widehat{j}};`$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_\beta ^{\widehat{i}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{L}_a^{\widehat{i}}\stackrel{~}{E}^{ab}F_{b\beta }^R;`$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_\alpha ^{\widehat{j}}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\alpha a}^L\stackrel{~}{E}^{ab}\stackrel{~}{L}_b^{\widehat{j}};`$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{F}_{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha a}^L\stackrel{~}{E}^{ab}F_{b\beta }^R.`$ (52)
The generalized Buscher transformation are

$`\stackrel{~}{E}^1\beta \alpha =(E^1+\mu \nu )^1`$ $`=`$ $`E^0(x^\alpha );`$
$`\stackrel{~}{E}^1\stackrel{~}{}^R=E^0E^1^R`$ $`=`$ $`F^R;`$
$`\stackrel{~}{}^L\stackrel{~}{E}^1=^LE^1E^0`$ $`=`$ $`F^L;`$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}\stackrel{~}{}^L\stackrel{~}{E}^1\stackrel{~}{}^R=F+^L(E^1E^0E^1E^1)^R`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{F},`$ (53)
where $`_{\alpha b}^LF_{\alpha \widehat{j}}L_b^{\widehat{j}}`$, $`_{a\beta }^RL_a^{\widehat{i}}F_{\widehat{i}\beta }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{}_\alpha ^{Lb}\stackrel{~}{F}_\alpha ^{\widehat{j}}\stackrel{~}{L}_{\widehat{j}}^b`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_\beta ^{Ra}\stackrel{~}{L}_{\widehat{i}}^a\stackrel{~}{F}_\beta ^{\widehat{i}}`$. The bosonic version of these generalized Buscher transformation was given in this form in  and, earlier in a different form in . In the abelian case where $`\beta =\mu =0`$ a combination of eq.(5) and (5) gives eq.(3).

We end this section by showing how the $`𝒩=1`$ dilaton superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ transforms under PL duality. Since the transformation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is analogous to the transformation of the bosonic component $`\varphi `$ given in eqs.(38)-(39) we just give the transformation law for the fermionic component

$`\rho _\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\rho _\pm ^0+M_U|\lambda _\pm (M_\alpha |N_\alpha |)\eta _\pm ^\alpha ;`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\rho _\pm ^0+\stackrel{~}{M}_{\stackrel{~}{U}}|\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_\pm +\stackrel{~}{M}_\alpha |\eta _\pm ^\alpha `$ (54)
and the auxiliary field

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`W^0+iM_{UU}|\lambda _{}\lambda _++M_U|Y+iM_{\alpha U}|\eta _[^\alpha \lambda _{+]}`$
$`+i(M_{\alpha \beta }|N_{\alpha \beta }|)\eta _{}^\alpha \eta _+^\beta N_\alpha T^\alpha ;`$
$`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ $`=`$ $`W^0+i\stackrel{~}{M}_{\stackrel{~}{U}\stackrel{~}{U}}|\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_++i\stackrel{~}{M}_{\alpha \stackrel{~}{U}}|\eta _[^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{+]}+i\stackrel{~}{M}_{\alpha \beta }|\eta _{}^\alpha \eta _+^\beta `$ (55)
$`+\stackrel{~}{M}_{\stackrel{~}{U}}|\stackrel{~}{Y}+\stackrel{~}{M}_\alpha |T^\alpha .`$
Here we have defined $`M(U,X^\alpha )=\mathrm{ln}detE(U,X^\alpha )`$, $`N(X^\alpha )=\mathrm{ln}detE^0(X^\alpha )`$ and $`M_U`$ means the derivative of $`M`$ w.r.t. $`U`$ and $`N_\alpha `$ means the derivative of $`N`$ w.r.t. the spectator field $`X^\alpha `$ and $`|`$ means “the $`\theta `$-independent component of”. The component fields are defined as follows: $`\lambda _\pm =D_\pm U|`$, $`Y=D^2U|`$, $`\rho _\pm =D_\pm \mathrm{\Phi }|`$, $`W=D^2\mathrm{\Phi }|`$, $`\eta _\pm ^\alpha =D_\pm X^\alpha |`$ and $`T^\alpha =D^2X^\alpha |`$. The dual components are defined similarly.

## 6 $`𝒩=1`$ non-abelian duality

In this section we give an explicit representation of the generators of the Drinfel’d double relevant for non-abelian duality. We also discuss non-abelian duality for $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric models in the PL path-integral setting, extending the bosonic analysis .

In the PL setting non-abelian duality corresponds to the dual group $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ being abelian . Correspondingly we choose a Drinfel’d double $`GU(1)^{dimG}`$, where $`\{T_a\}`$ span $`𝒢`$ and $`\{T^a\}`$ span $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}=_1^{dimG}u(1)`$; $`(a=1,\mathrm{},\text{dimG})`$ and the two sets of generators satisfy the algebra (ref. eq.4)

$$[T_a,T_b]=f_{ab}^cT_c;[T^a,T^b]=0;[T_a,T^b]=f_{ac}^bT^c.$$
(56)
An explicit representation of the set $`\{T_a,T^a\}`$ is

$$T_a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}t_a& 0\\ 0& t_a\end{array}\right),T^a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{1}{\lambda }t_a\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(57)
where $`t_a𝒢`$ satisfy the algebra $`[t_a,t_b]=f_{ab}^ct_c`$ and $`Tr(t_at_b)=\lambda \delta _{ab}`$. Consistency requires that the structure constants are completely antisymmetric. Thus this representation is possible only when the group $`G`$ is compact.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be two $`2\times 2`$ block matrices where each block is a $`r\times r`$ matrix. We define the inner product (27) as

$$X,Y=Tr[XY]_{12},$$
(58)
where $`[]_{12}`$ stands for the one-two block of the product $`XY`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{f}_c^{ab}=0`$, the bi-Lie algebra consistency condition (26) is trivial fulfilled.

Writing the group element of $`G`$ as $`\mathrm{exp}(X^aT_a)`$ (and a similar parametrization of the dual group elements), we find

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}u& 0\\ 0& u\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{U}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}& \frac{1}{\lambda }\stackrel{~}{X}_at_a\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right),$$
(59)
where $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the $`r\times r`$ identity matrix and $`u=\mathrm{exp}(X^at_a)G`$. Moreover we find

$`\mu ^{ab}(U)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^{ab}(U^1)=0;\nu _b^a(U)=\nu _a^b(U^1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}Tr(ut_au^1t_b);`$
$`\alpha _a^b(\stackrel{~}{U})`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _a^b(\stackrel{~}{U}^1)=\delta _{ab};\beta _{ab}(\stackrel{~}{U})=\beta _{ab}(\stackrel{~}{U}^1)=\stackrel{~}{X}_cf_{ca}^b=f_{ab}^c\stackrel{~}{X}_c`$ (60)
From these relations it is easy to find the backgrounds

$`E_{ab}(u)=E_{ab}^0;\stackrel{~}{E}^{ab}(\stackrel{~}{u})=[(E^0+f^c\stackrel{~}{X}_c)^1]^{ab},`$ (61)
where $`f^c\stackrel{~}{X}_cf_{ab}^c\stackrel{~}{X}_c`$. The $`𝒩=1`$ non-abelian Buscher transformation can be found from eq.(5) by setting $`E=E^0`$, $`\mu =0`$ and $`\alpha =\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

We now turn to a comparison to the usual non-abelian duality formulation. A $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric generalizing of (36), (for simplicity we will set the spectators to zero in this section) is

$$I[L,C_{}]=I[L]+id^2\xi d^2\theta \left[L^1D_+L,T^aE_{ab}^0L^1D_+L,T_b\right]C_{}^b,$$
(62)
where $`C_{}^b`$ is a Lagrange multiplier. From (62) we may recover the $`𝒩=1`$ formulation of the traditional non-abelian duality in the form it has after gauge-fixing the coordinates on $`G`$ to zero. Decomposing $`L=V\stackrel{~}{U}D`$, $`VG`$, $`\stackrel{~}{U}\stackrel{~}{G}`$, the action becomes

$$I[A_+,\stackrel{~}{J}_\pm ,\stackrel{~}{X},C_{}]=id^2\xi d^2\theta [A_+^a(\alpha ^1)_a^b\stackrel{~}{J}_b+(A_+^a(\alpha ^1)_a^cE_{cb}^0A_+^a\beta _{ab}^t\stackrel{~}{J}_{+b})C_{}^b],$$
(63)
where $`A_+V^1D_+V`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}_\pm \stackrel{~}{U}^1D_\pm \stackrel{~}{U}`$. After using eq.(6), and using the abelian current $`\stackrel{~}{J}_{\pm a}=D_\pm \stackrel{~}{X}_a`$, the action (63) may be written

$`I[A_+,C_{},\stackrel{~}{X}_a]=i{\displaystyle d^2\xi d^2\theta [(A_+^a)D_{}\stackrel{~}{X}_a(D_+\stackrel{~}{X}_a)C_{}^a+A_+^a(E_{ab}^0+f_{ab}^c\stackrel{~}{X}_c)C_{}^b]}.`$ (64)
This is the first order action (up to a total derivative) one usually starts with to obtain the dual model in the $`𝒩=1`$ non-abelian duality. The action (64) needs some comments. First of all the components of the gauge field are $`A_+^a`$ and $`C_{}^a`$, where $`C_{}^a`$ as we remember was from the beginning a Lagrange multiplier. The “new” Lagrange multiplier is $`\stackrel{~}{X}_a`$ . Note that in the abelian limit the terms involving the Lagrange multiplier

$$id^2\xi d^2\theta [(A_+^a)D_{}\stackrel{~}{X}_a(D_+\stackrel{~}{X}_a)C_{}^a]=id^2\xi d^2\theta \stackrel{~}{X}_aF^a+\text{surface term},$$
(65)
where $`F^a=D_{}A_+^a+D_+C_{}^a`$. This is exactly the correct term one needs to be sure to get back the original action when the Lagrange multiplier is integrated out .

After a partial integration and variation of $`I`$ w.r.t. $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$, we get the zero “field strength” condition

$$D_{}A_+^a+D_+C_{}^a+A_+^bf_{bc}^aC_{}^c=0.$$
(66)
This is the condition that may be solved to give back the original model.

## 7 Discussion

In this paper we have presented a path integral formulation of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric PL duality. We have shown that it arises as a straightforward generalization of the treatment of the bosonic case. In this context we have also given an explicit representation of the generators of the Drinfel’d double bi-algebra corresponding to the group $`G\times U(1)^{dimG}`$ relevant for non-abelian dualization, and used it to elucidate the relation between the actions describing PL duality and the parent action in non-abelian $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric duality.

With applications to the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric case in mind, we have also touched upon WZW models. In particular, in Appendix B we show how the treatment of the WZW model in  yields a formulation open also to PL duality.

The $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric case presents considerable difficulty, however. This is due to the severe constraints on the target manifold that such $`\sigma `$-models imply . Our best approach so far to this problem is via an $`𝒩=1`$ superspace formulation where we may make use of the results in the present paper. Several questions such as the transformations of the complex and direct product structures under PL duality remain open however, and we have not found a complete characterization of the duality as yet. We hope to return to the question in a later publication.

The question of whether a PL type duality can be based on the extended currents that result when the Lie derivative of the background antisymmetric tensor field $`b`$ satisfies $`b=d\omega `$ may seem natural at a first encounter with PL duality. In Appendix A we discussed this question a little and found that under certain very special circumstances this can indeed be done. The answer is still essentially negative, though, high-lighting the special status of PL duality.

Acknowledgments

We thank Rikard von Unge for discussions. UL gratefully acknowledges the hospitality of Oslo University, support by NFR/grant 650-1998368 and EU contract HPRN-CT-2000-0122.

## Appendix A A Modified Current and Poisson-Lie
Duality

In this appendix we discuss some aspects of PL duality with modified currents.

Instead of isometries $`k_a`$ that also preserve the $`b`$ field $`_{k_a}b_{ij}=0`$, we here turn to the case discussed in section 2: isometries that satisfy $`_{k_a}b_{ij}=_{[i}\omega _{j]a}`$, (12). The question we address is whether it is possible to find a Maurer-Cartan equation as in (24), but for currents corresponding to (14) rather than (20).

We first note the following way of writing the Lie derivative of the $`b`$ field:

$$_{k_a}b_{ij}=k_a^kH_{ijk}_{[i}(k_a^kb_{j]k}).$$
(67)
This shows that when $`k_a`$ represent an invariance of the action and thus $`k_a^kH_{ijk}=_{[i}v_{j]a}`$ (see below (13)), we may set

$$\omega _{ia}=v_{ia}k_a^kb_{ik},$$
(68)
This ensures integrability, i.e., $`[_{k_a},_{k_b}]b_{ij}=f_{ab}^c_{k_c}b_{ij}`$.

We now turn to the general case and replace $`k_a^iR_a^i`$ as before. With this replacement (67) is still valid, but the action is no-longer taken to be invariant. We further assume that the $`b`$-field may be split according to

$$b_{ij}=\widehat{b}_{ij}+b_{ij}^0,$$
(69)
where $`_{R_a}b_{ij}^0=_{[i}\omega _{j]a}^0`$, i.e., where the field strength $`H_{ijk}^0`$ of $`b_{ij}^0`$ is preserved by $`R_a^i`$.

The field equations (22) that result from the action (21) may then be rewritten as

$$\widehat{\overline{J}}_a+\overline{}\widehat{J}_a_{R_a}\widehat{f}_{ij}x^i\overline{}x^j=0,$$
(70)
with the currents as in (14),

$$\widehat{J}_a=x^i(f_{ij}R_a^j+\omega _{ia}^0);\widehat{\overline{J}}_a=(R_a^if_{ij}\omega _{ja}^0)\overline{}x^j,$$
(71)
and

$$\widehat{f}_{ij}=f_{ij}b_{ij}^0.$$
(72)
In the general case we have found no modification of the PL condition satisfying the integrability conditions, which can turn the equation (70) into a Maurer-Cartan equation. Below we remark on a few special cases.

The first (trivial) case we consider is when $`\omega _{ia}^0=0`$. The currents are then unmodified $`\widehat{J}_a=J_a`$ and the PL condition is also unmodified

$$_{R_a}\widehat{f}_{ij}=_{R_a}f_{ij}=f_{ik}R_b^k\stackrel{~}{f}_a^{bc}R_c^lf_{lj}.$$
(73)
PL duality thus allows for a part of the $`b`$-field to be preserved by the Lie-derivative.

Second, we assume that $`v_{ia}^0`$ in (68) may be gauged to zero using the $`b`$ gauge transformations (cf comment below (12)). This means that $`\omega _{ia}^0=R_a^kb_{ki}^0`$ and this eliminates all dependence on $`b_{ij}^0`$ in $`\widehat{J}`$,$`\widehat{\overline{J}}`$ and in $`\widehat{f}`$. If we then modify the PL condition to read

$$_{R_a}\widehat{f}_{ij}=\widehat{f}_{ik}R_b^k\stackrel{~}{f}_a^{bc}R_c^l\widehat{f}_{lj},$$
(74)
we find the Maurer-Cartan equations for the hatted currents:

$$\widehat{\overline{J}}_a+\overline{}\widehat{J}_a+\widehat{J}_b\stackrel{~}{f}_a^{bc}\widehat{\overline{J}}_c=0.$$
(75)
(Integrability of (74) is ensured as before when $`𝒢`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}`$ form a bi-Lie-algebra as in (26)). We see that we may indeed use the currents $`\widehat{J}`$ and $`\widehat{\overline{J}}`$ as a starting point for PL dualization in this case.

Finally we consider the case when $`v_{ia}^0=R_a^kg_{ik}`$ in (68). When $`R_a`$ generate isometries and this relation holds for the whole $`b`$-field, the symmetry algebra is an infinite dimensional Kac-Moody algebra  and the currents reduce to one chiral current . This latter fact results even if we do not assume isometries, since $`\omega _{ia}^0=R_a^kf_{ki}^0`$ which gives

$$\widehat{J}_a=x^i\left(2g_{ij}+(bb^0)_{ij}\right)R_a^j,\widehat{\overline{J}}_a=(bb^0)_{ij}R_a^j\overline{}x^i.$$
(76)
Clearly $`J_a=2g_{ij}x^iR_a^j`$ and $`\overline{J}_a`$ vanishes when $`b_{ij}=b_{ij}^0`$. In this case the PL condition applied to $`f_{ij}`$ will lead to a PL dual model (expressed in $`J,\overline{J}`$, whereas $`\widehat{f}_{ij}=g_{ij}`$ implies that the modified condition (74) vanishes (thus it only holds if we do have an isometry).

## Appendix B A comment on WZW-models and Poisson-Lie Duality

The WZW model on $`G`$ given in eq.(8) is not on the form used as starting point in the PL dualization scheme, because it is not on the form (4). It follows from (7) that

$$b_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}L_{[i}^aE_{ab}L_{j]}^b.$$
(77)
Hence writing (8) in the form (4), given (10), requires the relation

$$_{[i}(L_j^aE_{ab}L_{k]}^b)=\frac{1}{2}f_{abc}L_i^aL_j^bL_k^c,$$
(78)
to be satisfied. This leads to difficulties, at least for PL formulation of non-abelian duality (without spectators) where the $`E_{ab}`$’s must be constants.

In  when discussing non-abelian duality the following treatment of the WZW-model was given. Here we show how to adopt it for PL duality. Consider the $`WZW`$-model on $`G\times G`$. The action is written

$$S_{G_k\times G_k}[g_1,g_2]=S_{G_k}[g_1]+S_{G_k}[g_2],$$
(79)
where $`S_{G_k}[g]=(k/2\pi )S[g]`$; here $`S[g]`$ is defined in eq.(8). Next we define two new variables

$$gg_1;xg_2g_1.$$
(80)
The element $`x`$ is inert under the (gauge) transformation $`g_1u^1g_1`$, $`g_2g_2u`$. Using the Polyakov-Wiegmann formula

$$S_{G_k}[g_1g_2]=S_{G_k}[g_1]+S_{G_k}[g_2]+\frac{k}{2\pi }d^2\xi Tr(g_1^1g_1\overline{}g_2g_2^1)$$
(81)
and that the $`WZW`$ term satisfies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[g^1]=\mathrm{\Gamma }[g]`$ we rewrite the action $`S_{G_k\times G_k}`$ as

$$S_{G_k\times G_k}[g,x]=\frac{k}{2\pi }d^2\xi Tr(g^1gg^1\overline{}gx^1xg^1\overline{}g)+S_{G_k}[x],$$
(82)
where $`S_{G_k}[x]`$ is an ordinary $`\sigma `$-model on a manifold with background $`f_{\alpha \beta }(x)`$. The action (82) can be compared with the original action found by integrating out the Lagrange multipliers $`\lambda _a`$ of the action (18). Remembering the correspondence $`x^1x=t_aL_\alpha ^ax^\alpha `$ we see that $`E_{ab}L_a^{\widehat{i}}f_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}L_b^{\widehat{j}}=\frac{k}{2\pi }Tr(t_at_b)`$, $`F_{\alpha b}^L=\frac{k}{2\pi }L_\alpha ^aTr(t_at_b)`$, $`F_{a\beta }^R=0`$.


text:
# The quantum absolute phase observable

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank J. Bekenstein for his guidance and support. This research was supported by grant No. 129/00-1 of the Israel Science Foundation, and by a Clore Foundation fellowship.