text:
# 1/r - POTENTIAL WITHOUT CHARGE

## 1 Introduction

More than 40 years ago, Archibald Wheeler has realized ,  that non-trivial electric fields can be generated, whose field lines do not end in electric charges. Instead some domain of the space is cut out, in which the charge would be expected. To this ”hole”, a channel (”wormhole”) is attached, through which the field lines pass to some other place such that the divergence of the field lines vanishes. So no charges are needed - they are replaced by special topological structures.

For the realization of this idea, one starts from the Reißner-Nordstrøm solution ,  to Einstein’s equations. It contains an electric field proportional to $`1/r^2`$. Visser has cut out the regions $`r<ϵ`$ from two Reißner-Nordstrøm space-times, and has glued together the remaining parts along the subspaces $`r=ϵ`$ , . He wanted to obtain a ”transversable” wormhole. Therefore he has chosen $`ϵ`$ larger than the outer horizon $`r_+`$. But this causes some problems:

The geodesics passing through the subspace $`r=ϵ`$ are not $`C^2`$. (Trivially, they can be made continuously differentiable everywhere.) This means that freely falling particles get a $`\delta `$-like kick at $`r=ϵ`$. Second, the Ricci tensor contains a singularity proportional to $`\delta (rϵ)`$. Therefore the energy-momentum tensor $`T`$ has surface terms. They violate the ”average null energy condition”

(1) $`g_{ij}\dot{\gamma }^i(\tau )\dot{\gamma }^j(\tau )=0{\displaystyle T_{ij}\dot{\gamma }^i(\tau )\dot{\gamma }^j(\tau )𝑑\tau }0`$
$`\tau \text{: generalized affine parameter}`$
,  for some curves $`\tau \gamma (\tau )`$, i.e. the surface matter is ”exotic”. This is true for all spherically symmetric transversable wormholes, whatever the specific assumptions are. A good survey of the literature on this subject is given in .

In the present work, we want to develop a model for the topological generation of charge via wormholes. This is done for the specific example of electric charge, but, of course, the idea applies to all kinds of charge. For this purpose, it is not necessary to have transversable wormholes: We do not need information from the ”other part of the world”. In addition, we can not even expect to get transversable wormholes, because in the Reißner-Nordstrøm solution with $`M^2>Q^2`$, the mass and charge are hidden by two horizons. So it would be very surprising, if one could avoid all horizons by introducing wormholes and leave the rest of physics unchanged.

The most natural way to reach our goal is to identify singularities $`r=0`$ in the maximal analytic extension of the Reißner-Nordstrøm solution. Then in the case $`M^2>Q^2`$, no changes of space-time outside the horizons are needed. By this identification, the topology becomes non-trivial - a fact which is to be expected: Einstein´s equations determine only the local geometry, but in most cases give little information about the global structure of space-time. It has to be determined by other requirements.

In order that this identification makes sense, one needs a precise definition of singularities. This is still an open problem. But here, we are not interested in the most general situation. Instead, one can start from the maximal analytical extention and use some theory defining the necessary geometric quantities in the singularity. The details of such a theory are irrelevant in this connection, because all functions are uniquely determined by their behaviour near the singularity. In the present work, the Reißner-Nordstrøm solution together with its singularities is considered as a d-space , . They are almost identical to the differential spaces of  and . For the discussion of differential equations on these spaces, the results of  are used. But as remarked above, most other generalizations of differential manifolds will lead to the same results. This is true in particular for the differential spaces described in  and .

In addition, gluing of two Reißner-Nordstrøm solutions at some $`r=ϵ>0`$ will be discussed. Here, exotic surface matter appears. But the energy of the electromagnetic field rises as $`1/r`$, whereas the contribution of the surface matter tends to zero for $`ϵ0`$. Therefore, by an appropriate choice of $`ϵ`$, the ratio of the surface energy to the electric energy can be made arbitrarily small.

Gluing at $`r=0`$ has the advantage that all geodesics are everywhere $`C^3`$. On the other hand, gluing at some $`ϵ>0`$ avoids the singularities in the metric and the electric field, but entails surface matter.

## 2 The global structure of the Reißner-Nordstrøm solution

The Reißner-Nordstrøm solution ,  to Einstein’s equations

$$R_{ik}\frac{1}{2}Rg_{ik}=\frac{8\pi G}{c^2}T_{ik}G\text{: Newton’s gravitational constant}$$

describes a static spherically symmetric object with electric and magnetic fields. It is given by the metric

(2)
$$ds^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{r^2}dt^2\frac{r^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$

with the abbreviations

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=r^22Mr+Q^2$$

and

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\vartheta ^2+sin^2\vartheta d\phi ^2.$$

Here $`M`$ and $`Q`$ are constants determined by the mass $`m`$, the electric charge $`q`$ and the magnetic charge $`q_m`$, respectively, of the object:

$$M=\frac{2Gm}{c^2};Q^2=\frac{G}{4\pi ϵ_0c^4}(q^2+q_m^2)$$

So the Reißner-Nordstrøm solution may contain also a magnetic monopole. But in the following, we will set $`q_m=0`$, unless the contrary is stated explicitely.

We shall restrict ourselves to the case $`M^2>Q^2`$. For elementary particles, this condition is violated by many orders of magnitude. On the other hand, all ”elementary” objects, i.e. quarks and leptons, have spin. Therefore the Reißner-Nordstrøm solution does not apply to them, no matter, wether $`M^2>Q^2`$ or $`M^2<Q^2`$.

The construction of the maximal analytic extention starts from the three regions

$`A`$ $`:`$ $`0<r<r_{}`$
$`B`$ $`:`$ $`r_{}<r<r_+`$
$`C`$ $`:`$ $`r_+<r<\mathrm{}.`$
Here $`r_+`$ and $`r_{}`$ are the zeros of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$:

(3) $`r_+`$ $`:=`$ $`M+\sqrt{M^2Q^2}`$
(4) $`r_{}`$ $`:=`$ $`M\sqrt{M^2Q^2}.`$
It is convenient to introduce new coordinates $`u`$, $`v`$ by

(5) $`A\text{ and }C:`$ $`u`$ $`:=tr_{};v:=t+r_{}`$
(6) $`B:`$ $`u`$ $`:=t+r_{};v:=r_{}t,`$
with the abbreviation

(7)
$$r_{}:=\frac{r^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}𝑑r=r+\frac{r_+^2}{r_+r_{}}lnrr_+\frac{r_{}^2}{r_+r_{}}lnrr_{}$$

Next, one constructs the new regions $`A^{},B^{}`$ and $`C^{}`$ from $`A,B`$ and $`C`$, respectively, by replacing $`uu;vv`$ in (5) and (6). These six regions are composed to a periodic ”ladder” according to fig. 1 (see, e.g. , ). The transformations

$`A_n:U`$ $`:=`$ $`arctg(e^{\alpha u})+(n+1)\pi `$
$`V`$ $`:=`$ $`arctg(e^{\alpha v})+n\pi `$
$`B_n:U`$ $`:=`$ $`arctg(e^{\alpha u})+n\pi `$
$`V`$ $`:=`$ $`arctg(e^{\alpha v})+n\pi `$
$`C_n:U`$ $`:=`$ $`arctg(e^{\alpha u})+n\pi `$
$`V`$ $`:=`$ $`arctg(e^{\alpha v})+n\pi `$
(8) $`A_n^{}:U`$ $`:=`$ $`arctg(e^{\alpha u})+(n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\pi `$
$`V`$ $`:=`$ $`arctg(e^{\alpha v})+(n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\pi `$
$`B_n^{}:U`$ $`:=`$ $`arctg(e^{\alpha u})+(n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\pi `$
$`V`$ $`:=`$ $`arctg(e^{\alpha v})+(n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\pi `$
$`C_n^{}:U`$ $`:=`$ $`arctg(e^{\alpha u})+(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\pi `$
$`V`$ $`:=`$ $`arctg(e^{\alpha v})+(n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\pi `$
$`\alpha :=(r_+`$ $``$ $`r_{})/(2r_+^2)`$
define global parameters $`(U,V,\vartheta ,\phi )`$. Here $`U+V`$ may be interpreted as ”time”, and $`UV`$ as ”radius”. With these coordinates, the line element (2) becomes:

(9)
$$ds^2=\frac{4}{\alpha ^2r^2}\frac{rr_+rr_{}}{sin(2U)sin(2V)}dUdVr^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$

It can be seen from fig.1 that this maximal analytic extension is not geodesically complete, because all radial spacelike and lightlike geodesics end in the singularities. This suggests to identify the singularities in $`A_n`$ with those in $`A_m^{}`$ for suitable pairs $`m,n`$. But, of course, the metric (9) and its derivatives are not defined in $`r=0`$. So it is not possible to apply here the usual rules ,  for gluing spaces in General Relativity, i.e. to require that the metric (9) is at least $`C^2`$ in the tangential directions and $`C^1`$ in the normal direction. Instead, one consideres the geodesics passing through the singularities. By definition, they need to be $`C^2`$-functions of their parameters. And in order to define ”geodesic” coordinates, it is necessary  that their limits for $`r0`$ are at least $`C^3`$ in $`A_nA_m^{}`$. But in general it is not possible to work with affine parameters, as the metric is singular at $`r=0`$.

The first step is to generalize differential manifolds in such a way that the singularities can be included. For this, the d-spaces of ,  will be used, which have been very useful in the discussion of Schwarzschild´s metric, the radiation filled Friedmann universe and some more exotic space-times , . The basic idea is to replace the coordinate functions in the definition of differential manifolds by a more general set $`C`$ of functions. In particular, no compatibility conditions between different charts are needed. The only requirement is that one can add, substract and multiply the functions in $`C`$. This leads to the following definition:

Let $`M`$ be a topological space. The pair $`(M,C)`$ is called d-space, if $`C`$ is a sheaf of continuous real-valued functions on $`M`$ which form an algebra w.r.t. pointwise operation.

For these d-spaces, it is simple to construct the tangent vectors as ”directional derivatives”:

Let $`(M,C)`$ be a d-space and $`C_x`$ the stalk at $`xM`$. A map

$$V:C_xIR$$

is called tangent vector to $`(M,C)`$ in $`x`$, if for all $`nIN`$, all $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_nC_x`$, and all germs $`\alpha `$ of $`C^1(IR^n,IR)`$ at $`y:=(f_1(x),\mathrm{},f_n(x))IR^n`$, the equation

$$V\left(\alpha (f_1(x),\mathrm{},f_n(x))\right)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(_i\alpha )V(f_i)$$

holds, provided $`\alpha (f_1,\mathrm{},f_n)𝒞_x`$. Here $`_i\alpha `$ denotes the partial derivative of $`\alpha `$ w.r.t. the $`i`$-th argument.

For the construction of geodesics, it is necessary to have some theory of differential equations. In general, such a theory does not exist. But in the case under discussion, the regular points are dense in the d-space. Here the results of  guarantee existence and uniqueness of the solutions.

In such a theory it is possible to glue the singular points in $`A_n`$ to those in $`A_m^{}`$. It is natural to require $`m=n+1`$ and to identify points with equal ”local times” $`t`$ or with equal ”global times” $`U+V`$. We choose the latter possibility: If the points $`(r=0,t)A_n`$ are identified with the points $`(r=0,t)A_{n+1}^{}`$, there exist causal geodesics, which come arbitrarily close to themselves. To see this, regard the lines in fig.1 with $`U=n+\pi /2`$ or $`V=n+\pi /2`$. A lightlike geodesic just below such a line would be continued to a geodesic just above that line.

Gluing points with $`r=0`$ and equal values of $`U+V`$ entails a time reflexion, i.e. an identification of the points $`(r=0,t)`$ in $`A_n`$ with the points $`(r=0,t)`$ in $`A_{n+1}`$.

## 3 The geodesics in $`r=0`$

The geodesics are most easily computed in the local coordinates $`(r,\vartheta ,\phi ,t)`$. The method is similar to that used for Schwarzschild’s solution: Because of spherical symmetry, it is possible to put $`\vartheta =\pi /2=const`$. In this way, the equations are considerably simplified, and the first integrals are easily obtained. The results for spacelike geodesics are :

(10) $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi }{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{r^2}}`$
(11) $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`E{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$
(12) $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dr}{d\tau }}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`E^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{r^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{r^2}}\right).`$
$`E`$ and $`L`$ are constants of integration. It can be seen from (12) that spacelike geodesics in $`A_n`$ and in $`A_m^{}`$ reach the value $`r=0`$, if and only if $`L=0`$ (radial geodesics). In the limit $`r0`$, equations (10) - (12) yield for $`L=0`$

(13)
$$\frac{d}{d\tau }(r(\tau ),\vartheta (\tau ),\phi (\tau ),t(\tau ))(\pm \frac{Q}{r},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},E\frac{r^2}{Q^2})$$

or

(14)
$$(r(\tau ),\vartheta (\tau ),\phi (\tau ),t(\tau ))(\pm \sqrt{2Q\tau },\frac{\pi }{2},\phi _0,sign(\tau )\frac{E}{|Q|}\tau ^2+t_0).$$

These equations show that the radial spacelike geodesics can be continued through the singularities such that they are (at least) $`C^3`$ in the sense of d-spaces. This includes the fact that they are three times continuously differentiable on $`A_nA_{n+1}^{}\{(r=0,t)|tIR\}`$. But this is only true, if suitable curve parameters $`\sigma `$ (not the arc length $`\tau `$, but e.g. $`\sigma :=\tau /r`$) and appropriate constants of integration are chosen (positive sign in (14) and positive (resp. negative) sign in (13) for $`Q\tau >0`$ (resp. $`<0`$); $`E`$ and $`t_0`$ change their sign in $`\tau =0`$.) Notice that in $`\sigma =0`$ both, $`dr/d\sigma `$ and $`t(\sigma )`$ have to change sign. Otherwise the geodesics are not $`C^3`$. A general discussion of the gluing conditions can be found in the review paper .

Of course, the arc length $`\tau `$ is not a good parameter near $`r=0`$, because the metric is singular and $`\tau `$ is not well defined. If the tangent points in $`r`$-direction, i.e. if $`E=0`$, equation (12) yields:

(15)
$$\frac{dr}{d\tau }=\pm \sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{r^2}}$$

with the solution (remember that $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ holds in $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$):

$$\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}+Mln\left(Mr\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)=\pm \tau +\tau _0.$$

Here $`\tau _0`$ is a constant of integration. This implicit equation for $`r(\tau )`$ shows that the r-lines are geodesics which can be continued through the singularities.

In addition to the spacelike geodesics, also the radial lightlike geodesics reach the singulatity. Their equations can be derived as in the spacelike case . With an affine parameter $`\tau `$ they read:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm E`$
(16) $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Er^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\vartheta }{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi }{d\tau }}=0.`$
This yields

$$\frac{dr}{dt}=\pm \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{r^2}$$

with the solution

$$t=\pm r_{}+konst$$

(cf.(7)). It is convenient to choose the parameter $`\tau `$ such that $`r(0)=0`$ holds. If in addition the constant $`E`$ changes sign in $`r=0`$, then these geodesics are of class $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`r=0`$ (in the local coordinates $`U`$ and $`V`$ modulo $`\pi /2`$; cf. (8) and ).

## 4 The charge in the Reißner - Nordstrøm solution

The electromagnetic field tensor of the Reißner-Nordstrøm solution is :

(17)
$$F=\frac{1}{4\pi ϵ_0}\left(\frac{q}{r^2}\frac{}{t}\frac{}{r}+\frac{q_m}{r^4sin\vartheta }\frac{}{\vartheta }\frac{}{\phi }\right)$$

From this, the components $`j^i`$ of the four current can be computed:

(18)
$$j^i=F_{;k}^{ik}.$$

Here the semicolon denotes the covariant derivative. For $`r>0`$, it follows immediately from (20) below, that the components $`j^1`$ and $`j^2`$ vanish. The other components are:

$$j^3=\frac{1}{4\pi ϵ_0}\left[\frac{d}{d\vartheta }\left(\frac{q_m}{r^4sin\vartheta }\right)+\frac{q_m}{r^4sin\vartheta }cot\vartheta \right]=0$$

and

$$j^4=\frac{q}{4\pi ϵ_0}\left(\frac{2}{r^3}\frac{2}{r^3}\right)=0.$$

At $`r=0`$, equation (18) can not be used, as $`F`$ diverges. But it is possible to compute the exterior derivative by Gauß’s theorem. This means to discuss the electric field lines near $`r=0`$. In our coordinates, these are the $`r`$-lines. It has been shown in the last section that they pass through the singularities. Therefore the divergence of the electric field vanishes: After gluing the space-time, the $`ϵ`$-neighbourhood $`V`$ of the points $`r=0`$ consists of two balls with center at $`r=0`$: One in $`A_n`$, and one in $`A_{n+1}^{}`$. Consider

(19) $`{\displaystyle \underset{V}{}}J`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{V}{}}𝑑F^{}={\displaystyle \underset{V}{}}d(ϵ_{ijkl}F^{kl}dx^idx^j)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{V}{}}ϵ_{ijkl}F^{kl}𝑑x^idx^j`$
with $`q_m=0`$. Then only the components $`(k,l)=(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4})`$ contribute. As the field lines crossing the sphere in $`A_n`$ pass it from outside to inside, while they pass the sphere in $`A_{n+1}^{}`$ in the opposite direction, the total surface integral over $`V`$ vanishes. This is even true, if $`q_m0`$: The term $`F^{23}`$ in (19) is present only in integrals in $`x^1`$\- and $`x^4`$-direction. But in the $`x^1`$-integration, the contribution from $`A_n`$ cancels that from $`A_{n+1}^{}`$. So also this integral vanishes, and we finally get:

$$\underset{V}{}J=0.$$

## 5 Energy and momentum

In this section, we glue the space-time not in the singularity $`r=0`$, but at finite values of $`r`$. For this, we choose some $`ϵ`$ satisfying $`0<ϵ<r_{}`$ (see (4)) and delete all points with $`r<ϵ`$. Then we identify the points $`(r=ϵ,t)`$ in $`A_n`$ with the points $`(r=ϵ,t)`$ in $`A_{n+1}^{}`$ in a similar way as we did before. The stability of such surfaces $`r=ϵ`$ between two parts of Reißner - Nordstrøm space-times has been discussed by Visser , .

The $`r`$-lines are geodesics perpendicular to the boundary $`r=ϵ`$. If one follows such a line, the $`r`$-values first decrease, until the boundary $`r=ϵ`$ is reached. Then they increase again. But, of course, at the boundary $`dr/d\tau 0`$ (cf. (15)). Therefore the derivatives of the metric in the direction of $`\tau `$ are discontinuous and the Einstein tensor gets additional terms proportional to $`\delta (rϵ)`$ , . The existence of such terms can also be seen from a simple consideration: If they would be absent, the radial lightlike geodesics would go on to the singularity $`r=0`$. But at $`r=ϵ`$, they have to change their direction towards increasing $`r`$-values. Therefore some interaction is needed which forces them to do this.

In the coordinates $`(r,\vartheta ,\phi ,t)`$, the only non-vanishing Christoffel symbols are:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{2M}{r^2}+\frac{2Q^2}{r^3}}{1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{22}^1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r^2}}\right)r`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{33}^1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r^2}}\right)rsin^2\vartheta `$
(20) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{44}^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2Q^2}{r^3}}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{33}^2`$ $`=`$ $`sin\vartheta cos\vartheta `$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}^3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{31}^3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{32}^3=cot\vartheta `$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{14}^4`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{41}^4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{2M}{r^2}+\frac{2Q^2}{r^3}}{1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}}}`$
The normal to the boundary, pointing away from the region $`A`$ resp. $`A^{}`$ has the components

(21)
$$(n_i)=(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}M/ϵ+Q^2/ϵ^2}},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0});n^in_i=1.$$

The second fundamental form $`K`$ of the boundary is defined by

$$K_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\left((_in)_j+(_jn)_i\right);i,j=2,3,4.$$

Together with (20), this yields in the limit $`rϵ;r<ϵ`$:

$`K_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\sqrt{1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}M/ϵ+Q^2/ϵ^2}`$
(22) $`K_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵsin^2\vartheta \sqrt{1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}M/ϵ+Q^2/ϵ^2}`$
$`K_{44}`$ $`=`$ $`(M/ϵ^2Q^2/ϵ^3)\sqrt{1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}M/ϵ+Q^2/ϵ^2}`$
All other components of $`K`$ vanish. Therefore the energy-momentum tensor $`T`$ gets the additional terms from the boundary

$$Z_{ij}=\frac{c^2}{4\pi G}\delta (rϵ)\left(K_{ij}+K_r^rg_{ij}\right);i,j,r=2,3,4.$$

For $`K_r^r`$, (22) yields

$$K_r^r=\frac{2+3M/ϵQ^2/ϵ^2}{ϵ\sqrt{12M/ϵ+Q^2/ϵ^2}}.$$

In the limit $`ϵ0`$, the leading terms in $`K_r^r`$ are $`|Q|/ϵ^2`$. So one obtains

(23)
$$Z_{44}\frac{c^2\delta (rϵ)}{4\pi G}\frac{2|Q|^3}{ϵ^4}.$$

The additional energy due to the gluing is

$$E=\frac{1}{6}u^rZ_r^iϵ_{ijkl}𝑑x^j𝑑x^k𝑑x^l,$$

where $`ϵ_{ijkl}`$ is defined as

$$ϵ_{ijkl}=\sqrt{|detg|}\{\begin{array}{c}\hfill +1\\ \hfill 0\\ \hfill 1\end{array}$$

and $`u`$ is the four-velocity of an observer at rest:

$$(u^r)=(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\frac{1}{\sqrt{12M/ϵ+Q^2/ϵ^2}}).$$

(23) shows that the additional energy $`E`$ is negative and tends to zero, if $`ϵ`$ goes to zero. Therefore there is exotic matter (i.e. matter violating the average null energy condition) on the surface $`r=ϵ`$, but its contribution to the total energy can be made arbitrarily small: Remember that the components $`T_j^{(em)i}`$ of the electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor are proportional to $`1/ϵ^4`$ (see (17)). So we obtain the well-known result that the electromagnetic energy $`E^{}`$ is proportional to $`1/ϵ`$, i.e. the ratio between the electromagnetic energy and the surface energy becomes arbitrarily large. Therefore also the stability of the system is completely determined by the electromagnetic self-energy.

To sum up, we have the following results: Gluing the two parts of the Reißner-Nordstrøm solution at some small $`r=ϵ>0`$ avoids the infinite self-energy of a point charge and the singularities in the metric. Furthermore, although there exists exotic surface matter, its contribution to the total energy can be made arbitrarily small, if $`ϵ`$ tends to zero. On the other hand, if the two parts of the Reißner-Nordstrøm solution are glued together in the singularity $`r=0`$, there is no surface energy.

K. Buchner
Energiepolitischer Sprecher der ödp
Straßbergerstr.16, D-80809 München


format: text

text:
# Training a perceptron in a discrete weight space

## I Introduction

Neural networks and the perceptron as the simplest prototype have become most popular as a tool for understanding human learning and as a basis for many various applications . We are interested in the perceptron learning ability as an archetype for machines that are able to learn. Most of the perceptrons that have been studied until now are under two totally different constraints, two extremes. Either the teacher weight vector is restricted to a binary space, (the Ising teacher), or it is continuous, confined to a hypersphere. Only a few aspects of the learning ability of weights which are confined to have a finite number of values have been studied, although the realistic case on digital computers where numbers have a finite depth representation is described by this model. Furthermore, the applicability of neural networks to biology and to the construction of real devices requires the understanding of the interplay between the weights depth and the network ability of learning. Those systems are the intermediate case, in which the weights are confined to finite space, $`(2L+1)^N`$, when $`L`$ is an integer and $`N`$ stands for the input size. .

The generalization ability of such networks, in which the synapse has a finite depth has been analyzed by using replica calculations and has been found to have interesting nontrivial behavior of phase transition. The learning procedure composed of two phases; one in which the learning ability is very limited, the generalization error is finite, another phase is when the generalization error is exactly zero, perfect learning is gained and it happens in a finite $`\alpha `$, where $`\alpha `$ is the number of patterns divided by the size of the input $`N`$, . Nevertheless, replica calculations do not involve practical algorithms that one may use in order to obtain that learning behavior. In the Ising case, for instance, although a phase transition was predicted, no practical algorithm reproduces this discontinuous behavior .

In contrast to the batch learning, when all the examples are used together to achieve perfect learning, on-line learning is a procedure in which an update rule is used and learning in each step utilizes only the last of a sequence of examples. Such an algorithm drastically reduces the computational effort compared with batch learning and no explicit storage of a training set is required . It was shown that there is no updating rule that uses only the discrete vector for updating and results in perfect learning .

In this paper we address the issue of practical learning from a finite depth teacher. The method we introduce is based on the clipping of a continuous perceptron. Having an artificial continuous weight vector enables smooth learning; clipping it results in a discrete student $`\stackrel{}{W}^S`$, whose components are close to those of the teacher. This method has been used successfully in the Ising perceptron . The questions that arise from the procedure above are; whether learning is possible at all and if it is possible, does it give better results then the learning in a continuous space. It seems very natural that if the weights” depth is very large, i.e. there are many possible values to each weight, the learning behavior of the discrete weights will be exactly the same as those of a continuous weight. However, in the following we examine if and what are the scaling relations between both properties, $`L`$ and $`N`$.

Our main results are: (a) Learning in the case of finite depth is possible by using a continuous precursor. This result was confirmed both analytically and numerically. (b) In the on-line learning scenario: Having a binary output results in a fast decay of the generalization error and at the large $`\alpha `$ regime it decays super-exponentially with $`\alpha `$, $`ϵ_g\mathrm{exp}(K\alpha ^2)`$ where $`K`$ is some constant. Having a continuous output results in a much fast decay of the generalization error,$`\mathrm{exp}(K_1\mathrm{exp}(K_2\alpha ))`$, where $`K_i`$ are positive constants. (c) In batch Hebbian learning, having a binary activation function, the generalization error falls exponentially with $`\alpha `$. (d) Perfect learning is obtained when $`N`$ is very large but finite, unlike the continuous perceptrons performance. Quantitatively, for a given $`N`$ and $`L`$ the perfect learning is achieved for $`\alpha _fO(\sqrt{L\mathrm{ln}(LN)})`$. (e) A crossover to the behavior of the generalization error in the presence of continuous weights occurs for $`L>o(\sqrt{N})`$.

The paper is organized as follows: In section II the architectures and the dynamical rules are defined as well as the continuous and discrete students. In section III the order parameters are defined and the relations between the overlaps of the continuous teacher with the discrete/continuous students are derived analytically. In section IV, the dynamical evolution of the order parameters in the case of binary output is derived analytically and confirmed by simulations. Both, on-line scenario and Hebbian learning are examined. In section V the case of large synaptic depth and the crossover to the continuous weights is studied. In section VI, the perfect learning in finite $`N`$ systems is examined both analytically and numerically. Section VII is devoted to analyze results in the case of continuous output. Finally, in section VIII results are concluded and open questions are addressed.

## II The Model

### A The Architecture

We investigate a teacher-student scenario where both nets are single-layer feed-forward. The examples are generated by the so-called teacher, which is known to be restricted to a well-defined discrete set of values. We define a synaptic depth L and a set of digital values to be as follows ,

$$W_i^T=\pm \frac{1}{L},\pm \frac{2}{L}\mathrm{}\pm 1.$$
(1)
In case that the zero value is part of the game, the possible values of the weights are

$$W_i^T=0,\pm \frac{1}{L},\pm \frac{2}{L}\mathrm{}\pm 1.$$
(2)
For the sake of simplicity, we present results in this paper only for the including zero case (Eq. 2). It is easy to generalize our results for the other case, (Eq. 1).

The input patterns $`\stackrel{}{\xi }^\mu `$ are chosen at random and independent of each other. In the following they are drawn from a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and unit variance. The size of the teacher, the student and the input is N. For any input $`\stackrel{}{\xi }`$ the so-called teacher generates an output, S, according to some rule

$$S=F(\frac{\stackrel{}{W}^T\stackrel{}{\xi }}{\sqrt{N}}).$$
(3)
In the following we will discuss both binary and continuous rules. The student has in mind the rule F and the discrete set of values that the teacher is confined to. In addition, in an on-line learning scenario, the student is given in each time step, $`\mu `$, the input $`\stackrel{}{\xi }^\mu `$ and the teacher’s output $`S^\mu `$, whereas in batch learning the set $`(\stackrel{}{\xi }^\mu ,S^\mu )`$ $`\mu =1\mathrm{}\alpha N`$ is given altogether.

### B Dynamics of the Weights

A continuous precursor for the student, $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ is needed for learning from a discrete teacher. The learning procedure, having a continuous student, is well known. In an on-line scenario at each step the continuous student updates its weight vector according to some learning algorithm (f). The generic form of the learning algorithm is

$$\stackrel{}{J}^{\mu +1}=\stackrel{}{J}^\mu +\frac{\eta }{\sqrt{N}}f(S^\mu ,x_J^\mu )\stackrel{}{\xi }^\mu S^\mu ,$$
(4)
where $`\eta `$ is the learning rate and $`x_J`$ is the student’s local field, $`x_J\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{\xi }`$. Such a learning algorithm means that at each learning step $`\mu `$, the current weight vector $`\stackrel{}{J}^\mu `$ is updated according to the new example, $`\stackrel{}{\xi }^\mu `$ and each example is presented only once.

In an off-line scenario, there is a set of examples $`\stackrel{}{\xi }^\mu `$ $`\mu =1\mathrm{}\alpha N`$ and they are used altogether to gain perfect learning. There are methods in which the off-line leaning is made according to a rule that defines an additive quantity of all the examples. The Hebb learning is an archetype of those methods,

$$\stackrel{}{J}^{Hebb}=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{\alpha N}{}}\stackrel{}{\xi }^\mu S^\mu .$$
(5)
Such procedures were shown to end up in perfect learning . Since having a discrete teacher is merely a special case, not using the knowledge that the teacher is confined to a discrete set of values gives the well-known results; an exponential decay in the case of continuous rule (on-line learning ) and a power law decay in the case of binary rule (on-line and off-line learning ).

The way to gain from the knowledge of the discrete nature of the weights is in the center of our work, and it is based on having in addition a discrete student $`\stackrel{}{W}^S`$ derived from the continuous one using the following clipping procedure. A continuous weight is clipped to the nearest discrete value, among the $`2L+1`$ possibilities. Such a clipping procedure is the optimal one with the lack of any prior knowledge about the weights accept that each value appears with the same probability. We define limit values, $`\lambda _ł`$, which are arranged in increasing order. The limit values divide the continuous region of the precursor weight vector components to $`2L+1`$ intervals, according to the number of the available values as in Eq. 2. The clipping process is such that $`J_i`$ is mapped onto $`\frac{ł}{L}`$ for $`J_i(\lambda _ł`$, $`\lambda _ł+1)`$. The set of limits includes $`\{\lambda _ł,\lambda _{ł1},\mathrm{}\lambda _1,\lambda _0,\lambda _1\mathrm{}\lambda _{ł+1}\}`$. It is given by the following mathematical rule:

$$W_i^S=\underset{ł=L}{\overset{L}{}}\frac{ł}{L}[\theta (\lambda _{ł+1}J_i)\theta (\lambda _łJ_i)]$$
(6)
where $`\theta `$ is the Heavyside function.

Since the value of those limits, $`\lambda _ł`$, is somewhat unclear, we would like to exemplify it with some specific cases. In the case of $`L=1`$ ,Eq. 1, for instance, due to symmetry it is obvious that the limit between -1 and 1 should be 0. Hence, one introduces the following limits, $`\lambda _1=\mathrm{}`$, $`\lambda _0=0`$, $`\lambda _1=\mathrm{}`$. Evaluating the mapping equation results in the well known clipping rule, $`W_i^S=sign(J_i)`$, . Finding the appropriate value for all other cases but the Ising perceptron becomes more complicated, the continuous space is no longer divided into two clear regions and hence one has to consider carefully the value of the limits.

In this paper we chose to nail down the general results by focusing in the including zero case, $`L=1`$, i.e., $`W_i=0,\pm 1`$. This case is known as the diluted Ising case and some other aspects of it have been studied in references . It contains the simplicity of the Ising case on the one hand and introduces a more generality concerning digital values on the other hand. In this case, there is only one unknown parameter, $`\lambda _1`$, since $`\lambda _2=\lambda _1=\mathrm{}`$, and $`\lambda _0=\lambda _1`$.

While choosing the value of the limits, (in the last case that means only choosing the value of $`\lambda _1`$) one should take into consideration the a priori knowledge about the weights of teacher. It is clear that the limits should scale with the student norm, since the exact set of values that the continuous student end up with is irrelevant. The mapping rule ensures that the digital student ends up with the same values as those of the teacher. This will be shown only after analyzing the new order parameters and their dependent on the former one, as is presented in the next chapter.

## III The Order Parameters

Evaluating the agreement between teacher and student is made by calculating either the generalization error or the order parameters. The generalization error, $`ϵ_g`$, is calculated by taking the average of the student/teacher disagreement over the distribution of input vectors. The generalization error is given, in principle, by the overlaps between the vectors, (the so-called order parameters). However, in order to get into details one has first to define the rule, ( F in Eq. 3). This will be done in the next sections. In the following we concentrate in introducing the complete set of order parameters and their inter-relations.

In our case there are three vectors and hence two interdependent sets of order parameters; one set concerns the continuous overlaps,

$`R_J{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{W}^T,`$ (7)
$`Q_J{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{J},`$ (8)
(9)
and one set concerns the digital vector’s overlaps,

$`R_W{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\stackrel{}{W}^S\stackrel{}{W}^T,`$ (10)
$`Q_W{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\stackrel{}{W}^S\stackrel{}{W}^S.`$ (11)
(12)
Note that the dynamical evolution of the continuous set of order parameters, Eq. 9, is independent of the clipped order parameters, since the training is done only following the continuous weights. In contrary to the training process the prediction and the generalization error is made following the clipped student. Hence, finding the quantitative interplay between the continuous set of order parameters, Eq. 9, and the discrete set of order parameters, Eq. 12, is the cornerstone for the analytical description of the generalization ability of the student.

In this section we examine the relation between the clipped set and the continuous one. The development of $`R_J`$, $`Q_J`$ is not influenced by the clipping method. Hence, finding out the above relation enables finding the development of the clipped order parameters and results in a description that gives the whole picture of the learning process.

The teacher’s norm is determined according to the a-priori probabilities for each discrete value. Having equal probability and taking the thermodynamic limit results in the norm,

$$T\frac{1}{N}\stackrel{}{W}^T\stackrel{}{W}^T=\frac{1}{L^2n_L}\underset{ł=1}{\overset{L}{}}ł^2=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{3L},$$
(13)
where $`n_L`$ defined to be the number of optional values, $`n_L=2L+1`$. The order parameters in the clipped machines, $`R_W`$ and $`Q_W`$, as a function of those of the continuous machine, $`R_J`$ and $`Q_J`$, are evaluated as follow:

$`R_W=<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle W_i^T\frac{ł}{L}[\theta (\lambda _{ł+1}J_i)\theta (\lambda _łJ_i)]}>`$ (14)
$`Q_W=<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{ł^2}{L^2}[\theta (\lambda _{ł+1}J_i)\theta (\lambda _łJ_i)]^2}>`$ (15)
(16)
where $`<A>`$ is an average over the known constraints and the known overlaps,

$$<A>\frac{Tr_{W^T}𝑑J_i\delta (J_i^2NQ_J)\delta (J_iW_i^TNR_J)A}{Tr_{W^T}𝑑J_i\delta (J_i^2NQ_J)\delta (J_iW_i^TNR_J)}.$$
(17)
The validity of this average is based on the assumption that all vectors $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ which are consistent with the constraints are taken with equal probability. This assumption is violated in case that the updating of the continuous vector itself is made according to the clipped one, see .

The results are:

$`R_W={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L^2n_L}}{\displaystyle łł^{}[erf(\mathrm{\Phi }_{ł+1,ł^{}})erf(\mathrm{\Phi }_{ł,ł^{}})]},`$ (18)
$`Q_W={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L^2n_L}}{\displaystyle ł^2[erf(\mathrm{\Phi }_{ł+1,ł^{}})erf(\mathrm{\Phi }_{ł,ł^{}})]},`$ (19)
(20)
where the summation is over all the possible values, starting from $`ł,ł^{}=L,L+1,\mathrm{},L`$ and we defined

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{ł,ł^{}}\frac{\frac{\lambda _ł}{\sqrt{Q_J}}\frac{\rho _J}{\sqrt{T}}\frac{ł^{}}{L}}{\sqrt{2(1\rho _J^2)}}),$$
(21)
where $`\rho _J\frac{R_J}{\sqrt{T}\sqrt{Q_J}}`$, $`\rho _W\frac{R_W}{\sqrt{T}\sqrt{Q_W}}`$ are the geometrical order parameters.

In the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ the summation in Eq. 20 can be replaced by an integral. Calculating the integrals in this limit results in the obvious identities, $`R_W=R_J`$ and $`Q_W=Q_J`$. Note that taking integrals instead of summation imposes an inequality. The difference $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ł,ł^{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{ł+1,ł^{}}`$ tends to zero as long as $`L>>1/\sqrt{1\rho _J^2}`$, (see Eq. 21). Hence, in the event that $`L`$ is very large, learning with the continuous student or learning with the clipped version performs the same result as long as $`\rho _J`$ is smaller then $`2/L`$. This limit is discussed in section VI.

We exemplify the general results in the case of the diluted Ising perceptron. In that case we used the following limits,

$`\lambda _2=\lambda _1=\mathrm{}`$ (22)
$`\lambda _1=\lambda _0`$ (23)
(24)
and the teacher’s norm is $`T=2/3`$. The mapping above gives

$`R_W={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}[erf(A_+)+erf(A_{})]`$ (25)
$`Q_W=1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}erf(A_0)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}erf(A_{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}erf(A_+)`$ (26)
(27)
were $`A_\pm =\frac{\rho _J/\sqrt{T}\pm \lambda _1/\sqrt{Q_J}}{\sqrt{2(1\rho _J^2)}}`$ and $`A_0=\frac{\lambda _1}{\sqrt{2Q_J(1\rho _J^2)}}`$.

From Eq. 27 one can verify that at the limit $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ when the continuous order parameters achieve a perfect learning, $`\rho _J1`$, the discrete order parameters achieve perfect learning as well, $`R_W2/3`$, $`Q_W2/3`$ and $`\rho _W1`$ given that the positive quantity, $`\lambda _1`$, is smaller than $`\lambda _1<\sqrt{Q_J/T}`$.

In general, in order that the digital student will gain perfect learning it is necessary that the relation $`\sqrt{Q_J/T}(ł1)<\lambda _l<\sqrt{Q_J/T}ł`$ holds for any positive $`ł`$. Note that the interpretation of the above constraint is that in the vicinity of perfect learning the precursor might be focused around any set of discrete symmetric values, but not necessarily the ones that the clipped student has.

One of the conclusions concerning $`\lambda _ł`$ is that the law according which $`ϵ_g`$ decays is independent of the exact value of the limit value, $`\lambda _ł`$. It depends only on the ruler (binary/continuous), the specific strategy of learning (on-line/off-line) and the learning algorithm one uses. In the following we analyze all these variations.

## IV Binary output

### A On-line Learning

In an on-line learning scenario one can write equations of motion that determine the development of the order parameters as a function of $`\alpha `$. The rate of convergence depends on the rule, F (Eq. 3) and the learning algorithm that one uses f (Eq. 4). Fine tunes are made by choosing the learning rate, $`\eta `$.

We analyze learning procedure in the case of binary rule,

$$S=sign(x),$$
(28)
where $`x`$ is the local field and the generalization error as a function of $`\rho `$ is known to be

$$ϵ_g=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{cos}^1(\rho )$$
(29)
Although it was shown that using the “expected stability” algorithm that maximizes the generalization gain per example leads to an upper bound for the generalization ability, , we choose to concentrate on the so-called AdaTron or relaxation learning algorithm. This latter algorithm for zero stability, $`\kappa =0`$, performs comparably well and unlike the “expected stability” algorithm does not require additional computations in the student network besides the updating of its weights, and the analysis is simpler as well .

The convergence to perfect learning depends on the learning rate, if it is too large perfect generalization becomes impossible. The transition from learnable situation to unlearnable occurs at $`\eta _c`$. In the following, in order to simplify the analysis; we choose a fixed learning rate, $`\eta =1`$, which is below $`\eta _c`$ in all scenarios.

We update the artificial continuous weight vector, $`\stackrel{}{J}`$. The updating is made as in Eq. 4 according to the following learning rule:

$$J_i^{\mu +1}=J_i^\mu \frac{\eta }{\sqrt{N}}(\frac{\stackrel{}{J}^\mu \stackrel{}{\xi }^\mu }{\sqrt{N}})\xi _i^\mu \theta (\frac{\stackrel{}{J}^\mu \stackrel{}{\xi }^\mu }{\sqrt{N}}S^\mu )$$
(30)
The equations for the order parameters with $`\eta =1`$ are,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho _J}{d\alpha }}={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _J}{2\pi }}\mathrm{cos}^1(\rho _J)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}(1{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _J^2}{2}})\sqrt{1\rho _J^2},`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dQ_J}{d\alpha }}={\displaystyle \frac{Q_J}{\pi }}[\rho _J\sqrt{1\rho _J^2}\mathrm{cos}^1(\rho _J)].`$ (32)
(33)
In the limit $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$, one obtains a power law that describes the convergence of $`\rho _J`$ and $`Q_J`$,

$`\rho _J12({\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{4}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2}}`$ (34)
$`Q_JQ_0(1\pi ^2({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}})^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2}})`$ (35)
(36)
Note: since we have a binary output unit, perfect learning is gained as soon as the angle between the vectors goes to zero independent of the student’s norm.

The solution of Eq. 33 only describes the development of the continuous perceptron’s overlaps. The next step is mapping the continuous precursor to the clipped one. Since in the case of binary ruler the student’s norm converges to some unknown value, one way of choosing $`\lambda _ł`$ is simply “half the way” between the constrained values, i.e. $`\lambda _L=\lambda _{L+1}=infty`$ and otherwise

$$\lambda _ł=\frac{1}{L}(ł\frac{1}{2})\sqrt{\frac{Q_J}{T}}.$$
(37)
The development of the order parameter $`\rho _J`$, is independent of the norm $`Q_J`$. Using a limit set that scales with $`\sqrt{Q_J}`$, Eq. 37, ends up in $`\rho _W`$ which depends on $`\rho _J`$ but does not depend on $`Q_J`$. Hence, plugging into it Eq. 36, one can find the the asymptotic behavior of the generalization error, Eq. 29 in the limit $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$

$$ϵ_g\frac{\mathrm{exp}(K(\lambda )\alpha ^2)}{\alpha ^{\frac{1}{2}}},$$
(38)
where $`K(\lambda )=\mathrm{min}|\lambda _ł\frac{ł}{L}\sqrt{Q_J/T}|`$.

We exemplify the aforementioned discussion in the diluted Ising perceptron. We use the limits as in 24 and assume $`\lambda _1=c\sqrt{Q_J/T}`$. In that case

$$\rho _W=\frac{erf(a_+)+erf(a_{})}{\sqrt{T}\sqrt{93erf(a_0)3erf(a_+)+3erf(a_{})}},$$
(39)
where $`a_\pm =\frac{\rho _J\pm c}{\sqrt{2T(1\rho _J^2)}}`$ and $`a_0=\frac{c}{\sqrt{2T(1\rho _J^2)}}`$. In the limit of large $`\alpha `$ one finds

$$ϵ_g\frac{\mathrm{exp}(b_c\alpha ^2)}{\alpha ^{\frac{1}{2}}},$$
(40)
where for $`c1/2`$ $`b_c=\frac{c^2}{3\pi ^2}`$ and otherwise $`b_c=\frac{(1c)^2}{3\pi ^2}`$. One can see that choosing $`c=1/2`$ results in a fastest decay of the generalization error.

The analytical results are compared with simulations on a teacher of the type of the diluted Ising perceptron with the following parameters; $`\lambda =0.5\sqrt{Q_J/T}`$ and $`\lambda =0.3\sqrt{Q_J/T}`$, see Figure 1. The initial conditions for the continuous student weight vector are $`Q_J(\alpha =0)=T=2/3`$ and $`R_J(\alpha =0)=0`$. The weight components were drawn out of a Gaussian distribution. We used $`\eta =1`$, $`N=3000`$ and each point was averaged over $`50`$ samples. One can see in Figure 1 that the analytical results give by Eq. 39 and Eq. 40 are in agreement with simulations.

One can see that the super-exponentially decay is independent of the accurate value of $`\lambda `$. However, two important parameters do depend on the exact choice of $`\lambda `$. One is the decay rate, the factor $`K(\lambda )`$ in the large $`\alpha `$ limit. One can see, for instance, that the optimal limit, $`\lambda =0.5`$ results in a faster decay than the limit $`\lambda =0.3`$. The second is the exact $`\alpha `$ or the exact value of $`\rho _J`$ at which the clipped version gives a better result than the continuous one. We named this value as $`\rho _T`$. For $`\rho _J<\rho _T`$ the clipping lowers the overlap $`\rho _J`$ since the learning solution does not contain enough information about the real direction of the teacher, $`\stackrel{}{W}^T`$, so that clipping only leads the solution to forget a little about the learned pattern without bringing it closer to the exact solution. In the other region, when $`\rho _J>\rho _T`$, clipping becomes efficient because the learning solution is near the exact one. The numerical results of $`\rho _T`$ according to the mapping, (Eq. 39), are $`\rho _T0.92`$ for $`\lambda _1=0.5\sqrt{Q_J/T}`$ and $`\rho _T0.97`$ for $`\lambda _1=0.3\sqrt{Q_J/T}`$, see Figure 1.

### B Clipped -Hebbian Learning

Ising perceptron, diluted Ising perceptron and all the binary units that are confined to discrete values exhibit a phase transition . This known result was hard to achieved by a practical algorithm. One way to gain a perfect learning is to include the information of all the patterns simultaneously in the weights by using the Hebb learning procedure, Eq. 5. Such a learning will end up in a discrete student only in the limit $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$. The decay of the generalization error in that case is known, since it is exactly the same as having a continuous teacher, $`ϵ_g1/\sqrt{\alpha }`$ . In such a way the knowledge of having digital values is not used, one has a continuous student that happens to realize, after learning, that the values are constrained to a finite depth.

The above mentioned procedure describes a way of using two vectors. A continuous one, which is evaluated according to the Hebb rule and a discrete student, obtained by clipping the continuous precursor according to Eq. 6. The latter mapping results in a better generalization error for large enough $`\alpha `$.

We take for example the diluted Ising case. Given that the continuous student is normalized to be the same as the teacher one, $`Q_J=T=2/3`$, one can find the exact point, $`\rho _T`$ at which the clipped method results in a better generalization. This value depends on the limit one chooses. One can see that the limit $`\lambda _1`$, that results in a better generalization of the clipped version in smaller $`\rho `$, is $`\lambda _10.43\sqrt{Q_J/T}`$, see Figure 2. One might anticipate to get as a result $`\lambda _10.5`$, that was found to optimize the decay as $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$. However, the above value is determined by the distribution of the continuous weights in the beginning of the learning process, small $`\alpha `$. In this regime the distribution of the weights is close to a Gaussian, and its tail influences the value of $`\lambda _1`$. The analysis above indicates that choosing $`\alpha `$–dependent limits, $`\lambda (\alpha )`$ in this specific case might perform an even better generalization curve.

To conclude, the benefit from the clipping is evident only after the Hebb solution is near the exact one, after gaining large $`\rho `$. For optimizing the learning time, choosing the limits should be done cautiously. If the aim of the learning is to minimize the generalization error at the very end of the procedure, after a long learning process, than the best choice for the limit will be the “half the way” method, Eq. 37. However, to minimize the generalization error for a given finite $`\alpha `$, the best value might be around $`\lambda _10.425\sqrt{Q_J/T}`$. These results suggest that it is possible to optimize the generalization error of the clipped perceptron by the choice of a dynamical $`\lambda _1=\lambda _1(\alpha )`$.

## V Large synaptic depth

In this section we examine the crossover of the generalization error in the presence of continuous weights as we increase the synaptic depth. As long as the synaptic depth $`L<O(\sqrt{N})`$, the generalization error still vanishes super-exponentially, Eq. 38, where the pre-factor decreases with $`L`$. For $`LO(\sqrt{N})`$ the learning is characterized by the features of spherical constrained learning.

A first step towards the continuous case limit is to find out the change of the decay of the generalization error as a function of L. We focus on the binary unit in the on-line scenario. The analytic tractability of this model enables a profound study of the influence of the synaptic depth over the learning features.

In the last model the generalization decays super-exponentionall, $`ϵ_g\mathrm{exp}(K\alpha ^2)`$, (see Eq. 38). The factor $`K`$ depends on the limits one chooses, $`\lambda _l`$. Hence, in order to keep on consistency, we use the abovementioned limits, (Eq. 37), in the different depths cases. We should emphasize at this stage that only one out of many super-exponentionall terms that arise from the asymptotic expansion of all the error functions (Eq. 16), was kept (Eq. 38). As soon as the deviations between different factors in the exponent are too small, one has to integrate all the terms together instead of neglecting all but one. Such a procedure results in a different type of decay, a power law instead of a super-exponentionall decay.

Analytical and simulations results of the generalization error in varieties of synaptic depths are presented in Figure 3. Simulations were carried out with $`N=630`$ and each point is averaged over $`100`$ samples. The insert shows the estimated slope $`K`$, (Eq. 38), as a function of the depth $`L`$. One can see that $`K`$ decreases linearly with $`1/L`$. The deviation from the analytically predicted interplay for large $`\alpha `$, $`K1/L`$, is probably due to finite $`N`$ effects.

In the following we present argument supporting the statement that the generalization performance of finite depth machines coincide with the performance of continuous machines as soon as $`L\sqrt{N}`$. This scaling is found by taking into account that: (a) The difference between two available values is of order of $`1/L`$. (b) The distribution of the continuous student values around the teacher’s one is a Gaussian with a variance of $`\sqrt{1\rho _J^2}=1/ϵ_g^J`$, where $`ϵ_g^J`$ is the generalization error of the continuous student. Having a learning procedure (in the continuous space) in a finite dimension results in a generalization error, $`ϵ_g^J`$, which is different then the analytical predictions. The variance is of order of $`\sqrt{1/N}`$ . Hence, an estimation to the order of the lower value that $`ϵ_g^J`$ gets in a specific run will be $`\sqrt{1/N}`$. As a consequence, having a discrete machine of depth $`L`$ when

$$\frac{1}{L}<<\sqrt{1\rho _J^2}ϵ_g^J\sqrt{\frac{1}{N}}$$
(41)
or $`L>>\sqrt{N}`$, gives the same results as those of continuous learning. Note that Eq. 41 is consistent with the mathematical constraint that was pointed out in section III when we discussed the continuous limit. The simulations shows indeed that in the case of $`L=157>>\sqrt{N}`$, were $`N=630`$ the discrete vector’s performance coincide with the analytical learning curve of the continuous student.

It is worth pointing out that a similar result was found when analyzing the possibility of learning from a discrete teacher by a discrete student using a general updating rule, . The last analysis uses totally different argument results in the conclusion that only when the teacher’s depth is of order $`\sqrt{N}`$, it is possible to learn the rule using an updating rule that depends on the discrete weights, i.e. only then it behaves as if we have a continuous machine.

## VI Finite Systems - Perfect Learning

The theoretical results presented in the previous chapters exhibit the typical behavior of the generalization error and the order parameters. The main result is the fast decay of the generalization error of the clipped perceptron to zero, Eq 38. In the case of teacher and student with continuous weights and finite $`N`$, the generalization error is always finite distance from zero, even in the asymptotic stage of the learning process. In contrast to the continuous case, the learning of a perceptron with discrete weights and finite $`N`$ is characterized by a transition to perfect learning, as was found for the Ising perceptron, . Performing simulations in that case results in a perfect learning in some stage, since in the clipping version the student knows exactly the teacher’s optional values. Hence, the overlap becomes exactly one, $`\rho _W=1`$, and the generalization error becomes exactly zero as well, $`ϵ_g=0`$.

In order to give an estimation to the number of steps needed for getting perfect learning, $`\alpha _f`$, we use the following approximation valid in the $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ regime, where we can give an analytical approximation to the interdependence of $`\rho _W`$ and $`\alpha `$. In addition, the minimal step before perfect learning is well defined: $`\rho _W=12/(LN)`$ or $`ϵ_g\sqrt{1/(LN)}`$. Hence, we can find the interplay between $`\alpha `$ and N.

In the binary output perceptron the generalization error falls down super-exponentially, Eq. 38. Hence, the perfect learning is determined by

$$\mathrm{exp}(K(\lambda ,L)\alpha ^2)\sqrt{1/(LN)},$$
(42)
and since we found in the last chapter that $`K`$ decays linearly with $`1/L`$ we can derive $`\alpha _f`$ from the last equation, $`\alpha _f\sqrt{L\mathrm{ln}LN}`$. This result indicates quantitatively that for any chosen limit, $`\lambda _ł`$, the number of learning step necessary to achieve perfect learning is finite as long as $`N`$ and $`L`$ are finite.

Figure 4 presents results of $`\alpha _f`$ obtained in simulations for the diluted Ising perceptron with $`c=0.4`$, $`c=0.5`$, and $`c=0.6`$, (Eq. 39, 40). Results were averaged over $`M(N)`$ training sets, were values of $`M(N)`$ ranging from $`5000`$ to $`20`$ in accordance to $`N`$ which is varied between $`30`$ and $`9000`$. To get results in lower dimension, $`N`$, we averaged over a larger number of simulations, $`M`$.

One can see from the obtained values of $`\alpha _f(N,c)`$ in Figure 4, that the last quantity is indeed linear in $`\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}N}`$. Note that the obtained slope in Figure 4 for $`c=0.4`$ and $`c=0.6`$ is the same as it is expected since $`b_c`$ is symmetric around $`c=1/2`$. In the inset, one can see that $`\alpha _f(L)`$ in the case of $`N=630`$, indeed increases linearly with $`\sqrt{L\mathrm{ln}L}`$. As $`L\mathrm{}`$ an infinite number of examples are needed for perfect learning, there is a crossover to the spherical case as was discussed in the previous chapter.

Small deviations from a straight line in Figure 4 are expected to be a consequence of the following approximations: (a) We took as an analytical curve (Eq. 42) only the asymptotic function which is an expansion valid in infinite $`\alpha `$. (b) We neglected the polynomial corrections in Eq. 42 such as $`1/\sqrt{\alpha }`$. (c) We derived Eq. 42 from the analytical calculation of $`\rho _J(\alpha )`$. The latter quantity itself is influenced by finite size effects. Extensive numerical simulations show that the corrections are linear in $`1/N`$  and hence they are negligible after clipping and getting $`\rho _W`$ (As in Eq. 20).

As was shown in previous chapters, $`c=0.5`$ gives the best performance in the asymptotic learning procedure, lower $`\alpha _f`$ for all N, and it is confirmed in our simulations, Figure 4 . In the thermodynamic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`\alpha _f\mathrm{}`$ as expected.

## VII Continuous Unit

We now study the case of continuous output perceptrons with finite depth. As long as one uses a continuous activation function, the generalization error decreases exponentially, (see for instance ). In order to learn a rule which is defined by a finite depth vector, we used a spherical vector for the student weight vector, $`\stackrel{}{J}`$, and clipped it in order to have a digital student weight vector $`\stackrel{}{W^S}`$. The updating of the spherical student weight vector is done according to the gradient descent method as usual:

$$\stackrel{}{J}^{\mu +1}=\stackrel{}{J}^\mu \frac{\eta }{\sqrt{N}}_\stackrel{}{J}ϵ(\stackrel{}{J}^\mu ,\stackrel{}{\xi }^\mu )$$
(43)
The error $`ϵ(\stackrel{}{J}^\mu ,\stackrel{}{\xi }^\mu )`$ measures the deviation of the student from the teacher’s output for a particular input $`\stackrel{}{\xi }`$. The generalization error of a student is defined as the averaged error

$$ϵ_g=<\frac{1}{2}[S(\stackrel{}{J},\stackrel{}{\xi })S(\stackrel{}{W}^T,\stackrel{}{\xi })]^2>_\stackrel{}{\xi }.$$
(44)
Since the learning features of all kinds of the continuous transfer functions are more or less the same, we chose to concentrate in the “sin” activation function

$$S=\mathrm{sin}(kx),$$
(45)
The periodic activation function, $`\mathrm{sin}`$, was found to be learnable given that the period k is small enough . In the following we will simplify our analysis by taking k=1 and the learning rate $`\eta =1`$. Since the learning curves of the continuous version are the same as if there was a rule defined by a continuous teacher, (having the finite depth limitation is merely a special case of the spherical constraint), and the learning rate we chose is small enough we find that perfect learning is an attractive fixed point in both scenarios.

Linearizing the equations of motion around those fixed points results in the following form (which holds for all the continuous transfer functions):

$`R_J=1{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{det\begin{array}{c}V\end{array}}}V_{22}\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _1\alpha )+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{det\begin{array}{c}V\end{array}}}V_{12}\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _2\alpha )`$ (46)
$`Q_J=1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{det\begin{array}{c}V\end{array}}}V_{21}\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _1\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{det\begin{array}{c}V\end{array}}}V_{11}\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _2\alpha )`$ (47)
The two eigenvalues of $`\begin{array}{c}V\end{array}`$, $`\gamma _1`$, $`\gamma _2`$, are both negative. The constants $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$ are determined from the numerical solution of the equations of motion.

In order to get a description of the discrete learning one has to use the mapping relations as in Eq. 6. The generalization error of the finite depth student directly depends on the order parameters, as can be found by taking the average over the local fields distribution, Eq. 44. The general result of this calculation at the $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ regime is

$$ϵ_g\mathrm{exp}(C_0e^{|K|\alpha }),$$
(49)
were $`K`$ and $`C_0`$ depend only on the learning rate ,$`\eta `$, the limits one chose, $`\lambda _ł`$ and the specific activation function. In the following we examine this result in the diluted Ising case.

We performed simulations in the diluted Ising case, when the transfer function is $`\mathrm{sin}`$. The development of the continuous order parameters in that case is described by the following equations of motion,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dR_J}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(R_J+1)D_+2R_Je^{2Q_J}(R_J1)D_{}]`$ (50)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dQ_J}{d\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[(R_J+Q_J)D_+2Q_Je^{2Q_J}(Q_JR_J)D_{}\right]`$ (51)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[2(e^{2Q_J}e^2E_{}+D_+)`$ (52)
$`+`$ $`3D_{}^42D_{}+(2E_+e^{8Q_J}D_+^4)]`$ (53)
with $`D_\pm =e^{(1+Q_J\pm 2R_J)/2}`$ and $`E_\pm =e^{(1+9Q_J\pm 6R_J)/2}`$. As $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$, one gets two eigenvalues, $`\gamma _10.30`$, $`\gamma _20.69`$. Using Eq. 27, rescaling $`R_W`$ and $`Q_W`$ by the teacher’s norm, $`2/3`$, and taking the limit value, $`\lambda `$, to be the one that yields the faster decay at the large $`\alpha `$ regime, $`\lambda =0.5\sqrt{Q_J/T}`$. Collecting everything we have

$`R_W1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(0.15\alpha )}{2\sqrt{\pi }K_1}}\mathrm{exp}(K_1^2e^{0.30\alpha })`$ (54)
$`Q_W1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(0.15\alpha )}{\sqrt{\pi }K_1}}\mathrm{exp}(K_1^2e^{0.30\alpha }),`$ (55)
(56)
where K is determined by the initial conditions. The generalization error as a function of the discrete parameters is

$$ϵ_g=\frac{1}{2}\left[1d_{}+d_+\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{2Q_W}+e^2\right)\right]$$
(57)
with $`d_\pm =e^{(1+Q_W\pm 2R_W)/2}`$. Expanding the last equation around $`R_W1`$ and $`Q_W1`$, we obtain that the generalization error decays very fast, $`ϵ_g\mathrm{exp}(K_1^2e^{0.30\alpha })`$.

We ran simulations with $`N=3000`$ and averaged over $`10`$ samples. In Figure 5 the development of the discrete as well as the continuous order parameters as a function of $`\alpha `$ are presented. The solid lines are the analytical numerical integrals of Eq. 53. Note, the transition in this scenario from a poor generalization of the clipped version comparatively to that of the continuous one, to a situation in which the clipped version has a better performance, occurs in the same $`\rho _T0.92`$ as in the binary unit. This quantity is related to the clipping rule and it is independent of the specific transfer function one tries to learn.

The inset of Figure 5 shows the unique decay of the generalization error, in order to get linear line we plotted $`\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}ϵ_g)`$ as a function of $`\alpha `$. According to the above analysis the slope should be 0.30 and we obtained in simulations $`0.33\pm 0.01`$. It is in good agreement, considering the fact that we are dealing with an approximation which is valid only in the $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ and simulations results are in finite $`\alpha `$. The generalization error of the clipped version for larger $`\alpha `$ ($`\alpha >7`$ in our case) gives better results than those predicted by the analysis, its values are exactly zero due to finite size effects discussed in chapter V.

Following the same arguments used in order to find an estimation to the number of examples needed for gaining perfect learning, one finds that in the case of continuous output $`\alpha _f\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}N)`$. It is obvious from the analytical calculations and the simulations above that clipping a continuous vector in order to learn a finite depth teacher results in an extremely fast learning. The learning in finite dimension is characterized by $`\alpha _f`$, above which one gets perfect learning of the discrete vector. All those unique characteristics of the discrete learning disappears as soon as the weight depth is of order of $`\sqrt{N}`$ as was found in chapter VI.

## VIII Conclusions

In this paper, we presented an analysis of the simplest neural network, the perceptron, that learns from examples given by another perceptron, the teacher, which is confined to a discrete space. In fact, we used two students, a continuous precursor and its clipped version.

We analyzed the new set of order parameters arising from the clipping method. We discussed the issue of how to clip and what set of limits, $`\lambda _ł`$, is the best choice. We found that it depends specifically on the kind of optimization one imposes. We showed that after reaching some overlap, $`\rho _T`$, a transition occurs and the clipped version results in a better performance then the non-clipped one. If one is interested in optimizing the learning in the sense of getting a better performance as soon as possible, then the minimizing $`\rho _T`$ limits are the ones needed. However, if by optimizing one tries to get the fastest decrease possible in the $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ regime then the best choice is ’half the way’, in-between the values. As we mentioned before, it is possible to have a dynamic set of values that interpolates during the learning process between both values. We left this issue out of the scope of this paper.

As one can see from the definitions in Eq. 2, it is only natural to choose the continuous weight vector not to be the one which is constrained to a hypersphere but a vector which is constrained to a hypercube space. It was shown that in the case of storing random patterns pre-training a continuous student whose weight vectors constrained to the volume of a hypercube results in a better performance . It remains as an open question what is the quantitative benefit that one can gain in a learning procedure by using the cubical constrained and if a learning strategy could be designed which fulfills this constraint.

We studied the case of a very large $`L`$ and show a scaling relation between $`L`$ and $`N`$ arises from the analysis. For $`LO(\sqrt{N})`$ the learning curve is the one that is typical to the continuous case. However, it should remain clear that learning is the same as having a continuous student unless $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$, $`\rho _J1`$. In that regime the fast decay that characterizes the clipped learning appears. All digital computers actually correspond to such a situation, where all available properties have a finite representation. The machine is using some kind of clipping by rounding the numbers. The differences, as predicted here, can be significant only in the $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ regime or small depth. Visualizing them is usually impossible since they are smaller than the measurements scale.

###### Acknowledgements.

Discussions with W. Kinzel and M. Biehl are acknowledged. We would like to thank M. Biehl for carefully reading of the manuscript. The research is supported by the German Israel foundation and the Israel Academy of Science.


text:
# A class of kinks in 𝑆𝑈(𝑁)×𝑍₂

## I Introduction

Classical solutions in field theories have been of long-standing interest and have played an important role in our understanding of a variety of phenomena. The existence of solutions can be predicted on the basis of topology though the actual construction of the solutions is usually quite difficult and requires a certain amount of guesswork. Even after a solution is found, one needs to check its perturbative stability. And even after a solution is proved to be perturbatively stable, there is no guarantee that it is the globally stable solution.

In this paper, we shall construct a class of kink solutions in purely scalar, $`SU(N)\times Z_2`$ field theories. The analytic construction is made possible by a special choice of parameters. We then prove the perturbative stability of the kink solutions. As there is no known extension of Bogomolnyi’s method  to this case, global stability will remain unproven. We will then address the question of whether there might be other kink solutions in the model. We discuss the possibility that various boundary conditions imposed at spatial infinity, while topologically equivalent, lead to different kink solutions. Each kink solution is continuously degenerate with a degeneracy determined by the invariance group of the solution. We describe the problem of mapping the space of kink solutions.

The following few sections deal with the construction and perturbative stability of the kink solutions that have been found. The space of kinks is described in Sec. VII and this can be read with minimal reference to the prior sections.

## II The Model

We will consider the 1+1-dimensional, classical field theory***The addition of gauge fields can easily be accommodated in what follows as discussed in Sec. VI.

$$L=\mathrm{Tr}[(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^2]V(\mathrm{\Phi })$$
(1)
$$V(\mathrm{\Phi })=m^2\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Phi }^2]+h(\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Phi }^2])^2+\lambda \mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Phi }^4]+V_0$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ transforms in the adjoint representation of $`SU(N)`$ ($`N=2n+1`$) and hence is an $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrix. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can also be written in terms of components:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N^21}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }^aT_a$$
(3)
where $`T_a`$ are the (traceless) generators of $`SU(N)`$ and will be taken to be in the Gell-Mann representation  and normalized so that

$$\mathrm{Tr}[T_aT_b]=\frac{1}{2}\delta _{ab}.$$
(4)
The field components $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ are real. The constant $`V_0`$ is chosen so that the minimum of the potential is at $`V=0`$. Note the absence of a cubic term in the model.

The center of $`SU(N)`$ is ZN and the group elements of the center transform $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by multiplication by factors of $`\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi /N)`$. For even $`N`$, the transformation $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is included in the center of $`SU(N)`$. However, for odd $`N`$ it is not, and the full symmetry of the model is $`SU(N)\times Z_2`$. We will only be interested in odd values of $`N`$ since it is this case that the model admits topological kink solutions.

We will consider parameters $`h`$ and $`\lambda `$ such that the symmetry breaking is:

$$SU(N)\times Z_2\frac{SU(n+1)\times SU(n)\times U(1)}{Z_{n+1}\times Z_n}$$
(5)
where $`N=2n+1`$ ($`n`$ is a positive integer). This symmetry breaking pattern is achieved if

$$\frac{h}{\lambda }>\frac{N^2+3}{N(N^21)}$$
(6)
In fact, in the next section we will choose

$$\frac{h}{\lambda }=\frac{3}{N(N1)}.$$
(7)
This choice is consistent with eq. (6) as long as $`N>3`$.

To fix the constant $`V_0`$, let the minimum of $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ occur at

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0R\mathrm{diag}(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_N)$$
(8)
where $`R`$ is an overall normalization factor and the matrix is normalized so that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_i^2=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(9)
Then the potential is extremized for

$$R=\frac{m}{\sqrt{\lambda ^{}}}$$
(10)
where

$$\lambda ^{}=h+4\lambda \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_i^4=h+\frac{N^2+3}{N(N^21)}\lambda .$$
(11)
Then, $`V(\mathrm{\Phi }_0)=0`$ gives

$$V_0=\frac{m^4}{4\lambda ^{}}.$$
(12)
The condition that $`\lambda ^{}>0`$ is precisely the condition in eq. (6)

We shall assume the parameters as constrained by eq. (6), in which case the unbroken symmetry is given in eq. (5) and the vacuum expectation value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=R\sqrt{\frac{2}{N(N^21)}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}n\mathrm{𝟏}_{n+1}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& (n+1)\mathrm{𝟏}_n\end{array}\right)$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{𝟏}_n`$ denotes the $`n\times n`$ unit matrix, $`N=2n+1`$, $`R`$ is defined in eq. (10).

## III Kink solution

The model contains the breaking of a discrete $`Z_2`$ symmetry whenever $`N`$ is odd. Hence kink solutions exist. Across these kink solutions, the vacuum expectation value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ must be related by an element of the $`Z_2`$ group. Hence, if $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ denotes the kink solution,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_k(x=\mathrm{})=U\mathrm{\Phi }_k(x=+\mathrm{})U^1$$

where $`U`$ is an element of $`SU(N)`$.

Based on the experience with kinks in $`SU(5)`$ , we conjecture the following form for the kink solution:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_k(x)=f(x)𝐌+g(x)𝐏$$
(14)
where $`f(x)`$ and $`g(x)`$ are unspecified functions as yet, and $`𝐌`$ and $`𝐏`$ are $`SU(N)`$ generators such that

$$\mathrm{Tr}(𝐌^2)=\frac{1}{2}=\mathrm{Tr}(𝐏^2)$$
(15)
$$\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{𝐌𝐏})=0=\mathrm{Tr}(𝐌^3𝐏)=\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{𝐌𝐏}^3).$$
(16)
Insertion of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ in the potential gives

$`V(\mathrm{\Phi }_k)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}(f^2+g^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{h}{4}}(f^4+g^4)+`$ (19)
$`\lambda [f^4\mathrm{Tr}(𝐌^4)+g^4\mathrm{Tr}(𝐏^4)]+`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{h}{2}}+6\lambda \mathrm{Tr}(𝐌^2𝐏^2)]f^2g^2V_0.`$
The important realization that permits an analytic solution to be found is that the cross-term containing both $`f`$ and $`g`$ disappears if we choose

$$h=12\lambda \mathrm{Tr}(𝐌^2𝐏^2).$$
(20)
In this case, the energy of the kink will separate into two pieces, one depending only on $`f`$ and the other depending only on $`g`$. So the energy will be a sum of two single field energies, each of which can be treated directly or by Bogomolnyi’s method.

Let us further choose the matrices $`𝐌`$ and $`𝐏`$ in such a way that the kink boundary conditions imply

$$f(+\mathrm{})=f(\mathrm{}),g(+\mathrm{})=+g(\mathrm{}).$$
(21)
Then, we find that $`f`$ and $`g`$ must satisfy

$$f^{\prime \prime }+m^2f+4\lambda [3\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}(𝐌^2𝐏^2)\mathrm{Tr}(𝐌^4)]f^3=0$$
(22)
$$g^2=\frac{m^2}{4\lambda }\frac{1}{3\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}(𝐌^2𝐏^2)\mathrm{Tr}(𝐏^4)}.$$
(23)
The equation for $`f`$ will have the solution

$$f(x)=f_0\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{m}{\sqrt{2}}x\right)$$
(24)
where

$$f_0^2=\frac{m^2}{4\lambda }\frac{1}{\mathrm{Tr}(𝐌^4)3\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}(𝐌^2𝐏^2)}.$$
(25)
The solution for $`f`$ is valid provided

$$\mathrm{Tr}(𝐌^4)>3\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}(𝐌^2𝐏^2)$$
(26)
and the (constant) solution for $`g`$ is valid provided

$$\mathrm{Tr}(𝐏^4)>3\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}(𝐌^2𝐏^2)$$
(27)
In addition to the properties in eqs. (15) and (16), the conditions in eqs. (26) and (27), $`𝐌`$ and $`𝐏`$ must yield the desired vacuum expectation values for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ at spatial infinity. A choice of $`𝐌`$ and $`𝐏`$ that satisfies all these conditions is:

$`𝐌`$ $`=\beta \left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}_{N1}& 0\\ 0& (N1)\end{array}\right),`$ (28)
$`𝐏`$ $`=\sqrt{N}\beta \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟏}_n& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_n& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (29)
where,

$$\beta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N(N1)}}.$$
(30)
Straightforward calculation shows that all the conditions on $`𝐌`$ and $`𝐏`$ are met provided that $`N>3`$.

With this choice of $`𝐌`$ and $`𝐏`$, the kink solution can now be written as:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_k(x)=\frac{m}{\sqrt{\lambda }}\sqrt{\frac{N1}{N3}}\left[\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{m}{\sqrt{2}}x\right)𝐌+\sqrt{N}𝐏\right]$$
(31)
An alternative, more transparent, form of this solution is:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_k(x)=\left(\frac{1F(x)}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_{}+\left(\frac{1+F(x)}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_+$$
(32)
where

$$F(x)=\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{m}{\sqrt{2}}x\right),$$
(33)
and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm \mathrm{\Phi }(x=\pm \mathrm{})`$. Note that the alternate form does not work for any chosen boundary condition. For example, if $`\mathrm{\Phi }_+=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$, the form leads to the embedded kink solution which is known to be unstable .

Now that we have shown that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ is a solution within the restricted ansatz in eq. (14), we also need to show that it is a solution of the full theory. This is most simply done by writing

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_k+\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_k+\psi _aT^a$$
(34)
and then checking that the energy density does not contain any terms that are linear in $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. In the quadratic terms in the energy density, this will clearly by the case since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ satisfies the equations of motion (22) and (23) and the generators satisfy the orthogonality condition in eq. (4). The only terms that can potentially lead to a term linear in the $`\psi _a`$ come from the quartic term, $`\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }^4)`$, in the potential and are of the form

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }_k^3T^a)\psi ^a$$

For off-diagonal $`T^a`$, this vanishes since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k^3`$ is diagonal and a product of a diagonal and an off-diagonal matrix is off-diagonal. For diagonal $`T^a`$, it is better to choose a representation of the generators other than the Gell-Mann representation. The choice of diagonal generators other than $`𝐌`$ and $`𝐏`$ are:

$`𝒯^i=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\tau _i& \mathrm{𝟎}& 0\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}_n& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)(i=1,..,n1)`$ (35)
$`𝒯^i=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}_n& \mathrm{𝟎}& 0\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \tau _{in+1}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)(i=n,\mathrm{},2n2)`$ (36)
(37)
where $`\tau _i`$ ($`i=1,..,n1`$) are the normalized, diagonal $`SU(n)`$ generators in the Gell-Mann representation. The off-diagonal generators are the same as in the Gell-Mann basis. It is easy to check that this basis is complete and the generators satisfy the normalization in eq. (4).

Now we are interested in checking if there are terms in the potential that are linear in the components of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ expanded in the new basis. It is easy to check that

$$\mathrm{Tr}(𝐌^3𝒯^i)=0=\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{P}^3𝒯^i)$$

Hence

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }_k^3𝒯^i)=0$$

and there are no linear terms in the components of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ occurring in the energy density. The terms linear in the perturbations along the generators $`𝐌`$ and $`𝐏`$ will vanish because these have already been chosen to satisfy the equations of motion.

Therefore there are no linear terms in $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the energy density and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ in eq. (31) is indeed a solution.

## IV Kink energy

The energy of the kink is:

$$E_k=𝑑x[\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }_k^{})^2+V(\mathrm{\Phi }_k)]$$
(38)
Insertion of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ from eq. (31) and evaluation yields

$$E_k=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}\frac{m^3}{\lambda }\left(\frac{N1}{N3}\right)$$
(39)
In the limit that $`N\mathrm{}`$, this gives

$$E_k\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}\frac{m^3}{\lambda }$$
(40)
which is precisely the energy of the kink in the $`Z_2`$ model:

$$L=\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \varphi )^2\frac{m^2}{2}\varphi ^2+\frac{\lambda }{4}\varphi ^4+\frac{m^4}{4\lambda }.$$
(41)
In the large $`N`$ limit, the kink solution (31) goes to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_k\frac{m}{\sqrt{2\lambda }}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟏}_n& \mathrm{𝟎}& 0\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟏}_n& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{tanh}(mx/\sqrt{2})\end{array}\right).$$
(42)
Note that this is not traceless because we have discarded a large number ($`N`$) of small (order $`1/N`$) terms.

## V Perturbative stability

The procedure for proving perturbative stability is straightforward though tedious. We consider small deviations $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ from the kink solution as in eq. (34) and then find the change in the energy due to the perturbations,

$$\delta E[\mathrm{\Psi }]=\mathrm{Tr}𝑑x\mathrm{\Psi }\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+𝐕_2(\mathrm{\Phi }_k)\right]\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(43)
where the matrix $`𝐕_2`$ is obtained by expanding the potential $`V`$ up to quadratic order in $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. If the Schrodinger equation

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+𝐕_2(\mathrm{\Phi }_k)\right]\mathrm{\Psi }=\omega \mathrm{\Psi }$$
(44)
does not have any negative eigenvalues – i.e. regular solutions where $`\mathrm{\Psi }0`$ at spatial infinity only exist for $`\omega 0`$ – then the solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ is perturbatively stable.

The tedious part of this calculation is the evaluation of $`𝐕_2(\mathrm{\Phi }_k)`$. Note that $`𝐕_2`$ is an $`(N^21)\times (N^21)`$ matrix since there are $`N^21`$ components of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, one for each generator of $`SU(N)`$. Let us write

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N^21}{}}\psi ^aT^a$$
(45)
and the elements of $`𝐕_2`$ as $`V_{2ab}`$.

Let us discuss off-diagonal perturbations first. These fall into 5 types. The first type is when

$$T_1^a\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\rho _n& \mathrm{𝟎}& 0\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(46)
where $`\rho _n`$ denotes a non-trivial, off-diagonal $`n\times n`$ matrix and $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ the trivial $`n\times n`$ matrix. The second to fifth type of perturbations are:

$$T_2^a\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \rho _n& 0\\ \rho _n^{}& \mathrm{𝟎}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(47)
$$T_3^a\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& c\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& 0\\ c^{}& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(48)
$$T_4^a\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& 0\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \rho _n& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(49)
$$T_5^a\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& 0\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& c\\ 0& c^{}& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(50)
where $`c`$ is a non-vanishing complex $`n`$-dimensional multiplet. Then the elements of $`𝐕_2`$ for Type 1 and Type 4 perturbations are:

$$V_{2aa}=m^2\frac{N\pm 3F}{N3}$$
(51)
and for type 3 (minus signs) and 5 (plus signs) are:

$$V_{2aa}=\pm \frac{m^2}{2}F(1\pm F)$$
(52)
where the function $`F(x)`$ is defined in eq. (33). The elements of $`𝐕_2`$ vanish for type 2 perturbations and there is no mixing between different off-diagonal perturbations either.

The potential $`V_{2aa}`$ for type 1 and 4 perturbations is everywhere non-negative for $`N>3`$ and hence the Schrodinger equation will not have any bound states. The situation for type 3 and 5 perturbations is less clear since $`\pm F(1\pm F)`$ can have either sign. However the Schrodinger equation has the $`\omega =0`$ solution $`\psi =1F`$ and this solution has no nodes i.e. $`\psi 0`$ except at infinityThis zero mode will be of special interest in Sec. VII.. The zero mode solution does not go to zero at either $`x=\mathrm{}`$ or at $`x=+\mathrm{}`$. Then, in order for a solution to go to zero at both spatial infinities, $`\omega `$ has to be chosen to be greater than zero. The reason is that the $`\omega =0`$ solution needs to have smaller curvature (i.e. the curvature needs to be more negative) so that it can vanish at infinity. The curvature is proportional to $`\omega `$ in the region where the potential is small. Therefore $`\omega `$ has to be larger. Hence, once again, there are no bound states to the Schrodinger equation. This shows that the solution is stable to off-diagonal perturbations.

Next we consider diagonal perturbations. These can be classified in three types. If we write:

$$T_a=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}𝐑_a& \mathrm{𝟎}& 0\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& 𝐒_a& 0\\ 0& 0& Q_a\end{array}\right)$$
(53)
where $`𝐑_a`$ and $`𝐒_a`$ are $`n\times n`$, diagonal matrices, then the three types of $`T_a`$ are: (1) $`𝐑_a0`$, $`𝐒_a=0`$, $`Q_a=0`$, (2) $`𝐑_a0`$, $`𝐒_a0`$, $`Q_a=0`$, and, (3) $`𝐑_a0`$, $`𝐒_a0`$, $`Q_a0`$. Then there are six cases to be treated in finding the elements of $`𝐕_2`$.

If both $`T_a`$ and $`T_b`$ are type (1), we find

$$V_{2ab}=m^2\frac{N+3F}{N3}\delta _{ab}>0$$
(54)
where we note that we are considering $`N>3`$. Since $`V_{2ab}`$ is everywhere non-negative, the Schrodinger equation has no bound states and the solution is stable to these perturbations.

If both $`T_a`$ and $`T_b`$ are type (3) – there is only one generator of type (3) – we find

$$V_{2aa}=\frac{m^2}{2}(3F^21).$$
(55)
Now the Schrodinger equation is precisely that obtained when considering fluctuations about a $`Z_2`$ kink . The complete eigenspectrum of this equation is known  and the lowest eigenvalue is $`\omega =0`$ corresponding to the zero mode which describes translations of the kink. So there are no bound states and no instability to these perturbations.

The only other non-trivial perturbations are when $`T_a`$ and $`T_b`$ are both type (2). For these perturbations, we have

$$𝐑_a=\alpha _a\mathrm{𝟏}_n$$
(56)
where $`\alpha _a`$ is determined from the normalization of $`T_a`$. After some algebra, we find

$`\psi _aV_{2ab}\psi _b={\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{N3}}`$ $`[(N3F)\psi _{}^2+\{(N3F)`$ (58)
$`6\sigma ^2(N1)(1F)\}\psi _{}^2]`$
where, we have defined the unit vector $`\widehat{\alpha }_b`$, decomposed $`\psi _a`$ parallel ($`\psi _{}=\widehat{\alpha }_a\psi _a`$) and perpendicular ($`\psi _{}`$) to the vector $`\alpha _a`$, and written

$$\sigma ^2\underset{a}{}\alpha _a\alpha _a.$$

The coefficient of $`\psi _{}^2`$ is positive since $`N>3`$ and hence this perturbation cannot cause an instability. The coefficient of $`\psi _{}^2`$ needs to be checked.

Using the normalization of $`T_a`$, we obtain

$$\sigma ^2=\frac{1}{2(N1)}$$
(59)
Inserting this into eq. (58), we find that the coefficient of $`\psi _{}^2`$ is simply $`+m^2`$. Hence there is no instability to diagonal type (2) perturbations.

This explicit analysis shows that the solution is stable to all perturbations but this does not imply that the solution minimizes the energy globally.

## VI Gauge fields

The inclusion of gauge fields, $`A_\mu =A_\mu ^aT^a`$, has no effect on the existence of the static solution in eq. (31). This can be seen by noting that the terms in the energy that involve the gauge fields are: $`\mathrm{Tr}(𝐄^2+𝐁^2)`$, $`\mathrm{Tr}([A_x,\mathrm{\Phi }]^2)`$ and $`i\mathrm{Tr}(A_x[\mathrm{\Phi },_x\mathrm{\Phi }]`$. The first two terms are quadratic in the gauge fields while the last one vanishes because $`[\mathrm{\Phi },_x\mathrm{\Phi }]=0`$ for the solution. Hence $`A_\mu =0`$ is a solution of the equations of motion.

The presence of gauge fields does not have any effect on the perturbative stability of the solution. To see this one can check that both the quadratic order terms in the gauge field are non-negative. For the first term this is explicit while for the second term one uses the fact $`[A_x,\mathrm{\Phi }]=[A_x,\mathrm{\Phi }]^{}`$ since $`A_x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are Hermitian. Hence the kink solution with $`A_\mu =0`$ is stable to perturbations in the gauge fields.

## VII Space of kinks

Different boundary conditions will, in general, lead to different kink solutions. Therefore kinks with different boundary conditions fall into different classes – kinks belonging to different classes cannot be transformed into one another by global $`SU(N)`$ rotations. Here we would like to find the degeneracy of a kink solution i.e. the space of boundary conditions that lead to degenerate kink solutions. There is clearly an $`SU(N)`$ global degeneracy but this is not very interesting since it applies to any field configuration in the theory. It is of greater interest to only consider those global $`SU(N)`$ transformations that leave $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\mathrm{\Phi }(x=\mathrm{})`$ unchanged but act non-trivially on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_+\mathrm{\Phi }(x=+\mathrm{})`$. If we denote the unbroken symmetry groups at $`x=\pm \mathrm{}`$ by $`H_\pm `$, such transformations belong to $`H_{}`$. But the transformations that belong to $`KH_+H_{}`$ will act trivially on both $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ and on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_+`$. Therefore the space of boundary conditions at $`x=+\mathrm{}`$ leading to degenerate kinks is given by $`H_{}/K`$.

In addition to the degeneracy due to different boundary conditions, any kink solution will have an “internal” symmetry group, denoted by $`I`$. This group will contain all those transformations that leave unchanged the whole kink solution (including the boundary conditions). So we have $`IK`$ and the space of degenerate kinks is $`H_{}/I`$.

The kink classification problem can be described in more detail as follows. Suppose we fix the boundary condition at $`x=\mathrm{}`$ to be $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$, then the only constraint on the boundary condition at $`x=+\mathrm{}`$ is that it should be in the distinct topological sector. There is a full vacuum manifold (mod $`Z_2`$) worth of choices for $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x=+\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Phi }_+`$. For certain choices of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_+`$ we can solve the equations of motion and obtain a set (described by the space $`K/I`$) of kink solutions that extremize the energy. Let the value of this energy be $`U[\mathrm{\Phi }_+;\mathrm{\Phi }_{}]`$ where we have explicitly indicated that different choices of boundary conditions can lead to kink solutions of different energy. We are interested in the space of minima of the “potential” $`U[\mathrm{\Phi }_+;\mathrm{\Phi }_{}]`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_+`$. The global minima of this potential will describe the lowest energy kink solutions in the model and may be termed the “kink vacuum manifold”. Other local minima will describe kink solutions that are separated from the lightest kink by an energy barrier. In this way it might be possible to obtain “generations” of stable kinks having the same topological charge but differing in their energies.

The existence of the kink solution found in the previous sections does not tell anything about whether it is a minimum of $`U[\mathrm{\Phi }_+;\mathrm{\Phi }_{}]`$. To examine if the solution is a local minimum we can do a perturbative analysis where the perturbations are required to vanish at $`x=\mathrm{}`$ – so as to hold $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ fixed – but are not required to vanish at $`x=+\mathrm{}`$ – since we want to find changes in the energy when the boundary conditions are varied. Going back to Sec. V we find that all but one of the non-trivial Schrodinger potentials are positive (for $`N>3`$) at both spatial infinities. This means that a perturbation that does not vanish at both spatial infinities, gives a divergent contribution to the energy. Hence the kink solution is stable under these perturbations of the boundary conditions. The only exceptional case is the off-diagonal perturbation of the type in eq. (48). The potential (eq. (52)) goes to a positive value at $`x=\mathrm{}`$ but vanishes from below at $`x=+\mathrm{}`$. In fact, as described below eq. (52), there is a zero mode for this perturbation that vanishes at $`x=\mathrm{}`$ but goes to a non-vanishing constant at $`x=+\mathrm{}`$. So this mode is a “dangerous” one and needs to be examined further.

A closer inspection of this mode shows that it corresponds to gauge rotations of the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which leave $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ invariant but rotate $`\mathrm{\Phi }_+`$. In other words, the zero mode rotates the kink within its own class described by the space $`H/I`$. Hence, the perturbation under consideration is not an instability but a gauge rotation. Therefore the class of kinks that has been found describes a set of local minima of $`U[\mathrm{\Phi }_+;\mathrm{\Phi }_{}]`$.

There is a subtlety in the discussion above which we have glossed over. To obtain the Schrodinger equation in eq. (43) we have to perform an integration by parts and assume that the boundary contributions vanish. However, here we are considering perturbations that do not vanish at infinity. This fact means that there is an extra contribution to $`\delta E_{\mathrm{}}`$ in eq. (43) given by

$$\delta E_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }}{dx}\right]_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}$$
(60)
The contribution at $`x=\mathrm{}`$ vanishes because we are choosing $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{})=0`$ but the contribution at $`x=+\mathrm{}`$ does not obviously vanish and depends on the derivative of the perturbation at infinity. However, since we are only interested in finite energy field configurations and the energy density contains the term $`\mathrm{Tr}(_x\mathrm{\Psi })^2`$, we must require that the derivative of the perturbations vanish at spatial infinity. So it is rigorous to take $`\delta E_{\mathrm{}}=0`$ even if the perturbations do not vanish at infinity.

A more extensive discussion of the kink classification problem is left for future work.

## VIII Summary

We have considered $`SU(N)\times Z_2`$ models. On the basis of topology, the model will contain topological kink solutions. A general technique for constructing the solutions is not known. Here, by using some guesses and by choosing a special relation between parameters (eq. (7)), we have analytically constructed a class of kink solutions (see eq. (31)). The energy of the solutions is

$$E=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}\left(\frac{N1}{N3}\right)\frac{m^3}{\lambda }$$
(61)
The limiting value for large $`N`$ is equal to the energy of a $`Z_2`$ kink with mass parameter $`m`$ and coupling constant $`\lambda `$. We have explicitly checked that these kink solutions are perturbatively stable. It is not known if the solutions are globally stable and this remains an interesting open problem.

We have then described the space of kinks as partitioning into distinct classes. All members have the same topology, yet elements of different classes are not expected to have the same energy. The solutions constructed above describe only one of the (unknown number of) classes of kinks and might lie on the “kink vacuum manifold” – the manifold consisting of the least energetic kinks in the model.

We hope that the solutions found here can be used as a guide to the construction of other topological defect solutions in complicated field theories.

###### Acknowledgements.

I am grateful to Levon Pogosian for discussions and especially his input in Sec. VII. I also thank Sandip Trivedi for discussions. This work was supported by the DoE.