format: text

text:
# MOLECULAR GAS AND DUST AT 𝑧 = 2.6 IN SMM J14011+0252: A STRONGLY LENSED, ULTRALUMINOUS GALAXY, NOT A HUGE, MASSIVE DISK.

## 1 EVIDENCE FOR A STARBURST IN SMM J14011+0252

In the past decade, about twenty CO sources at redshifts from $`z=2`$ to 4.7 have been detected at millimeter wavelengths. Most of these high-$`z`$ molecular-line emitters are gravitationally lensed, ultraluminous infrared galaxies (ULIGs), often hosting quasars and vigorous starbursts that may dominate star formation in the early universe. One of these galaxies is SMM J14011+0252 at $`z=2.565`$, originally found by Smail et al. (1998). It is located behind the galaxy cluster Abell 1835 at $`z=0.25`$, and is relatively intense in the submillimeter band, with an 850 $`\mu `$m flux density of $`15\pm 2`$ mJy (Ivison et al. 2000). The visible spectrum of SMM J14011+0252, taken with the Keck-II telescope, covers rest-frame wavelengths 1200–2400 Å, and has a blue continuum with weak, narrow Ly$`\alpha `$ emission and UV absorption lines of C iv, Si ii/ O i, Al iii, Si iv, and C ii, all typical of star-forming galaxies (Ivison et al. 2000). There is no sign of highly-ionized species like N v and no broad Ly$`\alpha `$ or H$`\alpha `$ features, so there is no evidence for emission from a central black hole accretion disk. The H$`\alpha `$-to-\[N II\] ratio is 3, as usually found in H II regions. The 21.5 cm radio flux of $`100`$$`\mu `$Jy agrees with the far-IR-radio correlation for nearby starburst galaxies (Ivison et al. 2000; 2001). All these facts indicate 14011+0252 is powered by star formation rather than a dust-shrouded quasar.

The CO(3–2) line in SMM J14011+0252 was first detected with the Caltech interferometer (Frayer et al. 1999). New results by Ivison et al. (2001) seemed to show the CO was extended over 6.6′′, or 57 kpc. Even allowing for the magnification of 2.5 assumed by Ivison et al., the CO scale length would be $`>20`$ kpc, more than twenty times larger than the CO-emitting, starburst nuclear disks in local ultraluminous IR galaxies. The huge size and CO luminosity lead to a picture of an immense protogalaxy with $`10^{11}`$ M of metal-enriched, molecular gas (Ivison et al. 2001). This is equal to or greater than the stellar mass of all modern spiral galaxies and is surpassed only by the baryonic mass of giant ellipticals. The existence of such a huge and massive system at $`z`$ = 2.6 would have profound implications for theories of galaxy formation.

Ivison et al. also measured a CO centroid that did not coincide with the optical or K-band objects seen with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) or the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT), thus implying that most of the large starburst region is completely hidden from view. To verify the CO extent and position, we re-observed the source at 1.3 mm and 3 mm with the IRAM Interferometer on Plateau de Bure, France. We find a much smaller source, centered on a K-band feature, that we believe is strongly gravitationally lensed, leading to a picture of SMM J14011+0252 as an early-universe ultraluminous galaxy with a compact star-forming disk in its center.

## 2 DETECTIONS, POSITIONS, AND SIZES

### 2.1 Observing Technique

The interferometer recorded data at 1.3 mm and 3 mm simultaneously, with six 15-m antennas spaced from 24 m to 330 m. The most compact array, with spacings $`80`$ m, integrated for 24 hours in excellent weather with $``$2 mm of precipitable water vapor and r.m.s. phase errors of $`20^{}`$ at 1.3 mm. The longer-baseline configurations had another 16 hours with 1.3 mm phase errors $`40^{}`$. The SIS receivers had equivalent system temperatures outside the atmosphere of 150 K at 3 mm (97 GHz) in the lower sideband, and 250 to 400 K at 1.3 mm in upper and lower sidebands separated by 3 GHz, with the upper band at 226 GHz. The spectral correlators covered 1700 km s-1 at 3 mm and 800 km s-1 at 1.3 mm, with resolutions of 8 and 4 km s-1, respectively. The amplitude calibrators were 3C273 (18.2 Jy at 3 mm and 12.9 Jy at 1.3 mm), and MWC349 (1.0 and 1.7 Jy at 3 and 1.3 mm). The uncertainties in the flux scales are $`\pm 5`$% at 3 mm and $`\pm 10`$% at 1.3 mm.

The observing program monitored phases every 20 min, at 3 and 1.3 mm simultaneously, on the nearby calibrators IAP 1413+135 and 1334$``$127, which are northeast and southwest of 14011+0252 (Table 1). The data recording routine uses the 1.3 mm total power to correct amplitudes and phases at 3 and 1.3 mm for short-term changes in atmospheric water vapor. A subsequent calibration program scales the 3 mm curve of phase vs. time to 1.3 mm, subtracts it from the observed 1.3 mm calibrator phases, and fits the phase difference between the two receivers. To all the visibilities, the calibration program assigns weights proportional to the integration time and the inverse square of system temperature. One can then make maps either with these weights (“natural weighting”) or with uniform weighting of the $`u,v`$ data.

### 2.2 CO Lines at 3 and 1.3 mm

We detected both CO(3–2) and CO(7–6) with good sensitivity (Figs. 1—3). The CO (3–2) flux, linewidth, and redshift all agree with the results of Frayer et al. (1999). The apparent CO(3–2) luminosity is $`1\times 10^{11}`$ K km s-1 pc2, a very high value, well beyond the maximum of the CO power histogram for ultraluminous galaxies. For comparison, the galaxy Arp 220 has CO(1–0) and CO(3–2) luminosities of $`8\times 10^9`$ K km s-1 pc2, about twelve times less than 14011+0252. In the survey of 37 ultraluminous galaxies by Solomon et al. (1997), the median CO luminosity was that of Arp 220, and the dispersion was surprisingly small, only 30 per cent. In that sample, the highest CO luminosity, for the galaxy 20087$``$0308, was only twice as high as Arp 220’s, so SMM J14011+0252 definitely appears to be off-scale.

The CO(7–6) line is a new detection. The CO $`J=7`$ level is $`J(J+1)\times 2.77`$ K = 155 K above the ground state, and normally is not populated in galactic spiral-arm molecular clouds, which have mean temperatures of 5 to 20 K and H2 densities of $`200`$ cm-3. For example, in the central 350 pc radius of our Galaxy, the CO measurements by Fixsen, Bennett, & Mather (1999) with the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), when converted to $`L_{\mathrm{CO}}^{}`$ units, show CO(7–6) is weaker than CO(3–2) by a factor of 15. In the inner 4.8 kpc radius ($`l\pm 32^{}`$) of the Milky Way, excluding the galactic center, the estimates by Fixsen et al. when converted to $`L_{\mathrm{CO}}^{}`$ units, show CO(7–6) is weaker than CO(3–2) by a factor of 160. In contrast to its low level in the Milky Way, CO(7–6) is remarkably prominent in 14011+0252, with a fifth of the CO(3–2) luminosity. As well as the relative power, the absolute values are very impressive: The apparent CO(3–2) luminosity is 250 times greater than that of the Milky Way, and the apparent CO(7–6) luminosity is 8000 times greater. The strength of CO(7–6) indicates the CO lines in 14011+0252 are emitted in gas at $`50`$ to 60 K and more importantly, at an H2 density $`1700`$ to 2000 cm-3, i.e., ten times higher than in typical spiral-arm molecular clouds in our Galaxy.

### 2.3 Dust Continuum at 1.3 mm

We detected the 1.3 mm (224.7 GHz) continuum, in double sideband, and in the upper and lower sidebands separately. All the data subsets agree in the peak position and intensity, within the errors. The final 1.3 mm continuum map (Fig. 3b) from both sidebands, excluding CO(7–6), shows a source with a flux density of $`2.5\pm 0.8`$ mJy (1 $`\sigma `$). This is about half the value of $`6.1\pm 1.5`$ mJy reported by Ivison et al. (2000) at 1.35 mm. The CO(7–6) does not cause this discrepancy, because the line is only 225 MHz wide, and the bandwidth of the bolometer used by Ivison et al. ($`>`$30 GHz) would dilute the line flux by a factor $`>`$100. We could reconcile their results with ours if the flux-weighted centroid of their bolometer band were at $``$1.15 mm (260 GHz) instead of 1.35 mm. With a source spectrum steeply rising as $`\nu ^{3.5}`$, our narrow-band heterodyne measurement of 2.5 mJy at 225 GHz would correspond to a flux of $`5\pm 2`$ mJy at 260 GHz.

At 3 mm (97.0 GHz), there is no continuum, to a limit of 0.6 mJy (4 $`\sigma `$), consistent with the 1.3 mm emission being optically thin radiation by dust. For a dust spectral index of 3.5, the expected 3 mm flux density would be only 0.15 mJy, a factor of 4 below our limit.

### 2.4 Position Measurement

In the CO(3–2), (7–6), and 1.3 mm dust maps (Figs. 2 and 3), the peaks are all $`1.6^{\prime \prime }`$ south of the initial CO(3–2) position measured by Frayer et al. (1999), and $`1.0^{\prime \prime }`$ south of the revised CO position listed by Ivison et al. (2001). For identifying the CO with optical objects in the HST field, we must look at both the systematic and statistical uncertainties. In these data, the calibrators 1413+135 and 1334-127 are 11 and 15 away from 14011+0252. With such calibrator angles, the interferometer has an astrometric uncertainty of $``$0.2′′ (see Downes et al. 1999, sect.4). The system noise adds a statistical error, which for a point source is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\theta (B/2)/(S/N)$$
(1)
where $`B`$ is the beamwidth, and $`S/N`$ is the signal-to-r.m.s.-noise ratio. With natural weighting, our CO(3–2) map has a 6′′ beam and $`S/N`$ = 24, and with uniform-weighting (Fig. 2) it has a 3.3′′ beam and $`S/N`$ = 16. The best of these gives a noise error $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =0.10^{\prime \prime }`$ r.m.s., which convolved with the astrometric error (0.2′′) yields a root sum square (r.s.s.) error of 0.22′′. The CO(7–6) map (Fig. 3) has a 2.2′′ beam and $`S/N`$ = 9.4 on the peak, so the noise error is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =0.12^{\prime \prime }`$ r.m.s., which with the astrometric uncertainty (0.2′′) gives an r.s.s. error of 0.23′′.

The new CO position thus differs significantly from those obtained by Frayer et al. (1999) and Ivison et al. (2001), but agrees, within the 1$`\sigma `$ errors, with the optical position of the J1 complex as determined by Ivison et al. from the HST R-band image (Table 2 and Fig. 4). Somewhat more puzzling is the 0.8′′ difference between the centroids of the CO and the 1.4 GHz nonthermal continuum. The 1.4 GHz continuum is extended by 2′′ and is likely to come from supernovae in the starburst fueled by the molecular gas. Although their centroids need not coincide exactly, the half-power ellipse of the synchroton source, as determined by Ivison et al. (2001), actually does include the CO peak and the optical J1 component (Fig. 4). The low signal-to-noise ratio (5.5$`\sigma `$) on the 1.4 GHz map by Ivison et al. (2001) may cause part of the apparent discrepancy, and also explain why their new position for this VLA source differs by 1.4′′ from that in the Ivison et al. (2000) paper. If we increase the position errors to 2$`\sigma `$, then the 1.4 GHz and CO peaks nearly overlap. Given this uncertainty, and the 2′′ size of the 1.4 GHz continuum, the position difference between the CO peak and the nonthermal peak may be less significant than it seems at first glance.

### 2.5 Size Measurement

The previous report that the CO was extended over $`6.6^{\prime \prime }`$ (Ivison et al. 2001) is not confirmed by fits to the visibilities in the $`u,v`$ plane (Fig. 5) which give gaussian full widths to half power of $`2^{\prime \prime }\times <0.5^{\prime \prime }`$. The interferometer does not “resolve out” more extended structure, because our maps contain all of the CO flux reported by Frayer et al. (1999) and Ivison et al. (2001). Our most compact array has a 3 mm beam of $`7^{\prime \prime }\times 6^{\prime \prime }`$, that would have responded to a 6′′ source without missing any flux. This large-beam map yields the same CO flux as the small-beam map in Fig. 2. One can also think of this in the visibility plane. A 3 mm source with a size of 2.2′′ drops to half flux at a projected baseline of 120 m (Fig. 5). A source three times larger would loose half its flux at a spacing three times shorter, or 40 m. Because 14011+0252 is at low declination, our interferometer has projected baselines from 16 m onward, and would have been sensitive to a 6.6′′ source, had it existed. We can only speculate that the CO map by Ivison et al. (2001) may have too low a signal-to-noise ratio ($`S/N`$5.5 near the peak) to give an accurate size. A good rule of thumb is that one needs $`S/N`$ 10 for a diameter measurement.

If the size really had been $`6.6^{\prime \prime }`$, then even with the magnification of 2.5 assumed by Ivison et al., the CO diameter would have been an astonishing 20 kpc, more than 20 times larger than the CO-emitting regions in nearby, low-$`z`$ ultraluminous IR galaxies. It would also contradict results showing that objects at $`z>`$2 in the Hubble Deep Fields have quite small linear dimensions (Ferguson, Dickinson, & Williams 2000). These studies show that early-universe starbursts are efficient and small, about the size of galaxy cores, not the size of complete, modern-day galactic disks. Even in the large, well-developed, gas-rich galaxy disks in the present-day universe, and even in CO(1–0), the lowest rotational transition, most of the CO is concentrated within a central radius of 3 kpc (see, e.g., the CO scale lengths in the galaxy surveys by Regan et al. 2001, their Table 4, and Nishiyama, Nakai, & Kuno 2001, their Table 2). If the CO in 14011+0252 were really as large as 6.6′′, then the 2′′ beam at 1.3 mm would have revealed a velocity gradient of a few hundred km s-1 across the source, but there is no gradient — neither in the grids of spectra (Fig. 6) nor in the maps of individual CO velocity channels (Fig. 7).

Although the CO region is not as large as originally claimed, its measured diameter of 2′′ (17 kpc) is still unlikely to be a true size. Merely detecting CO(7–6) makes such a large CO extent very improbable. Because the CO J=7 level is 155 K above the ground state, seeing the line at all implies a gas kinetic temperature of at least 50 K and an average H2 density $`>1500`$ cm-3. These temperatures and mean densities are found in the circumnuclear starburst disks of radius $`300`$ pc in the centers of ULIGs, but they are implausible over 17 kpc.

One could imagine a giant, spread-out, opaque “reservoir” of gas and dust hiding several simultaneous ULIG-type starbursts, but the data suggest most of the CO flux comes from a single object: (1) a single gaussian can fit the visibility amplitudes (Fig. 5); (2) the CO channel maps (Fig. 7) have only a single component, at the same position, within the noise, at all velocities; (3) the grids of the spectra (Fig. 6) have no obvious signs of multiple velocity features. In fact, both the linewidth (190 km s-1) and simple profile shape of the CO spectra (Fig. 1) resemble those in Mrk 231 (230 km s-1), which has a single, circumnuclear disk of radius 460 pc (Bryant & Scoville 1996; Downes & Solomon 1998). The CO(2–1) brightness temperature in Mrk 231 is 29 K in a 0.7′′ beam, corresponding to a true brightness temperature of $`50`$ K.

## 3 IS SMM J14011+0252 STRONGLY LENSED?

We suspect 14011+0252 is lensed not only by the core of the foreground cluster of galaxies, but also by a galaxy along the line of sight. We estimate the magnifying factor directly from the surface brightness. Since the CO is optically thick, its brightness temperature must be comparable to the gas kinetic temperature. The CO(7–6) detection tells us the gas is warm and dense, and its strength relative to CO(3–2) indicates the gas temperature. This intrinsic brightness temperature, divided by $`1+z`$, is what one would expect if the source filled the beam. The ratio of observed to expected brightness temperatures is then the area filling factor in the beam. Gravitational lensing preserves brightness temperature, so from the measured CO major axis, one obtains the minor axis, and their ratio is roughly the magnifying factor. Another way to derive this is to start from the apparent CO luminosity, which is

$$L_{\mathrm{CO}}^{}(\mathrm{obs})=363(S\mathrm{\Delta }V)\lambda ^2D_A^2(1+z),$$
(2)
where $`(S\mathrm{\Delta }V)`$ is the integrated CO flux in Jy km s-1, $`\lambda `$ is the redshifted wavelength in mm, and $`D_A`$ is the angular diameter distance in Mpc (this is a variant of eq.  of Solomon, Downes, & Radford 1992). If the true geometry is a gaussian with half-power diameter $`d`$, then the magnification of the CO is

$$m_{\mathrm{CO}}=\frac{d_m}{d}=\frac{1.133d_m^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{\Delta }V}{L_{\mathrm{CO}}^{}(\mathrm{obs})}f_VT_b,$$
(3)
where $`d`$ is the true CO diameter in pc, $`d_m`$ is the magnified major axis in pc, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ is the linewidth in km s-1, $`L_{\mathrm{CO}}^{}`$ is the amplified CO(3–2) luminosity in K km s-1 pc2, $`f_V`$ is the velocity filling factor, and $`T_b`$ is the CO(3–2) rest frame brightness temperature, which the CO(3–2)/CO(7–6) ratio indicates is $`35\pm 5`$ K (this is a version of eq.  of Downes, Solomon, & Radford 1995). For 14011+0252, the data imply that if the measured CO major axis is $`2^{\prime \prime }`$, then the gravitational lens magnifies the CO size by a factor of 25. The flux amplification inferred from our brightness temperature argument is for the sum of all the CO emission, which could be in a single, long arc or in several multiple-image spots or arclets.

Here is another way to present this argument:

1) In many respects, the spectral energy distribution of 14011+0252 resembles closely that of Arp 220 and other local-universe ULIGs, with much of the input power being re-radiated by dust at 40 to 65 K. Because its molecular gas also appears to be heated by an extraordinary starburst, 14011+0252 should have an intrinsic CO brightness temperature comparable with Arp 220’s.

2) On interferometer maps of Arp 220 (Scoville, Yun & Bryant 1997; Downes & Solomon 1998), one directly measures average CO(1–0) and (2–1) brightness temperatures of 35 K, so this is a reasonable value for the intrinsic CO brightness temperature in 14011+0252.

3) We may also calculate a mean CO brightness temperature of Arp 220 from its total CO luminosity, linewidth, and size, for a velocity filling factor $`f_V`$=1, i.e., a mean $`T_b`$ averaged over the line profile. This mean brightness temperature is also 35 K, in agreement with the direct measurement off the Arp 220 CO maps. Again, this is the expected intrinsic mean brightness temperature for the CO in 14011+0252.

4) In 14011+0252, the $`L_{\mathrm{CO}}^{}`$ (3–2)/(7–6) ratio is $`5\pm 1`$, corresponding to a molecular gas kinetic temperature of $`50`$ to 60 K, and an H2 density of $`1700`$ to 2000 cm-3. In an escape probability model, these parameters yield a predicted CO(3–2) brightness temperature of $`35\pm 5`$ K, confirming the brightness temperature deduced by analogy with Arp 220 and other ultraluminous galaxies.

5) Because gravitational lensing conserves surface brightness, the mean CO(3–2) brightness temperature should be 35 K, whatever the magnified size.

6) The measured major axis is $`2.2^{\prime \prime }\pm 0.4^{\prime \prime }`$ (gaussian FWHP), and from the intrinsic brightness temperature, linewidth, and apparent CO(3–2) luminosity, the derived minor axis turns out to be $`0.083^{\prime \prime }\pm 0.015^{\prime \prime }`$. The major/minor axis ratio is thus $`25\pm 5`$, and this is how much the lens magnifies the CO size.

Here’s a shortcut to this answer:

1) From the observed CO(3–2) luminosity, linewidth, and size of 2.2′′, the brightness temperature would be only 0.37 K, if the emitting area were circular. Correcting by $`(1+z)`$, we would get 1.3 K for the apparent $`T_b`$ at $`z`$=2.6.

2) This apparent $`T_b`$ of 1.3 K is $`25\pm 5`$ times smaller than the true $`T_b`$ of $`35\pm 5`$ K expected from the CO line ratio and the similarity of the far-IR spectrum to Arp 220’s. Again, this factor of 25 is how much the lens amplifies the CO flux.

Table 2 lists the CO and dust results for 14011+0252. We also give the true radius, gas mass, dynamical mass, and far-IR luminosity after correcting downward by a factor of 25, which we think is the combined lensing effect of an individual galaxy and the cluster ensemble. The magnifying factor would of course be lower if several different, simultaneous, ULIG-level starburst sources gave area and velocity filling factors that diluted the brightness temperature in the beam. For the reasons given in sect. 2.5 — simple gaussian visibility function, one sole component in channel maps, one sole gaussian spectral profile — we prefer to treat the CO flux as coming from a single object.

## 4 A NEW INTERPRETATION

The CO brightness argument for strong lensing now suggests a different origin for some of the IR/optical features found by Ivison et al. (2001). Rather than being interacting galaxies and tidal tails of a merger, some of these bright knots may instead be multiple images. If for example, the J1(southeast) and J2 components are really the same object, this would explain:

— why J1 and J2 have identical redshifts in Ly$`\alpha `$, and why they also have the same UV absorption lines;

— why J1 and J2 both have Ly$`\alpha `$ shifted by $``$400 km s-1 from the lower-excitation H$`\alpha `$ and the CO. Ivison et al. (2000; 2001) interpret J1 and J2 as interacting galaxies, and the 400 km s-1 shift as an outflow. But Ly$`\alpha `$ is at the same velocity in both J1 and J2. Why would two interacting galaxies both have a blueshifted outflow? And why would the two outflow velocity vectors be at the same angle to the line of sight so as to yield a shift of 400 km s-1 in both galaxies?

— why J2 looks like an arc in the high-resolution HST picture (Ivison et al. 2001, their Fig. 1, middle).

— why the colors of J1 and J2 are different on the low-resolution UKIRT+HST composite picture (Ivison et al. 2001, their Fig. 1, left): — the simplest answer is that the main blob in the J1 complex is the lensing galaxy, and it is redder than 14011+0252.

Different intrinsic areas at the emitted wavelengths may explain part of the different colors of J1, J2, and J1n. The observed K-band is rest-frame 6000 Å, including starlight from the nuclear bulge and H$`\alpha `$+\[N II\] from H II regions. The observed U-band is rest-frame 1000 Å, which comes from the more extincted, and possibly more confined, hot-star continuum and Ly$`\alpha `$ outflow. These different-sized regions would have different magnifications in the main and secondary images. Color differences among main and counter-images, or between arcs and bright spots, are known in other objects, such as MG 0414+0534 (Lawrence et al. 1995; Falco, Lehár, & Shapiro 1997).

In fact, the HST image of 14011+0252 in Fig. 8, left (from Ivison et al. 2001, their Fig. 1, middle) resembles that of the quasar MG 0414+0534 in Fig. 8, right (from Falco et al.), which has four bright spots in the “classic” lensed configuration of a bright, close double A1+A2 separated by $`0.4^{\prime \prime }`$, plus two fainter spots B and C, each $`2^{\prime \prime }`$ from A1+A2 and from each other (e.g., Falco et al.; Blandford & Narayan 1992, their Fig. 6c,d). As in 0414+0534, the central blob in the J1 component of 14011+0252 may actually be the lensing galaxy, and it is this galaxy that may cause the color difference between J1 and J2 on the smoothed “true color” picture by Ivison et al. (2001; their Fig. 1, left). Besides the possibly analogous quadruple spots or arclets in the optical, there are other points in common. Like 14011+0252, the galaxy 0414+0535 is at redshift 2.6, has H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$, is very dusty and red, with $`rK`$ = 7 mag (e.g., Hewitt et al. 1992; Lawrence et al. 1995), and has a CO(3–2) power (Barvainis et al. 1998) identical to that of 14011+0252. The source 0414+0534 has a quasar, and we think its strong CO line comes from the same kind of circumnuclear, molecular-gas disk as in local-universe ULIGs containing quasars, like Mrk 231.

The CO in 14011+0252 may also be like the arcs #384/468 lensed by the $`z=0.175`$ galaxy cluster A2218 (Pelló et al. 1988; 1992; Kneib et al. 1996). The remarkable arc #384 stretches over 4′′ and appears to be two ionized regions distorted into long parallel tracks, each about 0.25′′ wide. The arc is at $`z`$ = 2.515, and its $`R`$-band flux is amplified by $`2.9\pm 0.3`$ mag (Ebbels et al. 1996), or a factor of $`14.5\pm 2`$. That is, the length, redshift, and magnification of the arc #384 in A2218 all resemble those of the CO in 14011+0252.

Figure 9 shows a type of model that may explain 14011+0252. In the source plane, the radial and tangential caustics are not centered on the lensing galaxy, but are pulled off-center by the mass of the $`z=0.25`$ cluster Abell 1835, whose dominant cD galaxy is 50′′ to the northwest. In the model, the galaxy 14011+0252 at $`z=2.6`$ has a compact UV core with a diameter of 0.02′′ (black core in Fig. 9, left), surrounded by a larger molecular ring (grey halo in the Figure). The core UV light is deflected into two small arcs (the black central parts of the arcs in Fig. 9, right), suggestive of the J1-SE and J2 components in the HST R-band field of 14011+0252. In lens plane, the millimeter CO and dust radiation is elongated into the larger grey parts of the arcs in Fig. 9. Most of the CO and dust signal is in the larger eastern arc, which we associate with J1. For the figure, we did not try to find the best model, but simply adopted a velocity width of 200 km s-1 and ellipticity of 0.2 for the core of the lensing galaxy to illustrate what may be happening. More sensitive, higher-resolution CO maps are needed to derive the relative deflecting strengths of the main lensing galaxy and the cluster as a whole.

Table 3 lists the observed and de-magnified CO parameters of 14011+0252 and 0414+0534. For 0414+0535, we used the CO(3–2) data of Barvainis et al. We also give the values for Arp 220, if moved to $`z=2.6`$, based on the CO(3–2) intensity (Mauersberger et al. 1999) and interferometer size measurements (Downes & Solomon 1998). The table shows that with our model of comparable CO brightness temperatures and hence strong lensing, the intrinsic properties of the molecular disks in 14011+0252 and 0414+0535 must be roughly similar to those in Arp 220 and other ultraluminous IR galaxies in the local universe.

Strong lensing may also explain another curiosity about this galaxy. Adelberger & Steidel (2000) showed 14011+0252 obeys nicely the rest-frame UV, sub-mm, and cm-radio correlations established for rapidly star-forming galaxies at low redshifts. None of the $``$800 spectroscopically confirmed $`z3`$ galaxies in their UV-selected sample, however, is as bright in the near-IR as 14011+0252 ($`R`$-magnitude 21.25) and $`95`$% of the galaxies in their sample are ten times fainter, implying dust fluxes ten times lower than SMMJ14011’s, or $`1`$ mJy at 850 $`\mu `$m. Most of their UV-selected galaxies would thus be undetectable at 1.3 mm in either the dust continuum or in CO. Our interpretation that the lens magnifies the source by more than an order of magnitude means that 14011+0252 is basically the same type of dusty, rapidly star-forming galaxy as many of the other UV-selected galaxies at high redshift.

## 5 CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to an apparent result that the CO in 14011+0252 is extended by 6.6′′, suggesting a starburst on a much larger scale than in local ultraluminous IR galaxies, new interferometer measurents yield a size of only $`2^{\prime \prime }\times 0.5^{\prime \prime }`$ for the CO and dust emission. Our brightness-temperature argument further indicates the CO size must be magnified by a factor of 25. The gravitational lens may be an isolated galaxy along the line of sight, whose effects add to those of the foreground cluster A1835.

The image configuration in 14011+0252 resembles that in the gravitationally lensed quasar 0414+0535, and the circumnuclear starburst disks in both galaxies are probably magnified by comparable amounts. This means the true radii, gas masses, star formation rates, and far-IR luminosities of their molecular disks are all about the same as those in local-universe ultraluminous IR galaxies like Arp 220. They are not huge, very massive disks in the early universe.

We thank the operators on Plateau de Bure for their help in observing, R. Lucas for his aid with the visibility plots, M. Bremer for help with the figures, R. Neri for the lens model, and the referee for very useful comments.


text:
# The Color–Flavor Transformation of induced QCD

## 1 Introduction

The complexity of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) originates from the random character of the gauge field in the low-energy regime, while at high energy (small scales) the theory is asymptotically free. One of the most successful approaches to analyse QCD in the non-perturbative domain is the lattice formulation due to Wilson , where the strong coupling regime becomes natural. On the other hand, the continuum limit of lattice QCD corresponds to the weakly-coupled regime. It was shown by Gross and Witten  that two-dimensional lattice QCD can be solved exactly in the large-$`N_c`$ limit and there is a third-order weak- to strong-coupling phase transition. The problem, which persists over the years is, if such a phase transition occurs in the realistic $`SU(3)`$ four-dimensional gauge theory.

One of the ways to attack this problem is to use some form of *duality*  which appears in the lattice theory. The general idea of duality is that a given theory can have two, or more equivalent formulations, with different sets of fundamental variables. Usually these dual formulations are related by interchanging a parameter, e.g. the electromagnetic coupling constant $`e^2`$, with its inverse $`1/e^2`$. For example, in the weak-coupling limit, the action of the Abelian lattice gauge model can be approximated by the Villain form (see e.g. ) which allows to define the dual variables. Similarly, it was shown that there is a duality transformation from the compact $`U(1)`$ gauge theory into a non-compact Abelian Higgs model .

The dual variables are in general not defined on the original lattice but on a *dual lattice*. For a hypercubic lattice, it is obtained by shifting the original lattice by half of the lattice spacing in all dimensions. Thus, the lattice duality not only transforms the variables of the functional integral, but also incorporates a transfer to the dual lattice.

In the case of a nonabelian lattice gauge theory, one can reformulate the model in terms of plaquette variables . Recently, following the idea of , Diakonov and Petrov  applied a Fourier transformation to write down the Jacobian from the link variables to the plaquette variables in $`d=3`$ gluodynamics for the gauge group SU$`(2)`$; *in fine* the dual lattice is composed of tetrahedra representing $`6j`$-symbols, with links of arbitrary lengths. In the continuum limit this effective theory is equivalent with quantum gravity with the Einstein-Hilbert action. Unfortunately, this scheme seems difficult to apply to higher-rank gauge groups and in $`d>3`$ dimensions.

Another approach to analyze non-perturbative QCD is to start from a “simpler” theory which contains auxiliary fields coupled to the gauge fields, and “induce” the nonabelian lattice gauge action by integrating over the auxiliary fields. Several QCD-inducing models were proposed, with an auxiliary field living either in the fundamental representation of the gauge group , or in the adjoint representation . In all cases, one recovers Wilson’s action when the mass of the auxiliary field goes to infinity. In the latter case, one can solve the large-$`N_c`$ limit, but the adjoint representation implies an extra local $`Z_{N_c}`$ symmetry which leads to an infinite string tension .

In the present note we discuss another approach to treat a similar type of inducing model. Our construction starts from an inducing theory similar with , already introduced in , and applies a certain duality transformation, namely the “color–flavor transformation” . We have recently applied this transformation to the lattice SU$`(N_c)`$ model in the strong-coupling limit, which describes quarks coupled with a background gauge field .

After this work was completed, we learnt that Schlittgen and Wettig independently applied the SU$`(N)`$ color-flavor transformation to a similar, yet different QCD-inducing model .

## 2 A model of induced lattice gauge theory

### 2.1 Wilson’s lattice action

We consider a Euclidean U$`(N_c)`$ pure gauge action (no quarks) in $`d`$ dimensions, placed on a hypercubic lattice with lattice constant $`a`$. The choice of U$`(N_c)`$ instead of the realistic SU$`(N_c)`$ highly simplifies the subsequent color-flavor transformation.

The lattice sites are labeled by integer vectors $`n=(1,\mathrm{},n_d)`$, the gauge matrix variables

$$U_\mu (n)U_{n,n+\mu }U(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})=\mathrm{exp}\left(iagA_\mu (na+\frac{a\widehat{\mu }}{2})\right)\mathrm{U}(N_c)$$
(1)
are placed on the lattice links $`n+\widehat{\mu }/2`$ (we label links by their *middle points*), leaving the site $`n`$ in any of the “positive” directions $`\mu =1,\mathrm{},d`$. The plaquettes are either labeled by an independent index $`p`$, or by triplets of the form $`(n,\pm \mu ,\pm \nu )`$. For instance, the plaquette $`(n,\mu ,\nu )`$ contains the links $`n+\widehat{\mu }/2`$ and $`n+\widehat{\nu }/2`$. To fix an ordering between the directions, we will in general assume that $`1\mu <\nu d`$. Notice that the same plaquette corresponds to the triplets $`(n,\mu ,\nu )`$ and $`(n+\widehat{\mu },\mu ,\nu )`$ (as well as two other triplets).

The Wilson pure gauge action is given by a sum over all elementary plaquettes:

$$S_{\mathrm{gluons}}=\beta _W\underset{p}{}\mathrm{Tr}\left(U_P(p)+U_P^{}(p)\right).$$
(2)
Here $`\beta _W`$ is the lattice coupling, which is related to the bare continuum coupling constant $`g`$ through

$$\beta _W=\frac{a^{d4}}{2g^2}.$$
(3)
The plaquette field $`U_P`$ is defined as an ordered product of the link variables along the boundary of the given plaquette:

$$U_P(n,\mu ,\nu )=U(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})U(n+\widehat{\mu }+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}})U^1(n+\widehat{\nu }+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})U^1(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}})$$
(4)
The partition function is defined as

$$Z=𝒟Ue^{S_{\mathrm{gluons}}},$$
(5)
the invariant measure of integration is defined as a product over all links $`𝒟U=\underset{n,\mu }{}dU(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})`$ and $`dU(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})`$ is the Haar measure on the group U$`(N_c)`$.

Using a generalized Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula, one can relate the continuum field strength tensor

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu i[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]$$

with the plaquette matrices as follows:

$$U_P(n,\mu ,\nu )=e^{iga^2F_{\mu \nu }(n)+O(a^3)}.$$
(6)
Expansion in the lattice spacing up to the second order then yields

$$\mathrm{Tr}U_P(n,\mu ,\nu )N_c+iga^2\mathrm{Tr}F_{\mu \nu }\frac{g^2a^4}{2}\mathrm{Tr}F_{\mu \nu }^2$$

so that the standard Yang-Mills action is recovered in the continuum limit:

$$S_{cont}=\frac{1}{2}d^dx\mathrm{Tr}F_{\mu \nu }^2.$$
(7)
Wilson’s lattice gauge action (2) is written via the plaquette matrices $`U_P(p)`$ while the variables of the integration measure are the link matrices $`U(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})`$. It is possible to explicitly transfer the integration from link to plaquette matrices  , but this procedure is technically involved and can be applied only in a few simple cases. We would like to investigate a possibility to apply another approach, which starts from a modification of the QCD inducing model of Bander and Hamber .

### 2.2 Our model and its induced gauge action

Let us consider a massive complex bosonic field $`\varphi (n)`$ placed on the lattice sites $`n`$. This field has “flavor”components $`\varphi ^{(\pm \mu ,\pm \nu )}(n)`$ associated to each of the $`2d(d1)`$ plaquette $`\{(n,\pm \mu ,\pm \nu );1\mu <\nu d\}`$ adjacent to the site $`n`$ (see Figures 1,3). The field furthermore decomposes into two ‘chiral components’ $`\varphi _R^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n)`$ and $`\varphi _L^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n)`$, which are hopping in opposite directions. These fields will be referred as ‘left’ and ‘right’ respectively.

The chiral bosonic field can be thought of as an $`N_b`$-component vector in an auxiliary ‘flavor’ space (here the index $`b`$ stands for ‘bosonic’). The number of ‘flavors’ has to be a multiple of $`2d(d1)`$, that is the dimension of the ‘flavor’ space is $`N_b=n_b\times 2d(d1)`$, where $`n_b^{}`$ is the number of ‘generations’ of the bosonic field. The bosonic field $`\varphi `$ also transforms as a vector through the gauge group $`U(N_c)`$, so it contains ‘color indices’ $`i=1,\mathrm{},N_c`$ besides the ‘flavor’ indices $`a=1,\mathrm{},N_b`$. All flavor components have the same mass $`m_b`$.

This model (already considered in \[21, Chap. 5\]) is different from the model usually considered in induced QCD , where the flavor degrees of freedom of the auxiliary fields are not associated with plaquettes. As we will show below, this structure will induce a Wilson-type action in a cleaner way than in the previous models.

To complete our notations, we shall fix the orientation of the plaquettes, in order to define the hopping and ‘left’ and the ‘right’ components in all $`2`$-dimensional planes on the lattice. On any plane $`(\mu ,\nu )`$ with $`1\mu <\nu d`$ the ‘left’ chiral component hops on the plaquette $`(n,\mu ,\nu )`$ as

$$\varphi _L(n)\varphi _L(n+\widehat{\mu })\varphi _L(n+\widehat{\mu }+\widehat{\nu })\varphi _L(n+\widehat{\nu })\varphi _L(n),$$
(8)
and the ‘right’ chiral component hops in the opposite direction (see Fig. 2). This practically means that the ‘kinetic’ part of the action contains the term $`\varphi _L^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n+\widehat{\mu })U(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})\varphi _L^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n)`$ (cf. Eq. (10)).

Let us now group the fields surrounding a given plaquette $`p=(n,\mu ,\nu )`$ into the following *plaquette quadruplets*:

$$\varphi _L(p)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _L^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n)\\ \varphi _L^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n+\widehat{\mu })\\ \varphi _L^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n+\widehat{\mu }+\widehat{\nu })\\ \varphi _L^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n+\widehat{\nu })\end{array}\right);\varphi _R(p)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _R^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n)\\ \varphi _R^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n+\widehat{\mu })\\ \varphi _R^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n+\widehat{\mu }+\widehat{\nu })\\ \varphi _R^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n+\widehat{\nu })\end{array}\right)$$
(9)
Then the plaquette action of the ‘left’ bosonic massive field may be written in the concise form

$$S_L(p)=\varphi _L^{}(p)M_L(p)\varphi _L(p)$$
(10)
with the $`4N_c\times 4N_c`$ matrix

$$M_L(n,\mu ,\nu )\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m_b& 0& 0& U^1(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}})\\ U(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})& m_b& 0& 0\\ 0& U(n+\widehat{\mu }+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}})& m_b& 0\\ 0& 0& U^1(n+\widehat{\nu }+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})& m_b\end{array}\right)$$
(11)
Similarly, ‘right’ bosonic action associated with the plaquette $`p`$ reads:

$$S_R(p)=\varphi _R^{}(p)M_L^{}(p)\varphi _R(p).$$
(12)
We define the full partition function as:

$$𝒵=𝒟\overline{\varphi }_{L,R}𝒟\varphi _{L,R}𝒟U\mathrm{exp}\left\{\underset{p}{}S_L(p)+S_R(p)\right\}.$$
(13)
### 2.3 Integration over auxiliary fields

We now show that the model (13) induces a lattice gluodynamics which reduces to Wilson’s pure gauge action for suitably chosen parameters. We can treat plaquettes separately, since each field component is associated with one and only plaquette. The integration over the ‘left’ auxiliary fields in (10) yields

$$d\overline{\varphi }_L(p)d\varphi _L(p)\mathrm{exp}\{S_L(p)\}=\mathrm{Det}\left(M_L(p)\right)^{n_b}=\mathrm{Det}(m_b^4U_P(p))^{n_b},$$
(14)
where $`n_b`$ is the number of ‘generations’ of the auxiliary fields. The integration over the ‘right’ components is similar, with $`U_P`$ replaced by $`U_P^{}`$. Thus, the integration over the auxiliary bosonic fields exactly yields the pure gauge effective action

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S_{\mathrm{plaq}}& =n_b\underset{p}{}[\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{Det}(1\beta _bU_P(p))+\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{Det}(1\beta _bU_P^{}(p))]\hfill \\ & =n_b\underset{p}{}\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{ln}(1\beta _bU_P(p))+\mathrm{ln}(1\beta _bU_P^{}(p))],\hfill \end{array}$$

where we skipped a mass-dependent prefactor, and set $`\beta _b=m_b^4`$. As opposed to the former inducing models , this action does not contain any term related with larger loops. Expanding this action for small parameter $`\beta _b`$ (that is, large $`m_b`$), we get

$$S_{\mathrm{plaq}}=n_b\beta _b\mathrm{Tr}\underset{p}{}\left(U_P(p)+U_P^{}(p)\right)+𝒪(n_b\beta _b^2).$$
(15)
This coincides with Wilson’s action (2) if we identify

$$\beta _W=n_b\beta _bg^2=\frac{a^{d4}}{2n_b\beta _b}=\frac{a^{d4}m_b^4}{2n_b}.$$
(16)
#### Remarks on the continuum limit

Let us say a few words about the continuum limit of the model. In $`d=2`$ and $`d=3`$, the physical coupling constant $`g`$ can remain fixed as one lets the lattice spacing $`a`$ go to $`0`$ and simultaneously $`\beta _W=n_b\beta _b\mathrm{}`$. In $`d=4`$, this limit corresponds to the asymptotically free continuum theory. Recall that the mass of the auxiliary fields is measured in units of the lattice spacing: $`m_b=m\times a`$. Therefore the auxiliary field becomes non-observable in the continuum limit if the corresponding correlation length $`\xi =(am)^1=\beta _b^{1/4}`$ stays finite. We assumes it remains small enough to justify the expansion (15).

We end this section with one more comment. It is possible to consider a fermionic counterpart of the bosonic action (13), which induces a similar pure gauge effective action. One has to replace the bosonic auxiliary fields by fermionic (anticommuting) fields $`\psi _{L,R}`$, $`\overline{\psi }_{L,R}`$ which carry color indices and flavor indices related to plaquettes, exactly as for the multiplets (9); one can consider $`n_f`$ ‘generations’ of these fermions. After integrating over them, one obtains the effective pure gauge action

$$S=n_f\underset{p}{}\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{ln}(1+\beta _fU_P(p))+\mathrm{ln}(1+\beta _fU_P^{}(p))].$$
(17)
Here $`\beta _f=m_f^4`$, where $`m_f`$ is the fermion mass. Clearly, we once more recover the conventional Wilson action (2) for small values of $`\beta _f`$.

Having considered both bosonic and fermionic induced lattice gluodynamics, we can also represent the effective action as the ratio of ‘fermionic’ and ‘bosonic determinants:

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{a^{d4}}{2g^2}\mathrm{Tr}(U_P+U_P^{})\right]\frac{\left[\mathrm{Det}(1+\beta _fU_P)\mathrm{Det}(1+\beta _fU_P^{})\right]^{n_f}}{\left[\mathrm{Det}(1\beta _bU_P)\mathrm{Det}(1\beta _bU_P^{})\right]^{n_b}}.$$
(18)
Thus, for small couplings $`\beta _b`$, $`\beta _f`$, the partition function can be represented by the following superintegral

$$𝒵=𝒟U𝒟\psi 𝒟\overline{\psi }\mathrm{exp}\left[\overline{\psi }_{L,a}^i(\delta ^{ij}+\beta _L(U_P)^{ij})\psi _{L,a}^j\overline{\psi }_{R,a}^i(\delta ^{ij}+\beta _R(U_P^{})^{ij})\psi _{R,a}^j\right].$$
(19)
The composite field $`\psi ,\overline{\psi }`$ includes both bosonic and fermionic variables, which are distinguished by the ‘flavor’ index $`a`$.

There are therefore several ways to induce Wilson’s lattice gauge action. In all cases, the action (2) with fixed $`\beta _W`$ can be recovered in the limit of large mass and large number of generations of the auxiliary fields (cf. Eq. (16)). Below we will restrict our considerations to the bosonic model (13).

## 3 Color-flavor transformation of the inducing theory

Though the equivalence between the model (13) and Wilson’s gluodynamics can be established only in the limit of large number of generations of the auxiliary field, we would like to study some properties of the underlying theory with a single bosonic ‘generation’ $`(n_b=1)`$, that is with a flavor space of dimension $`N_b=2d(d1)`$. This assumption simplifies the application of the color-flavor transformation .

Let us consider the interaction term of the bosonic action (13) on a given link $`(n+\widehat{\mu }/2)`$ of the $`d`$-dimensional hypercubic lattice. The path ordered product of the link matrices defined by the ‘left’ action (10) is depicted in Fig. 3. There are $`2d2`$ plaquettes which share this common link. Above we have used the plaquette quadruplets (9) in order to write the plaquette action concisely. Now we will rather decompose the full action into a sum over *links*, which forces us to gather the auxiliary bosonic fields into two series of *site-link multiplets*, in order to include all fields coupled by $`U(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})`$ or $`U^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})`$. We thus define two chirally-conjugated multiplets associated with the site $`n`$ and the link $`(n+\widehat{\mu }/2)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(n;\mu )\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _R^{(\mu ,\mu +1)}(n)\\ \varphi _L^{(\mu ,\mu 1)}(n)\\ \mathrm{}\\ \varphi _R^{(\mu ,d)}(n)\\ \varphi _L^{(\mu ,d)}(n)\\ \varphi _R^{(\mu ,1)}(n)\\ \varphi _L^{(\mu ,1)}(n)\\ \mathrm{}\\ \varphi _R^{(\mu ,\mu +1)}(n)\\ \varphi _L^{(\mu ,\mu 1)}(n)\end{array}\right);\mathrm{\Phi }(n;\mu )\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _L^{(\mu ,\mu +1)}(n)\\ \varphi _R^{(\mu ,\mu 1)}(n)\\ \mathrm{}\\ \varphi _L^{(\mu ,d)}(n)\\ \varphi _R^{(\mu ,d)}(n)\\ \varphi _L^{(\mu ,1)}(n)\\ \varphi _R^{(\mu ,1)}(n)\\ \mathrm{}\\ \varphi _L^{(\mu ,\mu +1)}(n)\\ \varphi _R^{(\mu ,\mu 1)}(n)\end{array}\right)$$
(20)
The multiplets $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n;\mu )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(n;\mu )`$ associated with the site $`n`$ and link $`n\widehat{\mu }/2`$ are obtained from the ones above by flipping the *first* superscript $`\mu `$ into $`\mu `$ in all components, while changing neither the second superscript nor the ordering of the fields.

Recall that the fields $`\varphi ^{(\mu ,\nu )}`$ are vectors with respect to the colour group. Thus, the link multiplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a^i(n;\mu ),\mathrm{\Psi }_a^i(n;\mu )`$ have to be labeled by color ($`i`$) and flavor ($`a`$) indices. The latter are given by the second superscript in the definition of the multiplets: for instance, the flavor indices of the multiplets (20) take the successive values $`a=\mu +1,\mu 1`$, $`\mu +2,\mathrm{}`$ etc. Had we included multiple generations, the dimension of the coupling matrices would have been $`d^{}=n_b(2d2)`$).

Since there are $`2d`$ links around the site $`n`$ and for each link, two multiplets containing $`2d2`$ components, the full set of multiplets is of dimension $`8d(d1)`$. On the other hand, the number of independent flavor components at each site is $`2\times N_b=4d(d1)`$ (the factor $`2`$ corresponds to the chirality). Therefore, the site-link multiplets are not linearly independent; indeed, each field component $`\varphi _{L/R}^{(\pm \mu ,\pm \nu )}(n)`$ is contained in exactly two multiplets, one associated with the link $`(n+\widehat{\mu }/2)`$, the other with the link $`(n+\widehat{\nu }/2)`$.

In terms of these multiplets, the interacting part of the action (13) associated with the link $`(n+\widehat{\mu }/2)`$ can be written in a compact form as follows (repeated indices are summed over):

$$S_U(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_a^i(n+\widehat{\mu };\mu )U^{ij}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})\mathrm{\Phi }_a^j(n;\mu )+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_a^i(n;\mu )U^{ij}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})\mathrm{\Psi }_a^j(n+\widehat{\mu };\mu ).$$
(21)
Now that we isolated the part of the action associated with the matrix $`U(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})`$, we can apply the bosonic $`U(N_c)`$ color-flavor transformation on this action, that is replace the integration over $`U(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})`$ by an integral over a complex matrix $`Z(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})`$ of dimension $`d^{}`$ :

$$\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{U}(N_c)}dU(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})\mathrm{exp}[S_U(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})]=_{D_d^{}}d\mu (Z,Z^{})\mathrm{Det}(1ZZ^{})^{N_c}\times \hfill \\ \hfill \times \mathrm{exp}\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_a^i(n+\widehat{\mu };\mu )Z_{ab}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})\mathrm{\Psi }_b^i(n+\widehat{\mu };\mu )+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_b^i(n;\mu )Z_{}^{}{}_{ba}{}^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})\mathrm{\Phi }_a^i(n;\mu )\right].\end{array}$$
(22)
$`D_d^{}`$ denotes the set of complex matrices $`Z`$ of dimension $`d^{}`$ such that the Hermitian matrix $`1ZZ^{}`$ is positive definite. This set is in one-to-one correspondence with the non-compact symmetric space $`\mathrm{U}(d^{},d^{})/\mathrm{U}(d^{})\times \mathrm{U}(d^{})`$ , and the measure $`d\mu (Z,Z^{})`$ is the (suitablly normalized) invariant measure on this symmetric space:

$$d\mu (Z,Z^{})=const\times \mathrm{Det}(1ZZ^{})^{2d^{}}\underset{a,b=1}{\overset{d^{}}{}}dZ_{ab}d\overline{Z}_{ab}.$$

The identity (22) makes sense iff

$$N_c2d^{}=4(d1),$$
(23)
otherwise the integral over $`Z`$ does not converge.

In the color-flavor transformed action, the auxiliary fields are coupled *ultralocally* via the $`Z`$ matrices through their flavor indices. The indices of the matrix $`Z(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})`$ are associated with the plaquettes adjacent to the link $`(n+\widehat{\mu }/2)`$, so that each entry of that matrix describes a correlation between these plaquettes. This is to be put in contrast with the original action (13), which described a parallel transport of the bosonic field along the links.

Grouping all auxiliary fields at the site $`n`$ we get the interaction part of the local effective action

$$S_Z[n]=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{d}{}}\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_b^i(n;\mu )\overline{Z}_{ab}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})\mathrm{\Phi }_a^i(n;\mu )+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_a^i(n;\mu )Z_{ab}(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})\mathrm{\Psi }_b^i(n;\mu )\right],$$
(24)
which is diagonal in the color indices. Since the mass term is diagonal with respect to both the color and flavor indices, the color degrees of freedom are decoupled in the transformed action, so that the partition function can be factorized into $`N_c`$ identical integrals, each corresponding to a given color. Still, the coupling between the $`4d(d1)`$ flavor components at each site is not completely obvious, so we first analyze the simpler case of $`d=2`$ before turning to the general case.

### 3.1 d=2 effective action

The simplest possible situation corresponds to the model placed on the 2-dimensional square lattice spanned by two orthogonal unit vectors $`\widehat{1}`$ and $`\widehat{2}`$. Let us consider the four links having the lattice site $`n`$ in common (see Fig 3). The space of auxiliary fields at $`n`$ is of dimension $`8`$ and, according to (24,20), the site-link multiplets (here, doublets) read

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Psi }(n;1)& =\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\varphi _R^{(1,2)}(n)}{\varphi _L^{(1,2)}(n)}\right);\mathrm{\Psi }(n;1)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\varphi _R^{(1,2)}(n)}{\varphi _L^{(1,2)}(n)}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Psi }(n;2)& =\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\varphi _R^{(2,1)}(n)}{\varphi _L^{(2,1)}(n)}\right);\mathrm{\Psi }(n;2)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\varphi _R^{(2,1)}(n)}{\varphi _L^{(2,1)}(n)}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
The $`4`$ chirally conjugated doublets $`\mathrm{\Phi }(n;\pm \widehat{\alpha })`$ are obtained by exchanging $`LR`$. These doublets are coupled through the $`2\times 2`$ matrices $`Z^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{1}}{2}}),Z^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{2}}{2}}),Z(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{1}}{2}})`$ and $`Z(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{2}}{2}})`$ carried by the four links adjacent to the site $`n`$. To give an example, the matrix $`Z^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{1}}{2}})`$ has the following index structure:

$$Z^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{1}}{2}})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Z_{2,2}^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{1}}{2}})& Z_{2,2}^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{1}}{2}})\\ Z_{2,2}^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{1}}{2}})& Z_{2,2}^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{1}}{2}})\end{array}\right)$$
(26)
Together with the link carrying the matrix, the lower pair of indices represent the plaquettes associated with the field components coupled by the matrix element: the diagonal element $`Z_{2,2}^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{1}}{2}})`$ couples different fields associated with the same plaquette $`(n,1,2)`$, while the nondiagonal element $`Z_{}^{}{}_{2,2}{}^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{1}}{2}})`$ couples fields associated with the two plaquettes $`(n,1,2)`$ and $`(n,1,2)`$.

We want to write an effective action uniquely in terms of the $`Z`$ fields, by integrating over the bosonic fields. For this aim, we need to describe the coupling between each pair or flavors in the action (24). As we already mentioned, the site-link multiplets (25) are not independent of each other, so we now group the auxiliary fields at the lattice site $`n`$ into chirally conjugated *site quadruplets*:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(n)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _R^{(1,2)}(n)\\ \varphi _L^{(1,2)}(n)\\ \varphi _L^{(1,2)}(n)\\ \varphi _R^{(1,2)}(n)\end{array}\right);\mathrm{\Psi }(n)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _L^{(1,2)}(n)\\ \varphi _R^{(1,2)}(n)\\ \varphi _R^{(1,2)}(n)\\ \varphi _L^{(1,2)}(n)\end{array}\right).$$
(27)
The union of these two quadruplets contain each bosonic component once. The color-flavor transformed action (24) can be written in terms of these quadruplets via two complex $`4\times 4`$ matrices in the flavor space, $`V(n)`$ and $`W(n)`$, which contain the components of the $`Z`$-fields:

$$S_Z[n]=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(n)V(n)\mathrm{\Psi }(n)+\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(n)W(n)\mathrm{\Phi }(n).$$
(28)
The matrices $`V(n)`$ and $`W(n)`$ can be compactly written

$$V(n)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\left(\begin{array}{cc}Z^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{1}}{2}})& 0\\ 0& Z(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{1}}{2}})\end{array}\right);W(n)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\tau _{(1,4)}\left(\begin{array}{cc}Z(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{2}}{2}})& 0\\ 0& Z^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{2}}{2}})\end{array}\right)\tau _{(1,4)}$$
(29)
where the permutation matrix $`\tau _{(1,4)}`$ interchanges the first and fourth indices. The integral over auxiliary fields at the site $`n`$ (including one color component) reads

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒵[n]=& 𝑑\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(n)𝑑\mathrm{\Psi }(n)𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(n)𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }(n)\mathrm{exp}\left[m_b(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi })+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}V\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Psi }^{}W\mathrm{\Phi }\right]\hfill \\ & Det\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_b& V\\ W& m_b\end{array}\right)^1=Det(m_b^2VM)^1\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}(1m_b^2VW)\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[m_b^2\mathrm{Tr}\left(VW\right)\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
In the last line we expanded the logarithm to first order in $`1/m_b`$. The trace of the product $`VW`$ can be easily computed:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Tr}\left(V(n)W(n)\right)=Z_{2,2}^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{1}}{2}})Z_{1,1}^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{2}}{2}})+Z_{2,2}^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{1}}{2}})Z_{1,1}(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{2}}{2}})\hfill \\ \hfill +Z_{2,2}(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{1}}{2}})Z_{1,1}^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{2}}{2}})+Z_{2,2}(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{1}}{2}})Z_{1,1}(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{2}}{2}}).\end{array}$$
(31)
Notice that only the diagonal elements of the $`Z`$ matrices appear in this leading-order term, which represent couplings between auxiliary fields carried by the same plaquette. In each term of the sum (31), the two matrix elements are carried by different links, but they correspond to fields related to the same plaquette, precisely the plaquette which shares these two links. One can represent the correlations embodied in (31) by *dual links* joining the middles of the two coupled links (see Fig 4).

To summarize, to leading order in $`1/m_b`$ the full partition function is given by:

$$𝒵=\{\underset{n}{}\underset{\alpha =1,2}{}d\mu (Z,Z^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\alpha }}{2}}))\}\mathrm{exp}(N_cS[Z]),$$
(32)
with the effective action depending on the ‘flavor’ matrices $`Z`$:

$$S[Z]=\underset{n}{}\left[m_b^2\mathrm{Tr}\left(V(n)W(n)\right)+\underset{\alpha =1,2}{}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\left(1Z(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\alpha }}{2}})Z^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\alpha }}{2}})\right)\right].$$
(33)
### 3.2 Effective action in arbitrary dimension

Our aim in this section is the same as in the last one, that is integrate the action (24) over the auxiliary fields at the site $`n`$, and compute the resulting effective action in the matrices $`Z`$, $`Z^{}`$ in arbitrary dimension<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1A particular case of d=3 effective action was considered in .. We will only consider the case of one generation of auxiliary fields, that is, $`n_b=1`$. As we already pointed out, the difficulty comes from the fact that the same field $`\varphi _{L/R}^{(\pm \mu ,\pm \nu )}`$ is contained in two different site-links multiplets (20). In order to integrate over these fields, we first need to regroup them, that is write the action $`S_Z`$ as

$$S_Z[n]=\left[\varphi _{L/R}^{(\pm \mu ,\pm \nu )}\right]^{}(n)\left[\varphi _{L/R}^{(\pm \mu ,\pm \nu )}\right],$$
(34)
where the column vector $`\left[\varphi _{L/R}^{(\pm \mu ,\pm \nu )}\right]`$ contains the $`2N_b=4d(d1)`$ fields at the site $`n`$. The coupling matrix $`(n)`$ is therefore of dimension $`4d(d1)`$; it contains components of the matrices $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ carried by the links touching $`n`$. Our task is to write down the matrix $``$ explicitly, using a judicious grouping of the field components. As was already the case in two dimensions, the matrix $``$ has many null entries, so that its determinant may be simplified.

We will group the auxiliary fields in *site quadruplets* associated with the planes in the $`d`$-dimensional lattice. Each plane, indexed by a couple $`(\mu \nu )`$ with $`1\mu <\nu d`$, contains $`4`$ plaquettes touching $`n`$. To each plane we associate two site quadruplets at $`n`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\mu \nu )}(n)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _R^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n)\\ \varphi _L^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n)\\ \varphi _L^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n)\\ \varphi _R^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n)\end{array}\right);\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\mu \nu )}(n)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _L^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n)\\ \varphi _R^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n)\\ \varphi _R^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n)\\ \varphi _L^{(\mu ,\nu )}(n)\end{array}\right).$$
(35)
These quadruplets generalize the ones defined in Eq. (27) to any plane in the $`d`$-dimensional lattice. The total number of these planes is $`\frac{d(d1)}{2}`$, so that the ‘concatenation’ of all the above site quadruplets yields the correct number of field components. To perform this concatenation, we need to *order* the different planes, that is, to order the couples $`(\mu \nu )`$.

These couples are in one-to-one correspondence with the positive roots of the Lie algebra $`𝔤𝔩(d)`$: each plane $`(\mu \nu )`$ can indeed be associated with the generator $`e_{\mu \nu }`$ of the algebra, satisfying the relations

$$[e_{\mu \nu },e_{\rho \eta }]=\delta _{\nu \rho }e_{\mu \eta }\delta _{\mu \eta }e_{\rho \nu }.$$
(36)
There is no canonical ordering of the positive generators (or the positive roots), on the other hand it seems natural to require that $`(\mu \nu )<(\rho \eta )`$ if $`\nu \rho `$; this condition is satisfied by the following ordering:

$$(12)<(13)<(14)<\mathrm{}<(1d)<(23)<(24)<\mathrm{}<(2d)<(34)<\mathrm{}<(d1d).$$
(37)
The site quadruplets will be ordered according to the above convention, starting with all quadruplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\mu \nu )}`$ and finishing with the quadruplets $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\mu \nu )}`$.

Now that we ordered the vector $`\left[\varphi _{L/R}^{(\pm \mu ,\pm \nu )}\right]`$, we need to compute the matrix $``$, and for this to derive which quadruplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\mu \nu )}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\mu \nu )}`$ are coupled with which quadruplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\rho \eta )}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\rho \eta )}`$, and through which matrices $`Z`$ or $`Z^{}`$. For this aim, we have to compare the components of, on one side, the quadruplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\mu \nu )}`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\mu \nu )}`$; on the other side, the site-link multiplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }(n;\pm \alpha )`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n;\pm \alpha )`$ which were used to write the action (24). For instance, the first component $`\varphi _R^{(\mu ,\nu )}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\mu \nu )}`$ is contained in the site-link multiplet $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n;\mu )`$ (because $`\mu <\nu `$), so its complex conjugate is coupled to the matrix $`Z^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})`$ on the left; on the other hand, $`\varphi _R^{(\mu ,\nu )}`$ is also contained in the multiplet $`\mathrm{\Phi }(n;\nu )`$ (because $`\nu >\mu `$), so it is coupled to the matrix $`Z^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}})`$ on the right. Below we schematically represent the couplings of the quadruplets with the $`Z`$ matrices by taking all components in the quadruplets into account:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }^{(\mu \nu )}Z^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}}),Z(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})& Z^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\eta }}{2}}),Z(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\eta }}{2}})\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\rho \eta )}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Psi }^{(\mu \nu )}Z^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}}),Z(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}})& Z^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\rho }}{2}}),Z(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\rho }}{2}})\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\rho \eta )}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(38)
In general, one of the two indices in the couple $`(\mu \nu )`$ specifies the direction of the link carrying the matrix $`Z`$ or $`Z^{}`$, while the other index shows which entries of the matrix are concerned: for instance, $`\overline{\varphi }_R^{(\mu ,\nu )}`$ couples to the entries $`Z^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})_{\nu ,.}`$, while $`\varphi _R^{(\rho \eta )}`$ couples to the entries $`Z(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\eta }}{2}})_{.,\rho }`$.

As a result, the couplings between the site quadruplets satisfy ‘selection rules’, which mean that the matrix $``$ contains many $`4\times 4`$ empty blocks. The non-empty blocks connect the following pairs of quadruplets:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }^{(\mu \nu )}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\rho \eta )}& \text{ iff }\mu =\eta \hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Phi }^{(\mu \nu )}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\rho \eta )}& \text{ iff }\mu =\rho \hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Psi }^{(\mu \nu )}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\rho \eta )}& \text{ iff }\nu =\eta \hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Psi }^{(\mu \nu )}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\rho \eta )}& \text{ iff }\nu =\rho .\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
By analogy with the $`2`$-dimensional case, we will call $`V_\mu ^{\nu ,\eta }`$ the matrix coupling $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\mu \nu )}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\mu \eta )}`$, and $`W_\nu ^{\mu ,\rho }`$ the matrix coupling $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\mu \nu )}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\rho \nu )}`$. The structure of these matrices is similar to the ones in Eq. (29), except that the matrices $`Z`$, $`Z^{}`$ are replaced by $`2\times 2`$ submatrices:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill V_\mu ^{\nu ,\eta }(n)& =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}Z_{\nu ,\eta }^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})& Z_{\nu ,\eta }^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})& 0& 0\\ Z_{\nu ,\eta }^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})& Z_{\nu ,\eta }^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& Z_{\nu ,\eta }(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})& Z_{\nu ,\eta }(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})\\ 0& 0& Z_{\nu ,\eta }(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})& Z_{\nu ,\eta }(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill W_\nu ^{\mu ,\rho }(n)& =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}Z_{\mu ,\rho }^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}})& 0& Z_{\mu ,\rho }^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}})& 0\\ 0& Z_{\mu ,\rho }(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}})& 0& Z_{\mu ,\rho }(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}})\\ Z_{\mu ,\rho }^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}})& 0& Z_{\mu ,\rho }^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}})\\ 0& Z_{\mu ,\rho }(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}})& 0& Z_{\mu ,\rho }(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}})\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(40)
In $`d3`$, the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\mu \nu )}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\rho \mu )}`$ are also coupled, through a matrix $`X_\mu ^{\nu \rho }`$; similarly, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\mu \nu )}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\nu \eta )}`$ are coupled through a matrix $`Y_\nu ^{\mu \eta }`$. As for $`V`$ and $`W`$, the lower index refers to the direction of the links carrying the elements of $`Z`$, $`Z^{}`$ which appear in $`X`$ (or $`Y`$). These matrices have similar forms as the matrices $`V`$, $`W`$ above (we won’t need their explicit expression in the following). These four sets of matrices can be grouped separately into matrices of size $`N_b\times N_b`$, which we call $`𝒱(n)`$, $`𝒲(n)`$, $`𝒳(n)`$, $`𝒴(n)`$. These four matrices make up the complete coupling matrix $`(n)`$: the action reads reads

$$S_Z[n]=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\mu \nu )}\\ \mathrm{\Psi }^{(\mu \nu )}\end{array}\right)^{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒳& 𝒱\\ 𝒲& 𝒴\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\mu \nu )}\\ \mathrm{\Psi }^{(\mu \nu )}\end{array}\right).$$
(41)
Taking the mass term into account, the integral over the auxiliary fields yields

$$Det(m_b𝕀)^1\mathrm{exp}\left\{\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}(1m_b^1)\right\}\mathrm{exp}\left\{m_b^1\mathrm{Tr}+\frac{m_b^2}{2}\mathrm{Tr}^2\right\},$$
(42)
where we performed the large-$`m_b`$ expansion up to second order. To analyze the traces, we use the ‘selection rules’ given by (39). $`X_\mu ^{\nu \rho }`$ connects planes $`(\mu \nu )>(\rho \mu )`$, therefore its block appears under the diagonal in the matrix $`𝒳`$; on the opposite, $`Y_\nu ^{\mu \eta }`$ connects planes $`(\mu \nu )<(\nu \eta )`$, so its block is over the diagonal in $`𝒴`$. As a result, $`\mathrm{Tr}=0`$, and $`\mathrm{Tr}𝒳^2=\mathrm{Tr}𝒴^2=0`$. Therefore, the first nontrivial term appears at the order $`1/m_b^2`$, and takes the value $`\mathrm{Tr}^2=2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}(𝒱𝒲)`$.

To compute this term, we notice that the block $`V_\mu ^{\nu ,\eta }`$ connects planes $`(\mu \nu )`$, $`(\mu \eta )`$ sharing the same lower index $`\mu `$ (that is, positive generators $`e_{\mu \nu }`$, $`e_{\mu \eta }`$ situated on the same row); on the opposite, a block $`W_\nu ^{\mu ,\rho }`$ connects generators situated on the same column. Therefore, through $`𝒱`$ we can jump along a row, and through $`𝒲`$ we jump along a column. When computing $`2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}(𝒱𝒲)`$ we want to be back at the initial position after two jumps, so that only ‘immobile jumps’ are allowed:

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}^2=\mathrm{Tr}(𝒱𝒲)=\underset{\mu <\nu }{}\mathrm{Tr}(V_\mu ^{\nu ,\nu }W_\nu ^{\mu ,\mu }).$$
(43)
Thus, to this order the planes are ‘decoupled’ from one another, and the contribution of each plane is identical to what we had found in the two-dimensional framework (Eq. (31)):

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Tr}\left(𝒱(n)𝒲(n)\right)=\underset{1\mu <\nu d}{}Z_{\nu ,\nu }^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})Z_{\mu ,\mu }^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}})+Z_{\nu ,\nu }^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})Z_{\mu ,\mu }(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}})\hfill \\ \hfill +Z_{\nu ,\nu }(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})Z_{\mu ,\mu }^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}})+Z_{\nu ,\nu }(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})Z_{\mu ,\mu }(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}}).\end{array}$$
(44)
As in two dimensions, only the diagonal elements of the $`Z`$-fields contribute to the action up to order $`1/m_b^2`$. Each of the above terms is the product of two diagonal matrix elements which self-coupled auxiliary fields carried by the same plaquette, so each term can be associated with a well-defined plaquette (we come back to this property in next section). The higher-order terms in $`1/m_b`$ are more complicated, since the matrices $`X`$, $`Y`$ and non-diagonal blocks $`V`$, $`W`$ start contributing.

To summarize, the effective action to second order in $`1/m_b`$ has the same structure in any dimension:

$$S[Z]=\underset{n}{}m_b^2\underset{\mu <\nu }{}\mathrm{Tr}(V_\mu ^{\nu ,\nu }W_\nu ^{\mu ,\mu })(n)+\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{d}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\left(1Z(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\alpha }}{2}})Z^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\alpha }}{2}})\right).$$
(45)
### 3.3 Stationary point of the large-$`m_b`$ effective action

The factor $`N_c`$ in front of the action $`S[Z]`$ suggests to study the large-$`N_c`$ limit of the theory, that is look for stationary points of this action with respect to variations of the matrix fields $`Z`$, $`Z^{}`$. Since we computed the action $`S[Z]`$ up to second order in $`1/m_b`$, we will keep this approximation (45) and compute its saddle-point equations.

The variation of the quadratic terms $`\mathrm{Tr}(𝒱𝒲)`$ is easy to compute from (44): it only involves variations of diagonal elements of the matrices $`Z`$ or $`Z^{}`$. On the opposite, the variation of the second term in Eq. (45) involves all matrix elements:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta \mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}(1ZZ^{})& =\mathrm{Tr}\left[\delta ZZ^{}(1ZZ^{})^1+\delta Z^{}Z(1Z^{}Z)^1\right]\hfill \\ & =\underset{a,b}{}\delta Z_{ab}\left(Z^{}(1ZZ^{})^1\right)_{ba}+\delta Z_{ab}^{}\left(Z(1Z^{}Z)^1\right)_{ba}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
Therefore, setting $`\frac{\delta S[Z]}{\delta Z_{ab}}=0`$ for all $`ab`$ implies that the matrix $`Z(1Z^{}Z)^1`$ is diagonal; this implies that $`Z`$ is itself a diagonal matrix. We then compute the saddle point equations with respect to variations of the diagonal elements $`Z_{aa}`$. For any site $`n`$ and $`\mu \nu `$, Eq. (44) yields the following variations:

$$\frac{\delta S[Z]}{\delta Z_{\nu ,\nu }^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})}=\frac{Z_{\nu ,\nu }(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})}{1|Z_{\nu ,\nu }(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})|^2}m_b^2Z_{\mu ,\mu }^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\nu }}{2}}),$$
(47)
and similar expressions for the variation of $`S[Z]`$ with respect to the components $`Z_{\nu ,\nu }^{}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})`$, $`Z_{\nu ,\nu }(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})`$ and $`Z_{\nu ,\nu }(n{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }}{2}})`$. Setting these variations to zero, we get the full set of saddle-points equations. These equations obviously admit the trivial configuration $`Z0`$ as solution. Taking into account the condition $`m_b1`$, one can show that this solution is the unique one.

It therefore makes sense to expand the action (45) to quadratic order in $`Z`$, $`Z^{}`$:

$$S[Z]_{\mathrm{quad}}=m_b^2\underset{n}{}\left(\underset{\mu <\nu }{}\mathrm{Tr}(V_\mu ^{\nu ,\nu }W_\nu ^{\mu ,\mu })(n)\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{d}{}}\underset{a,b=1}{\overset{d^{}}{}}m_b^2|Z_{ab}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{\alpha }}{2}})|^2\right).$$
(48)
From the expression (44), the above action seems to describe free bosonic fields. The nondiagonal elements $`Z_{ab}`$ with $`ab`$ are nondynamical, since they only appear in the mass term. On the opposite, the diagonal terms $`Z_{aa}`$ appear both in the mass term and the ’kinetic energy term’ (44), so they seem to correspond to propagating modes. This is actually not the case: as we already noticed, the terms Eq. (44) only couple matrix elements related to the same plaquette, so that these fields can only propagate around one plaquette. The diagonal fields are therefore non-propagating modes as well, so the above quadratic action is non-dynamical. This is not so surprising, since the auxiliary bosonic fields $`\varphi (n)`$ were from the beginning also confined to one plaquette. The same phenomenon persists if one includes several generations $`n_b>1`$.

Propagation can be induced by including higher-order terms in $`ZZ^{}`$ when expanding the logarithm. This way, one obtains a quartic contribution $`\mathrm{Tr}(ZZ^{})^2`$, which allows to couple together different diagonal elements through non-diagonal ones. This contribution includes for instance terms of the form $`Z_{2,2}Z_{2,2}^{}Z_{2,2}Z_{2,2}^{}`$ (all elements on the link $`(n+\widehat{1}/2)`$), which couple fields carried by two adjacent plaquettes, namely the plaquette $`(n,1,2)`$ carrying $`Z_{2,2}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{1}}{2}})`$, and the plaquette $`(n,1,2)`$ carrying $`Z_{2,2}(n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\widehat{1}}{2}})`$ (see Fig. (4)).

## 4 Concluding remarks

We have considered the dual formulation of the lattice theory which induces Wilson’s pure gauge action after integrating over auxiliary bosonic fields, in the limit of large mass and many ‘generations’. In our model the ‘flavor’ degrees of freedom are associated not only with the number of ‘generations’ of the inducing field but also with a particular plaquette; besides, we need fields with left resp. right ‘chirality’, which doubles the number of flavor degrees of freedom.

We investigate the properties of the lattice model in the simpler case of one generation. The structure of the inducing theory allows us to apply the color-flavor transformation to obtain a ‘dual’ effective theory in terms of colorless matrices $`Z`$ carried by the lattice links. After integrating over the auxiliary bosons, we obtain an effective action uniquely in terms of the $`Z`$ fields, which is computed explicitly in the limit of large auxiliary mass, leading to a trivial non-propagating theory in the large-$`N_c`$ limit.

The color-flavor transformation for the $`SU(N_c)`$ gauge group yields some differences, related with the decomposition of the colorless sector into disconnected subsectors labeled by the baryonic charge $`Q`$ . Our above derivations correspond to the sectors $`Q=0`$ with no contribution of closed baryon loops . The investigation of the effect of these loops is in progress. Note that the choice of $`U(N_c)`$ instead of the realistic $`SU(N_c)`$ is irrelevant in the large-$`N_c`$ limit.

#### Acknowledgements

This research is inspired by numerous discussions with J. Budzcies, who independently constructed $`d=2`$ one-plaquette effective action of the Z-field . We are grateful to D. Diakonov, V. Petrov, M. Polyakov and M.R. Zirnbauer for useful discussions and comments, as well as K. Zarembo for helful remarks about the continuum limit of the induced QCD. Ya. S. would like to acknowledge the hospitality at the Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics where this work was carried out.