format: text

text:
# Two-particle renormalizations in many-fermion perturbation theory: Importance of the Ward identity

## Abstract

We analyze two-particle renormalizations within many-fermion perturbation expansion. We show that present diagrammatic theories suffer from lack of a direct diagrammatic control over the physical two-particle functions. To rectify this we introduce and prove a Ward identity enabling an explicit construction of the self-energy from a given two-particle irreducible vertex. Approximations constructed in this way are causal, obey conservation laws and offer an explicit diagrammatic control of singularities in dynamical two-particle functions.

Correlated electrons in metals represent a system with unparalleled features that remain far from being satisfactorily and fully understood. They are unique in that respect that to control their behavior in intermediate and strong coupling regimes we must have at our disposal effective techniques for a reliable description of one- and two-particle characteristics. One-electron functions, such as the spectral function, the self-energy or the density of states carry information about the fermionic character of elementary excitations in metals. They are decisive for the Fermi liquid behavior as well as for deviations from the Landau quasiparticle picture. The two-particle correlation and Green functions control the critical behavior and signal cooperative phenomena and phase transitions via divergences in generalized susceptibilities. In intermediate coupling, where the Coulomb repulsion becomes comparable with the kinetic energy, dynamical fluctuations in the system become strong and may lead to either a phase transition to a new (magnetic) phase or to a breakdown of the Fermi-liquid behavior. In this transition regime we have to treat both single-electron and pair excitations on the same footing and keep the two-particle functions directly accessible.

One of the most flexible and physical ways to understand various phenomena of correlated electrons is to use many-body perturbation theory and Feynman diagrams. Except for the single-impurity Anderson and Kondo models, where the Fermi-liquid regime survives to infinite interaction strength,Yamada75 ; Zlatic83  we have to renormalize the perturbation expansion. Baym and Kadanoff were the first who showed how to implement renormalizations into the perturbation theory in a systematic and consistent way. Baym61  The basic idea of their approach is to express physical quantities, and in particular the self-energy, as a functional of the renormalized one-particle propagator $`G`$ and the bare interaction $`U`$, i. e., we construct a self-energy functional $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (𝐤,i\omega _n)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma [G,U](𝐤,i\omega _n)`$. Once we find an approximate form of this functional from a diagrammatic expansion free of self-energy insertions, we add the Dyson equation $`G_\sigma ^1(𝐤,i\omega _n)=𝒢_\sigma ^1(𝐤,i\omega _n)\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (𝐤,i\omega _n)`$ to complete our approximation for the self-energy. We used $`𝒢`$ to denote the bare one-particle propagator. If we extend our equations to situations with external perturbing potentials, we can derive all necessary thermodynamic functions.Janis99b  Thermodynamic consistence and macroscopic conservation laws are thereby guaranteed.

Although we construct a functional for the self-energy from perturbation theory, the fundamental quantity in the Baym-Kadanoff approach is the generating functional related to the self-energy via a functional differential equation

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma [G,U](𝐤,i\omega _n)=\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }[G,U]}{\delta G_\sigma (𝐤,i\omega _n)}.$$
(1)
When we are able to find the Luttinger-Ward functional $`\mathrm{\Phi }[G,U]`$ explicitly we speak about $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-derivable approximations.Janis99a ; Note1

Higher-order Green functions are derived from the self-energy functional via functional derivatives that may be viewed upon as generalized Ward identities. They connect lower-order with higher-order irreducible (vertex) functions. The identity connecting the two-particle irreducible vertex with the one-particle one (self-energy) reads in the direct space

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^\alpha (13,24)=\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (1,2)}{\delta _\alpha G_\sigma ^{}(4,3)}=\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Phi }[G,U]}{\delta _\alpha G_\sigma (2,1)\delta _\alpha G_\sigma ^{}(4,3)}$$
(2)
where we denoted the space-time coordinates $`1=(\text{R}_1,\tau _1)`$ etc. We also introduced an index $`\alpha `$ denoting the appropriate two-particle irreducibility channel. We have three topologically nonequivalent two-particle irreducibility channels: electron-hole ($`\alpha =eh`$), electron-electron ($`\alpha =ee`$), and interaction ($`\alpha =U`$) channels according to whether we cannot disconnect the diagram by cutting a pair of an electron and a hole, two electron (hole) propagators, or by cutting a polarization bubble, respectively, cf. Ref. Janis99a, . Using functional derivatives of the generating functional we derive all two-particle and higher-order Green functions.

The formally exact approach of Baym and Kadanoff uses explicitly only mass renormalization, i. e., the self-energy functional depends explicitly on the renormalized one-electron propagator and the bare interaction. There is no explicit two-particle renormalization in this formulation. The two-particle functions are passive outputs from functional derivatives of the self-energy functional. We hence cannot asses or directly control the critical behavior via, for example, low-energy scalings or summations of most divergent diagrams. Each change in the two-particle function arises only via an adequate change in the self-energy, which is too cumbersome and sometimes even not viable. This is a severe drawback, in particular in critical regions, where two-particle functions become singular and very sensitive to any small change.

One can improve upon this by an explicit charge renormalization, that means that one replaces the bare Coulomb interaction in the perturbation expansion by appropriate two-particle irreducible vertices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha `$. We then obtain a new generating functional in a form $`\mathrm{\Phi }[G,\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha ]`$. The most direct way to do this is to use the so-called parquet approach introduced in the nonrelativistic many-body theory by De Dominicis and Martin.Dominicis62  The parquet approach differs from the Baym-Kadanoff construction, as standardly used, in that the parquet scheme takes the two-particle irreducible vertices as primary objects for which one tries to find a functional representation from the diagrammatic theory.

Once we have prescriptions for the two-particle irreducible vertices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha `$ we use the Bethe-Salpeter equation from the respective two-particle irreducibility channel to find the full two-particle vertex

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(k;q,q^{})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^\alpha (k;q,q^{})\hfill \\ \hfill (1+\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}})\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha GG\mathrm{\Gamma }\right]_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(k;q,q^{}).\end{array}$$
(3)
We introduced four-momenta $`k=(𝐤,i\omega _n),q=(𝐪,i\nu _m)`$ for fermionic and bosonic variables, with Matsubara frequencies $`\omega _n=(2n+1)\pi T`$ and $`\nu _m=2m\pi T`$ at temperature $`T`$. Each two-particle scattering channel $`\alpha `$ is characterized by the way the irreducible vertices are interconnected by pairs of one-particle propagators $`GG`$, denoted here by the generic symbol $``$.Janis99b

Up to this point the one-particle propagator $`G`$ and the vertices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha `$ have been treated as independent. To find a functional for the self-energy and then also for the generating functional $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ one uses an exact Schwinger-Dyson equation of motion. Its explicit form depends on the model we choose. Here we use the lattice Hubbard model with completely screened, local Coulomb interaction. The Schwinger-Dyson equation then reads

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (k)=U\underset{k^{}}{}G_\sigma (k^{})U\underset{k^{}q}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \sigma }(k;q,k^{}k)\hfill \\ \hfill \times G_\sigma (k+q)G_\sigma (k^{}+q)G_\sigma (k^{}).\end{array}$$
(4)
We introduced a short-hand notation $`_q=N^1_𝐪\beta ^1_m`$ for $`q=(𝐪,i\nu _m)`$ and analogously for $`k^{}=(𝐤^{},i\omega _n^{})`$. The Schwinger-Dyson equation determines the self-energy functional $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma [G,\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha ]`$ from which we can construct a generating functional $`\mathrm{\Phi }[G,\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha ]`$, which actually has been done for various two-particle approximations of the parquet type.Janis98 ; Janis99b

In the parquet approach all physical quantities are represented as functionals of renormalized one-particle propagators $`G_\sigma `$, representing mass renormalization, and two-particle irreducible vertices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^\alpha `$, standing for charge renormalization. The present way how the parquet-type approximations, or more generally two-particle renormalizations, are applied, however, leads to a scheme effectively equivalent to that of Baym and Kadanoff. An intended direct control over the two-particle functions is lost at the end. We use equation (4) to obtain the self-energy functional in the parquet approach. In conserving theories the physical two-particle functions must be determined via functional derivatives as in Eq. (2). The two-particle vertex constructed via a functional derivative from the self-energy then differs from the vertex we started with. Furthermore, Eq. (4) does no longer play the role of the Schwinger-Dyson equation, since the actual physical two-particle vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{phys}`$ differs from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ used in Eq.(4). This discrepancy reflects the general fact that we cannot fulfill both Eq. (2) and Eq. (4) unless we have an exact solution for the two-particle vertex. Hence, Eq. (4) in the parquet construction serves as a generator of the self-energy functional from which all physical quantities are derived via functional differential equations. The two-particle vertices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we use in the parquet approach are only auxiliary functions and not the physical two-particle functions we need.

It is clear that in approximate thermodynamically consistent and conserving schemes in the Baym-Kadanoff form we have to give up the Schwinger-Dyson equation of motion. A question arises whether also with two-particle renormalizations we have to lose the initial meaning and interpretation of the vertex functions. Actually, the two-particle renormalizations in the parquet approach were introduced in the effort to gain a better control over the behavior of two-particle functions in critical regions with singularities in Bethe-Salpeter equations.

To regain the control over the two-particle functions, i. e., to return the meaning of two-particle functions to the diagrammatic representations for the vertices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha `$, we have to resolve the Ward identity, Eq. (2), for the self-energy. The self-energy then will no longer be related to the two-particle vertex via Eq. (4) but rather through an integral form of the Ward identity. In this way the two-particle functions will retain their complete diagrammatic representation enabling a direct control of their critical behavior. Using a Ward identity for the determination of the self-energy from a given two-particle vertex guarantees thermodynamic consistence of the theory.

The aim of this paper is to prove the following partially integrated Ward identity between the self-energy and the electron-hole irreducible triplet vertex

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (k)\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (k^{})=\underset{q}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \sigma }^{eh}(k;q,k^{}k)\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left[G_\sigma (k+q)G_\sigma (k^{}+q)\right].\end{array}$$
(5)
Its diagrammatic representation is given in Fig. 1. Equation (5) holds for arbitrary four-momenta $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$. It is a generalization of a Ward identity from noninteracting electrons in a random potential proved by Vollhardt and Wölfle. Vollhardt80

We stress that the Ward identity (5) can be proved only for the triplet irreducible vertex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \sigma }`$. This is important in particular for the Hubbard model where the local Coulomb interaction acts only between particles with opposite spins and singlet vertex functions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \sigma }^\alpha `$ are preferably used.

We use similar diagrammatic arguments as applied in noninteracting disordered systems to prove identity (5). Due to spin and charge conservation in the vertices of the perturbation theory, each diagram for the self-energy contains just a single electron trajectory connecting the incoming with the outgoing external electron line. We set aside this fundamental fermion trajectory propagating the incoming charge and spin from the rest of the diagram that we denote $`X`$. Function $`X`$ contains interaction lines and only closed loops of fermion propagators. It is connected with the fundamental fermion trajectory via interactions as shown in Fig. 2. Each self-energy diagram can be classified according to the length (number of scattering events) of the fundamental fermion trajectory.

We do not need to consider the Hartree term, since it does not contribute to the r.h.s. of Eq. (5). Hence the dynamical self-energy can be represented by an expansion

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (k)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}U^{n+1}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \underset{q_1,\mathrm{},q_n}{}X^{(n)}[G,U](q_1,q_2q_1,\mathrm{},q_nq_{n1},q_n)\\ \hfill \times G_\sigma (k+q_1)G_\sigma (k+q_2)\mathrm{}G_\sigma (k+q_n)\end{array}$$
(6)
where $`n`$ denotes the length of the fundamental fermion trajectory ($`n=3`$ in Fig. 2). Note that the expansion on the r.h.s. of Eq. (6) is not an expansion in the interaction strength, since the loop function $`X`$ contains interaction. It is clear that the loop function depends only on the transfer (bosonic) momenta $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_n`$ and not on the incoming fermionic momentum $`k`$.

Only the one-electron propagators contributing to the fundamental fermion trajectory are relevant for the proof of Eq. (5), since only there we can distinguish different external momenta on the l.h.s. of Eq. (5). We utilize the following identity

$$\begin{array}{c}G_\sigma (k+q_1)\mathrm{}G_\sigma (k+q_n)G_\sigma (k^{}+q_1)\mathrm{}G_\sigma (k^{}+q_n)\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}G_\sigma (k+q_1)\mathrm{}G_\sigma (k+q_{i1})[G_\sigma (k+q_i)\\ \hfill G_\sigma (k^{}+q_i)]G_\sigma (k^{}+q_{i+1})\mathrm{}G_\sigma (k^{}+q_n)\end{array}$$
(7)
and rewrite the expansion for the self-energy to

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (k)\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (k^{})=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}U^{n+1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{q_1,\mathrm{},q_n}{}X^{(n)}(q_1,q_2q_1,\mathrm{},q_nq_{n1},q_n)\hfill \\ \hfill \times G_\sigma (k+q_1)\mathrm{}G_\sigma (k+q_{i1})G_\sigma (k^{}+q_{i+1})\mathrm{}G_\sigma (k^{}+q_n)\left[G_\sigma (k+q_i)G_\sigma (k^{}+q_i)\right]\\ \hfill =\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}U^{n+1}\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \sigma }^{(i,ni1)}(k;q,k^{}k)\left[G_\sigma (k+q)G_\sigma (k^{}+q)\right].\end{array}$$
(8)
We denoted contributions to an electron-hole vertex with $`i`$ electron and $`ni`$ hole propagators from the fundamental fermion lines of the two-particle function as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \sigma }^{(i,ni)}`$. The vertex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has the electron-hole structure, since the propagation in momentum $`k^{}`$ is in the opposite direction to the propagation of momentum $`k`$. The vertex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ must be irreducible in the electron-hole channel, since all reducible terms are already incorporated in the renormalized one-electron propagators. On the other hand, each $`eh`$-irreducible two-particle diagram can be uniquely closed to a self-energy via the fundamental fermion trajectory. The expansion in $`n`$ and $`i`$ hence covers all contributions to the irreducible electron-hole vertex and we can writeNote2

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \sigma }^{eh}(k;q,q^{})=U\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}U^{n+1}\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \sigma }^{(i,ni)}(k;q,q^{}).$$
(9)
Inserting Eq. (9) into Eq. (8) we reveal identity (5).

Relation (5) has two important consequences. First, continuity equation for two-particle correlation functions can be proved. Second, Eq. (5) can be used to replace Eq. (4) in the determination of the self-energy from a given two-particle vertex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \sigma }^{eh}`$.

To prove a two-particle continuity equation we use the following relation

$$\begin{array}{c}G_\sigma (k)G_\sigma (k+q)\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{G_\sigma (k)G_\sigma (k+q)}{i\nu _mϵ(𝐤+𝐪)+ϵ(𝐤)\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (k+q)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (k)}\end{array}$$
(10)
in the Bethe-Salpeter equation for the two-particle function $`L_{\sigma \sigma }(k;q,q^{})=G_\sigma (k)G_\sigma (k+q^{})[\delta (q)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \sigma }(k;q,q^{})G_\sigma (k+q)G_\sigma (k+q+q^{})`$. The four-momentum delta function for $`q=(𝐪,i\nu _m)`$ reads $`\delta (q)=N\delta _{𝐪,\mathrm{𝟎}}\beta \delta _{m,0}`$. Function $`L_{\sigma \sigma }`$ is the two-particle Green function from which the exchange term was removed so that it fulfills a Bethe-Salpeter equation. If we further utilize the symmetry of the two-particle vertex we find another form of the Ward identity $`_k\mathrm{\Delta }_qG_\sigma \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \sigma }^{eh}(k;k^{}k,q)=\mathrm{\Delta }_q\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (k^{})`$. When we multiply the Bethe-Salpeter equation for $`L_{\sigma \sigma }`$ in the electron-hole channel by the denominator of Eq. (10) and integrate over the incoming and outgoing fermionic momenta we obtain a continuity equation having in the limit of small transfer three-momenta $`𝐪`$ the following form

$$i\nu _m\mathrm{\Xi }_{\sigma \sigma }(𝐪,i\nu _m)𝐪𝚵_{\sigma \sigma }^v(𝐪,i\nu _m)=0.$$
(11)
We denoted $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\sigma \sigma }(𝐪,i\nu _m)=_{k,q^{}}L_{\sigma \sigma }(k;q^{},q)`$ and $`𝚵_{\sigma \sigma }^v(𝐪,i\nu _m)=_{k,q^{}}ϵ(𝐤)L_{\sigma \sigma }(k;q^{},q)`$.

To use Eq. (5) in the determination of the self-energy, we put $`𝐤^{}=𝐤`$ but let the Matsubara frequencies $`i\omega _n`$ and $`i\omega _n^{}`$ independent so that we can analytically continue the self-energy difference to the case with $`\omega +i\eta `$ and $`\omega i\eta `$. We then use an analytically continued vertex function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \sigma }^{eh}(𝐤,\omega +i\eta ;𝐪,\zeta ,\mathrm{𝟎},2i\eta )`$ in the Ward identity (5) to construct the imaginary part of the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (𝐤,\omega +i\eta )`$ along the real axis. The intermediate complex frequency $`\zeta `$ takes values from an integration contour used to replace the sum over Matsubara frequencies. The shape of the integration contour depends on the analytic structure of the approximate vertex. The real part of the self-energy is calculated from the Kramers-Kronig relation acomplishing thus a causal theory. This construction of the self-energy from the vertex function was already successfully applied in the parquet approach to noninteracting disordered electron systems.Janis01b

To conclude, the principal result of the paper is a partially integrated Ward identity, Eq. (5). It is a consequence of charge and spin conserving particle interaction and was proved by means of a diagrammatic expansion. The primary importance of identity (5) lies in the possibility to regain a direct diagrammatic control over the (critical) behavior of dynamical two-particle functions by defining the self-energy from the triplet vertex function via Eq. (5). The present schemes with two-particle (vertex) renormalizations do not obey the Ward identity (5), except for its infinitesimal limit, and hence are unable to determine the self-energy from the physical two-particle vertices. Utilization of the Ward identity (5) opens new possibilities to study critical behavior of correlated electrons, in particular, when we subject the electrons to a random potential and investigate the effects of electron interactions on the metal-insulator transition.

The work was supported in part by Grant No. 202/01/0764 of the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic and during the author’s stay at the workshop “Realistic Theories of Correlated Electron Materials” at KITP UCSB, where the research was completed, by US NSF Grant No. PHY99-07949.


text:
# Charge Modulations in the Superconducting State of the Cuprates

## Abstract

Motivated by the recent scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) and neutron scattering experiments, we investigate various charge density wave orders coexisting with superconductivity in the cuprate superconductors. The explicit expressions of the local density of states and its Fourier component at the ordering wavevector for the weak charge modulations are derived. It is shown that the STM experiments in $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_{8+\delta }`$ cannot be explained by a site- or bond-centered charge modulation alone, but agree well with the presence of the dimerization hopping and transverse pairing modulations. We also calculate the spectral function for the charged stripes, which is measured by the ARPES experiments.

The coexistence of charged stripes and superconductivity in high-$`T_c`$ superconductors has attracted a lot of both experimental and theoretical attention recently. In a novel STM experiment, Hoffman et al observed a four cell checkbroad local density of states (LDOS) modulation around the cores of superconducting vortices in $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_{8+\delta }`$ by applying a magnetic field . The charge modulation occurs in the $`CuO`$ bond direction and in the energy range $`0E12meV`$. Very recently Howald et al discovered similar charge modulation at energy $`E=25meV`$ but in absence of magnetic field . The neutron scattering experiments on underdoped $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{6.35}`$ have also shown the charge density wave order with a period of eight lattice constants coexisting with superconductivity .

To explain the STM spectra in $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_{8+\delta }`$, a number of theoretical studies based on different models have been carried out by various authors \[4-10\]. However, it is important to determine the correct charge density wave orders in order to understand the origin of the charge stripes. In Ref. , Podolsky et al analysed in detail the influence of various patterns of translational symmetry breaking on the Fourier component of LDOS at the ordering wavevector $`𝐐`$ by emyloping an approximate technique. They concluded that the STM experiments  are consistent with the periodic modulation in the electron hopping. In contrast, by the numerical simulation of a d-wave superconductor with two-dimensional site charge density wave, bond charge density wave or pairing modulation, the pairing amplitude modulation comes closest to the experimental curves of Ref.  . Therefore, there is no consensus about the constitution of the charged stripes. In this paper, in order to explain well the STM experiments, we solve strictly the d-wave superconductor with one-dimensional weak charge modulations. The results show that the dimerization hopping and transverse pairing modulations are consistent with the STM experiments. We also discuss the ARPES experiments on the charged stripes, which verify the existence of the hopping and pairing modulations.

We start from the mean-field Hamiltonian of a d-wave superconductor

$$H_{\mathrm{BCS}}=\underset{𝐊\sigma }{}ϵ_𝐊c_{𝐊\sigma }^{}c_{𝐊\sigma }+\underset{𝐊}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐊(c_𝐊^{}c_𝐊^{}+c_𝐊c_𝐊),$$
$`(1)`$
where $`ϵ_𝐊=t_0+t_1(\mathrm{cos}K_x+\mathrm{cos}K_y)/2+t_2\mathrm{cos}K_x\mathrm{cos}K_y+t_3(\mathrm{cos2}K_x+\mathrm{cos2}K_y)/2+t_4(\mathrm{cos2}K_x\mathrm{cos}K_y+\mathrm{cos}K_x\mathrm{cos2}K_y)/2+t_5\mathrm{cos2}K_x\mathrm{cos2}K_y`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐊=\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\mathrm{cos}K_x\mathrm{cos}K_y)/2`$. For nearly optimally doped $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_{8+\delta }`$, $`t_{05}=0.1305,0.5951,0.1636,0.0519,0.1117,0.0510(eV)`$ . For underdoped $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{6.35},t_{02}=0.2445,1.2000,0.3600`$ $`(eV)`$ and $`t_{35}=0.0(eV)`$ (6 percent doping). For both superconductors, we choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=0.0400eV`$.

The charge modulations can be introduced phenomenologically into the Hamiltonian (1) by adding the charge ordered parameters, which have a general form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_\mathrm{C}\hfill & =\hfill & _{𝐊\sigma }(f_𝐊c_{𝐊+𝐐\sigma }^{}c_{𝐊\sigma }+f_𝐊^{}c_{𝐊\sigma }^{}c_{𝐊+𝐐\sigma })\hfill \\ & & +_𝐊(g_𝐊c_{𝐊+𝐐}^{}c_𝐊^{}+g_𝐊^{}c_𝐊^{}c_{𝐊𝐐}^{}+h.c),\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2)`$
where $`𝐐=\mathrm{Q}𝐞_x`$ ($`\mathrm{Q}=\pi /2`$ for $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_{8+\delta }`$ and $`\pi /4`$ for $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{6.35}`$), $`f_𝐊(f_{𝐊𝐐})`$ and $`g_𝐊(g_{𝐊𝐐})`$ describe the hopping modulations and pairing modulations, respectively. We note that $`f_𝐊=\lambda _1,\lambda _2e^{i\mathrm{Q}/2},\lambda _3\mathrm{cos}(K_x+\mathrm{Q}/2)e^{i\mathrm{Q}/2}`$ and $`\lambda _4\mathrm{cos}K_y`$ are the site-centered, bond-centered, longitudinal dimerization and transverse dimerization charge modulations while $`g_𝐊=\lambda _5\mathrm{cos}(K_x+\mathrm{Q}/2)e^{i\mathrm{Q}/2}`$ and $`\lambda _6\mathrm{cos}K_y`$ are the longitudinal and transverse pairing modulations . In this paper, we restrict our discussion to the case of weak charge modulations, i. e. small $`\lambda `$’s and do not consider the influence of the incommensurate spin orders to LDOS. In fact, the spin orders were not observed experimentally .

Taking the Bogoliubov transformation

$$\begin{array}{ccc}c_{𝐤+m𝐐}\hfill & =\hfill & \xi _{𝐤m0}\psi _{𝐤m0}\xi _{𝐤m1}\psi _{𝐤m1}\hfill \\ c_{𝐤m𝐐}^{}\hfill & =\hfill & \xi _{𝐤m1}\psi _{𝐤m0}+\xi _{𝐤m0}\psi _{𝐤m1},\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3)`$
where $`𝐤`$ is restricted to the reduced Brillouin zone, $`m=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N=(2\pi /\mathrm{Q})1`$, $`\xi _{𝐤m\nu }^2=\frac{1}{2}[1+(1)^\nu ϵ_{𝐤+m𝐐}/E_{𝐤+m𝐐}]`$, $`\xi _{𝐤m0}\xi _{𝐤m1}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐤+m𝐐}/2E_{𝐤+m𝐐}`$ and $`E_{𝐤+m𝐐}=(ϵ_{𝐤+m𝐐}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐤+m𝐐}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, the total Hamiltonian $`H=H_{\mathrm{BCS}}+H_\mathrm{C}`$ can be rewritten as

$$\begin{array}{c}H=_{𝐤m\nu }(1)^\nu E_{𝐤+m𝐐}\psi _{𝐤m\nu }^{}\psi _{𝐤m\nu }\\ +_{𝐤m\nu \nu ^{}}\{[\alpha _{m+1m}^{\nu \nu ^{}}(𝐤)+\beta _{m+1m}^{\nu \nu ^{}}(𝐤)]\psi _{𝐤m+1\nu }^{}\psi _{𝐤m\nu ^{}}+h.c\},\end{array}$$
$`(4)`$
where $`\alpha _{m+1m}^{\nu \nu ^{}}(𝐤)=f_{𝐤+m𝐐}[(1)^{\nu +\nu ^{}}\xi _{𝐤m+1\nu }\xi _{𝐤m\nu ^{}}\xi _{𝐤m+1\nu +1}\xi _{𝐤m\nu ^{}+1}]`$ and $`\beta _{m+1m}^{\nu \nu ^{}}(𝐤)=g_{𝐤+m𝐐}[(1)^\nu \xi _{𝐤m+1\nu }\times \xi _{𝐤m\nu ^{}+1}+(1)^\nu ^{}\xi _{𝐤m+1\nu +1}\xi _{𝐤m\nu ^{}}]`$.

We define two-point Green’s functions

$$G_{mm^{}}^{\nu \nu ^{}}(𝐤,𝐤^{};i\omega )=<T_\tau [\psi _{𝐤m\nu }(\tau )\psi _{𝐤^{}m^{}\nu ^{}}^{}(0)]>,$$
$`(5)`$
where $`\varphi (\tau )`$ denote the Fourier transform of $`\varphi (\tau )`$ in Matsubara frequencies. Then the equations of motion for the Green’s functions are

$$\begin{array}{c}[i\omega _n(1)^\nu E_{𝐤+m𝐐}]G_{mm^{}}^{\nu \nu ^{}}(𝐤,𝐤^{};i\omega _n)\\ _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}(1)^{\nu +\nu ^{\prime \prime }}\xi _{𝐤m\nu +\nu ^{\prime \prime }}[f_{𝐤+(m1)𝐐}𝒢_{m1m^{}}^{\nu ^{\prime \prime }\nu ^{}}(𝐤,𝐤^{};i\omega _n)\\ +f_{𝐤+m𝐐}^{}𝒢_{m+1m^{}}^{\nu ^{\prime \prime }\nu ^{}}(𝐤,𝐤^{};i\omega _n)]\\ _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}(1)^{\nu \nu ^{\prime \prime }}\xi _{𝐤m\nu +\nu ^{\prime \prime }+1}[g_{𝐤+(m1)𝐐}𝒢_{m1m^{}}^{\nu ^{\prime \prime }\nu ^{}}(𝐤,𝐤^{};i\omega _n)\\ +g_{𝐤+m𝐐}^{}𝒢_{m+1m^{}}^{\nu ^{\prime \prime }\nu ^{}}(𝐤,𝐤^{};i\omega _n)]=\delta _{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}\delta _{\nu \nu ^{}},\end{array}$$
$`(6)`$
where

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒢_{mm^{}}^{\nu \nu ^{}}(𝐤,𝐤^{};i\omega _n)=_{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}(1)^{(1\nu )\nu ^{\prime \prime }}\xi _{𝐤m\nu +\nu ^{\prime \prime }}\\ \times G_{mm^{}}^{\nu ^{\prime \prime }\nu ^{}}(𝐤,𝐤^{};i\omega _n).\end{array}$$
$`(7)`$
Obviously, combining Eqs.(6) and (7), the anomalous Green’s functions in Eq. (5) can be solved by inverting a $`2(N+1)\times 2(N+1)`$ matrix. To this end, we define

$$\begin{array}{c}G_{m\nu }^0(𝐤;i\omega _n)=\frac{1}{i\omega _n(1)^\nu E_{𝐤+m𝐐}},\\ a_m(𝐤;i\omega _n)=_\nu \xi _{𝐤m\nu }^2G_{m\nu }^0(𝐤;i\omega _n),\\ b_m(𝐤;i\omega _n)=_\nu (1)^\nu \xi _{𝐤m\nu }\xi _{𝐤m\nu +1}G_{m\nu }^0(𝐤;i\omega _n),\\ c_m(𝐤;i\omega _n)=_\nu \xi _{𝐤m\nu +1}^2G_{m\nu }^0(𝐤;i\omega _n),\\ g_{mm^{}}^{\nu \nu ^{}}(𝐤,𝐤^{};i\omega _n)=(1)^{(1\nu )\nu ^{}}\delta _{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}\xi _{𝐤m\nu +\nu ^{}}\\ \times G_{m\nu ^{}}^0(𝐤;i\omega _n),\end{array}$$
$`(8)`$
and introduce the $`2(N+1)`$ vectors $`𝒢`$ and $`𝐠`$

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒢=\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒢^0\\ 𝒢^1\end{array}\right),𝒢^0=\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒢_{0m^{}}^{0\nu ^{}}\\ \mathrm{}\\ 𝒢_{Nm^{}}^{0\nu ^{}}\end{array}\right),𝒢^1=\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒢_{0m^{}}^{1\nu ^{}}\\ \mathrm{}\\ 𝒢_{Nm^{}}^{1\nu ^{}}\end{array}\right),\\ 𝐠=\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐠^0\\ 𝐠^1\end{array}\right),𝐠^0=\left(\begin{array}{c}g_{0m^{}}^{0\nu ^{}}\\ \mathrm{}\\ g_{Nm^{}}^{0\nu ^{}}\end{array}\right),𝐠^1=\left(\begin{array}{c}g_{0m^{}}^{1\nu ^{}}\\ \mathrm{}\\ g_{Nm^{}}^{1\nu ^{}}\end{array}\right).\end{array}$$
$`(9)`$
From Eqs. (6) and (7), we obtain

$$𝒢=(IM)^1𝐠,$$
$`(10)`$
where $`I`$ is $`2(N+1)\times 2(N+1)`$ unit matrix and

$$M=\left[\begin{array}{cc}M^{11}& M^{12}\\ M^{21}& M^{22}\end{array}\right]$$
$`(11)`$
with $`M^{11},M^{12},M^{21}`$ and $`M^{22}`$ are $`(N+1)\times (N+1)`$ matrices whose matrix elements are as follows

$$\begin{array}{ccc}M_{mm^{}}^{11}\hfill & =\hfill & (a_mf_{𝐤+m𝐐}^{}+b_mg_{𝐤+m𝐐}^{})\delta _{m+1m^{}}\hfill \\ & & +(a_mf_{𝐤+(m1)𝐐}+b_mg_{𝐤+(m1)𝐐})\delta _{m1m^{}},\hfill \\ M_{mm^{}}^{12}\hfill & =\hfill & (a_mg_{𝐤+m𝐐}^{}b_mf_{𝐤+m𝐐}^{})\delta _{m+1m^{}}\hfill \\ & & +(a_mg_{𝐤+(m1)𝐐}b_mf_{𝐤+(m1)𝐐})\delta _{m1m^{}},\hfill \\ M_{mm^{}}^{21}\hfill & =\hfill & (b_mf_{𝐤+m𝐐}^{}+c_mg_{𝐤+m𝐐}^{})\delta _{m+1m^{}}\hfill \\ & & +(b_mf_{𝐤+(m1)𝐐}+c_mg_{𝐤+(m1)𝐐})\delta _{m1m^{}},\hfill \\ M_{mm^{}}^{22}\hfill & =\hfill & (b_mg_{𝐤+m𝐐}^{}c_mf_{𝐤+m𝐐}^{})\delta _{m+1m^{}}\hfill \\ & & +(b_mg_{𝐤+(m1)𝐐}c_mf_{𝐤+(m1)𝐐})\delta _{m1m^{}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(12)`$
We note that the charged modulations observed in STM experiments are weak, i.e. $`f_{𝐤+m𝐐}`$ and $`g_{𝐤+m𝐐}`$ (or $`\lambda ^{}s`$) are small. Expanding Eq. (10), we have $`𝒢=(I+M+M^2+\mathrm{})𝐠`$. From Eq. (7),we finally obtain the green’s functions

$$\begin{array}{c}G_{mm^{}}^{\nu \nu ^{}}(𝐤,𝐤^{};i\omega _n)=_{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}(1)^{(1\nu ^{\prime \prime })\nu }\xi _{𝐤m\nu +\nu ^{\prime \prime }}\\ \times 𝒢_{mm^{}}^{\nu ^{\prime \prime }\nu ^{}}(𝐤,𝐤^{};i\omega _n).\end{array}$$
$`(13)`$
To compare with the STM experiments, up to the first order in $`\lambda ^{}`$s, we derive the local density of states

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho (𝐫,\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}_\sigma [<c_{𝐫\sigma }(\tau )c_{𝐫\sigma }^{}(0)>]|_{i\omega _n\omega +i0^+}\hfill \\ =\frac{2}{𝒩\pi }\mathrm{Im}_{𝐤m}\{a_m(𝐤;i\omega _n)+(f_{𝐤+m𝐐}e^{i𝐐𝐫}+c.c)\hfill \\ \times [a_m(𝐤;i\omega _n)a_{m+1}(𝐤;i\omega _n)b_m(𝐤;i\omega _n)b_{m+1}(𝐤;i\omega _n)]\hfill \\ +(g_{𝐤+m𝐐}e^{i𝐐𝐫}+c.c)[a_m(𝐤;i\omega _n)b_{m+1}(𝐤;i\omega _n)\hfill \\ +b_m(𝐤;i\omega _n)a_{m+1}(𝐤;i\omega _n)]\}|_{i\omega _n\omega +i0^+},\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(14)`$
where $`𝒩`$ is the number of sites in the lattice and $`c_{𝐫\sigma }=𝒩^{1/2}_{𝐤m}c_{𝐤+m𝐐\sigma }e^{i(𝐤+m𝐐)𝐫}`$. Obviously, the first term in Eq. (14) is nothing but LDOS for superconducting state. The other terms are the LDOS modulations with period $`2\pi /\mathrm{Q}`$ due to the hopping and pairing modulations, respectively. The Fourier component of LDOS at the ordering wavevector $`𝐐`$ is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\rho _𝐐(\omega )\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{𝒩}_𝐫e^{i𝐐𝐫}\rho (𝐫,\omega )\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \frac{2}{𝒩\pi }_{𝐤m}\{f_{𝐤+m𝐐}\mathrm{Im}[a_m(𝐤;i\omega _n)a_{m+1}(𝐤;i\omega _n)\hfill \\ & & b_m(𝐤;i\omega _n)b_{m+1}(𝐤;i\omega _n)]\hfill \\ & & +g_{𝐤+m𝐐}\mathrm{Im}[a_m(𝐤;i\omega _n)b_{m+1}(𝐤;i\omega _n)\hfill \\ & & +b_m(𝐤;i\omega _n)a_{m+1}(𝐤;i\omega _n)]\}|_{i\omega _n\omega +i0^+}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(15)`$
It is clear that when several of the charge density wave orders exist simultaneously, the total $`\rho _𝐐(\omega )`$ is obtained by a superposition of those of them.

In Fig. 1, we show the real parts of $`\rho _𝐐(\omega )`$ for different charge density wave orders in $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_{8+\delta }`$, whose imaginary parts are zero or are proportional to its real parts. Obviously, the experimental curves (Fig. 3) of Ref.  cannot be explained by the site- or bond-centered charge modulation alone (Fig.1a). But our results for the dimerization hopping (Fig. 1b, c) and transverse pairing modulations (Fig. 1e) are consistent with the STM experiments. Because the imaginary part of $`\rho _𝐐(\omega )`$ observed in the STM experiments is small, we conclude that the charge stripes are mainly formed by the transverse dimerization hopping and transverse pairing modulations. We note that our results are somewhat different from those of Ref. , this may be due to the approximations using in Ref. . We also note that the charge modulations discussed in Ref.  are two-dimensional but ours are one-dimensional.

Fig. 2a-e show Re$`\rho _𝐐(\omega )`$ for $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{6.35}`$ with the same charge density wave orders as in Fig. 1. The curves in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 are very different due to the different ordering wavevector and doping in two superconductors. For the dimerization hopping modulations (Fig. 2 b, c), Re$`\rho _𝐐(\omega )`$ has single peak rather than two peaks. For the pairing modulations (Fig. 2 d, e), there exist a strong peak and a weak peak at symmetric positions. These results are expected to be verified by the STM experiments.

Finally, we discuss the ARPES experiments on the charge stripes, which measure the spectral function. From Eqs. (3) and (13), we obtain the spectral function up to the second order correction

$$\begin{array}{c}A_𝐊(\omega )A_m(𝐤,\omega )\hfill \\ =\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}[<c_{𝐤+m𝐐}(\tau )c_{𝐤+m𝐐}^{}(0)>]|_{i\omega _n\omega +i0^+}\hfill \\ =\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}a_m(𝐤;i\omega _n)\{1+_\nu [a_{m+\nu 1}(𝐤;i\omega _n)f_{𝐤+(m+\nu 1)𝐐}^{}\hfill \\ +b_{m+\nu 1}(𝐤;i\omega _n)g_{𝐤+(m+\nu 1)𝐐}^{}][a_{m+\nu }(𝐤;i\omega _n)f_{𝐤+(m+\nu 1)𝐐}\hfill \\ +b_{m+\nu }(𝐤;i\omega _n)g_{𝐤+(m+\nu 1)𝐐}]+[b_{m1}(𝐤;i\omega _n)f_{𝐤+(m1)𝐐}^{}\hfill \\ +c_{m1}(𝐤;i\omega _n)g_{𝐤+(m1)𝐐}^{}][a_m(𝐤;i\omega _n)g_{𝐤+(m1)𝐐}\hfill \\ b_m(𝐤;i\omega _n)f_{𝐤+(m1)𝐐}]+[b_{m+1}(𝐤;i\omega _n)f_{𝐤+m𝐐}\hfill \\ +c_{m+1}(𝐤;i\omega _n)g_{𝐤+m𝐐}][a_m(𝐤;i\omega _n)g_{𝐤+m𝐐}^{}\hfill \\ b_m(𝐤;i\omega _n)f_{𝐤+m𝐐}^{}]\}|_{i\omega _n\omega +i0^+}\hfill \\ A_{0𝐊}(\omega )+\delta A_𝐊(\omega )\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(16)`$
The first term in the above equation is the spectral function of the superconducting state. The others are those due to the weak charge modulations, which are the second order small quantities. Obviously, the spectral functions $`A_𝐊(\omega )`$ for different hopping (pairing) modulations have similar energy dependence at the same momentum $`𝐊`$. So it is difficult to clarify which kinds of hopping (pairing) modulations the charged stripes belong by the ARPES experiments. However, the hopping and pairing modulations have unique energy dependence for $`A_𝐊(\omega )`$ which could be distinguished experimentally. Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 show the spectral functions $`A_𝐊(\omega )`$ at various momenta $`𝐊`$ for $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_{8+\delta }`$ and $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{6.35}`$ with hopping and pairing modulations, respectively.

In summary, we study the effects of various charge density wave orders on the d-wave superconductor. We conclude that the dimerization hopping and transverse pairing modulations and experimental results are in excellent agreement. The origin of such charge modulations is due to the hopping and gap disorders in the superconductor, which will be investigated in detail in another paper . We also discuss the ARPES experiments on the charged stripes, which can distinguish the hopping and pairing modulations.

The author wish to thank Prof. C. S. Ting for useful discussions. This work has been supported by the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the University of Houston and by the Robert A. Welch Foundation.


text:
# Dynamic phase separation of fluid membranes with rigid inclusions

## I Introduction

Biological and biomimetic membranes consist of a lipid bilayer with various types of macromolecules such as proteins alberts94 ; lipowsky95 . Many of these macromolecules are incorporated in the bilayer, others are covalently bound or adsorbed to the membrane. The membranes are fluid and often tend to phase-separate and to form domains or ‘rafts’ with different molecular composition. In biological membranes, the presence of domains has been linked to specific functions in signaling simons97 , budding schekman96 , or cell adhesion monks98 ; grakoui99 . In some cases, the domain formation is caused by a separation of the lipid bilayer into phases with different lipid composition keller98 ; dietrich01 . In other cases, the phase separation of the membrane appears to be driven by attractive interactions between membrane inclusions sackmannGroup .

Besides direct interactions such as van der Waals or electrostatic forces, membrane inclusions are subject to indirect interactions which are mediated by the membrane. Some of these membrane-mediated interactions are static, i.e. they arise from local perturbations of the bilayer structure or shape around the inclusions. Trans–membrane proteins which exhibit a hydrophobic mismatch with respect to the lipid bilayer cause a perturbation of the bilayer thickness. This thickness perturbation has been found to induce attractive interactions between the proteins dan94 ; fournier98 ; may99 ; harroun99 . Similar interactions due to membrane thickness perturbations have also been proposed for adsorbed particles schiller00 . Membrane inclusions with conical shape goulian93 ; tw98 ; kim98\_99 ; sintes98 ; dommersnes99a ; dommersnes99b ; biscari02  or membrane–anchored polymers breidenich00 ; bickel00\_01  cause local perturbations of the membrane curvature which induces attractive or repulsive interactions.

Other indirect interactions are dynamic, i.e. they are mediated by shape fluctuations of the membrane. In this article, rigid membrane inclusions are considered which interact due to the suppression of membrane shape fluctuations goulian93 ; netz95 ; park96 ; golestanian96 ; netz97 ; holzloehner99 ; tw01a ; helfrich01 , see Fig. 1. Fluctuation–induced interactions have also been found for specific receptors or stickers which locally bind opposing membranes during adhesion bruinsma94 ; tw00 ; tw01b .

The fluctuation–induced pair interactions of rigid membrane inclusions have been studied intensively goulian93 ; dommersnes99a ; dommersnes99b ; netz95 ; park96 ; golestanian96 ; netz97 ; helfrich01 . The pair interaction of rigid disks with radius $`r`$ and distance $`L`$ was found to be

$$G(L)=6k_BT(r/L)^4+O[(r/L)^6]$$
(1)
in the absence of an external membrane potential and lateral tension goulian93 ; golestanian96 . Here, $`O[(r/L)^6]`$ stands for terms of sixth or higher order in $`r/L`$. The prefactor of the leading term in Eq. (1) was first 12, and later corrected to 6 golestanian96 , see also dommersnes99a ; dommersnes99b ; park96 ; helfrich01 . Since the distance $`L`$ has to be larger than the inclusion diameter $`2r`$, this term is only a fraction of the thermal energy $`k_BT`$. However, higher–order terms in $`(r/L)`$ might be relevant at small inclusion separations and thus contribute to the phase behavior of a membrane with many inclusions. Deducing the phase behavior of such a membrane is also complicated by non-trivial multi-body interactions netz97 .

In this article, it is shown numerically that membrane–shape fluctuations indeed lead to the aggregation of rigid inclusions. The phase behavior of a discretized membrane with rigid inclusions is considered in Monte Carlo simulations. The membrane consists of quadratic patches with linear extension $`a`$ which corresponds to the smallest possible wavelength for bending deformations. Computer simulations of molecular membrane models indicate that this length scale is about 6 nm for a lipid bilayer with a thickness of about 4 nm goetz99 . Above a critical value $`K^{}`$ for the stiffness modulus of the inclusions, the membrane is found to separate into an inclusion–rich and an inclusion–poor phase. The aggregation tendency of the inclusions strongly increases with the size $`Q`$, which is reflected in a decrease of the critical stiffness $`K^{}`$ with the inclusion size. Large inclusions also aggregate already at relatively small inclusion concentrations. Here, quadratic inclusions with a size $`Q`$ of $`2\times 2`$, $`3\times 3`$, or $`4\times 4`$ membrane patches are considered, which extends previous results on smaller inclusions with the size of a single patch tw01a . For these inclusions, the critical stiffness is found to decrease according to the power law $`K^{}Q^c`$ with exponent $`c0.70`$.

## II General model

The configurations of a fluctuating membrane with inclusions can be described by a field $`l`$ for the membrane shape and a concentration field $`n`$ for the inclusions lipowsky96 . For a membrane which is on average planar, the membrane shape is usually given by the deviation $`l(x,y)`$ from a reference plane with coordinates $`x`$ and $`y`$. Here, we discretize the reference plane into a square lattice with lattice constant $`a`$ which corresponds to the smallest possible wavelength for bending deformations. The inclusion positions are then given by occupation numbers $`n_i=0`$ or $`1`$ where $`n_i=1`$ denotes the presence of an inclusion at the lattice site $`i`$ of the reference plane, see Fig. 2.

In the absence of inclusions, the discretized bending energy per lattice site can be written as

$$_i^M(l)=\frac{1}{2}a^2\kappa _o(c_{i,x}+c_{i,y})^2$$
(2)
where $`\kappa _o`$ is the bending rigidity of the lipid bilayer, and $`\frac{1}{2}(c_{i,x}+c_{i,y})`$ is the local mean curvature of the membrane helfrich73 . Here,

$`c_{i,x}=(l_{x+a,y}+l_{xa,y}2l_{x,y})/a^2`$ (3)
$`c_{i,y}=(l_{x,y+a}+l_{x,ya}2l_{x,y})/a^2`$ (4)
are the discretized curvatures in $`x`$\- and $`y`$-direction at the lattice site $`i`$ with coordinates $`(x,y)`$. The rigid inclusions here are characterized by the elastic energy per site

$$_i^I(l)=\frac{1}{2}a^2K(c_{i,x}^2+c_{i,y}^2)$$
(5)
with the stiffness modulus $`K`$ footnote . For $`K\mathrm{}`$, such inclusions are completely rigid and suppress any local curvature at the inclusion position similar to the rigid disks or rods studied in goulian93 ; park96 ; golestanian96 ; helfrich01 . In contrast, inclusions with increased bending rigidity as considered in netz95 ; netz97 ; tw01a  only suppress fluctuations of the total curvature $`c_{i,x}+c_{i,y}`$, but not saddle-type fluctuations with $`c_{i,x}=c_{i,y}`$.

The grand-canonical Hamiltonian of a membrane containing inclusions with the size of one lattice site can be written as

$`_{Q=1}\{l,n\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\{(1n_i)_i^M(l)+n_i[_i^I(l)\mu ]`$ (6)
$`+V(l_i)\}`$
were $`\mu `$ is the relative chemical potential of the inclusions, and $`V(l_i)`$ is the external membrane potential. On lattice sites with occupation numbers $`n_i=1`$ indicating the presence of inclusions, the elastic energy is given by $`_i^I(l)`$. On lattice sites with $`n_i=0`$, the elastic energy is the energy $`_i^M(l)`$ of the lipid bilayer.

The larger inclusions considered here have an area of $`Q=2\times 2`$, $`3\times 3`$, or $`4\times 4`$ membrane patches or lattice sites, see Fig. 3. The elastic energy at every lattice site of an inclusion is given by Eq. (5). The larger inclusions thus can be seen as quadratic arrays of small inclusions with the size of one lattice site. The grand–canonical Hamiltonian for a membrane with larger inclusions can be formally written as tw00

$`_Q\{l,n\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\{_i^M(l)+n_i[{\displaystyle \underset{q=1}{\overset{Q}{}}}(_{iq}^I(l)_{iq}^M(l))\mu ]`$ (7)
$`+V(l_i)\}+{\displaystyle }_{ij}W_{ij}n_in_j`$
where $`\{i1,\mathrm{},iQ\}`$ denotes quadratic arrays of $`Q=2\times 2`$, $`3\times 3`$, or $`4\times 4`$ lattice sites. The position of an inclusion given by $`n_i=1`$ corresponds to one of the lattice sites occupied by the inclusion, e.g. the center of an inclusion with size $`Q=3\times 3`$. The hard-square interaction

$`W_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\text{for}j\text{in}A_i^Q`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`0\text{otherwise}`$
prevents any overlap of inclusions. Here, $`A_i^Q`$ denotes the exclusion area of an individual inclusion with size $`Q`$ at lattice site $`i`$.

In the following, the external potential of the membrane is taken to be the harmonic potential

$$V(l_i)=ml_i^2/2$$
(9)
with potential strength $`m`$. The harmonic potential introduces an additional length scale, the correlation length $`\xi =(4a^2\kappa _o/m)^{1/4}`$ for the deviation field $`l`$, see, e.g., Ref. netz95 . Membrane fluctuations on length scales larger than the correlation length $`\xi `$ are suppressed by the harmonic potential, while fluctuations on smaller scales are governed predominantly by the elastic energy of the membrane.

The membrane model defined by the Eqs. (2) to (7) has four characteristic dimensionless parameters, as can be shown be introducing the rescaled deviation field

$$z(l/a)\sqrt{\kappa _o/(k_BT)}$$
(10)
These parameters are the ratio $`K/\kappa _o`$ of the inclusion modulus and the bare membrane rigidity, the dimensionless chemical potential $`\mu /(k_BT)`$ for the inclusions, the rescaled potential strength $`\stackrel{~}{m}ma^2/\kappa _o`$, and the inclusion size $`Q`$.

## III Monte Carlo simulations

To deduce the phase behavior from Monte Carlo simulations, the inclusion concentration $`XQn_i/a^2`$ is determined as a function of the chemical potential $`\mu `$ for various values of the inclusion stiffness $`K`$, size $`Q`$, and the rescaled potential strength $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$. A first-order phase transition is reflected in a discontinuity of $`X(\mu )`$ at a certain chemical potential $`\mu _{tr}`$. The two limiting values of $`X(\mu )`$ at $`\mu _{tr}`$ are the inclusion concentrations of the coexisting phases, an inclusion-rich and an inclusion-poor phase. To determine the inclusion concentration $`X`$ at a given value of $`\mu `$, Monte Carlo simulations are performed with up to $`10^7`$ Monte Carlo steps per lattice site on a lattice with $`120\times 120`$ sites and periodic boundary conditions. Each Monte Carlo step consists in attempted local moves of the rescaled deviation field $`z`$ and of the concentration field $`n`$ on all lattice sites. For rescaled potential strengths $`\stackrel{~}{m}0.01`$ as considered here, the correlation length of the membrane is much smaller than the lateral extension of the lattice, and finite size effects are negligible.

In Fig. 4, phase diagrams as a function of the inclusion modulus $`K`$ are shown for inclusions with size $`Q=1`$, $`2\times 2`$, and $`3\times 3`$. The rescaled potential strength is $`\stackrel{~}{m}=0.01`$. At points $`(X,K)`$ inside the shaded 2-phase coexistence regions, the membrane separates into an inclusion-rich and an inclusion-poor phase. The inclusion concentrations in the coexisting phases are given by the lines of Monte Carlo data points, the critical points are represented by stars. The extent of the 2-phase regions strongly increases with the inclusion size $`Q`$, wich is reflected (i) in a strong decrease of the critical stiffness $`K^{}`$ and (ii) in an increase of the width of the coexistence region with the inclusion size. For inclusions with size $`Q=3\times 3`$, the membrane phase-separates already at very small inclusion concentrations.

The external harmonic potential (9) suppresses membrane shape fluctuations on length scales larger than the correlation length $`\zeta =a(4/\stackrel{~}{m})^{1/4}`$. Since the phase separation of the membrane is driven by the fluctuations, the critical stiffness $`K^{}`$ increases with the rescaled potential strength $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$, see Fig. 5. For weak potentials with small values of $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$, the critical stiffness is rather independent of $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ and tends towards a limiting value, since the correlation length $`\zeta `$ then is much larger than the average distance between neighboring inclusions.

In the absence of an external potential, i.e. for $`\stackrel{~}{m}=0`$, the critical stiffness $`K^{}`$ of the inclusions only depends on the inclusion size $`Q`$. Since the increasing correlation length $`\zeta `$ leads to finite size effects in Monte Carlo simulations with $`\stackrel{~}{m}=0`$, the critical stiffness $`K^{}`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{m}0`$ is determined here by extrapolation, see Table 1. For the inclusion sizes considered in this article, the functional dependence of the critical values $`K^{}`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{m}0`$ on the size $`Q`$ can be approximated by the power law

$$K^{}Q^c$$
(11)
with exponent $`c=0.70\pm 0.01`$, see Fig. 6.

## IV Scaling analysis

Large inclusions with size $`Q>1`$ can be seen as quadratic arrays of small inclusions with the size of one lattice site. These inclusions aggregate at much smaller values of the stiffness $`K`$ than inclusions with size $`Q=1`$, see above. In order to understand this behavior, it is instructive to consider the free energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ between the two membrane states: The uniform state in which the inclusions are more or less homogeneously distributed throughout the membrane, and the phase-separated state in which the inclusions are aggregated. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ is negative, the membrane will be in its homogenous state; if $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ is positive, the membrane will phase-separate. For a given area concentration $`X`$ of the inclusions, the free energy difference between the uniform and the aggregated state can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F(K,Q)=\mathrm{\Delta }F_{int}(K,Q)T\mathrm{\Delta }S_{mix}(Q)$$
(12)
in the absence of an external potential, i.e. for $`m=0`$. Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{int}(K,Q)`$ is the difference in the dynamic interaction free energy of the inclusions, which is induced by the shape fluctuations of the membrane, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{mix}(K,Q)`$ is the difference in the entropy of mixing.

The second term in Eq. (12) is dominated by the entropy of mixing in the homogeneous state. For small area concentrations $`X=Qn_i/a^2`$ of the inclusions, this entropy of mixing is proportional to the number of inclusions, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{mix}`$ scales as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S_{mix}(Q)1/Q$$
(13)
Eq. (13) simply results from the fact that the number of inclusions is proportional to $`1/Q`$ for given area concentration $`X`$ of the inclusions.

The term $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{int}(K,Q)`$ is dominated by the interaction free energy of the inclusions in the aggregated state. For $`Q>1`$, the inclusions are rather densely packed in this state with an area fraction $`a^2X`$ larger than 0.9 (see Fig. 4), and have contact with neighboring inclusions almost along the whole circumference of length $`4\sqrt{Q}`$. If one assumes that the interaction free energy in the aggregated state is proportional to the ratio of the inclusion circumference $`4\sqrt{Q}`$ and the area $`Q`$, the scaling form of the interaction free energy difference can be estimated as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F_{int}(K,Q)f(K)/\sqrt{Q}K^m/\sqrt{Q}$$
(14)
presupposing powerlaw-form for $`f(K)`$. According to this estimate, the interaction free energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{int}`$ decreases with the inclusion size $`Q`$ proportional to $`Q^{1/2}`$, following the decrease of the ‘surface-to-area’ ratio of the inclusions. The critical stiffness $`K^{}`$ obtained from $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=0`$ then scales as

$$K^{}Q^{1/(2m)}$$
(15)
Comparing with the exponent $`c0.70`$ from the Monte Carlo simulations (see Fig. 6), one obtains

$$m=1/(2c)0.71$$
(16)
Thus, for the stiffness values $`K`$ and inclusion sizes $`Q`$ considered here, the dynamic interaction free energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{int}`$ of the inclusions appears to increase proportional to $`K^{0.71}`$.

## V Discussion

In summary, I have considered the dynamic phase behavior of a discretized membrane with rigid inclusions using Monte Carlo simulations. The phase behavior strongly depends on the inclusion size. For inclusion sizes ranging from $`Q=1`$ to $`Q=4\times 4`$ lattice sites or membrane patches, the critical stiffness $`K^{}`$ decreases with the size as $`K^{}Q^{0.70}`$ in the absence of an external potential, see Fig. 6. The lateral extension of a membrane patch, the lattice spacing $`a`$, corresponds to the cut-off length for membrane shape fluctuations, which has been estimated as 6 nm for a membrane with a thickness of about 4 nm goetz99 . In biological or biomimetic membranes, rigid objects with an extension larger than 6 nm may correspond to large trans-membrane proteins, aggregates of proteins and other macromolecules, or, more general, membrane domains with increased elastic moduli. Colloidal particles adsorbed on membranes suppress membrane fluctuations similar to rigid inclusions. In general, membrane inclusions and membrane-adsorbed particles may have a variety of shapes and, therefore, orientational degrees of freedom dommersnes99b ; golestanian96 ; holzloehner99 . Here, I have only considered quadratic objects on a square lattice. At high area concentrations $`a^2X>0.8`$, the phase behavior of the membrane with quadratic inclusions of size $`Q>1`$ is complicated by the packing transitions of the hard-square lattice gas runnels72 ; kinzel81  which are not considered here. These transitions are induced by the hard-square interactions (8) of the inclusions, but do not depend on the inclusion stiffness in contrast to the dynamic phase separation.

The inclusions considered here suppress fluctuations of the local curvatures $`c_{i,x}`$ and $`c_{i,y}`$ in $`x`$\- and $`y`$-direction at the inclusion sites, see Eqs. (3) to (5). In contrast, inclusions with increased bending rigidity studied in netz95 ; netz97 ; tw01a  only suppress fluctuations of the total curvature $`c_{i,x}+c_{i,y}`$, but not ‘saddle-type’ fluctuations with $`c_{i,x}=c_{i,y}`$, which seems somewhat less realistic. The phase behavior of these inclusions is remarkably different from that of the rigid inclusions studied here. Inclusions with increased bending rigidity do not interact in the absence of an external membrane potential, since local fluctuations of the total curvature at different membrane sites are not correlated in the free membrane netz95 . Such correlations are only induced by the external potential of the membrane. The fluctuation–induced interactions between inclusions with increased bending rigidity attain a maximum at a certain nonzero potential strength, but are always considerably weaker than those of rigid inclusions characterized by Eq. (5), see Ref. tw01a . Intermediate cases between these two types of inclusions can be studied by using an elastic energy with two moduli for the inclusions tw01a .

Rigid inclusions may also be subject to other membrane-mediated interactions if they perturb the bilayer thickness or have a conical or wedge-like shape, see introduction. In general, dynamic fluctuation-induced interactions can be assumed to be additive to static interactions arising from perturbations of the equilibrium membrane structure, as long as these perturbations do not affect the elastic moduli of the membrane. The variety of membrane–mediated indirect interactions often complicates the interpretation of experimental results. The dynamic phase separation of a fluctuating multi-component membrane in contact with a substrate has been recently reported in marx02 . The membrane contains anchored PEG-polymers and appears to phase separate into domains with different separation from the substrate, which might result from different effective bending rigidities for the domains since the fluctuation-induced Helfrich repulsion helfrich78  between membrane and substrate depends on the rigidity. Fluctuation–induced interactions may also contribute to the aggregation of latex spheres adsorbed to vesicles reported in Ref. koltover99 . Lateral phase separation has also been observed during the adhesion of biomimetic membranes with specific receptors or stickers which bind to ligands in a supported membrane sackmannGroup . Phase separation during membrane adhesion may be induced by membrane fluctuations tw00 ; tw01b , or by an effective barrier in the interaction energy between the membranes tw01b ; komura00 ; bruinsma00 . In the first case, the aggregation tendency of the stickers strongly increases with the sticker size, similar to the rigid inclusion considered here tw00 . The fluctuation–induced interactions between bound stickers are also enhanced if the stickers are more rigid than the surrounding membrane tw01b .


text:
# Untitled Document

IFT-P.076/2002

One Loop Conformal Invariance of the Superstring in an $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ Background

Brenno Carlini Vallilo1 E-Mail: vallilo@ift.unesp.br

Instituto de Física Teórica, Universidade Estadual Paulista

Rua Pamplona 145, 01405-900, São Paulo, SP, Brasil

It is proven that the pure spinor superstring in an $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background remains conformally invariant at one loop level in the sigma model perturbation theory.

October 2002

1. Introduction

A consistent world sheet description of the superstring in an $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ space with Ramond-Ramond flux could be a powerful tool to study aspects of the AdS/CFT correspondence . The two main formalisms for the superstring suffer from problems that reduce severely their utility. Berkovits has proposed a new formalism where quantization can be performed preserving full $`D=10`$ supersymmetry . This formalism can also be generalized to curved backgrounds, including RR fluxes. In Berkovits’ description, kappa symmetry of the standard GS superstring is replaced by a BRST like symmetry, constructed in terms of the fermionic constraints $`d_\alpha `$ and an appropriate set of bosonic pure spinors ghosts.

The GS action in an $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ space was constructed in . Their construction was based on the coset supergroup $`PSU(2,2|4)/SO(4,1)\times SO(5)`$. Sigma models in supergroups were considered in  and . In  general aspects of the theory based on supergroups $`PSL(N|N)`$ were studied. In particular, it was shown that these models are exactly conformal. In the work , a full superstring theory on the supergroup manifold $`PSU(2|2)`$ is defined, based on the hybrid formalism . The world sheet theory is also exactly conformal and has a non linear $`N=2`$ superconformal symmetry. The superconformal symmetry is reminiscent of the hybrid string and is used to define physical states and correlation functions. Quantization of sigma models in coset supergroups was done in . One loop conformal invariance of this theories could be proved including a WZ term with a specific coefficient. Little attention was paid to the ghosts in  because in the $`AdS_2\times S^2`$ they are spacetime scalars, and their action is still free in curved spaces.

In the present work, one loop conformal invariance of the pure spinor superstring in an $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ will be proved. The matter contribution to the sigma model was proved in  to have vanishing beta function. But to define a string theory, ghosts are essential. In the case of the ten dimensional superstring, the ghosts are not scalars and they couple to the background. It is these couplings that are analyzed in this work.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 a short introduction to Berkovits’ pure spinor formalism for the superstring is given. After that, relevant facts about the $`PSU(2,2|4)`$ algebra and the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ space are introduced. In section 3 the sigma model action obtained in section 2 is quantized and the ghost contribution to the effective action is calculated and is shown to have no UV divergencies. The last section has the conclusion and discusses perspectives related to superstrings in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$.

2. Pure Spinor Superstring

In this section we give a brief review of the pure spinor formalism for the superstring. At first we discuss the flat background, and then, the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ space as a coset supermanifold.

In flat space, the pure spinor superstring action is given by

$$S=d^2z[\frac{1}{2}x^m\overline{}x_m+p_\alpha \overline{}\theta ^\alpha +\widehat{p}_{\widehat{\alpha }}\widehat{\theta }^{\widehat{\alpha }}]+S_\lambda +S_{\widehat{\lambda }},$$

where $`(x^m,\theta ^\alpha ,\widehat{\theta }^{\widehat{\alpha }})`$ parameterize the $`D=10`$, $`N=2`$ superspace and $`(p_\alpha ,p_{\widehat{\alpha }})`$ are the fermionic conjugate momenta. $`S_\lambda `$ and $`S_{\widehat{\lambda }}`$ are the free field actions for the bosonic left and right-moving ghosts $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{\lambda }^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ satisfying the pure spinor conditions

$$\lambda \gamma ^m\lambda =0\mathrm{and}\widehat{\lambda }\gamma ^m\widehat{\lambda }=0\mathrm{for}m=0\mathrm{to}9.$$

Although an explicit form of $`S_\lambda `$ and $`S_{\widehat{\lambda }}`$ in terms of $`(\lambda ,\widehat{\lambda })`$ and their conjugate momenta $`(\omega ,\widehat{\omega })`$ requires breaking $`SO(9,1)`$ (or its euclidean version $`SO(10)`$) to a subgroup, the OPE’s of $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{\lambda }^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ with their Lorentz currents $`N^{mn}=\frac{1}{2}\omega \gamma ^{mn}\lambda `$ and $`\widehat{N}^{mn}=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{\omega }\gamma ^{mn}\widehat{\lambda }`$ are manifestly SO(9,1) covariant. The condition (2.1) implies that $`\omega `$ and $`\widehat{\omega }`$ are defined only up the gauge invariances

$$\delta \omega _\alpha =\mathrm{\Lambda }^m(\gamma _m\lambda )_\alpha ,\delta \widehat{\omega }_{\widehat{\alpha }}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^m(\gamma _m\widehat{\lambda })_{\widehat{\alpha }},$$

for any $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^m,\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^m)`$.

The action (2.1) is invariant under the supersymmetry generated by

$$q_\alpha =[p_\alpha +(\theta \gamma ^m)_\alpha x_m+\frac{1}{12}(\theta \gamma ^m)_\alpha (\theta \gamma _m\theta )]$$

$$\widehat{q}_{\widehat{\alpha }}=[\widehat{p}_{\widehat{\alpha }}+(\widehat{\theta }\gamma ^m)_{\widehat{\alpha }}\overline{}x_m+\frac{1}{12}(\widehat{\theta }\gamma ^m)_{\widehat{\alpha }}(\widehat{\theta }\gamma _m\overline{}\widehat{\theta })].$$

It is useful to define supersymmetric operators in terms of the free world sheet fields

$$d_\alpha =p_\alpha (\mathrm{\Pi }^m\frac{1}{2}\theta \gamma ^m\theta )(\gamma _m\theta )_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Pi }^m=x^m+\theta \gamma ^m\theta ,$$

$$\widehat{d}_{\widehat{\alpha }}=\widehat{p}_{\widehat{\alpha }}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^m\frac{1}{2}\widehat{\theta }\gamma ^m\overline{}\widehat{\theta })(\gamma _m\widehat{\theta })_{\widehat{\alpha }},\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^m=\overline{}x^m+\widehat{\theta }\gamma ^m\overline{}\widehat{\theta },$$

which satisfy the OPE’s

$$d_\alpha (y)d_\beta (z)2\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m(yz)^1\mathrm{\Pi }_m,\widehat{d}_{\widehat{\alpha }}(\overline{y})\widehat{d}_{\widehat{\beta }}(\overline{z})2\gamma _{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}^m(\overline{y}\overline{z})^1\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_m.$$

2.1. Physical Vertex Operators

There are two types of vertex operators. The unintegrated ones are needed to compute tree level scattering amplitudes and are appropriate in the computation of the cohomology . Integrated vertex operators are also needed to compute amplitudes and to know the form of the action in general backgrounds. The BRST operators are given by

$$Q=\lambda ^\alpha d_\alpha \mathrm{and}\overline{Q}=\widehat{\lambda }^{\widehat{\alpha }}\widehat{d}_{\widehat{\alpha }},$$

where $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{\lambda }^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ carry ghost-number $`(1,0)`$ and $`(0,1)`$ respectively. Nilpotency and anti-commutation are easily checked using the OPE’s (2.1). Integrated $`V`$ and unintegrated $`U`$ vertex operators will be physical if they are in the BRST cohomology and have ghost-number $`(0,0)`$ and $`(1,1)`$ respectively. The two types are related by

$$\{Q,[\overline{Q},V]\}=\overline{}U.$$

The integrated massless vertex operator has the form

$$d^2zV(z,\overline{z})=d^2z[h_{mn}\mathrm{\Pi }^m\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^n+g_{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}\theta ^\alpha \overline{}\widehat{\theta }^{\widehat{\beta }}+\widehat{g}_{m\widehat{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Pi }^m\overline{}\widehat{\theta }^{\widehat{\alpha }}+g_{m\alpha }\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^m\theta ^\alpha +$$

$$+(d_\alpha +N_\alpha ^\beta D_\beta )\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^mE_m^\alpha +(\widehat{d}_{\widehat{\alpha }}+\widehat{N}_{\widehat{\alpha }}^{\widehat{\beta }}\widehat{D}_{\widehat{\beta }})\mathrm{\Pi }^m\widehat{E}_m^{\widehat{\alpha }}+(d_\alpha +N_\alpha ^\beta D_\beta )\overline{}\widehat{\theta }^{\widehat{\beta }}E_{\widehat{\beta }}^\alpha +(\widehat{d}_{\widehat{\alpha }}+\widehat{N}_{\widehat{\alpha }}^{\widehat{\beta }}\widehat{D}_{\widehat{\beta }})\theta ^\beta \widehat{E}_\beta ^{\widehat{\alpha }}+$$

$$(d_\alpha +N_\alpha ^\beta D_\beta )(\widehat{d}_{\widehat{\delta }}+\widehat{N}_{\widehat{\delta }}^{\widehat{\gamma }}\widehat{D}_{\widehat{\gamma }})P^{\alpha \widehat{\delta }}],$$

where the space time superfields $`(h_{mn},g_{\alpha \widehat{\beta }},\widehat{g}_{m\widehat{\alpha }},g_{m\alpha },E_m^\alpha ,\widehat{E}_m^{\widehat{\alpha }},E_{\widehat{\beta }}^\alpha ,\widehat{E}_\beta ^{\widehat{\alpha }},P^{\alpha \widehat{\delta }})`$ depend on the zero modes (not derivatives) of $`(x,\theta ,\widehat{\theta })`$ only, $`N_\alpha ^\beta =\frac{1}{8}(\gamma _{mn})_\alpha ^\beta N^{mn}`$ and $`\widehat{N}_{\widehat{\alpha }}^{\widehat{\beta }}=\frac{1}{8}(\gamma _{mn})_{\widehat{\alpha }}^{\widehat{\beta }}\widehat{N}^{mn}`$ are the Lorentz currents of the bosonic ghosts. This vertex operator was first proposed by Siegel  up to the ghost terms. It can be shown that the cohomological conditions give the equations of motion and gauge invariances of linearized supergravity.

2.2. Action in Curved Backgrounds

The form of the vertex operator (2.1) helps us to write the superstring action in a curved spacetime. It is only necessary to covariantize the spacetime indexes with respect to diffeomorphism invariance. The result is

$$S_{curv}=d^2z[\frac{1}{2}(G_{MN}+B_{MN})y^M\overline{}y^N+$$

$$+d_\alpha E_M^\alpha \overline{}y^M+\frac{1}{2}N_{mn}\overline{}y^M\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{mn}+\widehat{d}_{\widehat{\alpha }}\widehat{E}_M^{\widehat{\alpha }}y^M+\frac{1}{2}\widehat{N}_{mn}y^M\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_M^{mn}+d_\alpha \widehat{d}_{\widehat{\gamma }}P^{\alpha \widehat{\gamma }}+$$

$$+\widehat{N}_{mn}d_\alpha C^{\alpha mn}+N_{mn}\widehat{d}_{\widehat{\alpha }}\widehat{C}^{\widehat{\alpha }mn}+\frac{1}{4}N_{mn}\widehat{N}_{op}R^{mnop}+\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\theta ,\widehat{\theta })R]+S_\lambda +S_{\widehat{\lambda }},$$

where the superfields $`(G_{MN},B_{MN},E_M^\alpha ,\widehat{E}_M^{\widehat{\alpha }},\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{mn},\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_M^{mn},P^{\alpha \widehat{\gamma }},C^{\alpha mn},\widehat{C}^{\widehat{\alpha }mn},R^{mnop},\mathrm{\Phi })`$ are related to the supergravity multiplet . The first line in (2.1) is just the GS action in a curved background, the second and third lines are necessary to covariantly quantize the superstring, i.e., they provide invertible propagators (containing no operators that might have zero modes) for the fermions. $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\theta ,\widehat{\theta })R`$ is the Fradkin-Tseytlin term, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the compensator scalar superfield whose lowest component is the dilaton and $`R`$ is the worldsheet curvature. In curved space, $`p_\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{p}_{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ lost their meanings, so we treat $`d_\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{d}_{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ as fundamental fields.

2.3. Action in an $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ Background

As was shown in  , the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background can be described by a coset supergroup element $`g`$ taking values in $`PSU(2,2|4)/SO(4,1)\times SO(5)`$ where the supervierbein and spin connections are given by

$$E_M^Ady^M=(g^1dg)^A,$$

where $`A=(\underset{¯}{a},\alpha ,\widehat{\alpha },[\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{b}])`$ and $`\underset{¯}{a}`$ signifies either $`a`$ or $`a^{}`$ and $`[\underset{¯}{cd}]`$ signifies either $`[ab]`$ or $`[a^{}b^{}]`$, $`a=0`$ to $`4`$ and $`a^{}=5`$ to $`9`$. The non-vanishing structure constants $`f_{AB}^C`$ of the $`PSU(2,2|4)`$ algebra are2 In  there is a typo in the $`f_{cd}^{[ef]}`$, $`f_{c^{}d^{}}^{[e^{}f^{}]}`$ and $`f_{[\underset{¯}{cd}][\underset{¯}{ef}]}^{[\underset{¯}{gh}]}`$ structure constants.

$$f_{\alpha \beta }^{\underset{¯}{c}}=2\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{\underset{¯}{c}},f_{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}^{\underset{¯}{c}}=2\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{\underset{¯}{c}},$$

$$f_{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}^{[ef]}=f_{\widehat{\beta }\alpha }^{[ef]}=(\gamma ^{ef})_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\gamma }\delta _{\gamma \widehat{\beta }}^{},f_{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}^{[e^{}f^{}]}=f_{\widehat{\beta }\alpha }^{[e^{}f^{}]}=(\gamma ^{e^{}f^{}})_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\gamma }\delta _{\gamma \widehat{\beta }}^{},$$

$$f_{\alpha \underset{¯}{c}}^{\widehat{\beta }}=f_{\underset{¯}{c}\alpha }^{\widehat{\beta }}=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _{\underset{¯}{c}})_{\alpha \beta }\delta ^{\beta \widehat{\beta }},f_{\widehat{\alpha }\underset{¯}{c}}^\beta =f_{\underset{¯}{c}\widehat{\alpha }}^\beta =\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _{\underset{¯}{c}})_{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}\delta ^{\beta \widehat{\beta }},$$

$$f_{cd}^{[ef]}=\frac{1}{2}\delta _c^{[e}\delta _d^{f]},f_{c^{}d^{}}^{[e^{}f^{}]}=\frac{1}{2}\delta _c^{}^{[e^{}}\delta _d^{}^{f^{}]},$$

$$f_{[\underset{¯}{cd}][\underset{¯}{ef}]}^{[\underset{¯}{gh}]}=\frac{1}{2}(\eta _{\underset{¯}{ce}}\delta _{\underset{¯}{d}}^{[\underset{¯}{g}}\delta _{\underset{¯}{f}}^{\underset{¯}{h}]}\eta _{\underset{¯}{cf}}\delta _{\underset{¯}{d}}^{[\underset{¯}{g}}\delta _{\underset{¯}{e}}^{\underset{¯}{h}]}+\eta _{\underset{¯}{df}}\delta _{\underset{¯}{c}}^{[\underset{¯}{g}}\delta _{\underset{¯}{e}}^{\underset{¯}{h}]}\eta _{\underset{¯}{de}}\delta _{\underset{¯}{c}}^{[\underset{¯}{g}}\delta _{\underset{¯}{f}}^{\underset{¯}{h}]})$$

$$f_{[\underset{¯}{cd}]\underset{¯}{e}}^{\underset{¯}{f}}=f_{\underset{¯}{e}[\underset{¯}{cd}]}^{\underset{¯}{f}}=\eta _{\underset{¯}{e}\underset{¯}{[c}}\delta _{\underset{¯}{d}]}^{\underset{¯}{f}},f_{[\underset{¯}{cd}]\alpha }^\beta =f_{\alpha [\underset{¯}{cd}]}^\beta =\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _{\underset{¯}{cd}})_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta },f_{[\underset{¯}{cd}]\widehat{\alpha }}^{\widehat{\beta }}=f_{\widehat{\alpha }[\underset{¯}{cd}]}^{\widehat{\beta }}=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _{\underset{¯}{cd}})_{\widehat{\alpha }}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{\beta }}.$$

The $`PSU(2,2|4)`$ algebra $``$ has a natural decomposition  $`=_i`$, $`i=0`$ to $`3`$

$$J_{\underset{¯}{a}}_2,J_{[\underset{¯}{ab}]}_0,J_\alpha _1,J_{\widehat{\alpha }}_3.$$

As can be seen from the structure constants (2.1)

$$[_i,_j]_{i+j}\mathrm{mod}4.$$

The bilinear form also respects the decomposition

$$_i,_j=0\mathrm{unless}i+j=0(\mathrm{mod}4).$$

Besides the superspace geometry, the background superfields $`B_{AB}`$ and $`P^{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}`$ also have expectation values3 In  there is a mistake in the value of these fields. The origin of this mistake is that $`Ng_s`$ is the flux $`_{S^5}F_5e^\varphi `$ and not the value of the field .

$$B_{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}=B_{\widehat{\beta }\alpha }=\frac{1}{2}(Ng_s)^{\frac{1}{4}}\delta _{\alpha \widehat{\beta }},P^{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}=\frac{1}{(Ng_s)^{\frac{1}{4}}}\delta ^{\alpha \widehat{\beta }},$$

where $`N`$ is the value of the Ramond-Ramond flux, $`g_s`$ is the string coupling constant and $`\delta _{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}=(\gamma ^{01234})_{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}`$ with 01234 being the directions of $`AdS_5`$.

Since we have the value of all background fields, we can plug then to the action (2.1). Because of the term $`Ng_s\delta ^{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}d_\alpha d_{\widehat{\beta }}`$, $`d_\alpha `$ and $`d_{\widehat{\beta }}`$ are auxiliary fields, and may be eliminated by their equations of motion. The final result is

$$S=d^2z[\frac{1}{2}(\eta _{cd}J^c\overline{J}^d+\eta _{c^{}d^{}}J^c^{}\overline{J}^d^{})+(Ng_s)^{\frac{1}{4}}\delta _{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}(3J^{\widehat{\beta }}\overline{J}^\alpha J^\alpha \overline{J}^{\widehat{\beta }})$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}(N_{\underset{¯}{cd}}\overline{J}^{[\underset{¯}{cd}]}+\widehat{N}_{\underset{¯}{cd}}J^{[\underset{¯}{cd}]})+\frac{1}{2}(N_{cd}\widehat{N}^{cd}N_{c^{}d^{}}\widehat{N}^{c^{}d^{}})]+S_\lambda +S_{\widehat{\lambda }}$$

where $`J^A=(g^1g)^A`$ and $`\overline{J}^A=(g^1\overline{}g)^A`$ are left-invariant currents constructed from the supergroup element $`gPSU(2,2|4)`$, $`[N^{cd},N^{c^{}d^{}}]`$ and $`[\widehat{N}^{cd},\widehat{N}^{c^{}d^{}}]`$ are the $`SO(4,1)\times SO(5)`$ components of the Lorentz current for $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{\lambda }^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$, and $`S_\lambda `$ and $`\widehat{S}_{\widehat{\lambda }}`$ are the same as in (2.1). Performing the rescaling4 The ghosts also need to be rescaled, in order to have same weight with respect to lorentz transformations. This implies $`(\lambda ,\omega ,\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\omega })(Ng_s)^{\frac{1}{8}}`$ and $`(N,\widehat{N})(Ng_s)^{\frac{1}{4}}`$.

$$J^{\underset{¯}{c}}(Ng_s)^{\frac{1}{4}},J^\alpha (Ng_s)^{\frac{1}{8}},J^{\widehat{\alpha }}(Ng_s)^{\frac{1}{8}},J^{[\underset{¯}{cd}]}(Ng_s)^{\frac{1}{4}}$$

and calling $`\alpha =(\lambda )^{\frac{1}{4}}`$, $`\lambda =Ng_s`$, the action (2.1) is just a sigma model action based on the coset supergroup $`PSU(2,2|4)/SO(4,1)\times SO(5)`$ with coupling constant $`\alpha `$ coupled to the bosonic ghosts plus a WZ term

$$S_{AdS}=\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}d^2z\frac{1}{2}\eta _{AB}J^A\overline{J}^B|__0+kS_{WZ}+$$

$$+\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}d^2z[\frac{1}{2}N_{\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{d}}\overline{J}^{[\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{d}]}+\frac{1}{2}\widehat{N}_{\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{d}}J^{[\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{d}]}+\frac{1}{2}(N_{cd}\widehat{N}^{cd}N_{c^{}d^{}}\widehat{N}^{c^{}d^{}})]+\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}(S_\lambda +S_{\widehat{\lambda }}),$$

where

$$S_{WZ}=\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}d^2z\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}[J^{\widehat{\beta }}\overline{J}^\alpha \overline{J}^{\widehat{\beta }}J^\alpha ],$$

$`k=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\eta _{AB}=(\eta _{\underset{¯}{ab}},4\delta _{\alpha \widehat{\beta }},4\delta _{\alpha \widehat{\beta }},\eta _{a[b}\eta _{c]d},\eta _{a^{}[b^{}}\eta _{c^{}]d^{}})`$. Since the dilaton is constant in this background, the Fradkin-Tseytlin term is integrated to give the usual genus counting coupling constant.

In  it was shown that $`\delta _{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}\lambda ^\alpha J^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ and $`\delta _{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}\widehat{\lambda }^\alpha J^\alpha `$ are holomorphic and anti-holomorphic respectively. This means that $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ are conserved charges in this background. Furthermore, when acting on massless states these charges are nilpotent and anti-commute. This proves that $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ can be used to define massless fluctuations around the background. The problem of computing the cohomology to arbitrary mass level is still open.

3. One Loop Beta Function

Classically, there is only one coupling constant in (2.1). If quantum effects are taken into account this picture may change. This will be the case if the various interactions in (2.1) have different coefficients in the renormalization group flow. Consistency of string theory requires that these coefficients are exactly zero. The coefficients of the renormalization group, namely, the beta functions, are calculated renormalizing UV divergent diagrams in the effective action. If there is no divergence at all, the beta functions are automatically zero. In subsection 3.1, (2.1) wll be quantized and the results of  on the cancellation of one loop divergences from the matter part of (2.1) will be summarized. After that, it will be shown that a new one loop divergence appears due to the interaction

$$d^2z[\frac{1}{2}N_{\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{d}}\overline{J}^{[\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{d}]}+\frac{1}{2}\widehat{N}_{\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{d}}J^{[\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{d}]}].$$

Finally, in subsection 3.3 it will be shown that this new divergence is exactly cancelled by the interaction

$$d^2z[\frac{1}{2}N_{cd}\widehat{N}^{cd}\frac{1}{2}N_{c^{}d^{}}\widehat{N}^{c^{}d^{}}]$$

of the pure spinor ghosts.

3.1. Sigma Model Perturbation Theory

It is straightforward to use background field method to quantize (2.1) as was shown in . A classical background field $`g_0`$ is chosen and the quantum fluctuations are parameterized by $`X`$, $`g=g_0e^{\alpha X}`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the sigma model coupling constant. The quantum currents are

$$J=g^1g=e^{\alpha X}J_0e^{\alpha X}+e^{\alpha X}e^{\alpha X},$$

$$\overline{J}=g^1\overline{}g=e^{\alpha X}\overline{J}_0e^{\alpha X}+e^{\alpha X}\overline{}e^{\alpha X},$$

where $`J_0=g_0^1g_0`$ and $`\overline{J}_0=g_0^1\overline{}g_0`$. A similar expansion is assumed for the ghosts

$$(\stackrel{~}{\lambda },\stackrel{~}{\omega },\stackrel{~}{\widehat{\lambda }},\stackrel{~}{\widehat{\omega }})=(\lambda _0+\alpha \lambda ,\omega _0+\alpha \omega ,\widehat{\lambda }_0+\alpha \widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\omega }_0+\alpha \widehat{\omega }).$$

I will not enter into the details of the propagator for these fields.

The action (2.1) can be written as

$$S_{AdS}=\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}d^2z[\frac{1}{2}J_2,\overline{J}_2+\frac{3}{4}J_3,\overline{J}_1+\frac{1}{4}\overline{J}_3,J_1]+$$

$$+\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}d^2z[\frac{1}{2}N_{\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{d}}\overline{J}^{[\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{d}]}+\frac{1}{2}\widehat{N}_{\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{d}}J^{[\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{d}]}+\frac{1}{2}(N_{cd}\widehat{N}^{cd}N_{c^{}d^{}}\widehat{N}^{c^{}d^{}})]+\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}(S_\lambda +S_{\widehat{\lambda }}),$$

where $`J_i=J|__i`$. Since the action (3.1) has the gauge invariance $`gge^h`$, where $`h_0`$, is possible to chose a gauge such that $`X_0`$.

To compute the effective action, the currents (3.1) are substituted in (3.1) and then expanded in powers of $`X`$. The term independent of $`X`$ is the classical action, and the term quadratic in $`X`$ is

$$d^2z\mathrm{Str}(X\overline{}X),$$

which defines the propagator for the quantum fields.

The effective action is the sum of all 1PI diagrams with background currents as external lines. The ghost part is treated in the same way. As was shown in , the one loop effective action of the matter part of the sigma model (first line of (2.1)) has no divergence for $`k=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$. The beta function is calculated renormalizing the UV divergent diagrams, i.e., those which have two external background lines, by a simple power counting argument. The key fact in the computation of  is that the $`PSU(2,2|4)`$ algebra has vanishing dual Coxeter number. This implies, in particular, the identity

$$f_{a\alpha \beta }f_{\widehat{\beta }\widehat{\alpha }b}\eta ^{\beta \widehat{\beta }}\eta ^{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}+f_{a\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}f_{\beta \alpha b}\eta ^{\widehat{\beta }\beta }\eta ^{\widehat{\alpha }\alpha }+2f_{a[cd]e}f_{f[gh]b}\eta ^{ef}\eta ^{[cd][gh]}=0.$$

For example, with the help of (3.1) they were able to sum up all the divergent contributions with $`J_0^{\underset{¯}{a}}\overline{J}_0^{\underset{¯}{b}}`$ as the external background currents to get the result

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{}& \end{array}+\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{}& \end{array}=\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 2\pi \left(\frac{1}{2}2k^2\right)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }\right)J_0^{\underset{¯}{a}}\overline{J}_0^{\underset{¯}{b}}\left(f_{\underset{¯}{a}[\underset{¯}{cd}]\underset{¯}{e}}f_{\underset{¯}{f}[\underset{¯}{gh}]\underset{¯}{b}}\eta ^{\underset{¯}{ef}}\eta ^{[\underset{¯}{cd}][\underset{¯}{gh}]}\right)& \end{array}& \end{array}.$$

A similar structure occurs in the other divergent diagrams. Therefore, for $`k=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ the order $`\alpha ^2`$ matter contribution to the beta function of the coupling $`\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}`$ vanishes.

In the present work, the following identity implied by the vanishing of the dual Coxeter number will be important:

$$f_{[\underset{¯}{ab}]\alpha \widehat{\beta }}f_{\beta \widehat{\alpha }[\underset{¯}{cd}]}\eta ^{\widehat{\beta }\beta }\eta ^{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}+f_{[\underset{¯}{ab}]\widehat{\alpha }\beta }f_{\widehat{\beta }\alpha [\underset{¯}{cd}]}\eta ^{\beta \widehat{\beta }}\eta ^{\widehat{\alpha }\alpha }+$$

$$+f_{[\underset{¯}{ab}]\underset{¯}{ef}}f_{\underset{¯}{gh}[\underset{¯}{cd}]}\eta ^{\underset{¯}{fg}}\eta ^{\underset{¯}{eh}}+f_{[\underset{¯}{ab}][\underset{¯}{ef}][\underset{¯}{gh}]}f_{[\underset{¯}{lm}][\underset{¯}{no}][\underset{¯}{cd}]}\eta ^{[\underset{¯}{gh}][\underset{¯}{lm}]}\eta ^{[\underset{¯}{ef}][\underset{¯}{no}]}=0.$$

3.2. Sigma Model Calculation

I am interested in the ghost contribution to the effective action that comes from the second line of (3.1). This contribution is divided in two parts. The first is a sigma model calculation involving the term (3.1). And the second part comes just from the ghosts in the term (3.1).

Although $`X`$ is gauge fixed to be in $`_0`$, $`J|__0`$ will have quantum fluctuations given by (3.1)5 Henceforth, to avoid cumbersome notation, I will call $`J_0|__0`$ just by $`J_0`$, since the other background currents are not going to appear anymore.

$$J|__0=J_0+\alpha ^2\left([X_2,X_2]+[X_1,X_3]+[X_3,X_1]\right)+\mathrm{}$$

$$\overline{J}|__0=\overline{J}_0+\alpha ^2\left([\overline{}X_2,X_2]+[\overline{}X_1,X_3]+[\overline{}X_3,X_1]\right)+\mathrm{}$$

where $`\mathrm{}`$ means higher order terms in $`\alpha `$ and involving other background currents, which will play no rule here. So, the interaction has the form

$$\frac{1}{2}d^2z\mathrm{Str}(N_0[\overline{}X_2,X_2]+N_0[\overline{}X_1,X_3]+N_0[\overline{}X_3,X_1]+$$

$$\widehat{N}_0[X_2,X_2]+\widehat{N}_0[X_1,X_3]+\widehat{N}_0[X_3,X_1]),$$

where $`N_0`$ and $`\widehat{N}_0`$ are the background ghost currents contracted with the generators of $`_0`$. At one loop these interactions will give rise to fish type diagrams. The combined divergent contribution is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{}& \end{array}\begin{array}{cc}\hfill =2\pi \frac{1}{4}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }\right)N_0^{\underset{¯}{ab}}\widehat{N}_0^{\underset{¯}{cd}}(& f_{[\underset{¯}{ab}]\alpha \widehat{\beta }}f_{\beta \widehat{\alpha }[\underset{¯}{cd}]}\eta ^{\widehat{\beta }\beta }\eta ^{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}+\hfill \\ & f_{[\underset{¯}{ab}]\widehat{\alpha }\beta }f_{\widehat{\beta }\alpha [\underset{¯}{cd}]}\eta ^{\beta \widehat{\beta }}\eta ^{\widehat{\alpha }\alpha }+\hfill \\ & f_{[\underset{¯}{ab}]\underset{¯}{ef}}f_{\underset{¯}{gh}[\underset{¯}{cd}]}\eta ^{\underset{¯}{fg}}\eta ^{\underset{¯}{eh}}).\hfill \end{array}& \end{array}$$

Using the identity (3.1), this expression can be rewritten as

$$2\pi \frac{1}{4}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }\right)N_0^{\underset{¯}{ab}}\widehat{N}_0^{\underset{¯}{cd}}\left(f_{[\underset{¯}{ab}][\underset{¯}{ef}][\underset{¯}{gh}]}f_{[\underset{¯}{lm}][\underset{¯}{no}][\underset{¯}{cd}]}\eta ^{[\underset{¯}{gh}][\underset{¯}{lm}]}\eta ^{[\underset{¯}{ef}][\underset{¯}{no}]}\right).$$

The group theoretic coefficient turns out to be just the dual Coxeter number of the group $`SO(1,D1)\times SO(D)`$, $`C_V=(D2)`$, with $`D=5`$, times $`\eta _{\underset{¯}{a}[\underset{¯}{c}}\eta _{\underset{¯}{d}]b}`$. Substituting that coefficient in (3.1), one gets

$$2\pi \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }\right)(D2)[\frac{1}{2}N_0^{ab}\widehat{N}_0^{cd}+\frac{1}{2}N_0^{a^{}b^{}}\widehat{N}_0^{c^{}d^{}}].$$

This is the only divergent diagram coming from (3.1). It can be shown that the analogous expression of (3.1) containing ghost quantum fluctuations

$$\frac{1}{2}d^2z[\frac{1}{2}\overline{J}_0^{\underset{¯}{ab}}(\omega \gamma _{\underset{¯}{ab}}\lambda )+\frac{1}{2}J_0^{\underset{¯}{ab}}(\widehat{\lambda }\gamma _{\underset{¯}{ab}}\widehat{\omega })],$$

does not contribute to the beta function to this order, since there is no mixing between $`(\lambda ,\omega )`$ and $`(\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\omega })`$.

3.3. Ghost Contribution

The pure ghost contribution can be calculated by simple conformal field theory technics6 The result in the previous subsection could also be derived in the same way. The ghost part will be done in a different way to avoid subtitles related to the propagators of the ghosts.. As was discussed in the section 2, it is difficult to write a covariant free field action for the ghosts. Nevertheless, the OPE’s between the Lorentz generators and the ghosts $`(\lambda ,\omega )`$ is covariant. Also, the Lorentz algebra of these currents can be written in a covariant way

$$N^{\underset{¯}{ab}}(z)N^{\underset{¯}{cd}}(w)\frac{\eta ^{\underset{¯}{a}[\underset{¯}{c}}N^{\underset{¯}{d}]\underset{¯}{b}}(w)\eta ^{\underset{¯}{b}[\underset{¯}{c}}N^{\underset{¯}{d}]\underset{¯}{a}}(w)}{(zw)}3\frac{\eta ^{\underset{¯}{a}[\underset{¯}{c}}\eta ^{\underset{¯}{d}]\underset{¯}{b}}}{(zw)^2},$$

$$\widehat{N}^{\underset{¯}{ab}}(\overline{z})\widehat{N}^{\underset{¯}{cd}}(\overline{w})\frac{\eta ^{\underset{¯}{a}[\underset{¯}{c}}\widehat{N}^{\underset{¯}{d}]\underset{¯}{b}}(\overline{w})\eta ^{\underset{¯}{b}[\underset{¯}{c}}\widehat{N}^{\underset{¯}{d}]\underset{¯}{a}}(\overline{w})}{(\overline{z}\overline{w})}3\frac{\eta ^{\underset{¯}{a}[\underset{¯}{c}}\eta ^{\underset{¯}{d}]\underset{¯}{b}}}{(\overline{z}\overline{w})^2},$$

the double pole of this OPE’s is what characterizes the pure spinor nature of the Lorentz currents. Note that the first terms of these OPE’s can be calculated using the naive OPE’s for the ghosts

$$\omega _\alpha (z)\lambda ^\beta (w)\frac{\delta _\alpha ^\beta }{(zw)},\widehat{\omega }_{\widehat{\alpha }}(\overline{z})\widehat{\lambda }^{\widehat{\beta }}(\overline{w})\frac{\delta _{\widehat{\alpha }}^{\widehat{\beta }}}{(\overline{z}\overline{w})}.$$

It should be stressed that these OPE’s can be used because $`(\lambda ,\omega )`$ appear in the combination $`\omega \gamma ^{\underset{¯}{ab}}\lambda `$ and no trace over the spinor indexes is performed. That is why (3.1) cannot be used to calculate the last terms in (3.1).

In the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ space, the free field theory of the ghosts becomes interacting. The pure ghost contribution to the beta function comes from the marginal operators (marginal because they have conformal weight $`(1,1)`$ in the free theory)

$$𝒪_1(z,\overline{z})=\frac{1}{2}N^{ab}\widehat{N}_{ab},𝒪_2(z,\overline{z})=\frac{1}{2}N^{a^{}b^{}}\widehat{N}_{a^{}b^{}}.$$

Using the naive OPE’s (3.1) and basic commutation relation of the gamma matrices,

$$[\gamma ^{\underset{¯}{ab}},\gamma ^{\underset{¯}{cd}}]_\alpha ^\beta [\gamma _{\underset{¯}{ab}},\gamma _{\underset{¯}{cd}}]_{\widehat{\alpha }}^{\widehat{\beta }}=16(D2)(\gamma ^{\underset{¯}{ab}})_\alpha ^\beta (\gamma _{\underset{¯}{ab}})_{\widehat{\alpha }}^{\widehat{\beta }},$$

$$[\gamma ^{ab},\gamma ^{a^{}b^{}}]=0,$$

where $`D=5`$, it can be shown that they satisfy the algebra

$$𝒪_1(z,\overline{z})𝒪_1(w,\overline{w})\frac{2(D2)}{|zw|^2}𝒪_1(w,\overline{w})+\mathrm{},𝒪_2(z,\overline{z})𝒪_2(w,\overline{w})\frac{2(D2)}{|zw|^2}𝒪_2(w,\overline{w})+\mathrm{},$$

$$𝒪_1(z,\overline{z})𝒪_2(w,\overline{w})0,$$

where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the nonmarginal part of the OPE’s, which contains operators that need an explicit parametrization of the pure spinors to be computed.

At one loop7 The nonmarginal part of the OPE in (3.1) contribute to higher loops, where the pure spinor character will be important. these interactions generate divergences in the effective action coming from

$$\frac{1}{2}d^2zd^2w[𝒪_1(z,\overline{z})𝒪_1(w,\overline{w})+𝒪_2(z,\overline{z})𝒪_2(w,\overline{w})]$$

given by

$$S_{div}=2\pi \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }\right)(D2)d^2z[𝒪_1+𝒪_2],$$

which exactly cancels the sigma model part.

4. Concluding Remarks and Perspectives

In this paper it was shown that the sigma model action of the pure spinor superstring is conformally invariant at one loop level in perturbation theory. Note that the proof presented here also applies to the hybrid superstring description in an $`AdS_3\times S^3`$ background of , after taking into account the corrections in the footnotes of  and the curvature coupling to the ghosts. The calculation is important since it shows that the action (2.1) is a good starting point to quantize the superstring in the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ space. I say starting point because more work has to be done.

For example, in  it was checked classically that the BRST currents $`\delta _{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}\lambda ^\alpha J^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ and $`\delta _{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}\widehat{\lambda }^{\widehat{\alpha }}\overline{J}^\alpha `$ are holomorphic and give charges that are nilpotent and anti-commute. These facts need to be checked quantum mechanically.

It would also be interesting to check that the conformal algebra of the energy momentum tensors

$$T=\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\underset{¯}{ab}}J^{\underset{¯}{a}}J^{\underset{¯}{b}}4\delta _{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}J^\alpha J^{\widehat{\beta }}+N_{\underset{¯}{cd}}J^{[\underset{¯}{cd}]}+T_\lambda ,$$

$$\overline{T}=\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\underset{¯}{ab}}\overline{J}^{\underset{¯}{a}}\overline{J}^{\underset{¯}{b}}4\delta _{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}\overline{J}^\alpha \overline{J}^{\widehat{\beta }}+\widehat{N}_{\underset{¯}{cd}}\overline{J}^{[\underset{¯}{cd}]}+\overline{T}_{\widehat{\lambda }}$$

is preserved when quantum corrections are taken into account. Together with the conformal algebra it would be interesting to calculate the algebra of the quantum currents (3.1) and find the non-holomorphic corrections not implied by the group structure. This result could be useful to calculate string amplitudes in the manner of . Another interesting direction is to investigate the existence of the infinitely many conserved (non local) currents in the semiclassical limit found in .

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Daniel Nedel for useful discussions and especially Nathan Berkovits for useful discussions and suggestions, and FAPESP grant 00/02230-3 for financial support. I also thank the California Institute of Technology, where parts of this work have been done, for hospitality.

References

relax J. Maldacena, The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity, Adv.Theor.Math.Phys. 2 (1998) 231, hep-th/9711200 ; S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, Gauge Theory Correlators from Non-Critical String Theory, Phys.Lett. B428 (1998) 105, hep-th/9802109 ; E. Witten, Anti De Sitter Space And Holography, Adv.Theor.Math.Phys. 2 (1998) 253, hep-th/9802150. relax O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. Maldacena, H. Ooguri and Y. Oz, Large N Field Theories, String Theory and Gravity, Phys.Rept. 323 (2000) 183, hep-th/9905111. relax N. Berkovits, Super-Poincaré Covariant Quantization of the Superstring, JHEP 04 (2000) 018, hep-th/0001035. relax R. Metsaev and A. Tseytlin, Type IIB Superstring Action in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ Background, Nucl. Phys. B533 (1998) 109, hep-th/9805028. relax M. Bershadsky, S. Zhukov and A. Vaintrop, $`PSL(N|N)`$ Sigma Model as a Conformal Field Theory,  Nucl.Phys. B559 (1999) 205, hep-th/9902180. relax N. Berkovits, C. Vafa and E. Witten, Conformal Field Theory of $`AdS`$ Background with Ramond-Ramond Flux, JHEP 9903 (1999) 018, hep-th/9902098. relax N. Berkovits, Covariant Quantization of the Green-Schwarz Superstring in a Calabi-Yau Background, Nucl.Phys. B431 (1994) 258, hep-th/9404162. relax N. Berkovits and C. Vafa, $`N=4`$ Topological Strings , Nucl. Phys. B433 (1995) 123, hep-th/9407190. relax N. Berkovits, M. Bershadsky, T. Hauer, S. Zhukov and B. Zwiebach, Superstring Theory on $`AdS_2\times S^2`$ as a Coset Supermanifold, Nucl. Phys. B567 (2000) 61, hep-th/9907200. relax N. Berkovits, Cohomology in the Pure Spinor Formalism for the Superstring, JHEP 0009 (2000) 046, hep-th/0006003. relax N. Berkovits and O. Chandía, Massive Superstring Vertex Operator in D=10 Superspace, hep-th/0204121. relax W. Siegel, Classical Superstring Mechanics, Nucl. Phys. B263 (1986) 93. relax N. Berkovits and P. Howe, Ten-Dimensional Supergravity Constraints from the Pure Spinor Formalism for the Superstring, Nucl.Phys. B635 (2002) 75, hep-th/0112160. relax N. Berkovits and O. Chandía, Superstring Vertex Operators in an $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ Background, Nucl. Phys. B596 (2001) 185, hep-th/0009168. relax N. Berkovits, private communication. relax N. Berkovits and O. Chandía, Lorentz Invariance of the Pure Spinor BRST Cohomology for the Superstring, Phys.Lett. B514 (2001) 394, hep-th/0105149. relax A. B. Zamolodtchikov, ’Irreversibility’ of the Flux of the Renormalization Group in a 2-D Field Theory, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 43 (1986) 565; Renormalization Group and Perturbation Theory Near Fixed Points in Two Dimensional Field Theory, Yad. Fiz. 46 (1987) 1819. relax N. Berkovits, Quantization of the Type II Superstring in a Curved Six-Dimensional Background, Nucl. Phys. B565 (2000) 333, hep-th/9908041. relax N. Berkovits and B.C. Vallilo, Consistency of Super-Poincaré Covariant Superstring Tree Amplitudes, JHEP 07 (2000) 015, hep-th/0004171. relax Gautam Mandal, Nemani V. Suryanarayana, Spenta R. Wadia, Aspects of Semiclassical Strings in AdS5, Phys.Lett. B543 (2002) 81; hep-th/0206103.