text:
# Characterization and control of phase fluctuations in elongated Bose-Einstein condensates

## 1 Introduction

Since the first experimental observation of Bose-Einstein condensates bec  a considerable effort has been devoted to studies of low dimensional ultra-cold trapped gases low1d . There are several fundamental reasons for the interest in these systems. Firstly, atom-atom interactions can be modified in low dimensions gorarev . Secondly, the physics in low dimensional systems can be remarkably different from the situation in three dimensions. For example, a one dimensional condensate in the limit of ultra-low densities should behave as a strongly correlated system of impenetrable bosons, the so-called Tonks gas tonks . The third, and perhaps the most important reason to study low temperature 1D condensates, is the particular potential that such condensates offer for applications. Proposals of atom optics and precision atom interferometry with coherent matter waves rely on placing the condensate in a 1D waveguide. Such a waveguide can be formed in appropriately designed traps hanwaveguide  or on the surface of an atom chip waveguides ; ChipBEC . One could then use the BEC on such a chip to perform beam splitting and, finally, beam recombination in a waveguide.

However, it has been shown that BEC in quasi 1D geometries exhibit significant phase fluctuations Shlyapnikov1D ; Shlyapnikov3D . Even at very low temperatures (of the order of fractions of the critical temperature $`T_\text{c}`$) the coherence length of such a phase-fluctuating BEC may be shorter than the size of the condensate. The condensate then exhibits a spatially varying phase pattern and is commonly called a quasicondensate. In the Thomas-Fermi regime Dalfovo , that is, when the nonlinear mean field energy is much larger than the kinetic energy, density fluctuations are suppressed due to their energetic cost. That is not the case, however, for the phase fluctuations. The prediction of phase fluctuations Shlyapnikov1D  was experimentally confirmed in Dettmer ; Hellweg .

The results of our experiments set important limitations on the future applications of BEC in interferometry which employ 1D waveguides. It is, therefore, particularly important to study and characterize phase fluctuations in elongated BECs and, even more, to develop methods that allow to control the phase of these condensate.

The first part of this paper concerns the experimental investigation of two aspects of phase-fluctuating BECs. First the dynamical behavior during a time-of-flight after release from a strongly elongated trap is examined. Very good quantitative agreement between theory and experiment is established for these measurements. A second set of measurements is devoted to the investigation of the density of a phase-fluctuating trapped condensate. We confirm that the density fluctuations are strongly suppressed and show that the second order correlation function $`g^{(2)}(0)`$ is largely independent of the amount of phase fluctuation in our experimental regime.

The second part of the paper deals with theoretical approaches to overcome the effects of phase fluctuations. We propose to use the technique of parametric resonance to control the overall phase of the condensate. It should be noted that parametric resonance has already been discussed in the context of BEC garciari1 ; kevrekidis1 ; staliunas , but those studies were aimed at employing the parametric resonance to create patterns and textures in the density of trapped BECs. Clearly, for the reasons mentioned above, such a goal is not easily accomplished in highly nonlinear systems for which fluctuations of the mean field energy are costly. We, however, aim at controlling the phase of a quasi 1D condensate by applying the standard technique of modulating the trap frequency modulationtrap . Thus, rather than to excite density modulations of the condensate, we intend to engineer its phase, such that some modes contributing to the phase fluctuations can be suppressed or enhanced without destroying the condensate.

The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we briefly review the physics of phase fluctuations in elongated traps, and recall the expressions describing the transformation of phase fluctuations into density modulations Dettmer . In Section 3 we present recent experimental results which expand the observations reported in our earlier work. These results show that a full quantitative characterization of phase fluctuations can be achieved and that density modulations are suppressed even when phase fluctuations are present in a trapped condensate. In Section 4, we describe the method of employing parametric resonance to enhance or suppress selected modes of the phase fluctuations. We present model calculations based on numerical solutions of the 1D Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equation which governs the dynamics of the condensate.

## 2 Description of the phase fluctuations

For BECs in 3D trapping geometries the fluctuations of density and phase are only important in a narrow temperature range near the BEC transition temperature $`T_\text{c}`$ (critical fluctuations). Outside this region, the fluctuations are suppressed and the condensate is phase and density coherent. In reduced dimensions, the situation can be rather different (see Shlyapnikov1D ; Shlyapnikov2D  and refs. therein): the axial phase fluctuations can manifest themselves even at temperatures far below $`T_\text{c}`$.

In the following we consider a cylindrically symmetric condensate in the Thomas-Fermi regime, where the mean field (repulsive) interparticle interaction greatly exceeds the radial ($`\mathrm{}\omega _\rho `$) and axial ($`\mathrm{}\omega _x`$) trap energies. At $`T=0`$ its density profile has the well-known shape $`n_0(\rho ,x)=n_{0\text{m}}(1\rho ^2/R_{\text{TF}}^2x^2/L_{\text{TF}}^2)`$, where $`n_{0\text{m}}=\mu /g`$ is the maximum condensate density, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, $`g=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a/m`$ is the interaction coupling constant, $`m`$ is the atomic mass, and $`a>0`$ the scattering length. Under the condition $`\omega _\rho \omega _x`$, the radial size of the condensate, given by the Thomas-Fermi radius $`R_{\text{TF }}=(2\mu /m\omega _\rho ^2)^{1/2}`$, is much smaller than the axial size, given by the corresponding Thomas-Fermi length $`L_{\text{TF }}=(2\mu /m\omega _x^2)^{1/2}`$.

The phase fluctuations can be described by solving the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations describing elementary excitations of the condensate. The quantum field annihilation operator of atoms can be written as $`\widehat{\psi }(𝐫)=\sqrt{n_0(𝐫)}\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{\varphi }(𝐫))`$, where $`\widehat{\varphi }(𝐫)`$ is the operator of the phase, and the density fluctuations have already been neglected following the arguments discussed above. The single-particle correlation function is then expressed
through the mean square fluctuations of the phase (see e.g. Popov ):

$$\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐫)\widehat{\psi }(𝐫^{})=\sqrt{n_0(𝐫)n_0(𝐫^{})}\mathrm{exp}\{[\delta \widehat{\varphi }(𝐫,𝐫^{})]^2/2\},$$
(1)
with $`\delta \widehat{\varphi }(𝐫,𝐫^{})=\widehat{\varphi }(𝐫)\widehat{\varphi }(𝐫^{})`$. The operator $`\widehat{\varphi }(𝐫)`$ is given by (see e.g. Shev )

$$\widehat{\varphi }(𝐫)=[4n_0(𝐫)]^{1/2}\underset{j}{}f_j^+(𝐫)\widehat{a}_j+\text{h.c.},$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{a}_j`$ is the annihilation operator of the excitation with quantum number $`j`$ and energy $`ϵ_j`$, $`f_j^+=u_j+v_j`$, and the excitation functions $`u_j,v_j`$ are determined by the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations in the Thomas-Fermi limit.

The “low-energy” axial excitations (with energies
$`ϵ_j<\mathrm{}\omega _\rho `$) have wavelengths larger than $`R_{\text{TF}}`$ and exhibit a pronounced 1D behavior. Hence, one expects that these excitations give the most important contribution to the long-wave axial fluctuations of the phase. The solution of the hydrodynamic counterpart of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations in the Thomas-Fermi limit for such low-energy axial modes yields the spectrum $`ϵ_j=\mathrm{}\omega _x\sqrt{j(j+3)/4}`$ Stringari , where $`j`$ is a positive integer. The wavefunctions $`f_j^+`$ of these modes have the form

$$f_j^+(𝐫)=\sqrt{\frac{(j+2)(2j+3)gn_0(𝐫)}{4\pi (j+1)R_{\text{TF}}^2L_{\text{TF}}ϵ_j}}P_j^{(1,1)}\left(\frac{x}{L_{\text{TF}}}\right),$$
(3)
where $`P_j^{(1,1)}`$ are Jacobi polynomials. Note that the specific form of the excitation spectrum and the $`x`$-dependence of the mode functions results in the quasi 1D limit from the integration of the mode functions over the transverse directions, as pointed out for instance in Ref. Stringari .

The thermal fluctuations of the phase behave for distances shorter than $`0.4L_{\text{TF}}`$ as:

$$[\delta \widehat{\varphi }(x,x^{})]^2_T=\delta _L^2|xx^{}|/L_{\text{TF}},$$
(4)
where $`\delta _L^2`$ is a measure for the amount of phase fluctuations present in the condensate and given by Shlyapnikov3D

$$\delta _L^2(T)=T/T_\varphi =32\mu k_BT/15N_0(\mathrm{}\omega _x)^2,$$
(5)
where $`k_\text{B}`$ is the Boltzmann constant and $`l_\varphi =L_{\text{TF}}/\delta _L^2`$ can be interpreted as a phase coherence length. Substituting the chemical potential in the Thomas-Fermi regime in Eq. (5), one obtains the direct dependence on the experimental parameters:

$$L_{\text{TF}}/l_\varphi =16\left(\frac{am^{1/2}}{15^{3/2}\mathrm{}^3}\right)^{2/5}\frac{k_\text{B}T}{N_0^{3/5}}\left(\frac{\lambda }{\omega _x}\right)^{4/5}.$$
(6)
Strong phase fluctuations are thus associated with high trap aspect ratios $`\lambda =\omega _\rho /\omega _x`$, weak axial confinement $`\omega _x`$, high temperatures $`T`$ and small numbers of condensed atom $`N_0`$.

The signature of a fluctuating phase can be observed experimentally as density modulations (stripes) in the ballistic expansion. The formation of these stripes can be understood as follows: After switching off the trap, the mean field interaction rapidly decreases and the axial phase pattern is converted into a velocity distribution. This spatial velocity distribution leads to the appearance of stripes in the density after a time-of-flight. These stripes have been described analytically Hellweg  using a generalization of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equation for the self-similar solution (see e.g. Dalfovo ; KaganP ; castin\_dum ). This equation describes the ballistic expansion in presence of fluctuations. By denoting the density as $`n_0+\delta n`$ and the phase as $`\varphi _0+\varphi `$ we obtain the analytic expression for the relative density fluctuations

$$\frac{\delta \widehat{n}}{n_0}=2\underset{j}{}\tau ^{(ϵ_j/\mathrm{}\omega _\rho )^2}\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{ϵ_j^2\tau }{\mu \mathrm{}\omega _\rho (1(\frac{x}{L_{\text{TF}}})^2)}\right]\widehat{\varphi }_j,$$
(7)
where the sum extends over the axial modes, $`\tau =\omega _\rho t`$, $`t`$ is the time-of-flight and $`\widehat{\varphi }_j`$ is the contribution of the $`j`$-th mode to the phase operator in Eq. (2).

By taking the thermal average of the square of Eq. (7Hellweg , one obtains a closed relation for the mean square density fluctuations square\_added

$$\left(\frac{\delta n(x,t)}{n_0(x)}\right)^2=\frac{T}{T_\varphi }C^2(N_0,\omega _\rho ,\omega _x,x,t),$$
(8)
where

$`C^2(N_0,\omega _\rho ,\omega _x,x,t)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{(j+3/2)^2}{4\alpha (1(x/L_{\text{TF}})^2)}}\right)e^{\left(\frac{\omega _x}{\omega _\rho }\right)^2\frac{(j+3/2)^2}{2}\mathrm{ln}(2\omega _\rho t)}\times `$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{(j+2)(2j+3)}{j(j+1)(j+3)}}\right)\left(P_j^{(1,1)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{L_{\text{TF}}}}\right)\right)^2,`$ (9)
with $`\alpha =\mu /\mathrm{}\omega _x^2t`$.

## 3 Experimental Results

### 3.1 Experimental setup

The experimental setup used to observe phase-fluctuating Bose-Einstein condensates has been described elsewhere Dettmer ; Hellweg . Here we emphasize the main features of the apparatus and the technical changes that have led to the observation of more pronounced effects of phase fluctuations in the ballistic expansion of an elongated condensate.

We have adapted the trap geometry to obtain aspect ratios $`\lambda >100`$ and reduced axial confinement. These high trap aspect ratios are achieved by axial decompression of our cloverleaf trap cloverleaf , lowering the currents in both the pinch coils and their bias coils.

For the experiments reported here, a Bose-Einstein condensate of 87Rb atoms in the $`|F=1,m_F=1`$ state is produced in the axially decompressed trap with axial and radial trapping frequencies 3.4 Hz and 380 Hz respectively, by using the following procedure. We load a magneto-optical trap with a few times $`10^8`$ atoms from a chirp slowed thermal beam, followed by a short period of sub-Doppler cooling. Part of the sub-Doppler cooling stage operates without repumping the atoms from the $`|F=1`$ state, letting them accumulate in the lower hyperfine state. After optical pumping to the low field seeking $`m_F=1`$ state, the atomic cloud is loaded into a cloverleaf magnetic trap. A cleaning light pulse on resonance with the $`|F=2|F^{}=2`$ transition then removes all remaining $`|F=2`$ atoms from the trap. Finally, the atomic cloud is adiabatically compressed to allow efficient radio frequency evaporative cooling. The condensate is loaded in the axially decompressed trap by using a two step evaporation procedure. The initial evaporative cooling is performed in our standard trap with aspect ratio 26, then the trap is ramped to the high aspect ratio configuration, and the final evaporation is carried out in that trapping geometry. After waiting for 4 seconds to allow the system to reach an equilibrium state we switch off the trapping potential within $`200\mu `$s and wait for a variable time-of-flight before detecting the atomic cloud by resonant absorption imaging.

The experimental observation of phase fluctuations profits from this adapted trap configuration as indicated by Eq. (6). Our present measurements show strong fluctuations both due to the high aspect ratio and the weak axial confinement of our trap. These lead to a large axial condensate size (in the elongated trap, $`2L300\mu `$m) with respect to the detection resolution of $`5\mu `$m, thus favoring the observation of structures in the condensate density after time-of-flight.

### 3.2 Expansion dynamics

Phase fluctuations transform into density modulations during ballistic expansion. It was shown that the general dependence on temperature, trapping potential and number of atoms given in Eq. (3) of Dettmer  agrees qualitatively with the experimental observations. Most data was acquired after a long time-of-flight of 25 ms since the effect of phase fluctuations is best observed then. However, here we present observations of the dynamical transformation of phase fluctuations into density modulations and quantitatively compare them to the theoretical predictions.

Fig. 1(a) shows typical images of the ballistically expanded clouds for various times-of-flight $`t`$. The atomic samples were released from a magnetic trap with axial and radial trapping frequencies of 3.4 Hz and 380 Hz, respectively. They contain $`7\times 10^4`$ condensed atoms at a temperature of $`0.6T_\text{c}`$. Under these experimental conditions, the phase coherence length in units of the condensate size is $`l_\varphi /2L1/12`$. The usual anisotropic expansion of the condensates is clearly visible. The line density profile in Fig. 1(b) shows the large influence of phase fluctuations on the expansion of the condensate. To avoid high optical densities, which would influence the visibility of density modulations, we detuned the detection laser with respect to the atomic resonance for short times-of-flight.

The amount of phase fluctuations present in a given BEC was determined by comparing the observed line density profile with the expected bimodal profile when no phase fluctuations are present. In this bimodal profile the BEC fraction is described by a parabolic Thomas-Fermi component and the thermal cloud by a Gaussian distribution, both integrated along the radial direction. The deviation of the experimental density profile from the fitted function is calculated at every data point in the interval $`0.5<x/L<0.5`$ and normalized by the fitted condensate density at that point. The average of the squares of these values is called $`\sigma _{\text{BEC}}^2`$ and represents a normalized spatial average of the phase fluctuations in a single condensate. The temperature and particle number of each condensate were determined by separate 2D fits to the absorption images.

Note that phase fluctuations in an elongated BEC are stochastic. During the expansion, the instantaneous phase of the BEC at the time of release is converted into density modulations and therefore images taken under the same initial conditions can look significantly different. Indeed, we observe a large spread of our experimental data and, therefore, each data point in Fig. 2 represents the average of 15 measurements.

Fig. 2 shows the observed density modulations (black circles) as a function of the free expansion time. All images were taken under the conditions given in Fig. 1. The data clearly shows how the effect of phase fluctuations on the expansion dynamics increases with the time-of-flight.

To compare our measurements with theory, each experimental realization (each condensate) was modeled individually as explained below and for each time-of-flight the average of all experimental realizations is compared to the average of all modeled realizations. Using the experimentally determined temperature and atom number, the expectation value of the density modulations for each realization was calculated according to Eq. (8). Analogous to the experimental procedure, a normalized spatial average over the range $`0.5<x/L<0.5`$ was deduced. The theoretical prediction in Fig. 2 takes the limited resolution of our imaging system into account Hellweg .

We obtain very good quantitative agreement between our results and the theoretical predictions, confirming that the transfer mechanism of phase fluctuations into density modulations during time-of-flight is well understood.

### 3.3 Suppression of density fluctuations

The theoretical description of phase fluctuations is based on the prediction Shlyapnikov1D  that density modulations are strongly suppressed in the magnetic trap. In the Thomas-Fermi regime, where the mean field energy dominates over the kinetic energy, the excitation of density modulations requires a high energetic cost on the order of the chemical potential. The measurements reported in Fig. 2 clearly show that the observed density modulations are suppressed as the time-of-flight approaches zero. However, this does not rule out the existence of density modulations on a length scale smaller than our experimental resolution.

The suppression of density fluctuations can be verified experimentally by measuring the second order correlation function $`g^{(2)}(𝐫_1𝐫_2)`$ of the field operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝐫)`$. In second quantization formalism,

$$g^{(2)}(𝐫_1𝐫_2)=\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}(𝐫_1)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}(𝐫_2)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝐫_2)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝐫_1)}{n(𝐫_1)n(𝐫_2)}.$$
(10)
In particular, $`g^{(2)}(0)`$ gives the correlation function of the atomic density for $`𝐫_1=𝐫_2`$. As shown in Ketterle , $`g^{(2)}(0)`$ is directly related to the expectation value of the interaction energy $`U`$ by

$$U=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2a}{m}g^{(2)}(0)\text{d}^3rn^2(𝐫).$$
(11)
In the Thomas-Fermi regime, only the interaction energy $`U`$ contributes to the kinetic energy of the condensate after ballistic expansion. The presence of density fluctuations would however lead to an increase of the observed release energy due to the presence of repulsive particle interactions. Hence, the ratio of the release energy and the calculated interaction energy in Thomas-Fermi approximation gives the value of $`g^{(2)}(0)`$. The energy due to phase fluctuations is small compared to the interaction energy (for typical parameters $`0.5\%`$) and can therefore be neglected in release energy measurements.

From earlier release-energy measurements, the product $`ag^{(2)}(0)`$ has been determined g2\_jila ; castin\_dum ; cloverleaf . We have performed such a measurement for phase-fluctuating condensates.

Fig. 3 shows $`g^{(2)}(0)`$ (open squares) as a function of temperature for atoms in the $`|F=1`$ state in a trap with $`\lambda =30`$. We use this weakly elongated trap, because this trapping geometry enables us to use the sample temperature to tune from nearly pure to strongly phase-fluctuating condensates experimentally.

The same graph also shows the calculated phase coherence length $`l_\varphi `$ according to Equation (6) for the experimental conditions of each data point (black circles). As the temperature of the sample is raised, the phase coherence length decreases and becomes significantly shorter than the condensate size. Thus, our measurements clearly reach the regime of quasicondensation. However, the graph shows that the second-order correlation function is largely independent of the condensate temperature $`T`$, and that it is consistent with the expected value $`g^{(2)}(0)=1`$. These measurements give an upper limit for the density modulations present in a phase-fluctuating condensate, and clearly distinguish our samples from thermal clouds where, due to bunching effects, $`g^{(2)}(0)=2`$ and large density fluctuations are present on small scales.

## 4 Controlling the phase

Parametric resonance refers to the exponentially large response of a system of a periodic external perturbation param  for some specific set of parameters. Although parametric resonance is a very well established phenomenon in linear systems, it was shown in garciari1  that parametric resonance can also occur in Bose-Einstein condensates. Normally one aims at using parametric resonance in order to modulate the condensate density by means of a relatively small periodic perturbation. However, in the Thomas-Fermi regime, as mentioned above, modulations of the density require large energies. In this Section we suggest a way to shape the overall phase by modulating the trap with a small amplitude for a short time.

### 4.1 Theoretical methods

To illustrate the effect of the perturbation on the phase of a quasicondensate, we numerically solve the 1D Gross-Pitaevskii equation for different initial conditions. We assume a zero temperature BEC in the Thomas-Fermi regime containing $`5\times 10^4`$ 87Rb atoms trapped in a 1D confining potential with an (axial) frequency of $`\omega _x=2\pi \times 14`$ Hz. The parabolic density profile is then given by $`n_0(x)=n_{0\text{m}}(1x^2/L_{\text{TF}}^2)`$ where $`L_{\text{TF}}=(2\mu /m\omega _x^2)^{1/2}`$ and $`n_{0\text{m}}=\mu /g`$. The coupling constant $`g`$ in one dimension can be derived by averaging the 3D interactions over the radial density profile. We first evolve the wavefunction according to the time dependent GP equation in imaginary time to obtain the condensate wavefunction at $`T=0`$. We ensure that the initial phase of the condensate is constant before imposing a fluctuating phase corresponding to a fixed temperature $`T`$ on the condensate wavefunction. In strictly 1D, one expects that for temperatures $`T_\text{d}TT_\varphi `$ phase fluctuations are present whereas density fluctuations are suppressed Shlyapnikov1D . Here $`k_\text{B}T_\text{d}N\mathrm{}\omega _x`$ is the degeneracy temperature ketterle1d , and $`T_\varphi =T_\text{d}\mathrm{}\omega _x/\mu `$ is the characteristic temperature for the appearance of the phase fluctuations.

Applying the same procedures for the 1D case as described in Section 2 for the 3D case, the field annihilation operator can be written as $`\widehat{\psi }(x,t=0)=`$ $`\sqrt{n_0(x)}\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{\varphi }(x))`$. The operator of the phase is given by (see Shlyapnikov1D ; Shev )

$$\widehat{\varphi }(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4n_0(x})}\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_j^+(x)\widehat{a}_j+\text{h.c.}$$
(12)
where, as before, $`\widehat{a}_j`$ is the annihilation operator of the excitation with quantum number $`j`$, $`f_j^+=u_j+v_j`$ and $`u_j`$, $`v_j`$ are the excitation functions determined through the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations in the Thomas-Fermi limit. The solution of these 1D equations gives the spectrum $`ϵ_j=\mathrm{}\omega _x\sqrt{j(j+1)/2}`$ 1despec . The functions $`f_j^+`$ have now the form

$$f_j^+(x)=\sqrt{\frac{(j+1/2)}{L_{\text{TF}}}\left[\frac{2\mu }{ϵ_j}(1z^2)\right]}P_j(z),$$
(13)
where $`P_j(z)`$ are the Legendre polynomials and $`z=x/L_{\text{TF}}`$. Note, that these solutions correspond to the strictly 1D case and differ from those obtained in the quasi 1D case described by (3). The qualitative and, to great extent, quantitative character of the solutions (13) and (3) is, however, similar.

The random phase of the condensate is numerically simulated by replacing the operators $`\widehat{a}_j`$ and $`\widehat{a}_j^{}`$ in Eq. (12) by Gaussian random variables $`\alpha _j`$ and $`\alpha _j^{}`$, with the correlation $`\alpha _j^{}\alpha _j^{}=\delta _{jj^{}}N_j`$, where $`N_j`$ is the occupation number for the quasiparticle mode $`j`$ for a given temperature $`T`$.

Once the phase is imposed, we apply a periodic perturbation $`\alpha \mathrm{sin}(\omega _\text{s}t)`$ to the trapping potential:

$$\omega _x^2\omega _x^2(1+\alpha \mathrm{sin}(\omega _\text{s}t)).$$
(14)
The amplitude $`\alpha `$ of the perturbation is small and ranges between $`0.05`$ and $`0.201`$, whereas the frequency $`\omega _\text{s}`$ ranges from $`\omega _x`$ to several times $`\omega _x`$. The perturbation acts for a short period of time $`t`$ (the simulations were performed for 2, 6 and 12 periods of modulation $`2\pi /\omega _\text{s}`$). After switching off the perturbation the amplitudes of the different modes participating in the fluctuations of the phase are calculated. The thermal fluctuations of the phase for the temperature range considered here are mostly provided by the low excitation modes ($`j<50`$). We calculate the amplitude of these modes as a function of the frequency of the perturbation.

### 4.2 Numerical results

Our calculations show that the positive and negative frequency modes couple resonantly and that by appropriately tuning the frequency of the perturbation one can selectively suppress some modes and enhance others. The enhancement, however, is not particularly strong, since we do not amplify any mode (except the second mode which arises directly due to the parametric modulation) much above its initial value provided by Eq. (13). Note that the odd modes can only be excited if the symmetry is broken, e.g. by the existence of phase fluctuations.

Figure 4 displays the amplitudes of the first two modes for different initial temperatures as a function of the frequency $`\omega _\text{s}`$. The second mode, which corresponds to the density breathing mode, is strongly enhanced due to the perturbation of the trap. This mode amplitude can be calculated in the Thomas-Fermi regime by using a self similar solution of the GP equation KaganP ; castin\_dum  describing the dynamics of the bare condensate that implies appearance of a phase quadratic in $`x`$. Indeed, only for sufficiently large temperatures ($`T0.5T_\text{c}`$), its frequency dependence starts to deviate significantly from its behavior at $`T=0`$.

To show the effect of the fluctuating phase on the final amplitudes, we subtract the phase a pure condensate would have acquired under the same perturbation from our results. Figure 5 displays the modulus square of such amplitudes normalized to their initial values for the first four modes. The amplitudes of the high excited modes (app. $`j>4`$) are practically equal and neglibigly small compared to the lower modes therefore the lower modes dominate the dynamics of the phase. Only those modes show clear maxima and minima as a function of the modulation frequency $`\omega _\text{s}`$. Resonances between different modes may appear when

$$\omega _\text{s}=|\mathrm{\Omega }_i\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_j|,$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i=ϵ_i/\mathrm{}`$. In order to observe resonances it is necessary that the energy differences between the modes correspond to multiples of the modulation frequency, otherwise the system behaves irregularly. In the 1D case, the excitation modes are quite regularly separated by approximately $`\omega _x/\sqrt{2}`$ ($`0.71\omega _x`$). However, in nonlinear systems, the resonance frequencies undergo shifts which can already be quite significant at small perturbations burnett . For the first mode (Fig. 5), we find clear resonances at $`\omega _\text{s}/\omega _x1.4`$, $`2.1`$ and $`4.0`$. One is tempted to attribute the first two resonances to the coupling with $`j=3`$ and $`j=4`$ mode. The second mode, which dominates the dynamics — since this mode is enhanced by the perturbation — shows three maxima at $`\omega _\text{s}/\omega _x1.4`$, $`2.1`$ and $`3.6`$. The analysis of maxima for the third and higher modes becomes quite complex. For the third mode, we find maxima at $`\omega _\text{s}/\omega _x1.4`$, $`1.7`$, $`2.4`$, $`3.4`$ and $`5.0`$. Starting from the fourth mode it becomes difficult to associate the maxima with specific resonances.

It is important to stress here that for the lower modes, the position of the maxima does not depend on the random generated phase. This fact clearly confirms that we are dealing here with resonances between different modes. By increasing the perturbation time the spectrum changes, as expected, since this is a time dependent effect, and more peaks appear. However with the exception of the second one, no enhancement of the modes is observed. By increasing the amplitude $`\alpha `$ of the perturbation, the second mode becomes much more enhanced, but again the amplitudes of the other modes (normalized to their initial values at $`t=0`$) do not. In other words, we do not find an exponential parametric amplification by tuning the frequency to $`2\mathrm{\Omega }_i/n`$ where $`n`$ is a positive integer. Nevertheless, the fact that the amplitudes of the lower modes display well defined maxima and minima allows to shape the overall phase of the quasicondensate. As an example, in Fig. 6 we show the initial fluctuating phase of a quasicondensate at $`T=0.4T_\text{c}`$, and its final phase after the perturbation is switched off. In the range $`|x/L_{\text{TF}}|<0.5`$ the final phase becomes practically constant demonstrating that the initial fluctuations can be significantly suppressed using the parametric modulation technique. To achieve this specific phase we chose the frequency $`\omega _\text{s}`$ such that the lower modes have approximately the same amplitude value.

## 5 Conclusion and outlook

In this paper we analyze fluctuations of the phase of quasi 1D condensates at temperatures of the order of fractions of $`T_\text{c}`$. The dynamical transformation of phase fluctuations into density modulations was observed as function of free expansion time. A detailed comparison of the statistical average of the modulation with the theoretical prediction shows excellent agreement. It was also verified experimentally that density modulations of a phase fluctuating BEC in the trap are strongly suppressed. The quantitative understanding of the transfer of phase fluctuations into density modulations opens a pathway to use phase fluctuations for condensate thermometry.

Phase fluctuations impose restrictions on the applicability of quasi 1D condensates in atom optics and precision atom interferometry. We show that a possible mechanism to control the overall phase of a quasi 1D condensate is to use a small periodic perturbation of the trap. In this way, only few of the modes responsible for the phase fluctuations become relevant. Furthermore, by properly tuning the frequency, time and amplitude of the external perturbation one can resonantly couple the different relevant low order modes, so that some of them are enhanced and others are inhibited. This method suggest a pathway to control phase fluctuations and overcome their undesired effects.

We acknowledge valuable discussions with G. Shlyapnikov, D. S. Petrov and C. Bordé. This work is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft within the SFB 407 and the Schwerpunktprogramm ”Wechselwirkungen ultrakalter atomarer und molekularer Gase”, Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung, and the European Science Foundation (ESF) within the BEC2000+ programme.


format: text

text:
# Mixing in the 𝐷⁰-𝐷̄⁰ system at BABAR

## 1 Motivation

Mixing can be characterised by the two parameters $`x\mathrm{\Delta }m/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`y\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) is the difference in mass (width) between the two different mass eigenstates and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the average width.

Within the Standard Model the level of $`D^0`$-$`\overline{D}^0`$ mixing and $`CP`$ violation is predicted to be below the sensitivity of current experiments. For this reason it is a good place to look for signals of physics beyond the Standard Model. Other experiments have already tried this with smaller datasets using a technique similar to what is described here. In any attempt to measure mixing one should consider the possibility of $`CP`$ violation also as, with new physics, there is no *a priori* expectation that it is insignificant.

Mixing and $`CP`$ violation can be detected by observation of the wrong-sign decay $`D^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ (charge conjugation is implied unless otherwise stated). Production through direct decay is doubly Cabibbo suppressed (DCS) but it is also possible for the $`D^0`$ to oscillate into a $`\overline{D}^0`$ and subsequently decay through the right-sign Cabibbo favoured (CF) decay $`\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0}K^+\pi ^{}`$. The two processes can only be distinguished by an analysis of the time evolution of the decay.

Assuming $`x^{}`$$`y^{}1`$ and that $`CP`$ is conserved, the time-dependent decay rate for the wrong-sign decay $`D^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ from DCS decays and mixing is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(D^0K^+\pi ^{})(t)e^{t/\tau _{D^0}}\left(R_\mathrm{D}+\sqrt{R_\mathrm{D}}y^{}t/\tau _{D^0}+\frac{x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4}(t/\tau _{D^0})^2\right)$$
(1)
where $`\tau _{D^0}`$ is the $`D^0`$ lifetime and $`R_\mathrm{D}`$ is the ratio of DCS to CF decays111$`x^{}=x\mathrm{cos}\delta _{K\pi }+y\mathrm{sin}\delta _{K\pi }`$ and $`y^{}=x\mathrm{sin}\delta _{K\pi }+y\mathrm{cos}\delta _{K\pi }`$ where $`\delta _{K\pi }`$ is an unknown strong phase.. Because $`x^{}`$ only appears in the time distribution as a squared value, it is not possible to determine the sign of $`x^{}`$ in an analysis based on the $`D^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ decay alone.

$`CP`$ violation can be either direct, in mixing or in the interference between the two. The $`CP`$ violation gives rise to different apparent values for the parameters in eq. 1 so we define $`R_\mathrm{D}^{+()}`$, $`x^{+()}`$ and $`y^{+()}`$ for $`D`$ mesons produced as a $`D^0`$ ($`\overline{D}^0`$).

## 2 The BABAR detector and data selection

For this analysis, we use $`57.1\text{ fb}^1`$ of data collected with the the BABAR detector which is described in detail elsewhere. Reconstruction of charged particles and particle identification of Kaons and pions are the most essential. Tracking is provided by a five-layer silicon vertex tracker (SVT) and a forty-layer drift chamber (DCH), both in a 1.5 T solenoidal magnetic field. A Cherenkov ring imaging detector (DIRC) is placed outside the tracking volume.

Kaons (pions) are identified by calculating a likelihood product of the information from $`dE/dx`$ measurements in the SVT and DCH and the reconstructed Cherenkov angle and photon statistics from the DIRC, with an efficiency above 75% (80%) and mis-id rate below 8% (7%) for $`p<4\mathrm{GeV}/c`$.

We select $`D^0`$ candidates from reconstructed $`D^+D^0\pi ^+`$ decays. The charge of the pion in the decay identifies the flavour of the $`D^0`$ and also serves to create a clean sample of $`D^0`$ decays. Both right-sign and wrong-sign $`D^0`$ candidates are selected. We select only $`D^+`$ candidates with $`p_{D^+}>2.6\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ in the centre-of-mass frame to reject $`D^+`$ candidates from $`B`$ decays. Other event selection criteria are employed to ensure that we have high quality tracks and do not have any $`D^+`$ candidates with multiple overlapping tracks.

## 3 Results

An unbinned maximum likelihood fit is used to extract the mixing parameters. For each $`D^+`$ candidate we use the $`D^0`$ candidate mass $`m_{K\pi }`$, the mass difference $`\delta m`$ between the $`D^+`$ and the $`D^0`$ candidate and the proper lifetime and error on the lifetime of the $`D^0`$ candidate. The $`D^0`$ lifetime and the signal resolution model is determined from the large right-sign sample. Sidebands are included in $`m_{K\pi }`$ and $`\delta m`$ such that the level and time evolution of the different background types can be evaluated. In figure 2 we show the time evolution of the wrong-sign sample. In total we observe around 120,000 (440) right-sign (wrong-sign) signal events.

Since the fit allows $`x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ to take unphysical negative values an error estimate from the log-likelihood surface (LLS) would require a Bayesian analysis where the choice of prior is not clear. In addition, an accurate error estimate from the LLS requires a LLS shape that is independent of the outcome of the fit. At the current level of statistics these requirements are not even approximately met, especially for the small mixing values observed.

Instead we use a method where we define a 95% confidence limit contour in $`x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ and $`y^{}`$ space using toy Monte Carlo experiments222With a toy Monte Carlo experiment we mean a Monte Carlo sample of the same size as the data generated from the PDF of the fit.. Contours are constructed such that there is a 95% probability for any point $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }_c=(x_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{2},y_c^{})`$ on the contour that the likelihood ratio

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{}{\alpha }_c)=\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{}{\alpha }_c)\mathrm{ln}_{\mathrm{max}},$$
(2)
will be greater than the corresponding value $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}_{\mathrm{data}}(\stackrel{}{\alpha }_c)`$ calculated for the data. $`_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is here the maximum likelihood obtained from the fit to either data or a toy Monte Carlo sample. The probability is evaluated by creating multiple toy Monte Carlo samples at the point $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }_c`$ and for each of the samples evaluate $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{}{\alpha }_c)`$ after a fit.

As well as for the general case allowing for $`CP`$ violation we also calculate our results for the special cases where $`CP`$ is conserved and where no mixing is allowed. In the case where we assume no mixing we calculate the direct $`CP`$ violation term $`A_D(R_\mathrm{D}^+R_\mathrm{D}^{})/(R_\mathrm{D}^++R_\mathrm{D}^{})`$.

The confidence contours for the mixing results including systematic errors are shown in figure 2 and the overall results are summarised in table 1.

For our systematic errors we evaluate the contributions from uncertainties in the parametrisation of the PDF’s, detector effects, and effects of our selection criteria. For detector effects like alignment errors or charge asymmetry we measure their effect on the right-sign control sample. For variations in the event selection we assign for this preliminary result the full variations in the resulting contours as systematic errors.

In summary we have set new and improved limits on mixing and $`CP`$ violation for neutral $`D`$ mesons. Our results are compatible with no mixing and no $`CP`$ violation, all of which fits well with the predictions from the Standard Model given our current sensitivity.


text:
# Dual equivalence in models with higher-order derivatives

## I Introduction

It is hardly necessary to remind the remarkable and powerful properties of the duality mapping as an analytical tool in Field Theory as well as in String Theory agz . On the other hand, the interest in the study of theories involving higher-order derivative is by now well-appreciated and remains intense. Within the context of the Maxwell theory, generalizations involving higher-order derivatives can be found in bi ; pr ; po . More recently, in Refs. dj ; dn  one finds generalizations that involve both the Maxwell and Chern-Simons (CS) terms cs1 ; cs2 ; cs3 . In the present work we study duality symmetry in extended theories, which contain higher-order derivatives involving both the Maxwell and CS terms.

The interest in the subject has been recently fueled by several motivations, in particular by issues related to String Theory. As one knows, string theories engender the feature of containing interactions that may involve an infinite number of space-time derivatives, and that may lead to standard Field Theory in the low energy limit. Thus, higher-order derivative contributions would certainly appear when one consider next-to-leading orders in the energy. Based upon such interesting possibilities, there is renewed interest in investigating higher-order derivative models, including the case of tachyons w ; ks ; t1 ; t2 ; t3 ; t4 ; t5 ; t6 . Other lines of investigations can be found for instance in wes ; hli , and also in gravity, where higher orders in the scalar curvature $`R`$ are considered in the so-called nonlinear gravity theories – see, for instance, the recent works pmt ; muk  and references therein.

The presence of higher-order derivatives to control the behavior of systems is not peculiar to String and Field theory. It may also appear in condensed matter, and can be important to describe higher-order phase transitions pip , as for instance the case of the fourth-order transition in superconducting $`\mathrm{Ba}_{0.6}\mathrm{K}_{0.4}\mathrm{BiO}_3`$, which is described in khg . Furthermore, sometimes one has to include higher-order derivative of the order parameter to correctly describe pattern formation in chemical reactions, and in other branches of nonlinear science kur ; wal .

We investigate the subject dealing with issues that appear very naturally in Field Theory. Specifically, we examine the duality mapping of higher-derivative extensions of self-dual (SD) and Maxwell-Chern-Simons (MCS) theories, including the presence of fermionic matter. We work in the $`(2,1)`$ dimensional space-time, with $`\epsilon ^{012}=\epsilon _{012}=1`$; our metric tensor has signature $`(+,,)`$ and we use natural units. We start in the next Sec. II, where we examine the dual mapping of the MCS-Proca model with the MCS-Podolsky theory. Our methodology makes use of the gauge embedding procedure, an approach which has been shown to work very efficiently to unveil the dual partner of a specific model e1 ; e2 ; e3 ; e4 ; e5 . The investigation of the MCS-Proca model is new, and we use it to set stage to generalize the model to higher-order derivatives. We develop this generalization in Sec. III, where we introduce the main model, which is defined in terms of $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, and in Sec. IV, where we consider the case $`n\mathrm{}`$. We show in Sec. III that if one discards the CS and CS-like terms, the results are then valid in arbitrary $`(d,1)`$ space-time dimensions. We also show in Sec. IV that the duality is preserved at the quantum level. In Sec. V we examine the presence of matter, coupling fermions to the system. In Sec. VI we change the model introduced in Sec. III to include the presence of nonlinearity. We end our work in Sec. VII, where we present our comments and conclusions.

## II Duality transformation in the MCS-Proca model

It is well know that both the SD and the MCS models are dual representations of the same dynamics: they carry one massive degree of freedom of definite helicity determined by the relative sign of CS term. However, the SD representation hides a gauge symmetry, which is explicit in the MCS model. This is easily seen when one establishes the correspondence $`f_\mu F_\mu \epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho }^\nu A^\rho `$, which maps the SD field $`f_\mu `$ into the dual of the basic field $`A_\mu `$ of the MCS model. We notice that in the above dual mapping, one relates a gauge non-invariant model with an equivalent, gauge invariant theory. In this process, however, the non-gauge field is identified with a special form containing the derivative of the gauge field of the dual model. The identification of this mechanism is crucial for the generalizations that we will implement below.

In this section we elaborate on a prototype of the study we intend develop in this paper. We discuss the theoretical motivations for studying higher derivatives dualities, present a physical scenario for the applications of the ideas elaborated and the quantum implications.

In the past, there have appeared several different ways of extending electrodynamics, trying to smooth infrared or ultraviolet singularities that appear at large or short distances. One is the Born-Infeld bi  type of generalization, and others include the generalizations introduced by Proca pr  and by Podolsky po . The Born-Infeld approach involves nonlinear extension, which will be considered in Sec. VI. The Proca model involves the addition of a mass term for the vector field, which was introduced to smooth infrared singularities. The Podolsky model involves higher-order derivatives and was introduced to smooth ultraviolet singularities. Thus, the Proca and Podolsky model deal with dual aspects of the electromagnetic interaction, and so they may be connected by some duality procedure.

The dual aspects of electrodynamics that appears in the Proca and Podolsky models constitute the central subject of the present Section. This duality is also of importance in the extension of the bosonization program from D=2 to higher dimensions. The mechanisms of the 3D bosonization in particular are quite dependent on the duality results involving the presence of the Chern-Simons term. Besides providing us with the proper scenario for the applications of our ideas, bosonization will also be crucial for the interpretation of the new parameters in the Podolsky extension.

### II.1 The duality Procedure

In order to exemplify the general procedure of duality, we consider the more general model

$$=\frac{m^2}{2}A^\mu A_\mu \frac{a}{4}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}m\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }A^\mu ^\nu A^\lambda $$
(1)
where $`m`$ is the mass parameter. We have introduced the real and dimensionless parameter $`a`$ in order to obtain the SD model for $`a=0`$, or the MCS-Proca model for $`a=1`$.

The equation of motion involves second-order derivatives, and the model is supposedly dual to a generalized MCS-Podolsky theory. To verify this assumption we follow the gauge embedding procedure e1 ; e2 ; e3 ; e4 ; e5  to construct its dual equivalent model. Firstly, we compute the Euler vector associated with the MCS-Proca theory. We get

$$K_\mu =m^2A_\mu m\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }^\nu A^\lambda +a^\nu F_{\nu \mu }$$
(2)
The first iteration leads to

$$_1=_0K^\mu B_\mu $$
(3)
where $`_0`$ is identified with MCS-Proca Lagrangian given by Eq. (1). Also, $`B_\mu `$ is an auxiliary field, which varies according to

$$\delta B_\mu =\delta A_\mu =_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(4)
This choice makes the non-invariant term in $`_0`$ to cancel with the term $`K_\mu \delta B^\mu `$. Therefore

$$\delta _1=B_\mu \delta K^\mu =\frac{m^2}{2}\delta (B^2)$$
(5)
Thus, we can write the gauge invariant second-iterated Lagrangian

$$_2=_0K^\mu B_\mu +\frac{m^2}{2}B^2$$
(6)
This ends the iteration process, and we can eliminate the auxiliary field to obtain the dual model

$$_D=_0\frac{K^2}{2m^2}$$
(7)
or better

$$_D=\frac{a1}{4}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}m\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }A^\mu ^\nu A^\lambda \frac{a^2}{2m^2}_\mu F^{\mu \nu }^\lambda F_{\lambda \nu }+\frac{a}{m}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu A_\lambda ^\rho F_{\rho \mu }$$
(8)
This is the generalized MCS-Podolsky model – see Refs.po ; dj ; dn  for further informations on this and other, related models. We recall that the Podolsky model was introduced in order to smooth ultraviolet singularities. In this sense, we notice that our approach for duality is working standardly, since we are linking infrared and ultraviolet problems, in MCS-Proca and MCS-Podolsky models.

In the above investigation, if $`a=0`$ the MCS-Proca model in (1) becomes the standard SD model; in this case, in the generalized MCS-Podolsky model (8) one kills the Podolsky terms, and we are led back to the MCS model. On the other hand if $`a=1`$ we get to an extended CS-Podolsky model.

It seems important, at this juncture, to establish the scenario at which the parameter $`a`$ becomes a physical quantity. This is done next where we show that action (8) for the generalized MCS-Podolsky model is the low energy effective action for a self-interaction fermionic model. To set the problem in a proper perspective, we review shortly the bosonization procedure.

### II.2 Physical Interpretation

It is well known by now that the bosonization in D=3 mapps a massive scalar particle coupled to a Chern-Simons gauge field into a massive Dirac fermion for a special value of the Chern-Simons coupling. This is a relevant issue in the context of transmutation of spin and statistics with interesting applications to problems both in quantum field theory and condensed matter physics. This boson-fermion transmutation is a property which holds only at very long distances, namely, at scales long compared with the Compton wavelength of the particle. As so these results hold to lowest order in an expansion in powers of the inverse mass of the particle.

The equivalence of the three dimensional effective electromagnetic action of the $`CP^1`$ model with a charged massive fermion to lowest order in inverse (fermion) mass has been proposed by Deser and Redlich DR . Using the results of DR , bosonization was extended from two to three dimensions FS . However, contrary to the two-dimensional case where the fermionic determinant can be exactly computed, bosonization in higher dimensions is not exact and, in the general case, it has a non-local structure. However, for the large mass limit in the one-loop of perturbative evaluation, a local expression materializes. Indeed, it has been established FS , to the leading order in the inverse fermionic mass, an identity between the partition functions for the three-dimensional Thirring model and the topologically massive U(1) gauge theory, whose dynamics is controlled by a Maxwell-Chern-Simons action. Here we show that the contribution next-to-leading order leads to the MCS-Podolsky model via duality transformation.

Below we compute the low energy sector of a theory of massive self-interacting fermions, the massive Thirring Model in 2 + 1 dimensions, that can be bosonized into a gauge theory, the Maxwell-Chern-Simons gauge theory and its possible higher derivative extensions. We start from the fermionic partition function for the three-dimensional massive Thirring model, following closely the spirit of FS ,

$$𝒵_{Th}=𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi e^{{\scriptscriptstyle }(\overline{\psi }^i(/+M)\psi ^i\frac{g^2}{2N}j^\mu j_\mu )d^3x}$$
(9)
with the coupling constant $`g^2`$ having dimensions of inverse mass. Here $`\psi ^i`$ are N two-component Dirac spinors and $`j^\mu `$ is a global U(1) current defined as,

$$j^\mu =\overline{\psi }^i\gamma ^\mu \psi ^i.$$
(10)
Notice that we have reverted to Euclidean metric in this subsection. As usual, we eliminate the quartic interaction by performing a (functional) Legendre transformation through the identity

$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{g^2}{2N}}j^\mu j_\mu d^3x}}=𝒟A_\mu e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}A^\mu A_\mu +{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{N}}}j^\mu A_\mu \right)d^3x}}$$
(11)
after a scaling $`A_\mu gA_\mu /\sqrt{N}`$. The partition function then becomes

$$𝒵_{Th}=𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi 𝒟A_\mu e^{{\scriptscriptstyle }(\overline{\psi }^i(/+M+\frac{g}{\sqrt{N}}A/)\psi ^i+\frac{1}{2}A^\mu A_\mu )d^3x}.$$
(12)
Formally, the fermionic path-integral gives the Dirac operator determinant,

$$𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi e^{{\scriptscriptstyle }\overline{\psi }^i(/+M+\frac{g}{\sqrt{N}}A/)\psi ^id^3x}=det(/+M+\frac{g}{\sqrt{N}}A/)$$
(13)
The determinant of the Dirac operator is an unbounded operator and requires regularization. Bosonization will depend on the actual computation of this deteminant, namely, whether it can be computed exactly in a closed form or an approximate recipe must be enforced. In general it leads to non-local structures but, under some approximation scheme (like the inverse mass), a local result emerges.

This determinant can be computed exactly for $`D=2`$, both for abelian and non-abelian symmetries. For the D=3 case this determinant has been computed in DR  as an expansion in inverse powers of the fermion mass giving, in the leading order, the Chern-Simons parity violating term, as well as parity conserving Maxwell term, which is central to our discussion here,

$$\mathrm{ln}det(/+M+\frac{g}{\sqrt{N}}A/)=\pm \frac{ig^2}{16\pi }ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha }F^{\mu \nu }A^\alpha d^3x\frac{g^2}{24\pi M}d^3xF^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+O(^2/M^2)$$
(14)
We bring these results into the partition function to get

$$𝒵_{Th}=𝒟A_\mu e^{𝒮_{eff}[A_\mu ]}$$
(15)
where $`𝒮_{eff}[A_\mu ]`$ is given, up to order $`1/m`$, by

$$𝒮_{eff}[A_\mu ]=\frac{1}{2}d^3x\left(A_\mu A^\mu \frac{ig^2}{4\pi }ϵ^{\mu \alpha \nu }A_\mu _\alpha A_\nu \frac{g^2}{12\pi M}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\right)$$
(16)
which, after the scaling $`A_\mu mA_\mu `$, with $`m=4\pi /g^2`$. With these identifications we find $`a=\frac{2m}{3M}`$. In conclusion, we have established the following identification:

$$𝒵_{Th}𝒵_{MCSProca}$$
(17)
which is valid to next-to-leading order in $`1/M`$.

In the preceeding section we have established the dynamical equivalence between the model defined by $`𝒮_{MCSProca}`$ the MCS-Podolsky theory. This proves the equivalence, to this order in $`1/M`$ expansion of the partition functions for Thirring model and the MCS-Podolsky theory:

$$𝒵_{Th}𝒵_{MCSPodolsky}$$
(18)
It expresses the equivalence between a theory of $`3`$-dimensional interacting fermionic theory and Maxwell-Chern-Simons vectorial bosons in the long wavelength aproximation. It is interesting to observe that the Thirring coupling constant $`g^2/N`$ in the fermionic model is mapped into the inverse mass spin $`1`$ massive excitation. In the same fashion, we may identify each term of the generalization to higher-order derivatives studied below, with terms following from the $`1/M`$ expansion of the fermionic determinant. This is however beyond the scope of the present work.

## III Generalization to higher-order derivatives

In this Section we use the duality procedure which connects the SD and MCS models, and the MCS-Proca and MCS-Podolsky models, in order to extend the formalism to generalized models involving higher-order derivatives. Evidently, the presence of higher-order derivatives introduces longer distances effects and is of interest to String Theory, and to investigations involving phase transition. We split the subject into two subsections, the first exploring the relevant classical issues, and the second dealing with duality at the quantum level.

### III.1 Duality at the clasical level

Let us rescale fields and coordinates as $`Am^{1/2}\overline{A}`$ and $`xm^1\overline{x}`$, in order to work with dimensionless quantities. We rewrite $`\overline{A}`$ and $`\overline{x}`$ as $`A`$ and $`x`$ again, and we define the general field $`A_\mu ^{(n)}`$ through the recursive relation

$$A^{(n)\mu }ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu A_\rho ^{(n1)}$$
(19)
Here we use $`A_\mu ^{(0)}=A_\mu `$ to represent the basic field. The subscript $`n`$ which identifies the field also shows the number of derivatives one has to perform in the basic field. We notice that in the above relation (19) the field $`A_\mu ^{(n)}`$ is related to the field $`A_\mu ^{(n1)}`$ by means of a derivative, which maintains the mechanism we have identified in the former Sec. II, where the dual relation between the fields involves a derivative.

For this field we now define the general field strength,

$$F_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}_\mu A_\nu ^{(n)}_\nu A_\mu ^{(n)}.$$
(20)
With this, the Maxwell term is proportional to $`A_\mu ^{(1)}A^{(1)\mu }`$, and can be generalized to $`A_\mu ^{(n)}A^{(n)\mu }`$.

We define the antisymmetric tensor $`G_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}`$ such that $`G_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}=F_{\mu \nu }`$, and

$$G_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}_{[\mu }^\lambda G_{\lambda \nu ]}^{(n1)}=_\mu ^\lambda G_{\lambda \nu }^{(n1)}_\nu ^\lambda G_{\lambda \mu }^{(n1)}$$
(21)
which is important to relate $`A_\mu ^{(n)}`$ to $`A_\mu ^{(0)}`$. We notice that $`G_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}`$ contains $`2n+1`$ implicit derivatives in $`A_\mu `$. So, the general field is, for $`n`$ positive,

$$A_\mu ^{(n)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^{\frac{n}{2}}^\nu G_{\nu \mu }^{(n/21)}\hfill & \mathrm{for}n\mathrm{even}\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{1}{2}(1)^{\frac{n1}{2}}\epsilon _\mu ^{\nu \lambda }G_{\nu \lambda }^{(n/21/2)}\hfill & \mathrm{for}n\mathrm{odd}\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
To include CS-like terms into the proposed generalization we first notice that the CS term can be written as $`\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda }A_\mu _\nu A_\lambda =A_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(1)\mu }`$. Thus, it induces the general form, $`A_\mu ^{(i)}A^{(j)\mu }`$, where $`i,j`$ are non-negative integers. We notice that if $`i=j`$ we obtain the generalized Maxwell term. Thus, we can modify the generalized Maxwell model appropriately, to include extended CS contributions. Furthermore, we can prove the identity

$$A_\mu ^{(i)}A^{(j)\mu }=A_\mu ^{(i1)}A^{(j+1)\mu }+\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda }_\mu \left(A_\nu ^{(i1)}A_\lambda ^{(j)}\right)$$
(23)
The last term is a total derivative, which can be discarded since it does not change the action when this identity is used in the Lagrange density of the corresponding model.

We see that for $`i+j`$ even we can write, apart from a total derivative,

$$A_\mu ^{(i)}A^{(j)\mu }=A_\mu ^{\left(\frac{i+j}{2}\right)}A^{{}_{}{}^{\left(\frac{i+j}{2}\right)}\mu }$$
(24)
As a result, in the action we do not need to split $`A_\mu ^{(i)}A^{(j)\mu }`$ into generalized Maxwell and extended CS terms. We introduce a single term, characterized by the sum $`i+j`$: for $`i+j`$ even we get a generalized Maxwell term, and for $`i+j`$ odd we obtain an extended CS term. For example, $`A_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(1)\mu }`$ and $`A_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(2)\mu }`$ reproduce the standard CS and Maxwell terms, respectively.

We use the above results to introduce the model

$$^{(n)}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}r_iA_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(i)\mu }$$
(25)
where $`n`$ is integer, and $`r_i`$ are real and dimensionless parameters, with $`r_00`$. The equation of motion is

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}r_iA_\mu ^{(i)}=0$$
(26)
This equation allows writing $`^\mu A_\mu ^{(0)}=0`$, which shows that no longitudinal mode propagates in the theory. Besides, we can use this condition to rewrite Eq. (22) in the simpler form

$$A_\mu ^{(n)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^{\frac{n}{2}}\mathrm{}^{\frac{n}{2}}A_\mu ^{(0)}\hfill & \mathrm{for}n\mathrm{even}\hfill \\ & \\ (1)^{\frac{n1}{2}}\mathrm{}^{\frac{n1}{2}}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }^\nu A^{(0)\lambda }\hfill & \mathrm{for}n\mathrm{odd}\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
With the aim to build an Abelian gauge model, we consider the variation $`\delta A_\mu =\delta A_\mu ^{(0)}=_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }`$; as before, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a local infinitesimal parameter. We use this and the definition for $`A_\mu ^{(n)}`$ to obtain

$$\delta A_\mu ^{(i)}=0,i0$$
(28)
We vary the Lagrange density in (25) to obtain

$$\delta ^{(n)}=K^\mu \delta A_\mu ^{(0)}$$
(29)
where the local Noether current is defined as

$$K_\mu 2\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}r_iA_\mu ^{(i)}$$
(30)
We introduce an auxiliary vector field $`a_\mu `$, and we couple it linearly to the Euler vector

$$_1^{(n)}=^{(n)}a^\mu K_\mu $$
(31)
We chose $`\delta a_\mu =_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }=\delta A_\mu `$. Thus

$$\delta _1^{(n)}=a_\mu \delta K^\mu $$
(32)
We consider

$$_2^{(n)}=_1^{(n)}+r_0a^\mu a_\mu $$
(33)
The procedure ends with the elimination of the auxiliary field $`a_\mu `$. We get to

$$_D^{(n)}=^{(n)}\frac{1}{4r_0}K^\mu K_\mu $$
(34)
which is the Lagrange density of the dual model. We use the Euler vector to get

$$_D^{(n)}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}r_iA_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(i)\mu }\frac{1}{r_0}\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}r_ir_jA_\mu ^{(i)}A^{(j)\mu }.$$
(35)
or better

$$_D^{(n)}=\frac{1}{r_0}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}r_ir_jA_\mu ^{(i)}A^{(j)\mu }.$$
(36)
which gives the dual model. We notice that the respective action is gauge-invariant. This result shows that the model (25) engenders hidden gauge invariance, in a way similar to the SD model cs1 . We can rewrite this result in the form

$$_D=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}r_i^{}A_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(i)\mu }$$
(37)
where we have used

$$r_i^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{r_0}\underset{l=1}{\overset{i}{}}r_lr_{il}\hfill & \text{for }1in\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{1}{r_0}\underset{l=in}{\overset{n}{}}r_lr_{il}\hfill & \text{for }n<i2n\hfill \end{array}$$
(38)
Before ending this Section, let us comment on issues related to the above duality investigation. The equation of motion that follows from the dual model (37) is

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}r_i^{}A_\mu ^{(i)}=0$$
(39)
In Eq. (26) we eliminate $`A_\mu ^{(0)}`$ to see that these two equations are identical, thus confirming the dual equivalence between the two theories.

Another issue concerns finding a master theory. To get to this, let us introduce another field $`B_\mu ^{(i)}`$ such that $`B_\mu ^{(0)}=B_\mu `$. We use $`A_\mu ^{(i)}`$ and $`B_\mu ^{(i)}`$ to write

$$_M^{(n)}=r_0B_\mu ^{(0)}B^{(0)\mu }+2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}r_iB_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(i)\mu }\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}r_iA_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(i)\mu }$$
(40)
We vary the corresponding action with respect to $`B^{(0)}`$ to get

$$B^{(0)}=\frac{1}{r_0}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}r_iA^{(i)\mu }$$
(41)
We use this into (40) to obtain

$$_D^{(n)}=\frac{1}{r_0}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}r_ir_jA_\mu ^{(i)}A^{(j)\mu }.$$
(42)
which is Eq. (36). If we vary the master action with respect to $`A_\mu ^{(0)}`$ to get

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}r_iB_\mu ^{(i)}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}r_iA_\mu ^{(i)}$$
(43)
This result allows writing

$$=r_0B_\mu ^{(0)}B^{(0)\mu }+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}r_iB_\mu ^{(0)}B^{(i)\mu }=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}r_iB_\mu ^{(0)}B^{(i)\mu }$$
(44)
which reproduces Eq. (25), confirming that Eq. (40) is a master or parent theory.

The model that we have introduced is defined by Eq. (25); it is controlled by the integer $`n`$ which we choose to be $`n=1,2,3\mathrm{}`$. The simplest case is $`n=1`$, which reproduces the SD model. The next case is $`n=2`$, which gives the MCS-Proca model investigated in the former Sec. II. The case $`n=3`$ gives

$`^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`r_0A_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(0)\mu }+r_1A_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(1)\mu }+r_2A_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(2)\mu }+r_3A_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(3)\mu }`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`r_0A_\mu A^\mu +r_1\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda }A_\mu _\nu A_\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r_2F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+r_3\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda }A_\mu _\nu ^\rho F_{\lambda \rho }`$
and the other cases follow standardly. For $`n=3`$ the dual model is

$$_D^{(3)}=\frac{1}{r_0}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{3}{}}r_ir_jA_\mu ^{(i)}A^{(j)\mu }$$
(46)
We use Eqs. (21) and (22) to write

$`_D^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_1}{2}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda }A_\mu F_{\nu \lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(r_2+{\displaystyle \frac{r_1^2}{r_0}}\right)F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(r_3+2{\displaystyle \frac{r_1r_2}{r_0}}\right)\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda }F_{\mu \nu }^\rho F_{\rho \lambda }`$ (47)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_0}}(r_2^2+2r_1r_3)_\mu F^{\mu \nu }^\lambda F_{\lambda \nu }2{\displaystyle \frac{r_2r_3}{r_0}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda }^\rho F_{\rho \mu }_\nu ^\alpha F_{\alpha \lambda }2{\displaystyle \frac{r_3^2}{r_0}}^\mu ^\nu F_{\nu \lambda }_\mu _\rho F^{\rho \lambda }`$
In this example, we can choose the parameters $`r_00,r_1,r_2,r_3`$ to find the dual theory to every model, up to the order $`n=3`$. For instance, if we use $`r_0=1/2,r_1=1/2,r_2=a/2`$, and $`r_3=0`$, and if we re-introduce dimensional units, we obtain from (45) and (47) the former expressions (1) and (8) that we have investigated in Sec. II.

We notice that the presence of the CS and CS-like terms imposes the restriction, that the Minkowsky space must have $`(2,1)`$ spacetime dimensions. Thus, if we set $`r_i=0`$ for $`i`$ odd, we eliminate all the CS and CS-like terms, and our results are then valid in arbitrary $`(d,1)`$ space-time dimensions.

### III.2 Quantum duality

We now explore the issue of quantum duality dst ; go ; brr  for the models examined previously. We start with the Lagrange density for the master theory, given by Eq. (40). We extend the model to write

$$_M^{(n)}(J,j)=r_0B_\mu ^{(0)}B^{(0)\mu }+2B_\mu ^{(0)}F^\mu (A)A_\mu ^{(0)}F^\mu (A)+\alpha r_0B_\mu ^{(0)}j^{(0)\mu }+\alpha F^\mu (A)J^{(0)\mu }$$
(48)
where we have set

$`F_\mu (A)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}r_iA_\mu ^{(i)}`$ (49)
$`F_\mu (B)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}r_iB_\mu ^{(i)}`$ (50)
to ease calculation. We see that the master theory contains two fields, thus we have added the external currents $`j_\mu `$ and $`J_\mu `$; we see that $`j_\mu `$ couples with $`B_\mu `$, while $`J_\mu `$ couples with $`A_\mu `$ indirectly, through $`F_\mu (A)`$.

We use (48) to eliminate $`A_\mu `$. We obtain $`F_\mu (A)=F_\mu (B)+(\alpha /2)F_\mu (J),`$ which we use to write

$$^{(n)}(J,j)=^{(n)}+\alpha B_\mu ^{(0)}(r_0j^{(0)\mu }+F^\mu (J))+\frac{\alpha ^2}{4}J_\mu ^{(0)}F^\mu (J)$$
(51)
where $`^{(n)}`$ is the model given by Eq. (25). We also use (48) to eliminate $`B_\mu ^{(0)}`$. We get $`B_\mu ^{(0)}=(1/r_0)F_\mu ^{(0)}(A)(\alpha /2)j_\mu ^{(0)},`$ which we use to abtain

$$_D^{(n)}(J,j)=_D^{(n)}+\alpha F_\mu (A)(J^{(0)\mu }j^{(0)\mu })\frac{\alpha ^2r_0}{4}j_\mu j^\mu $$
(52)
where $`_D^{(n)}`$ is the dual model, given by Eq. (36).

We define the functional generators $`Z_M^{(n)}(J,j),`$ $`Z^{(n)}(J,j)`$ and $`Z_D^{(n)}(J,j)`$ in the usual way. They allow obtaining

$$\frac{1}{Z_M^{(n)}}\frac{\delta ^2Z_M^{(n)}}{\delta j_\mu (x)\delta j_\nu (y)}|_{j,J=0}=\frac{1}{Z^{(n)}}\frac{\delta ^2Z^{(n)}}{\delta j_\mu (x)\delta j_\nu (y)}|_{j,J=0}=\alpha ^2r_0^2<B^{(0)\mu }(x)B^{(0)\nu }(y)>$$
(53)
and

$$\frac{1}{Z_M^{(n)}}\frac{\delta ^2Z_M^{(n)}}{\delta J_\mu (x)\delta J_\nu (y)}|_{j,J=0}=\frac{1}{Z_D^{(n)}}\frac{\delta ^2Z_D^{(n)}}{\delta J_\mu (x)\delta J_\nu (y)}|_{j,J=0}=\alpha ^2<F^\mu (A)(x)F^\nu (A)(x)>_D$$
(54)
The master theory allows writing

$$\frac{1}{Z_M^{(n)}}\frac{\delta ^2Z_M^{(n)}}{\delta j_\mu (x)\delta j_\nu (y)}|_{j,J=0}=\frac{1}{Z_D^{(n)}}\frac{\delta ^2Z_D^{(n)}}{\delta j_\mu (x)\delta j_\nu (y)}|_{j,J=0}=\alpha ^2<F^\mu (A)(x)F^\nu (A)(y)>_Di\frac{\alpha ^2r_0}{2}\delta ^{\mu \nu }\delta (xy)$$
(55)
and

$$\frac{1}{Z_M^{(n)}}\frac{\delta ^2Z_M^{(n)}}{\delta J_\mu (x)\delta J_\nu (y)}|_{j,J=0}=\frac{1}{Z^{(n)}}\frac{\delta ^2Z^{(n)}}{\delta J_\mu (x)\delta J_\nu (y)}|_{j,J=0}=\alpha ^2<F^\mu (B)(x)F^\nu (B)(y)>+i\frac{\alpha ^2}{2}O^{\mu \nu }\delta (xy)$$
(56)
where the operator $`O^{\mu \nu }`$ is defined according to

$$F^\mu (A)=O^{\mu \nu }A_\nu ^{(0)}$$
(57)
We use these results to write

$$<B_\mu ^{(0)}(x)B_\nu ^{(0)}(y)>=<F_\mu (A)(x)F_\nu (A)(y)>_D+i\frac{r_0}{2}\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta (xy)$$
(58)
and

$$<F^\mu (B)(x)F^\nu (B)(y)>i\frac{1}{2}O^{\mu \nu }\delta (xy)=<F^\mu (A)(x)F^\nu (A)(y)>_D$$
(59)
Expressions (58) and (59) show that the correponding Green functions are equivalent, apart from contact terms. They show that the duality that we have presented in Sec. (III.A) above is preserved at the quantum level.

We now examine the specific case considered in Sec. II, which involves duality between the MCS-Proca theory (1) and the generalized MCS-Podolsky model (8). In this case the results (58) and (59) become

$$<B_\mu (x)B_\nu (y)>=<F_\mu (A)(x)F_\nu (A)(y)>_D+i\frac{m^2}{4}\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta (xy)$$
(60)
and

$$<F_\mu (B)(x)F_\nu (B)(y)>\frac{i}{2}\left(\frac{m}{2}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }^\lambda +\frac{a}{2}\delta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}\frac{a}{2}_\mu _\nu \right)\delta (xy)=<F_\mu (A)(x)F_\nu (A)(y)>_D$$
(61)
where we have re-inserted the parameters used in Sec. II. We see that for $`a=0`$ one recovers the result of Ref. brr , which deals with quantum duality for the CS and MCS models.

## IV The case $`n\mathrm{}`$

The success of the former investigations has lead us to think on extending the case containing a finite number of terms to the case where an infinity sequence of terms is considered. Our interest relies on the case where the infinity sequence of terms adds to give elementary functions. We see that the form of $`^{(n)}`$ in (25) suggests this particular generalization, to the case where $`n\mathrm{}`$. Such generalization can be written in terms of a smooth function, depending on the specific values of the real parameters $`r_i`$ that we have introduced to define the model. We further explore this possibility introducing the model

$$=A_\mu [F(𝒪)]_\nu ^\mu A^\nu $$
(62)
where $`F`$ is a smooth function, and $`𝒪`$ is the operator

$$𝒪^{\mu \nu }\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda }_\lambda $$
(63)
The model is defined in terms of the expansion of the smooth function, in the form

$$=A_\mu \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_n[𝒪^n]_\nu ^\mu A^\nu $$
(64)
where $`C_n`$ are given by

$$C_n=\frac{1}{n!}\frac{d^nF(x)}{dx^n}|_{x=0}$$
(65)
and $`[𝒪^0]_\nu ^\mu =\delta _\nu ^\mu `$, $`[𝒪^1]_\nu ^\mu =\epsilon _{\nu \lambda }^\mu ^\lambda `$ and $`[𝒪^2]_\nu ^\mu =[𝒪^1]_\lambda ^\mu [𝒪^1]_\nu ^\lambda `$, and so forth. We require that $`F(0)0`$, which implies that $`C_00`$. This means that the above model starts with the Proca-like term $`A_\mu A^\mu `$, which prevents the presence of gauge invariance. Thus, we use the gauge embedding procedure to obtain the dual model. It has the form

$$_D=A_\mu \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_n\left[𝒪^n\right]_\nu ^\mu A^\nu \frac{1}{C_0}A_\mu \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_nC_m\left[𝒪^{n+m}\right]_\nu ^\mu A^\nu $$
(66)
or, formally,

$$_D=A_\mu \left[F(𝒪)\frac{1}{F(0)}[F(𝒪)]^2\right]_\nu ^\mu A^\nu $$
(67)
We illustrate this general result with the example

$$=A_\mu \left(\frac{1}{1+𝒪}\right)_\nu ^\mu A^\nu $$
(68)
In this case the dual theory reads

$$_D=A_\mu \left(\frac{𝒪}{(1+𝒪)^2}\right)_\nu ^\mu A^\nu $$
(69)
## V Adding Fermions

The study of fermions is motivated by the possiblity of extending the present duality procedure to more realistic models, which should necessarily contain fermionic matter fields to describe the matter contents of any realistic model.

We add fermions with the modification

$$\stackrel{~}{}^{(n)}=^{(n)}+_I+_f$$
(70)
where

$$_f=\overline{\psi }(i/M)\psi $$
(71)
describes free fermions, with $`M`$ being the dimensionless fermion mass parameter. To identify how the fermionic field interacts with the fields $`A_\mu ^{(n)}`$ we introduce the non-minimal coupling

$$_\mu D_\mu =_\mu +i\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}e_iA_\mu ^{(i)}$$
(72)
where $`e_i`$ are (dimensionless) coupling constants – we notice that the condition $`e_i=0,i0`$ leads to minimal coupling with the fermionic matter. With the above generic coupling, the interactions terms in $`_I`$ are given by

$$_I=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}e_iA^{(0)\mu }J_\mu ^{(i)}$$
(73)
where we have defined the general current

$$J_\mu ^{(i)}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }^\nu J^{(i1)\lambda }$$
(74)
with

$$J_\mu ^{(0)}j_\mu =\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi $$
(75)
To write the above expressions we have used the identity

$$A_\mu ^{(i)}J^{(j)\mu }=A_\mu ^{(i1)}J^{(j+1)\mu }+\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda }_\mu \left[A_\nu ^{(i1)}J_\lambda ^{(j)}\right]$$
(76)
We now search for the dual theory. The procedure follows as in the former case. The Euler vector is modified by the presence of interactions; it changes to

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_\mu =K_\mu \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}e_iJ_\mu ^{(i)}$$
(77)
We introduce an auxiliary field $`\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu `$, and we impose that $`\delta \stackrel{~}{a}_\mu =\delta A_\mu ^{(0)}=\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The Lagrange density varies according to $`\delta ^{(1)}=\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu \delta \stackrel{~}{K}^\mu `$, since $`\delta J_\mu ^{(n)}=0`$, as one can verify straightforwardly. Like in the former case, the procedure requires another iteration. The final result is

$$\stackrel{~}{}_D^{(n)}=\stackrel{~}{}^{(n)}\frac{1}{4r_0}\stackrel{~}{K}^\mu \stackrel{~}{K}_\mu $$
(78)
or, explicitly,

$$\stackrel{~}{}_D^{(n)}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}\left(r_i^{}A_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(i)\mu }s_i^{}A_\mu ^{(0)}J^{(i)\mu }\right)\frac{1}{4}\underset{i=0}{\overset{2n}{}}e_i^{}J_\mu ^{(0)}J^{(i)\mu }+_f$$
(79)
where we have set

$$s_i^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{r_0}\underset{l=1}{\overset{i}{}}r_le_{il}\hfill & \text{for }1in\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{1}{r_0}\underset{l=in}{\overset{n}{}}r_le_{il}\hfill & \text{for }n<i2n\hfill \end{array}$$
(80)
and

$$e_i^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{r_0}\underset{l=0}{\overset{i}{}}e_le_{il}\hfill & \text{for }0in\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{1}{r_0}\underset{l=in}{\overset{n}{}}e_le_{il}\hfill & \text{for }n<i2n\hfill \end{array}$$
(81)
In this result, we notice the presence of Thirring-like interactions ith , which are fundamental to maintain the contents of the fermionic sector unchanged go . To see this we examine the dynamics of the fermionic sectors in both theories. The fermionic equation of motion for the first theory is

$$(i/M)\psi =\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}e_iA_\mu ^{(i)}\gamma ^\mu \psi $$
(82)
To eliminate the gauge field, we notice that

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}r_iA_\mu ^{(i)}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}e_iJ_\mu ^{(i)}$$
(83)
We restrict the coupling constants to obey $`e_i=\alpha r_i`$ to get

$$(i/M)\psi =\frac{1}{2}\alpha \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}e_iJ_\mu ^{(i)}\gamma ^\mu \psi $$
(84)
Analogously, the fermionic equation for the dual theory is given by

$$(i/M)\psi =\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}s_i^{}A_\mu ^{(i)}\gamma ^\mu \psi +\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}e_i^{}J_\mu ^{(i)}\gamma ^\mu \psi $$
(85)
We find the equation of motion for the gauge field in the dual model as

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}r_i^{}A_\mu ^{(i)}=\frac{1}{2}\alpha \underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}s_i^{}J_\mu ^{(i)}$$
(86)
The restriction $`e_i=\alpha r_i`$ implies that $`s_i^{}=\alpha r_i^{}`$, and so we can write

$$(i/M)\psi =\frac{1}{2}\alpha \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}e_iJ_\mu ^{(i)}\gamma ^\mu \psi $$
(87)
which is Eq. (84). This result shows that the fermionic sector does not change when one goes from (70) to the dual theory (79).

We can also add fermions in the case $`n\mathrm{}`$. To illustrate this possibility we consider the model

$$\stackrel{~}{}=A_\mu [F(𝒪)]_\nu ^\mu A^\nu A_\mu [G(𝒪)]_\nu ^\mu J^\nu +_f$$
(88)
where $`G`$ is a smooth function similar to $`F`$. We use the gauge embedding procedure to obtain the dual model

$$\stackrel{~}{}_D=A_\mu \left[F(𝒪)\frac{1}{F(0)}F^2(𝒪)\right]_\nu ^\mu A^\nu A_\mu \left[G(𝒪)\frac{1}{F(0)}F(𝒪)G(𝒪)\right]_\nu ^\mu J^\nu \frac{1}{4}J_\mu \left[\frac{1}{F(0)}G^2(𝒪)\right]_\nu ^\mu J^\nu +_f$$
(89)
We notice the presence of the generalized Thirring-like term in the dual theory.

## VI Nonlinear interactions

We now return to the Born-Infeld bi  generalization, which is different from the Proca and Podolsky generalizations. The main ingredient now is nonlinearity, and so we further explore the duality procedure introduced above mixing higher-order derivatives and nonlinearity. Evidently, there are several different possibilities of including nonlinearity in the model introduced in the former Sec. III, but here we consider the case

$$_{NL}^{(n)}=g(A_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(0)\mu })+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}r_iA_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(i)\mu }$$
(90)
where $`g(x)`$ is nonlinear in $`x=A_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(0)\mu }`$. This case does not include nonlinear interactions that involve derivative of the basic field $`A_\mu =A_\mu ^{(0)}`$. The equation of motion is

$$A_\mu ^{(0)}=\frac{1}{g^{}(x)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}r_iA_\mu ^{(i)}$$
(91)
where $`g^{}(x)=dg/dx`$. This equation allows writing

$$^\mu A_\mu ^{(0)}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}r_iA_\mu ^{(i)}^\mu \left(\frac{1}{g^{}(x)}\right)$$
(92)
which shows that there are longitudinal mode propagating, due to the presence of the nonlinear interaction. We notice that in the linear case \[$`g(x)=x`$\] we have $`g^{}=1`$, which leaves no room for propagation of longitudinal modes.

We treat the presence of nonlinearity invoking the trick used in Ref. e3 , and then further explored in e4 ; mnrw . The key point here is to remove the nonlinearity under the expense of introducing another field, an auxiliary scalar field $`\varphi `$. We implement this possibility with the change

$$g(A_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(0)\mu })f(\varphi )+\frac{1}{\varphi }A_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(0)\mu }$$
(93)
We follow mnrw  to show that

$$f(\varphi )=^\varphi 𝑑\chi \frac{1}{\chi ^2}g^1\left(\frac{1}{\chi }\right)$$
(94)
The model is modified to

$$_\varphi ^{(n)}=f(\varphi )+\frac{1}{\varphi }A_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(0)\mu }+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}r_iA_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(i)\mu }$$
(95)
In this case the Euler vector is given by

$$K_\mu =\frac{2}{\varphi }A_\mu ^{(0)}+2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}r_iA_\mu ^{(i)}$$
(96)
The gauge embedding method allows writing

$$_D^{(n)}=_\varphi ^{(n)}\frac{1}{4}\varphi K_\mu K^\mu $$
(97)
and so

$$_D^{(n)}=f(\varphi )\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}r_iA_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(i)\mu }\varphi \underset{i=2}{\overset{2n}{}}\stackrel{~}{r}_iA_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(i)\mu }$$
(98)
where $`\stackrel{~}{r}_i`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{r}_i=\{\begin{array}{cc}\underset{l=1}{\overset{i1}{}}r_lr_{il}\hfill & \text{for }2in\hfill \\ & \\ \underset{l=in}{\overset{n}{}}r_lr_{il}\hfill & \text{for }n<i2n\hfill \end{array}$$
(99)
We notice that in (98) the nonlinear behavior involve all the terms, unless the Chern-Simons one. This fact is clearer when we eliminate the auxiliary field $`\varphi `$ from the model, which is formally given by

$$\varphi =f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(\underset{i=2}{\overset{2n}{}}\stackrel{~}{r}_iA_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(i)\mu }\right)$$
(100)
We illustrate the above investigations with the model

$$_{BI}^{(n)}=\beta ^2\sqrt{1+\frac{2r_0}{\beta ^2}A_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(0)\mu }}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}r_iA_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(i)\mu }$$
(101)
where the nonlinear contribution is of the Born-Infeld type. We notice that the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ restores the original model (25). In this case, the function $`f(\varphi )`$ given by Eq. (94) has the form

$$f(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}\beta ^2\left(r_0\varphi +\frac{1}{r_0\varphi }\right)$$
(102)
We use Eq. (100) to obtain

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{r_0}/\sqrt{1\frac{2}{r_0\beta ^2}\underset{i=2}{\overset{2n}{}}\stackrel{~}{r}_iA_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(i)\mu }}$$
(103)
The gauge embedding procedure given above allows writing

$$_{BID}^{(n)}=\beta ^2\sqrt{1\frac{2}{r_0\beta ^2}\underset{i=2}{\overset{2n}{}}\stackrel{~}{r}_iA_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(i)\mu }}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}r_iA_\mu ^{(0)}A^{(i)\mu }$$
(104)
We see that in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ the above result leads to (37), the dual of the model (25), as expected. We also notice that in the case $`n=1`$ the model (101) reproduces the Born-Infeld-Chern-Simons model investigated in Ref. e3 , and this shows that the model (101) is a generalization of the model investigated in e3 .

## VII Comments and conclusions

In the present work we have investigated duality symmetry in generalized Field Theory models, involving higher-order derivative of the basic field $`A_\mu =A_\mu ^{(0)}`$ through the recursive relation $`A_\mu ^{(n)}=\epsilon _\mu ^{\nu \lambda }_\nu A_\lambda ^{(n1)}`$. The investigations started in Sec. II and in Sec. III, and there we have generalized the self-dual model to include several higher-order derivative terms, and we have obtained the dual theory. We have also proposed a master model, from which one gets both the model and its dual partner. In this generalization, the presence of the CS and CS-like terms imposes the restriction that the Minkowsky space has $`(2,1)`$ spacetime dimensions. However, we can eliminate all the CS and CS-like terms with the restriction $`r_i=0`$ for $`i`$ odd; in this case our results are valid in arbitrary $`(d,1)`$ space-time dimensions. In Sec. III we have also examined the implications of duality at the quantum level. These results are obtained for $`^n`$, for $`n`$ integer, finite, and in Sec. IV we have further extended our results, considering the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$, which leads to the case involving non-polynomial functions.

In the sequel, in Sec. V we have added fermions to the system, and there we have included fermions in models involving $`A_\mu ^{(n)}`$, in the case where $`n`$ is finite, and also for $`n\mathrm{}`$. In Sec. VI we have investigated the more general case, where nonlinear contributions involving the basic field $`A_\mu ^{(0)}`$ is present. As we have shown, in this case we first circumvent nonlinearity at the expense of introducing an auxiliary field, and then we proceed as before, to get to the dual model. After getting to the dual model, we then eliminate the auxiliary field to obtain the dual model in terms of the original field $`A_\mu ^{(0)}`$ and the accompanying derivatives.

We notice that all the generalizations we have investigated involve the Abelian vector field $`A_\mu `$. Thus, a natural and direct issue concerns the use of non-Abelian fields, and their possible generalizations, along the lines of the non-Abelian SD model, and the Yang-Mills-Chern-Simons model e1 . Also, it is of interest to investigate if the presence of bosonic matter changes the duality scenario that we have presented in Sec. V. Another point concerns duality in models of the B$``$F type, and their extensions to include higher-order derivatives. These and other related issues are under consideration, and we hope to report on them in the near future. Another point concerns models which include fermions. As one knows, if there is no fermionic self-interaction, and if one integrates on the fermions, the remaining action will necessarily contain higher-order derivative terms, thus giving another compelling motivation to investigate models involving higher-order derivatives. We hope to report on these and other related issues in another work.

We would like to thank CAPES, CNPq, PROCAD and PRONEX for partial support.