format: text

text:
# Theory of spin relaxation in magnetic resonance force microscopy

## Abstract

We study relaxation of a spin in magnetic resonance force microscopy (MRFM) experiments. We evaluate the relaxation rate for the spin caused by high-frequency mechanical noise of the cantilever under the conditions of adiabatic spin inversion. We find qualitative agreement between the obtained relaxation time and the experimental results of Stipe et al. \[Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 277602 (2001)\]. Based on our analysis, we propose a method for improving the MRFM sensitivity by engineering cantilevers with reduced tip positional fluctuations.

Magnetic resonance force microscopy (MRFM) has proved to be a powerful tool in studying magnetic properties of materials . Unlike conventional magnetic resonance techniques, MRFM allows one to probe magnetization with a nanometer-scale spatial resolution, which is important for practical realization of spintronic  and quantum information processing devices . Measurement of magnetizations produced by several hundreds of electronic magnetic moments has recently been reported . Attempting to reach the single spin resolution, MRFM faces a number of experimental challenges. The observed reduction of the cantilever’s quality factors for small separations between the tip and the sample  and fast spin relaxation  pose a problem in resolving a single spin signal. In this paper we analyze the latter effect. In particular, we study relaxation of a spin in the resonance slice  due to the thermal vibrations of the cantilever. We evaluate the spin relaxation rate and find a reasonable agreement with rates observed experimentally. We also propose that by shape engineering of the cantilever it is possible to filter the high frequency noise thus reducing the spin relaxation.

In this work we consider the experimental setup used in Ref. . One end of the cantilever is fixed, while the other end, to which micron size magnetic particle is attached, is driven to oscillate in a direction normal to the surface of the sample; see Fig. 1. The sample is doped with spin $`1/2`$ magnetic impurities. The smallest flexural-mode eigenfrequency of the cantilever will be denoted by $`\omega _0`$ and the amplitude of the oscillations of the tip by $`z_0`$. In typical MRFM experiments $`\omega _0`$ is several kHz and $`z_00.1`$-30 nm. The motion of the cantilever’s magnetic tip produces an oscillating magnetic field $`𝐁_{\mathrm{tip}}(𝐫,t)`$ at the spatial position $`𝐫`$ at time $`t`$ (the origin is taken as the equilibrium position of the tip). There is an additional constant magnetic field $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ applied normally to the sample, and a linearly polarized microwave magnetic field $`𝐁_1\mathrm{cos}(\omega _{\mathrm{rf}}t)`$ in a direction perpendicular to $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

The magnetic resonance condition is achieved as follows. Let us assume for simplicity that a single impurity spin is positioned at point $`𝐫`$ immediately below the cantilever tip, as shown in Fig. 1. Then, the magnitude of the field produced by the magnetic tip at the spin’s position is $`B_{\mathrm{tip}}(𝐫,t)=B_{\mathrm{tip}}^0(𝐫)+_zB_{\mathrm{tip}}^0(𝐫)z(t)`$, where $`B_{\mathrm{tip}}^0(𝐫)`$ is the field of the tip in equilibrium, $`z(t)`$ is cantilever’s displacement, $`|𝐫|z(t)`$. Let the frequency $`\omega _{\mathrm{rf}}`$ of the microwave field be chosen such that $`g\mu _B|B_{\mathrm{tip}}^0(𝐫)B_0|\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{rf}}`$, where $`g`$ is electronic $`g`$-factor and $`\mu _B`$ is Bohr magneton. Then, in the rotating reference frame that rotates with frequency $`\omega _{\mathrm{rf}}`$ around the normal to the surface , the spin experiences an effective magnetic field (see the inset to Fig. 1)

$$𝐁_{\mathrm{eff}}=_z𝐁_{\mathrm{tip}}^0(𝐫)z(t)+𝐁_1/2.$$
(1)
As a result, the spin precesses around this effective field, thus following the direction of $`𝐁_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, as well as cantilever’s displacement, provided the latter varies with time adiabatically, i.e., $`\omega _0\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}=g\mu _B|𝐁_{\mathrm{eff}}|/\mathrm{}`$. Thereby, the spin direction follows the cantilever motion and the spin exerts an oscillating force on the cantilever’s tip with the amplitude, $`F=\mu _B_zB_{\mathrm{tip}}^0`$. In Ref.  the shift of the cantilever’s frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _0`$ due to the magnetization of the resonant spins has been measured. The signal that corresponds to roughly $`100`$ fully polarized spins was observed to decay on a time scale of $`100`$ ms, thus indicating that the induced magnetization of the resonant spins relaxes due to magnetic fluctuations or “noise” whose origin we will discuss.

In this letter we show that the main source of the noise causing spin relaxation is likely to be related to the cantilever’s thermal vibration. The cantilever displacement can be written as $`z(t)=z_c(t)+\delta z(t)`$, where the first term, $`z_c(t)=z_0\mathrm{cos}(\omega _0t)+z_1`$, is due to the regular (driven) oscillation of the cantilever tip, while $`\delta z(t)`$ is due to the thermal motion of the tip. Here, $`z_1`$ defines the relative position of a spin within the resonant slice ($`|z_1|z_0`$). Substituting the above $`z(t)`$ into Eq. (1) we obtain an effective Hamiltonian for a spin in the rotating frame

$$H=H_0(t)+n(t)s_z,$$
(2)
where $`H_0=g\mu _B[_zB_{\mathrm{tip}}^0z_c(t)s_z+(B_1/2)s_x]`$, $`𝐬`$ is electronic spin, and $`n(t)=g\mu _B_zB_{\mathrm{tip}}^0\delta z(t)`$. In the following analysis we set $`g=2`$ and the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}=1`$, unless stated otherwise. We assume that the noise $`n(t)`$ is Gaussian with the correlation function $`K(t_1t_2)=n(t_1)n(t_2)`$ to be specified below. We derive the Bloch equations for the spin from the dynamics governed by the Hamiltonian (2). We introduce the Keldysh contour and define a real time partition function along the contour as

$$𝒵=𝒯_c\mathrm{exp}\left(i_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}H𝑑t\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}H𝑑t\right),$$
(3)
where $`𝒯_c`$ denotes ordering along the contour . Thus points on the forward branch $`(\mathrm{}\mathrm{})`$ are ordered with increasing times, while points on the return branch $`(\mathrm{}\mathrm{})`$ are ordered with decreasing times. The superscripts $`f`$ and $`r`$ on $`t`$ will indicate to which contour $`t`$ belongs. In Eq. (3) the time ordering operator $`𝒯_c`$ sets operators on the return branch in front of the operators on the forward branch of the contour. The expectation value of an operator $`O(t)`$ ($`O=s_x,s_y,s_z`$) can be obtained by using the partition function $`𝒵`$ as $`O(t)=\mathrm{Tr}\left[𝒯_cO(t^f)𝒵\right]`$, where the trace is taken over the states of the spin and over the distribution of the classical noise $`n(t)`$. Averaging the partition function $`𝒵`$ over the noise under the assumption that the noise is Gaussian, we obtain

$`𝒵_n`$ $`=`$ $`𝒯_ce^{i_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}H_0𝑑t}e^{i_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}H_0𝑑t}`$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}K(t_1t_2)s_z^a(t_2)s_z^a(t_1)𝑑t_1𝑑t_2\right],`$ (5)
where $`s_z^a(t)=s_z^f(t)s_z^r(t)`$. The effective action for the spin defined by Eq. (5) is generally non-local. It can be significantly simplified by introducing the Bloch-Redfield approximation . If the interaction of the system with the noise is weak, one can expect that on a scale of the noise correlation time, $`\tau _c`$, the spin’s evolution will be mostly determined by the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`H_0`$. That is, in the non-local part of the action one can replace $`s_z^a(t_2)`$ by $`\mathrm{exp}[i_{t_1}^{t_2}H_0(\tau )𝑑\tau ]s_z^a(t_1)\mathrm{exp}[i_{t_1}^{t_2}H_0(\tau )𝑑\tau ]`$. The latter operator can be evaluated assuming that $`H_0(\tau )`$ varies adiabatically. By substituting the resulting expression into Eq. (5), the non-local part of the effective action in Eq. (5) can thus be approximated as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }\{\mathrm{cos}\theta [\mathrm{cos}\theta s_z^a(t)+\mathrm{sin}\theta s_x^a(t)]S_n[0]`$ (6)
$`+\mathrm{sin}\theta [\mathrm{sin}\theta s_z^a(t)\mathrm{cos}\theta s_x^a(t)]S_n[\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}(t)]\}dt,`$ (7)
where $`S_n[\omega ]=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}K(t)\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)𝑑t`$ is the power spectrum of the noise $`n(t)`$, $`\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}(t)=g\mu _B\{[_zB_{\mathrm{tip}}^0z_c(t)]^2+B_1^2/4\}^{1/2}`$, and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta =g\mu _BB_1/2\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}(t)`$. In the derivation of Eq. (7) we have assumed that $`\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}/(d\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}/dt)\tau _c`$. The effective action in Eq. (7) is now local and allows for a straightforward derivation of equations of motion for the spin components $`s_{x,y,z}`$. Using $`\dot{s}_{x,y,z}=i[H_{\mathrm{eff}},s_{x,y,z}]`$, where $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is defined by Eqs. (5) and (7), and ordering the operators according to Eq. (3), we obtain a set of Bloch equations for the magnetization components

$`\dot{s}_x=\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}(t)\mathrm{cos}\theta (t)s_y+\beta (t)s_z\alpha (t)s_x,`$ (9)
$`\dot{s}_y=\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}(t)\mathrm{cos}\theta (t)s_x\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}(t)\mathrm{sin}\theta (t)s_z\alpha (t)s_y,`$ (10)
$`\dot{s}_z=\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}(t)\mathrm{sin}\theta (t)s_y.`$ (11)
In Eqs. (Theory of spin relaxation in magnetic resonance force microscopy), terms with coefficients $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ describe relaxation of the magnetization due to noise, $`\alpha (t)=\{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta S_n[0]+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta S_n[\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}(t)]\}/2`$, and $`\beta (t)=\mathrm{sin}2\theta \{S_n[0]S_n[\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}(t)]\}/4`$. By solving the Bloch equations in the adiabatic limit, i.e., by assuming that the coefficients in Eqs. (Theory of spin relaxation in magnetic resonance force microscopy) are slowly varying functions of $`t`$, we find that the component of the magnetization parallel to the effective field decays as

$$|s_{\mathrm{eff}}(t)|\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}_0^t\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (\tau )S_n[\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}(\tau )]𝑑\tau \right\}.$$
(12)
Now we turn to the evaluation of the power spectrum of the magnetic noise produced by the cantilever tip. The magnetic noise is related to the mechanical noise of the tip as $`S_n[\omega ]=(g\mu _B_zB_{\mathrm{tip}}^0)^2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)\delta z(0)\delta z(t)`$. It should be emphasized that we are interested in the mechanical noise of the cantilever at frequencies very high (of order $`\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}`$) compared to the lowest cantilever eigenfrequency $`\omega _0`$. As a consequence of the linearity of mechanical oscillator the high frequency modes of the cantilever will be essentially unaffected by the driving force at frequency $`\omega _0`$; rather it is the thermal driving force that is important.

The energy of the vibrating cantilever can be expressed as $`E_c=_0^l𝑑x[\rho (_tz)^2+EI(_x^2z)^2]/2`$, where $`z(x,t)`$ is the transverse displacement of the cantilever at point $`x`$ and time $`t`$, $`\rho `$ is cantilever’s linear mass-density, $`E`$ and $`I`$ are Young modulus and moment of inertia of the cantilever’s cross-section respectively, and $`l`$ is the cantilever’s length. The equation of motion for the free cantilever is $`\rho _t^2z=EI_x^4z`$ . The general solution to this equation can be written as $`z(x,t)=_nz_n(t)\varphi _n(x)`$, with $`\varphi _n`$’s satisfying the eigenvalue equations for $`\omega _n`$: $`\rho \omega _n^2\varphi _n=EI_x^4\varphi _n`$, supplemented by appropriate boundary conditions . In the eigenfunction basis $`\varphi _n`$, the energy of the cantilever can be expressed in terms of the amplitudes $`z_n`$: $`E_c=_n[m\dot{z}_n^2+m\omega _n^2z_n^2]/2`$, where $`m=\rho l`$ is cantilever mass. Hence, the cantilever can be modeled as a collection of independent oscillators. In thermal equilibrium we then have that $`\delta z_n^{}(\omega )\delta z_n^{}(\omega )=\delta _{n,n^{}}(\pi k_BT/m\omega _n^2)[\delta (\omega _n+\omega )+\delta (\omega _n\omega )]`$, where $`k_BT`$ is the temperature and the delta functions $`\delta (\omega _n\pm \omega )`$ have effective width of order of damping coefficient for the $`n`$-th mode. The magnetic noise power spectrum can be expressed as

$$S_n[\omega ]=(g\mu _B_zB_{\mathrm{tip}}^0)^2_n\varphi _n^2(l)|\delta z_n(\omega )|^2,$$
(13)
where the eigenfunctions $`\varphi _n(x)`$ are normalized, $`_0^l\varphi _n^2(x)𝑑x=l`$. The power spectrum given by Eq. (13) generally represents a set of distinct peaks. However the effective frequency of a spin, $`\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}(t)`$, sweeps over a large number of peaks. Moreover, the form of Eq. (12) indicates that it is the integral characteristics of the spectrum that are relevant for the determination of the spin relaxation rate. Therefore the sum in Eq. (13) can be replaced by the integral, $`_n(n/\omega _n)𝑑\omega _n`$ and the finite width of the delta functions $`\delta (\omega _n\pm \omega )`$ can be neglected. Then, taking into account that for $`n1`$, $`\omega _n=(\pi n/l)^2(EI/\rho )^{1/2}`$, $`\varphi _n^2(l)=4`$, and $`\omega _0=(3.52/l^2)(EI/\rho )^{1/2}`$, see Ref. , Eq. (13) yields the average noise spectral density

$$S_n^{\mathrm{ave}}[\omega ]7.5\frac{(g\mu _B_zB_{\mathrm{tip}}^0)^2k_BT}{m\omega _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}\omega ^{5/2}},$$
(14)
Substitution of Eq. (14) into Eq. (12) gives the spin relaxation rate. For large times, $`t\omega _0^1`$ and for $`_zB_{\mathrm{tip}}^0|z_0\pm z_1|B_1`$, the integral in Eq. (12) can be readily evaluated yielding $`|s_{\mathrm{eff}}(t)|\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau _m)`$, where

$$\frac{1}{\tau _m}\frac{3.4\mu _B_zB_{\mathrm{tip}}^0}{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{k_BT}{k_s\sqrt{z_0^2z_1^2}}\right)\left(\frac{\omega _0}{\omega _1}\right)^{3/2}.$$
(15)
Here we have introduced spring constant $`k_s=m\omega _0^2`$ and $`\omega _1=\mu _BB_1/\mathrm{}`$.

We can now compare the relaxation time given by Eq. (15) with the experimental results of Ref. . For tip-sample separations of $`800`$ nm the gradient of the magnetic field ($`_zB_{\mathrm{tip}}^0`$) was found to be roughly $`1\times 10^5`$ T/m. Taking other experimental parameters from Ref. , we obtain from Eq. (15) the maximum $`\tau _m350`$ ms (for $`z_1=0`$). Spins located away from the center of the resonating region will have shorter relaxation times. This as well as the simplifying theoretical assumptions about the cantilever geometry are likely to be responsible for about five times difference between the theoretical estimate for the longest relaxation time and the experimental results . We also note that because of the relaxation time distribution, measurement of an ensemble of spins is likely to yield a non-exponential MRFM signal decay.

In the mechanism discussed above, the spin relaxation is caused by the thermo-mechanical noise of the high frequency modes of the cantilever tip. This suggests a way to reduce the relaxation rate by engineering the shape of the cantilever to reduce this noise. The simplest approach that we analyze here is to place a massive particle ($`M`$) on the tip. This will effectively filter out frequencies $`\omega _n`$ for which $`n>m/M`$. For such high-frequency modes it is easy to show that $`\varphi _n^2(l)2\sqrt{\rho ^3EI}/(M^2\omega _n)`$. For example, for a particle with $`M=m/10`$ and the same experimental parameters, the relaxation time would increase to $`\tau 5`$ s.

In summary, we have found that high frequency thermo-mechanical noise associated with high frequency modes of the cantilever can induce significant spin relaxation in the magnetic resonance force microscopy, and is a likely reason for the coherent signal loss in the recent high-sensitivity experiments. To reduce the influence of this noise, we have proposed cantilever shape engineering, which can lead to significant enhancement of MRFM sensitivity.

The work was supported by the DARPA MOSAIC program. D.M. was supported, in part, by the US NSF grants ECS-0102500 and DMR-0121146.


text:
# Yang-Mills and Born-Infeld actions on finite group spaces

## 1 Introduction

The base space in a gauge theory is usually a manifold; we consider here a finite group $`G`$ as base space, and the Lie group $`𝒢=U(N)`$ as fiber. One can associate to $`G`$ a “manifold” structure by constructing on $`G`$ a differential calculus. This can be done following the general procedure first studied by Woronowicz  in the noncommutative context of quantum groups. The differential calculus on $`G`$ not only determines the “manifold” $`G`$, but has been proven to be a very useful tool in the formulation of gauge and gravity theories with base space $`G`$ . Following , we here show that given a differential calculus on $`G`$, a Yang-Mills action can be naturally constructed using just geometric objects: differential forms, invariant metric, \*-Hodge operator, Haar measure. We similarly construct a discretized version of Born-Infeld theory. These actions can be generalized  to the case where the base space is $`M^D\times G`$, with $`M^D`$ a continuous $`D`$-dimensional manifold. Then one can study gauge theories on $`M^D`$ that are “Kaluza-Klein” reduced from those on $`M^D\times G`$: one has just to reinterpret the $`M^D\times G`$ gauge action as a new $`M^D`$ one. For example, approximating the circle $`S_1`$ with the cyclic group $`Z_n`$ we obtain on $`M^D`$ a gauge action plus extra scalar fields from a pure gauge action on $`M^D\times Z_n`$. This provides an alternative and different procedure from the usual Kaluza-Klein massive modes truncation in $`M^D\times S_1M^D`$. In some cases one can obtain a Higgs field and potential; a similar mechanism is present in the Connes-Lott standard Model .

Noncommutative structures in string/brane theory have emerged in the last years and are the object of intense research. Our study is in this general context. The noncommutativity we discuss is mild, in the sense that fields commute between themselves (in the classical theory), and only the commutations between fields and differentials, and of differentials between themselves, are nontrivial. This noncommutativity is in a certain sense complementary to the one of $``$ (Moyal)-deformed theories, where (for constant $`\theta `$) only functions do not commute. It is tempting to interpret the product space $`M^D\times G`$ as a bundle of $`n`$ (D-1)-dimensional branes evolving in time, $`n`$ being the dimension of the finite group $`G`$.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we recall some basic facts about the differential geometry of finite groups, and construct those geometric tools needed in Section 3 for the study of Yang-Mills theories. In Section 4 an action for the Born-Infeld theory is presented.

## 2 Differential geometry on finite groups

Let $`G`$ be a finite group of order $`n`$ with generic element $`g`$ and unit $`e`$. Consider $`Fun(G)`$, the set of complex functions on $`G`$. The left and right actions of the group $`G`$ on $`Fun(G)`$ read $`_gf|__g^{}=f(gg^{}),_gf|__g^{}=f(g^{}g)fFun(G).`$ The vectorfields $`t_g`$ on $`G`$ are defined by their action on $`Fun(G)`$: $`t_gf|__g^{}=f(g^{}g)f(g^{})=(_gff)|__g^{}`$, with $`ge`$. They are nonlocal and left-invariant: $`_g^{}(t_gf)=t_g(_g^{}f)`$. We also have $`_g^{}(t_gf)=t_{g^{}gg_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}(_g^{}f)`$. The differential of an arbitrary function $`fFun(G)`$ is then given by

$$df=\underset{ge}{}(t_gf)\theta ^g,$$
(1)
where $`\theta ^g`$ are one-forms; by definition they span the linear space dual to that of the vectorfields $`t_g`$: $`t_g,\theta ^g^{}=\delta _g^g^{}`$. From the Leibniz rule for the differential $`d(fh)=(df)h+f(dh),f,hFun(G)`$, we have that functions do not commute with one-forms:

$$\theta ^gf=(_gf)\theta ^g(ge).$$
(2)
Similarly, left and right invariance of the differential $`_gdf=d(_gf),_gdf=d(_gf)`$ implies that $`\theta ^g`$ are left-invariant one-forms $`_g^{}(\theta ^g)=\theta ^g`$ and that

$$_g^{}(\theta ^g)=\theta ^{g^{}g_{}g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}.$$
(3)
A generic one form $`\rho `$ can always be written in the $`\theta ^g`$ basis as $`\rho =_{ge}f_g\theta ^g`$, with $`f_gFun(G)`$. We have here described the so-called universal differential calculus on $`G`$. Smaller calculi can be obtained setting $`\theta ^g=0`$ for some $`gG`$. Because of (3), the new differential is still left and right invariant iff, given $`\theta ^g=0`$, also $`\theta ^{g^{}gg_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}=0`$. In other words, (bicovariant) differential calculi are in 1-1 correspondence with unions of coniugacy classes of $`G`$.

The algebra $`Fun(G)`$ has a natural \*-conjugation: $`f^{}(g)\overline{f(g)}`$, where $`\overline{^{^{^{}}}}`$ is complex conjugation. This \*-conjugation can be extended to the differential algebra, the reality condition $`(df)^{}=d(f^{})`$ then implying $`(\theta ^g)^{}=\theta ^{g^1}`$. If we set $`\theta ^g=0`$ then the one-forms in both the $`\{\theta ^g\}`$ and the $`\{\theta ^{g^1}\}`$ conjugacy classes should be set to zero.

An exterior product, compatible with the left and right actions of $`G`$, can be defined as (here $``$ by definition satisfies $`\rho f\rho ^{}=\rho f\rho ^{}`$ with $`\rho ,\rho ^{}`$ generic one-forms)

$$\theta ^g\theta ^g^{}=\theta ^g\theta ^g^{}\theta ^{gg^{}g^1}\theta ^g=\theta ^g\theta ^g^{}(_g\theta ^g^{})\theta ^g,(g,g^{}e).$$
(4)
The metric $`<,>`$ maps couples of 1-forms $`\rho ,\sigma `$ into $`Fun(G)`$, and is required $`<,>`$ to satisfy the properties $`<f\rho ,\sigma h>=f<\rho ,\sigma >h,<\rho f,\sigma >=<\rho ,f\sigma >,`$ and to be symmetric on left-invariant one-forms. Up to a normalization the above conditions imply

$$g^{rs}<\theta ^r,\theta ^s>\delta _{s^1}^r.$$
(5)
We can generalize $`<,>`$ to tensor products of left-invariant one-forms as follows:

$$<\theta ^{i_1}\mathrm{}\theta ^{i_k},\theta ^{j_1}\mathrm{}\theta ^{j_k}><\theta ^{i_1},\theta ^{j_1^{}}><\theta ^{i_2},\theta ^{j_k^{}}>\mathrm{}<\theta ^{i_k},\theta ^{j_k}>$$
(6)
where $`j_p^{}=(i_{p+1}i_{p+2}\mathrm{}i_k)j_p(i_{p+1}i_{p+2}\mathrm{}i_k)^1`$, i.e. $`\theta ^{j_p^{}}=R_{i_{p+1}i_{p+2}\mathrm{}i_k}\theta ^{j_p}`$. The pairing (6) is extended to all tensor products by $`<f\rho ,\sigma h>=f<\rho ,\sigma >h`$ where now $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ are generic tensor products of same order. Then, using (2) and (6), one can prove that $`<\rho f,\sigma >=<\rho ,f\sigma >`$ for any function $`f`$. Moreover $`<,>`$ is left and right invariant.

Finally, if there exists a form $`vol`$ of maximal degree, then it can be chosen left-invariant, right-invariant and real. The Hodge dual is then defined by $`\rho \sigma =<\rho ,\sigma >vol`$. It is left linear; if $`vol`$ is central it is also right linear: $`(f\rho h)=f(\rho )h`$.

## 3 Gauge theories on finite groups spaces

The gauge field of a Yang-Mills theory on a finite group $`G`$ is a matrix-valued one-form $`A(g)=A_h(g)\theta ^h`$. The components $`A_h`$ are matrices whose entries are functions on $`G`$, $`A_h=(A_h)_\beta ^\alpha `$, $`\alpha ,\beta =1,\mathrm{}N`$. As in the usual case, $`𝒢`$ gauge transformations are given by

$$A^{}=(dT)T^1+TAT^1,$$
(7)
where $`T(g)=T(g)_\beta ^\alpha `$ is an $`N\times N`$ representation of a $`𝒢`$ group element; its matrix entries belong to $`Fun(G)`$. The 2-form field strength $`F`$ is given by the familiar expression

$$F=dA+AA,$$

and satisfies the Bianchi identity: $`dF+AFFA=0.`$ Note that $`AA0`$ even if the gauge group $`𝒢`$ is abelian. Thus $`U(1)`$ gauge theory on a finite group space looks like a nonabelian theory, a situation occurring also in gauge theories with $``$-product noncommutativity. Under the gauge transformations (7), $`F`$ varies homogeneously: $`F^{}=TFT^1.`$ We also have

$$F=UU,$$
(8)
where $`U_h=1+A_h,U=_{he}U_h\theta ^h=_{he}\theta ^h+A.`$ From (7) we see that also $`U`$ transforms covariantly: $`U^{}=TUT^1.`$ Defining the components $`F_{h,g}`$ as:

$$FF_{h,k}\theta ^h\theta ^k$$
(9)
eq. (8) yields:

$$F_{h,k}=U_h(_hU_k)U_k(_kU_{k^1hk}).$$
(10)
We now have all the geometric tools needed to construct a Yang-Mills action. The Yang-Mills action is the geometrical action quadratic in $`F`$ given by

$$A_{YM}=Tr(FF)=Tr<F,F>vol=\underset{sG}{}Tr<F,F>$$
(11)
the right-hand side being just the Haar measure of the function $`Tr<F,F>`$. Recalling the properties of the pairing $`<,>`$, the proof of gauge invariance of $`Tr<F,F>`$ is immediate: $`Tr<F^{},F^{}>=Tr<TFT^1,TFT^1>=TrT<F,F>T^1=Tr<F,F>.`$

The metric (5) is an euclidean metric (as is seen using a real basis of one-forms) and as usual we require (11) to be real and positive definite. This restricts the gauge group $`𝒢`$ and imposes reality conditions on the gauge potential $`A`$. Positivity of (11) requires $`(Tr<F,F>)0`$. Explicitly $`<F,F>=F_{r,s}<\theta ^r\theta ^s,\theta ^m\theta ^n>_{n^1m^1}F_{m,n}=F_{r,s}_{rs}F_{s^1r^1s,s^1}`$, and therefore

$$Tr<F,F>=(F_{r,s})_\beta ^\alpha (_{rs}F_{s^1r^1s,s^1})_\alpha ^\beta ;$$
(12)
we see that (12) is positive if $`(_{rs}F_{s^1r^1s,s^1})_\alpha ^\beta =(F_{r,s}^{})_\beta ^\alpha `$. This holds if (use (10))

$$U=U^{}\text{i.e}A^{}=A;$$
(13)
here hermitian conjugation on matrix valued one forms $`A`$ (or $`U`$) is defined as:

$$A^{}=(A_h\theta ^h)^{}=(\theta ^h)^{}A_h^{}=\theta ^{h^1}A_h^{}=\theta ^hA_{h^1}^{}=(_hA_{h^1}^{})\theta ^h.$$
(14)
Finally gauge trasformations must preserve antihermiticity of $`A`$, and this is the case if the representation $`T`$ of $`𝒢`$ is unitary. We thus obtain that the action (11) has maximal gauge group $`𝒢=U(N)`$. Notice that writing $`A=(A_h){}_{\beta }{}^{\alpha }\theta _{}^{h}`$, where $`\alpha ,\beta =1,\mathrm{}N`$, the reality condition $`A^{}=A`$ is equivalent to $`\overline{A_h(g)}{}_{\alpha }{}^{\beta }=A_{h^1}(hg)_\beta ^\alpha `$ and is thus not local (not fiberwise). It follows that $`A`$ has values in $`M_{N\times N}(\text{C})`$ and not in the Lie algebra of $`U(N)`$. Nevertheless $`A^{}=A`$ is a good reality condition because it cuts by half the total number of components of $`A`$. This can be seen counting the real components of the antihermitian field $`A`$: they are $`N^2\times n\times d`$, where $`n`$ is the number of points of $`G`$, and the “dimension” $`d`$ counts the number of independent left-invariant one-forms. In conclusion, when $`𝒢=U(N)`$, we have a bona fide pure gauge action, where the number of components of $`A`$ is consistent with the dimension of the gauge group.

The action (11) can be expressed in terms of the link fields $`U_h`$: substituting (9), (10) into (11) leads to: $`A_{YM}=2_GTr[U_kU_k^{}U_hU_h^{}U_k^{}U_h(_hU_k)(_kU_{k^1hk}^{})]`$. We could as well start with a Yang-Mills action on $`M^D\times G`$ and then obtain ($`\mu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{}D`$)

$`A_{YM}={\displaystyle _{M^D\times G}}TrFF={\displaystyle _{M^D}}d^Dx{\displaystyle \underset{G}{}}Tr[F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_\mu U_k(D_\mu U_k)^{}+2U_kU_k^{}U_hU_h^{}2U_k^{}U_h(_hU_k)(_kU_{k^1hk}^{})]`$
This action describes a Yang-Mills theory on $`M^D`$ minimally coupled to the scalar fields $`U_g`$, with a nontrivial quartic potential.

## 4 Born-Infeld theory on finite group spaces

Due to space limitations we only consider here a Born-Infeld action on abelian finite group space $`G`$. In the commutative case we have $`A_{BI}=_{M^D}d^Dx\sqrt{det(\delta _{\mu \nu }+F_{\mu \nu })}.`$ The analogue of $`\delta _{\mu \nu }+F_{\mu \nu }`$ becomes simply $`E_{g,h}\delta _{g,h^1}+iF_{g,h}`$ (the $`i`$ is because a constant $`F_{g,h}`$ is an antihermitian matrix if $`g=g^1`$ and $`h=h^1`$). The matrix $`E_{g,h}`$ transforms under $`U(N)`$ gauge variations in the same way as $`F_{g,h}`$: $`E_{g,h}^{}=TE_{g,h}R_{gh}T^1`$. We need now a gauge covariant definition of determinant for a matrix transforming as $`E_{g,h}`$. We define

$`\underset{G}{det}E_{g,h}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{g_1,\mathrm{},g_p}E_{g_1,h_1}(_{g_1h_1}E_{g_2,h_2})(_{g_1h_1g_2h_2}E_{g_3,h_3})\mathrm{}`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{}(_{g_1h_1g_2h_2\mathrm{}g_{p1}h_{p1}}E_{g_p,h_p})ϵ^{h_1,\mathrm{},h_p}`$
$``$ $`ϵ^{g_1,\mathrm{},g_p}E_{g_1,h_1,g_2,h_2,\mathrm{},g_p,h_p}ϵ^{h_1,\mathrm{},h_p},`$
where $`ϵ^{h_1,\mathrm{},h_p}`$ is the usual antisymmetric epsilon tensor (this definition can be generalized to the case of nonabelian $`G`$ ). Then one can prove that $`det_GE_{g,h}^{}=Tdet_GE_{g,h}T^1.`$ This determinant is also real and the discrete Born-Infeld action reads

$$A_{BI}^G=_GTr\sqrt{\underset{G}{det}(\delta _{g,h^1}+iF_{g,h})}vol=\underset{G}{}Tr\sqrt{\underset{G}{det}(\delta _{g,h^1}+iF_{g,h})}.$$

## References


text:
# Lattice Dynamics and Melting of a Nonequilibrium Pattern

## Abstract

We present a new description of nonequilibrium square patterns as a harmonically coupled crystal lattice. In a vertically oscillating granular layer, different transverse normal modes of the granular square-lattice pattern are observed for different driving frequencies ($`f_d`$) and accelerations. The amplitude of a mode can be further excited by either frequency modulation of $`f_d`$ or reduction of friction between the grains and the plate. When the mode amplitude becomes large, the lattice melts (disorders), in accord with the Lindemann criterion for melting in two-dimensions.

Systems driven away from thermodynamic equilibrium often form patterns when forced beyond a critical threshold. Close to this bifurcation, the dynamics of the nonequilibrium patterns are well described by partial differential equations called amplitude equations, whose forms are universal Cross and Hohenberg (1993). However, these equations lose predictive power for larger forcing. As an alternative description of patterns, Umbanhowar et al. Umbanhowar et al. (1996) conjectured that interacting localized structures, “atoms” of the patterns, could be the building blocks of spatially extended patterns. In this Letter, we demonstrate that this speculation was correct: we describe and predict the behavior of a pattern in a particular system by treating it as a finite number of interacting elements. Such an approach can replace the description of patterns by partial differential equations with a possibly simpler description based on a finite set of coupled ordinary differential equations.

We use a well-known pattern forming system, a thin layer of oscillated granular material. We show that the dynamics (including all oscillatory motions and disordered states) of square patterns are analogous to the dynamics of a discrete lattice of harmonically coupled elements. The descriptive and predictive power of such a framework is especially useful for the patterns formed in granular materials because the governing equations are only now being rigorously tested gra , and the exact forms of the amplitude equations are not yet established.

Experiment. A layer of $`0.17`$ mm diameter bronze spheres was oscillated vertically in an evacuated cell at driving frequency $`f_d`$ with non-dimensional peak plate acceleration $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=A(2\pi f_d)^2/g`$, where $`A`$ is the amplitude of the plate oscillation and $`g`$ is the gravitational acceleration. For the layer depth studied (4 particle diameters), square patterns formed for $`2.5<\mathrm{\Gamma }<4.0`$ and $`f_d<36`$ Hz. The granular surface was imaged using low angle illumination that created bright regions at the peaks Melo et al. (1995). The scattered light was collected by a $`256\times 256`$ pixel CCD camera.

Lattice pattern. The square patterns, illustrated in Fig. 1(a), oscillate subharmonically at $`f_d/2`$; after each plate oscillation, a peak becomes a crater. At the phase in the plate oscillation cycle when the pattern amplitude is maximum, the pattern is composed of an array of peaks arranged in a square lattice connected by a network of thin lines of particles. At maximum amplitude each peak typically contains several hundred particles. Images are collected at this phase in the cycle. In the dark regions between the peaks, there are almost no grains. Thus, when strobed at $`f_d/2`$, the pattern resembles a two-dimensional (2D) square crystal lattice made of discrete elements separated by lattice constant $`a`$. In this paper, we only consider the motion of the lattice pattern strobed at $`f_d/2`$.

Lattice oscillation. We will now show that the lattice analogy is more than superficial: the square patterns also exhibit the dynamics of a coupled lattice. In general, the center of mass of each peak (lattice element) oscillates around its equilibrium (time-averaged) lattice site. We find that for a range of control parameters, the oscillation is periodic; a particular example is illustrated in Fig. 1(b) and (c). The peaks in a row at an angle $`\pi /4`$ to the natural lattice direction maintain a constant separation of $`\sqrt{2}a`$ as they oscillate. Such an oscillation of the pattern is analogous to a single excited transverse normal mode in the (1,1) direction of a 2D crystal lattice. We find that all periodic motions of the lattice resemble $`(1,1)_T`$ modes (or the degenerate $`(1,1)_T`$), with different wavevectors and oscillation frequencies.

Dispersion relation. The evidence that the granular lattice behaves like a discrete coupled lattice is provided by the dispersion relation shown in Fig. 2(a). Since the lattice dynamics is in general more complicated than the periodic oscillation of a single mode shown in Fig. 1, the dynamical behavior is determined from the three-dimensional discrete Fourier transform of a time series of images, giving $`\stackrel{~}{I}(k_x,k_y,f_L)`$. Only certain values of oscillation frequencies $`f_L`$ and wavevectors $`(k_x,k_y)`$ contain power ($`|\stackrel{~}{I}|^2`$), and these combinations yield the dispersion relation for the lattice in the $`(1,1)_T`$ (or the degenerate $`(1,1)_T`$) direction mod .

As a first approximation to the unknown 2D potential between the lattice elements, following Kittel Kittel (1986), we assume that the modes can be decoupled in different crystal directions. Since we observe only the $`(1,\pm 1)_T`$ modes, we compare the data to a 1D lattice model in which we assume that the transverse motion of each $`(1,1)`$ row is harmonically coupled to its nearest $`(1,1)`$ neighbors. As shown in Fig. 2(a), the measured dispersion relation is well described by the dispersion relation of the 1D lattice model with $`f_L=f_{BZ}|\mathrm{sin}(ka/(2\sqrt{2})|`$, where $`f_{BZ}`$ is the frequency at the edge of the Brillouin zone (proportional to the square root of the ratio of effective spring constant to the effective mass of a $`(1,1)`$ row), $`a`$ the lattice constant, and $`k`$ is the magnitude of a wavevector in the $`(1,1)`$ direction Louck (1962). We have found that for a wide range of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`f_d`$, the measured dispersion relations are fit well by the harmonically coupled lattice model; as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`f_d`$ are changed, $`f_{BZ}`$ varies between $`1.5`$ Hz and $`2.5`$ Hz, an order of magnitude smaller than $`f_d`$.

Excitation of normal modes. We have demonstrated that lattice dynamics describes the square patterns; therefore, we can view the periodic oscillations of the pattern as individually excited normal modes. In two ranges of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`f_d`$, the oscillation of the pattern becomes very intense (Fig. 3). The two regions are characterized by excitation of specific normal modes: In region I, the power is dominant in the mode at the edge of the $`(1,1)`$ Brillouin zone, $`k=k_{BZ}=2\pi /(\sqrt{2}a)`$, while in region II, the power is dominant in a mode near the middle of the Brillouin zone. We do not know why these particular modes are excited. Away from the two regions of excitation, the lattice is nearly stationary, with small amplitude oscillations of the lattice elements around the equilibrium sites. In these quiescent regions, the total power is small and is roughly independent of the mode number: the lattice acts as if it is in contact with a thermal bath.

Defect formation. In a real crystal lattice, if the amplitude of the oscillations is large enough, defects form and melting occurs. We see the analogous effect in the square pattern lattice: near region II, the single mode oscillations are large enough to locally break the lattice and form defects, which either remain in the lattice or travel through the crystal and annihilate at the boundary. Thus, in region II the patterns do not display perfect long range order.

The defect creation rate can be enhanced by resonantly exciting a specific normal mode, as shown in Fig. 4(a). We achieve this by a slow frequency modulation of the layer oscillation: the signal applied to the container has the form $`y=A\mathrm{sin}(2\pi f_dt+\frac{f_{ms}}{f_{mr}}\mathrm{sin}2\pi f_{mr}t)`$, where $`f_d`$ is modulated at a rate $`f_{mr}`$ with a modulation span $`f_{ms}`$. The lattice responds to the frequency modulation by oscillating in a $`(1,1)_T`$ normal mode with a frequency of exactly $`f_{mr}/2`$, and the strength of the response increases as $`f_{ms}`$ increases. Several hundred oscillations after the modulation is turned on, the amplitude of the excited mode becomes quite large, and a few defects are created as the mode locally shears the lattice apart.

Friction and melting. To further increase the rate of defect formation, we have reduced the friction between the particles and between the particles and the plate by adding approximately $`0.2\text{grams}`$ of graphite powder to the $`60\text{grams}`$ of freshly washed particles. This results in enhanced defect formation within the lattice near region II even without frequency modulation of the container san ; frequency modulation of these particles fully melts the pattern (see Fig. 4(b)), creating a disordered liquid-like pattern in which lattice elements are no longer confined to oscillate near their equilibrium positions. We hypothesize that the friction controls the mode amplitude by damping the in-plane sliding motion of the peaks against the container bottom.

In the experiments we cannot vary the friction in a controlled way, but this can be done in molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. We previously found that an MD code for inelastic hard spheres yielded square patterns like those in Fig. 1(a) Bizon et al. (1998). With a friction coefficient $`\mu =0.5`$, the spatial patterns and their wavelengths obtained from MD simulations were in good accord with the experiments for a wide range of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`f_d`$. We find that melting in the MD simulation occurs rapidly when the friction coefficient between the grains and the plate is reduced to zero, as Fig. 4(c) illustrates. In this melting process the correlation length of the pattern $`\xi `$ decreases from about $`5a`$ to $`2a`$ (see inset of Fig. 5). ($`\xi `$ was obtained by fitting an exponential to the envelope of the azimuthal average of the 2D autocorrelation function.) After reaching a minimum in about 30 plate oscillations, $`\xi `$ oscillates about $`2a`$ as defects continue to appear and disappear in the liquid-like pattern. Since the melting of the granular lattice is driven by the growth of the single excited mode, we cannot compare our observations with the well-known 2D melting theory of Halperin and Nelson Halperin and Nelson (1978), which requires uniform (thermal) heating of all modes.

Lindemann melting criterion. In simulations of 2D crystalline lattices, melting has been found to occur when the Lindemann ratio, $`\gamma _M=|u_mu_n|^2/a^2`$, exceeds 0.1 Bedanov et al. (1985); Zheng and Earnshaw (1998); here $`u`$ denotes displacements of atoms from lattice sites, and the average is taken over all nearest neighbors $`m`$ and $`n`$. The time evolution of $`\gamma _M`$ computed for the granular lattice for different values of $`\mu `$ is shown in Fig. 5. We find that the lattice melts ($`\xi `$ reaches its plateau region) when $`\gamma _M`$ increases through the value of $`0.1`$, just as in 2D crystals. For $`\mu =0.5`$, the amplitude of the excited mode is too small for the lattice to melt, while for $`\mu =0.1`$, the pattern oscillates with increasing amplitude until local melting events disrupt the long-range order (Fig. 5)—such behavior is analogous to the dynamics seen in the experiment near the peak of region II. Thus, the Lindemann ratio can be used as a predictive criterion for the loss of order in the square patterns.

Conclusions. We have shown a close correspondence between the square patterns in a vibrated granular layer and a discrete set of harmonically coupled elements in a 2D lattice. The applicability of the Lindemann criterion in the nonequilibrium system further confirms the utility of the lattice dynamics framework. In addition, we conjecture that the stability exhibited by the nonequilibrium granular lattice pattern is an example of the “generalized rigidity” typically found in equilibrium lattice systems and discussed by Anderson Anderson and Stein (1997). Whether such concepts and predictive criteria can be applied to other nonequilibrium systems is an open question. For example, it would be interesting to see if other nonequilibrium patterns that display excited modes oth  exhibit a dispersion relation and a melting scenario like that we have observed. Finally, we note that our observations of the effect of friction on melting of the lattice could help guide the development of kinetic and hydrodynamic theory of granular media, where the role of friction is not well understood.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Paul Umbanhowar for helpful suggestions. This work was supported by the Engineering Research Program of the Office of Basic Energy Sciences of the U.S. Department of Energy under grant number DE-FG03-93ER14312.


text:
# On the Boundary Dynamics of Chern-Simons Gravity

## 1 Introduction and Discussion

In this paper we revisit the issue of ‘boundary dynamics’ in three-dimensional gravity. The main goal is to uncover the universal nature of a natural set of boundary conditions and to give a completely general, covariant and off-shell derivation of the corresponding boundary action. In particular, we find that the target space of the boundary theory sigma model is equal to the model geometry of the bulk gravity theory, e.g. the boundary action of asymptotically de Sitter gravity is a Wess-Zumino-Witten model with target space three-dimensional de Sitter space $`dS_3`$, etc. Furthermore, we are able to give a somewhat unified discussion of other results in this field.

It is well known  that asymptotically Anti-de Sitter (AdS) gravity has an infinite-dimensional algebra of asymptotic symmetries which is a Virasoro algebra with a non-trivial classical central charge (and likewise for de Sitter (dS) space ). This fits in neatly with the $`AdS_3/CFT_2`$ correspondence based on string theory on $`AdS_3`$ and its holographically dual CFT - see e.g. .

On the other hand, three-dimensional gravity can be formulated  as a Chern-Simons gauge theory ,111See  for a derivation of the asymptotic Virasoro algebra in this context. and this provides an (a priori different) relation between (A)dS gravity and CFT, manifested e.g. in the fact that Chern-Simons theory (quite generally) induces a chiral Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) model on the boundary . Beginning with the work of , attempts have been made to attribute a dynamical origin to this conformal symmetry purely within three-dimensional gravity, by relating this Virasoro algebra, along the lines of , to a boundary conformal field theory obtained by a suitable restriction of the (topological) bulk gravitational dynamics to the boundary. This ‘boundary dynamics’ is typically a Liouville theory obtained as a constrained WZW model from the on-shell value of the gravitational action, the constraints arising from the asymptotic boundary conditions.

This boundary Liouville action undoubtedly captures certain aspects of the gravitational dynamics - see e.g.  for discussions in the gravity context and  for the emergence of Liouville theory in the so-called long string sector of string theory on $`AdS_3`$. But the overall significance of this boundary action for three-dimensional quantum gravity has remained somewhat unclear. In particular, there appears to be some controversy between the general relativity and string theory camps regarding the relation of the boundary action to a holographic description of three-dimensional gravity. For a clear discussion of these issues from a string theory perspective see  \- for a different point of view see e.g. the discussion in .

We believe that this unsatisfactory state of affairs is in part due to the fact that the standard derivations of the boundary action, as described in  for AdS and in  for dS gravity, are rather non-covariant (requiring detailed assumptions about the asymptotics of the fields, the boundary, special choices of coordinates and/or gauge conditions), and make use of the bulk (and boundary) equations of motion. The latter, in particular, makes it difficult to assess the significance of the boundary action for three-dimensional quantum gravity.

In this note we provide a complementary approach to the the standard derivations of the boundary action. We will study Chern-Simons theory with a complex $`G_C`$  or a real $`G\times G`$ gauge group on an arbitrary three-manifold with boundary. This includes Lorentzian and Euclidean (anti-) de Sitter (E/A)dS gravity, with $`G=SU(2)`$ or $`G=SU(1,1)SL(2,R)`$ the ‘Lorentz’ group of local frame rotations. We will show that there is a canonical choice of boundary terms, fixed uniquely by the requirement that the complete bulk plus boundary action be $`G`$-invariant plus the requirement that half of the gauge fields are fixed on the boundary. In particular, in the gravitational context the former is just the requirement of invariance under local frame rotations, a natural requirement as this gauge symmetry is an artefact of the dreibein formulation of gravity, while the latter is compatible with the structure of asymptotically (E/A)dS gravity.

We will show that this choice of boundary terms leads to an unambiguous, fully covariant and gauge invariant, off-shell derivation of the boundary action, which turns out to be a $`G_C/G`$ or $`G`$ WZW model, coupled in a gauge invariant way to the boundary value of the gauge fields which act as sources for the currents of the WZW model. This coupling is such that, if these boundary gauge fields were to be treated as dynamical fields (in our approach they are not), then these actions would describe topological field theories, either the standard $`G/G`$ models  or novel “$`(G_C/G)/G`$” models, presumably related to the fusion rules of the $`G_C/G`$ WZW model.

In particular, for (E/A)dS gravity, in each case the boundary action is a WZW model with target space the space(time) $`(E/A)dS_3`$ itself, i.e. the string theory sigma model with the NS target space B-field required by conformal invariance. E.g. for $`AdS_3`$ this is a WZW model with target space $`SU(1,1)SL(2,R)`$, and this reproduces the result of , where the $`SL(2,R)`$ WZW model appears at an intermediate step in the derivation of Liouville theory. But we believe that in their present generality the results are new, and that our general derivation provides a novel perspective and clarifies the role of the boundary action.

For example, we do not see any obvious decoupling of the bulk and boundary theories for quantities other than the bulk partition function, and our derivation shows very clearly that the complete bulk gravitational dynamics (including bulk correlation functions) is not captured by the boundary dynamics alone but by the combined bulk plus boundary action. We are thus not making any claims about a potentially dual two-dimensional field theory and about the holographic degrees of freedom.

Our result is also reminiscent of a worldsheet for worldsheet mechanism . To further develop and strengthen this possible analogy between the target space of our boundary action and the base space of our quantum gravity theory one would need to study the Wilson lines of Chern-Simons gravity and the corresponding boundary operator insertions.

We also want to emphasise that the present derivation circumvents what is perhaps the least attractive feature of the standard derivations - the necessity to combine two chiral WZW models into a non-chiral WZW model by using the boundary equations of motion.222In the case of dS gravity  this procedure is moreover ambiguous, leading to either an $`SL(2,C)/SU(2)`$ or an $`SL(2,C)/SU(1,1)`$ WZW model - clearly very different theories. In our derivation, this recombination is automatic and off-shell due to the Polyakov-Wiegman identities (the relevant Polyakov-Wiegman term being provided by the boundary term which ensures $`G`$-invariance of the action).

We close this Introduction with some comments on other related work.

Of all the articles on the boundary dynamics of three-dimensional gravity,  is perhaps the one closest in spirit to the present work. We will discuss the relation between  and our work in Section 2.4. In  (see  for related work) the $`SL(2,C)/SU(2)`$ boundary WZW model is also interpreted as a sigma model with $`EAdS_3`$ target space without taking the Liouville limit. However, the derivation of the boundary action follows the procedure in , and thus suffers from the same shortcomings we discussed above. Moreover, our conclusions regarding the role of the boundary action are rather different. In , on the basis of the absence of local degrees of freedom in Chern-Simons theory, it is claimed that asymptotically EAdS gravity is equivalent to the dynamics of the boundary WZW model. As emphasised above, our present off-shell analysis strongly suggests that this is not the case at the quantum level. We agree with the analysis of Martinec  of these issues (but see ).

The rest of the paper consists of Section 2 in which we present the derivation and describe the significance of our boundary terms and Section 3 wherein the properties of these actions, in particular of the coset WZW models, are described. In the Appendix we present our conventions for three-dimensional gravity, Chern-Simons and WZW theories.

## 2 Boundary Terms for Chern-Simons Gravity

### 2.1 Chern-Simons theory with gauge group $`G_C`$ or $`G\times G`$

We will consider Chern-Simons theory with gauge group $`G_C`$, the complexification of a (not necessarily compact) real Lie group $`G`$, or with gauge group $`G\times G`$, on a three-manifold $`M`$ with boundary $`M=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We are interested in the odd (imaginary for $`G_C`$) part

$`I_{CS}[A,\overline{A}]=I_{CS}[A]I_{CS}[\overline{A}]`$ (1)
of the Chern-Simons action

$`I_{CS}[A]={\displaystyle _M}\text{tr}(AdA+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}A^3),`$ (2)
where, for $`G_C`$, $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ are $`G_C`$-connections related by hermitian conjugation (see Appendix A.1), and, for $`G\times G`$, independent $`G`$-connections.

It is well known  that (modulo boundary terms, which will be the main focus of our discussion later on) this action for $`G=SU(2)`$ or $`G=SU(1,1)SL(2,R)`$ is (proportional to) the Palatini action for Euclidean or Lorentzian three-dimensional gravity with a positive or negative cosmological constant or, in other words, (Euclidean) (anti-) de Sitter (E/A)dS gravity (see Appendix A.3). This is summarized in the table below:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & & \\ & G_C=SL(2,C)& G\times G\\ & & \\ & & \\ G=SU(2)\hfill & \text{EAdS}& \text{EdS}\\ & & \\ G=SU(1,1)\hfill & \text{dS}& \text{AdS}\\ & & \end{array}`$ (6)
In each case the model target space geometry $`(E/A)dS_3`$ can be realised as $`G_C/G`$ or $`(G\times G)/GG`$ respectively, e.g. $`EAdS_3SL(2,C)/SU(2)H^3`$ or $`AdS_3(SU(1,1)\times SU(1,1))/SU(1,1)SU(1,1)`$, and $`G`$ is the (Euclidean or Lorentzian) tangent space group.

The even (real) part $`I_{CS}[A]+I_{CS}[\overline{A}]`$ of the Chern-Simons action gives rise to the so-called ‘exotic’ action for three-dimensional gravity , involving a Chern-Simons action for the spin connection. Classically, for the vacuum Einstein equations, the ordinary Palatini action and this action are equivalent. But when following the usual minimal coupling prescription for matter, in the case of the exotic action the torsion is determined by the energy-momentum and the curvature by the spin-density, the opposite of what happens for the Palatini action. For this reason, we will not consider this action in the following.

### 2.2 $`G`$-invariance

We now turn to a discussion of boundary terms appropriate for describing the boundary dynamics of Chern-Simons gravity. As discussed in the Introduction, it is natural to require that even on a manifold with boundary the action be invariant under local Lorentz transformations (tangent space rotations) - these are an artefact of the vielbein formulation of gravity and bulk Lorentz invariance should not interfere with the boundary degrees of freedom. More generally this amounts to demanding strict invariance under gauge transformations taking values in $`GG_C`$ or in the diagonal subgroup $`GG\times G`$.

$`G_C`$ or $`G\times G`$ gauge transformations act on $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ as (see Appendix A.1)

$`A`$ $``$ $`A^gg^1Ag+g^1dg`$ (7)
$`\overline{A}`$ $``$ $`\overline{A}^{\overline{g}}\overline{g}^1\overline{A}\overline{g}+\overline{g}^1d\overline{g},`$ (8)
with $`g=\overline{g}`$ iff $`g`$ takes values in $`G`$. The Chern-Simons action transforms as

$`I_{CS}[A^g]=I_{CS}[A]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _M}\text{tr}(g^1dg)^3+{\displaystyle \text{tr}(Adgg^1)}`$ (9)
($`=_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) and hence under $`G`$-transformations ($`g=\overline{g}`$) the action $`I_{CS}[A,\overline{A}]`$ transforms as

$`I_{CS}[A^g,\overline{A}^g]=I_{CS}[A,\overline{A}]+{\displaystyle \text{tr}(A\overline{A})}dgg^1`$ (10)
(we will analyse the behaviour under general gauge transformations in Section 3.1). In particular, the WZ (winding number) term drops out.333Therefore there is no quantization condition on the Chern-Simons coupling constant - which is why we have not worried about the normalization of the Chern-Simons action in (2). It is clear that this variation can be cancelled by the gauge variation of the boundary term $`\text{tr}(A\overline{A})`$, because

$`{\displaystyle \text{tr}(A^g\overline{A}^g)}={\displaystyle \text{tr}(A\overline{A})}+{\displaystyle \text{tr}(A\overline{A})}dgg^1+{\displaystyle \text{tr}(g^1dgg^1dg)}`$ (11)
and the last term is a total derivative and hence zero.

Thus the most general $`G`$-invariant gravitational action takes the form

$`I_{inv}[A,\overline{A}]=I_{CS}[A,\overline{A}]{\displaystyle \text{tr}(A\overline{A})}+{\displaystyle (A,\overline{A})},`$ (12)
where $`(A,\overline{A})`$ is a $`G`$-invariant functional of the boundary fields. Excluding higher-derivative terms, such a functional can only be algebraic and quadratic in $`A\overline{A}`$.

We note in passing that the requirement of $`G`$-invariance can only be satisfied in the special case $`k=0`$ of the general two-parameter family  of actions

$`(k+is)I_{CS}[A]+(kis)I_{CS}[\overline{A}]`$ (13)
for $`G_C`$ (and likewise for $`G\times G`$), precisely the case we have been considering. This is obvious from the above discussion because for a general linear combination of Chern-Simons actions the Wess-Zumino (or winding number) term in (9) will not disappear in the gauge variation, and this term cannot be cancelled by a local functional of the boundary gauge fields.

This also has an explanation in the language of geometric quantization. For $`k0`$ the prequantum line bundle is non-trivial, and hence gauge transformations are necessarily implemented on wave functions with a non-trivial cocycle. $`G`$-invariance of the action, on the other hand, means that the $`G`$-action is implemented trivially on the wave functions as $`\psi (A)\psi (A^g)`$. Using the formalism of  it can indeed be checked that the prequantum operator determined by our choice of boundary terms reduces to the standard (trivial) generator of gauge transformations on functions of $`A`$ for gauge transformations taking values in $`G`$.

### 2.3 Boundary conditions and boundary terms

It comes as a pleasant surprise that this choice of boundary terms, arising from the requirement of $`G`$-invariance, is compatible with the structure of asymptotically (EA)dS gravity where it is known that the natural boundary conditions are such that either $`A_z`$ and $`\overline{A}_{\overline{z}}`$ or $`A_{\overline{z}}`$ and $`\overline{A}_z`$ are fixed on the Euclidean boundary (and likwise for AdS). Indeed, as we will now show, these two requirements together uniquely determine the boundary terms.

The action appropriate for fixing either $`(A_z,\overline{A}_{\overline{z}})`$ or $`(A_{\overline{z}},\overline{A}_z)`$ on the boundary is (cf. (65))

$`I^\pm [A,\overline{A}]`$ $`=`$ $`I_{CS}^\pm [A]I_{CS}^{}[\overline{A}]`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`I_{CS}[A,\overline{A}]\pm {\displaystyle A_zA_{\overline{z}}}\pm {\displaystyle \overline{A}_{\overline{z}}\overline{A}_z}.`$
Regardless of the boundary condition we denote the corresponding boundary value of the gauge field by $`B=(B_z,B_{\overline{z}})`$, so that for the two actions we have

$`I^+:`$ $`A_z|_M=B_z\overline{A}_{\overline{z}}|_M=B_{\overline{z}}`$ (15)
$`I^{}:`$ $`\overline{A}_z|_M=B_zA_{\overline{z}}|_M=B_{\overline{z}}.`$ (16)
Note that, for $`G_C`$, the connection $`B`$, even though assembled from the $`G_C`$ connections $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$, is actually a $`G`$-connection, i.e. (see Appendix A.1) it satisfies $`B=\overline{B}`$,

$`B=A_zdz+\overline{A}_{\overline{z}}d\overline{z}=\overline{B}`$ (17)
and likewise for $`B=(\overline{A}_z,A_{\overline{z}})`$.

The $`G_C`$ gauge transformations on $`B`$ inherited from the bulk gauge transformations acting on $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ is

$`I^+:`$ $`B=A_zdz+\overline{A}_{\overline{z}}d\overline{z}A_z^gdz+\overline{A}_{\overline{z}}^{\overline{g}}d\overline{z}`$ (18)
$`I^{}:`$ $`B=\overline{A}_zdz+A_{\overline{z}}d\overline{z}\overline{A}_z^{\overline{g}}dz+A_{\overline{z}}^gd\overline{z},`$ (19)
e.g.

$`B=A_zdz(A_zdz)^{}A_z^gdz(A_z^gdz)^{}.`$ (20)
for $`G=SU(2)`$ (see Appendix A.1). We will write this as

$`BB^{(g,\overline{g})}`$ (21)
and need to keep in mind that only for $`g`$ taking values in $`GG_C`$ this reduces to the standard gauge transformation $`BB^g`$ of a $`G`$ gauge field,

$`B^{(g,g)}=B^g.`$ (22)
This is precisely the extension of the action of the gauge group $`𝒢=\text{Map}(\mathrm{\Sigma },G)`$ to $`𝒢_C`$ on the space $`𝒜`$ of $`G`$ gauge fields (with the quotient $`𝒜/𝒢_C`$ essentially the finite-dimensional moduli space of flat connections by the Narasimhan-Seshadri theorem) that one also encounters in the geometric quantization of $`G_C`$ Chern-Simons theory  and that arises here very concretely and naturally.

For the corresponding statements in the $`G\times G`$ case, see Section 3.3.

To the action $`I^\pm [A,\overline{A}]`$ we are still free to add any (local) functional of the boundary gauge field $`B`$. It is straightforward to see that there is precisely one such term which makes the action $`G`$-invariant, i.e. compatible with the structure of $`I_{inv}[A,\overline{A}]`$ we determined above, namely $`2\text{tr}B_zB_{\overline{z}}`$.

Thus our desiderata have uniquely determined the action which we will consider to be

$`I_{tot}^\pm [A,\overline{A}]`$ $`=`$ $`I^\pm [A,\overline{A}]2{\displaystyle \text{tr}B_zB_{\overline{z}}}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`I_{CS}[A,\overline{A}]{\displaystyle \text{tr}(A\overline{A})}\pm {\displaystyle \text{tr}(A_z\overline{A}_z)(A_{\overline{z}}\overline{A}_{\overline{z}})}.`$
This shows that the two possibilities for $`(A,\overline{A})`$ compatible with the boundary conditions are $`(A,\overline{A})=\pm \text{tr}(A_z\overline{A}_z)(A_{\overline{z}}\overline{A}_{\overline{z}})`$ respectively. The above action, as we have written it, is imaginary for $`G_C`$. We find it more convenient to keep this in mind than to clutter subsequent equations with explicit factors of $`i=\sqrt{1}`$.

As we will see, Chern-Simons theory with this choice of boundary terms has several attractive features. In particular, by construction, it is strictly $`G`$-invariant. We can thus anticipate the appearance of $`G_C/G`$ or $`(G\times G)/G`$ cocycles when studying the behaviour of our gravitational action (or wave functions) under general gauge transformations.

### 2.4 Gravitational interpretation

The above construction works for any $`G`$, but it is instructive to look at the meaning of the boundary terms in the gravitational context or, for general $`G`$, in the ‘gravitational parametrisation’

$`A=\omega +\eta e,\overline{A}=\omega \eta e,`$ (24)
where $`\omega `$ is a $`G`$-connection and $`e`$ is a one-form in the adjoint of $`G`$, which are, of course, to be identified with the spin-connection and dreibein in the gravitational context. Here $`\eta =i`$ for $`G_C`$ (so that $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ are related by hermitian conjugation) and $`\eta =1`$ for $`G\times G`$ (so that $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ are independent $`G`$-connections).

In terms of $`(\omega ,e)`$, the Chern-Simons action is

$`I_{CS}[A,\overline{A}]=4\eta {\displaystyle \text{tr}(ed\omega +e\omega \omega +\eta ^2\frac{1}{3}e^3)}+2\eta {\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\text{tr}e\omega .`$ (25)
Clearly the bulk part of the action (proportional to the Palatini action $`I[e,\omega ]`$) is invariant under gauge transformations taking values in $`GG_C`$ or $`GG\times G`$ since both $`e`$ and the curvature $`F(\omega )=d\omega +\omega \omega `$ of $`\omega `$ transform homogeneously under $`G`$. The boundary term, however, is not.

One can recognize the terms that we have added to $`I_{CS}[A,\overline{A}]`$ as being proportional to the integral of the exterior curvature (essentially one half of the Gibbons-Hawking term),

$`{\displaystyle \text{tr}(A\overline{A})}=2\eta {\displaystyle \text{tr}(e\omega )}`$ (26)
and an area term,

$`{\displaystyle \text{tr}(A_z\overline{A}_z)(A_{\overline{z}}\overline{A}_{\overline{z}})}=4\eta ^2{\displaystyle \text{tr}(e_ze_{\overline{z}})}`$ (27)
Note first of all that the sign of the exterior curvature term is such that it precisely cancels the exterior curvature boundary term in the action (25). Thus our action is just the sum of the Einstein-Palatini action and the area term. Since this action only depends on $`e`$ and $`F(\omega )`$, both of which transform homogeneously under $`G`$, this makes it manifest that the action is strictly invariant under $`GG_C`$, i.e. under $`SU(2)`$ or $`SU(1,1)`$ local Lorentz transformations (frame rotations).

The sign of the area term is such that, for the appropriate choice of boundary condition, for $`G=SU(2)`$ (EAdS) it regularises the action in the sense that e.g. the classical action for $`AdS_3`$ is zero. Thus the area term acts as a suitable counterterm  to provide finite conserved quantities from the Brown-York  prescription (modulo logarithmic divergences). Likewise for dS .

Thus another way to arrive at the action we have been led to consider is to demand that it be invariant under Lorentz transformations (this rules out Gibbons-Hawking like terms) and finite on classical asymptotically (EA)dS solutions. This fixes the action uniquely up to Lorentz-invariant higher-derivative boundary terms (which do not contribute to the asymptotics in 3d ).

If we had added the two terms in (23) with the opposite sign, then the exterior curvature terms would have added up to the standard Gibbons-Hawking term (or, rather, its Palatini counterpart $`I_{GH}[e,\omega ]`$), giving an action with a well-defined variational principle for the metric (or $`e`$) fixed on the boundary. The area term would still have regularized the classical action, since the Chern-Simons part of the action is finite all by itself, and thus all that is required is a cancellation of divergences between the area and exterior curvature terms. Thus we would have obtained the geometrodynamics action with $`e`$ or the metric fixed on the boundary, with the appropriate counterterm $`I_{ct}[e]`$,

$`I_{CS}[A]I_{CS}[\overline{A}]+{\displaystyle \text{tr}(A\overline{A})}{\displaystyle \text{tr}(A_z\overline{A}_z)(A_{\overline{z}}\overline{A}_{\overline{z}})}`$ (28)
$``$ $`I[e,\omega ]+I_{GH}[e,\omega ]+I_{ct}[e].`$
This is precisely the action Krasnov was led to investigate in the Chern-Simons formulation of EAdS gravity in . However, for reasons we will now explain we believe that the action he actually ends up studying is the action (23) instead.444The author of  agrees with this conclusion .

One intriguing aspect of our choice of action, which will appear as a byproduct of our general analysis in the next section, but which can also readily be seen directly by using the Polyakov-Wiegman (PW) identities (72), is that on pure gauge configurations, $`A=g^1dg,\overline{A}=\overline{g}^1d\overline{g}`$, it reduces to a WZW model (71) with argument $`g\overline{g}^1`$ (32). This reflects the strict invariance of the action under $`G`$-transformations, for which $`g=\overline{g}`$.

The action (28) considered by Krasnov does not have this invariance, as it contains the (non-invariant) Gibbons-Hawking term, and indeed it can be checked that on-shell (on pure gauge transformations) the classical action does not combine nicely into a single WZW model courtesy of the PW identities. But precisely such a combination is claimed to occur in , and this is a property of (23), not of the geometrodynamics action (28).

## 3 The Boundary Action for Chern-Simons Gravity

We find it notationally more convenient to treat the two cases $`G_C`$ and $`G\times G`$ separately, even though (as will be seen) they are exactly analogous. We begin with $`G_C`$, deferring a discussion of $`G\times G`$ to Section 3.3.

### 3.1 From Chern-Simons gravity to $`G_C/G`$ WZW models

To establish the emergence of $`G_C/G`$ models from Chern-Simons gravity, anticipated in various ways above, we now determine the behaviour of $`I_{tot}^\pm [A,\overline{A}]`$ under a general $`G_C`$ gauge transformation.

First of all, note that gauge variation of the Chern-Simons part $`I^\pm [A,\overline{A}]`$ of the total action is the sum of a chiral and an anti-chiral WZW action (70),

$`I^+[A^g,\overline{A}^{\overline{g}}]`$ $`=`$ $`I^+[A,\overline{A}]+(I^+[g,A_z]+I^{}[\overline{g},\overline{A}_{\overline{z}}])`$
$`I^{}[A^g,\overline{A}^{\overline{g}}]`$ $`=`$ $`I^{}[A,\overline{A}](I^{}[g,A_{\overline{z}}]+I^+[\overline{g},\overline{A}_z]).`$ (29)
Usually at this stage  (after having gone ‘on-shell’ in the bulk) it is then argued that (on-shell on the boundary) the sum of these two actions is equivalent to a non-chiral WZW action. In the present case, however, this is much clearer and completely unambiguous since the boundary terms we have added to enforce $`G`$-invariance precisely provide the relevant Polyakov-Wiegman terms that allow us to combine these two chiral actions off-shell into a single non-chiral action for the composite field $`g\overline{g}^1`$.

Indeed a reasonably straightforward calculation, using the PW identities (72) shows that

$`I_{tot}^\pm [A^g,\overline{A}^{\overline{g}}]=I_{tot}^\pm [A,\overline{A}]\pm I^\pm [g\overline{g}^1,B]`$ (30)
where

$`I^+[h,B]`$ $`=`$ $`I^+[h]+2{\displaystyle \text{tr}(B_z_{\overline{z}}hh^1B_{\overline{z}}h^1_zh)}+2{\displaystyle \text{tr}(B_zB_{\overline{z}}B_zhB_{\overline{z}}h^1)}`$
$`I^{}[h,B]`$ $`=`$ $`I^{}[h]2{\displaystyle \text{tr}(B_zh^1_{\overline{z}}hB_{\overline{z}}_zhh^1)}+2{\displaystyle \text{tr}(B_zB_{\overline{z}}B_zh^1B_{\overline{z}}h)}`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`I^+[h^1,B]`$
and where $`I^\pm [h]`$ is the WZW action (71). We will discuss these actions in more detail in the next section.

Note that the above result is completely general:

* No assumptions have been made about the topology of $`M`$ or $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, or about $`G_C`$. In particular, the results hold for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the boundary of any region $`M`$ in space(-time), not only an ‘asymptotic’ boundary.
* We did not need to make use of the bulk equations of motion to arrive at the boundary action. In particular, no special coordinatization was required to turn some of the components of the gauge field into Lagrange multipliers enforcing the bulk flatness conditions.
* We did not need to go on-shell for the boundary theory to combine two chiral WZW models into a standard WZW model.

In all these aspects our derivation of the boundary action differs from the standard derivations. We believe that our approach displays more clearly the role of the boundary action, in particular in the full bulk quantum gravity theory.

### 3.2 Properties of the boundary action

We list here some basic properties of the boundary actions (cocycles) $`I^\pm [h,B]`$.

1. With dynamical boundary gauge fields $`B`$, the actions $`I^\pm [h,B]`$ with $`hG_C`$ are the actions of diagonally gauged (thus anomaly free) $`G_C/G`$ WZW models.

The action we find is such that $`h`$ is restricted to take values in $`G_C/G`$, $`h=g\overline{g}^1`$. Thus these are, despite appearance, somewhat unusual WZW models.

In particular, since the cocycle $`I^\pm [g\overline{g}^1,B]`$ depends on $`g`$ and $`\overline{g}`$ only in the combination $`g\overline{g}^1G_C/G`$, it follows immediately that the gravitational action $`I_{tot}`$ is invariant under gauge transformations with $`g=\overline{g}`$, i.e. under local frame rotations, as expected, because $`I^\pm [h=1,B]=0`$,

Note, incidentally, that these “$`(G_C/G)/G`$” models can be shown to be topological field theories, non-compact analogues of the more familiar $`G/G`$ models , which are of interest in their own right - these will be studied elsewhere.
2. In our case, however, the $`B`$ are non-dynamical and these theories are best thought of as WZW models coupled in a gauge-invariant way to external currents $`B`$. Setting these currents to zero, or evaluating the gravitational action on classical solutions which are pure gauge, $`A=0^g=g^1dg`$, $`\overline{A}=\overline{0}^{\overline{g}}`$, one obtains the action

$`I_{tot}^\pm [0^g,\overline{0}^{\overline{g}}]=\pm I^\pm [g\overline{g}^1,B=0]=\pm I^\pm [g\overline{g}^1].`$ (32)
These WZW models are sigma models with target space $`G_C/G`$ and a non-trivial (string theory) $`B`$-field $`B_{NS}`$.
3. These actions (and their gauged counterparts) are (modulo an overall factor of $`i`$) real, in contrast to ordinary (gauged) WZW models in Euclidean signature which have a complex action. (For example, the WZ term is real for unitary matrices but imaginary for (hermitian) matrices of the form $`g\overline{g}^1`$). This is of course a consequence of the fact that they arise as cocycles of the real gravitational action we have been considering. Also, for $`G`$ compact they have a positive (semi-)definite kinetic term and are thus well defined in Euclidean signature. Their continuation to Lorentzian signature, however, would be complex, hence these theories are presumably non-unitary in Minkowski space.
4. For $`G_C=SL(2,C)`$ the target space of the WZW model is the three-dimensional space(-time) $`(EA)dS_3`$, precisely the three-manifold whose quantum gravity we set out to describe. Thus, for any three-manifold $`M`$, the boundary action is a sigma model with target space $`(EA)dS_3`$, corresponding to the ‘on-shell’ base space $`M`$ of the Chern-Simons gravity theory. We will see that the same thing happens for $`G\times G`$.

This is reminiscent of the worldsheet for worldsheet construction  in $`N=2`$ string theory . In that case one finds that the beta-function equations (that is the conditions for that theory to be conformally invariant - quantum consistent) of the worldsheet conformal field theory give rise to a target space action, the field content and symmetry of which are identical to the original worldsheet theory. In our case we find that the symmetries of our three-dimensional base space theory give rise to a target space theory of the same structure.

1. In particular, for $`G=SU(2)`$, with the parametrisation

    $`g\overline{g}^1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^\varphi u\overline{u}+e^\varphi & e^\varphi u\\ e^\varphi \overline{u}& e^\varphi \end{array}\right)`$ (35)
    $`g`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{\varphi /2}& e^{\varphi /2}u\\ 0& e^{\varphi /2}\end{array}\right)`$ (38)
    of the coset $`SL(2,C)/SU(2)`$, the action of the WZW model is

    $`I^+[g\overline{g}^1]=2{\displaystyle (\varphi \overline{}\varphi +e^{2\varphi }u\overline{}\overline{u})}.`$ (39)
    This action has been studied in detail in the past e.g. in . It is also part of the string theory sigma model on $`EAdS_3`$ with non-zero NS B-field

    $`ds^2=d\varphi ^2+e^{2\varphi }dud\overline{u},B_{NS}=e^{2\varphi }dud\overline{u}`$ (40)
    as studied in detail e.g. in . In  one sees clearly that the correlation functions are closely related in construction and form to those of Liouville theory. And in the limit that the string worldsheets are localized at radial infinity, the worldsheet action reduces to Liouville theory .
    2. Likewise, for $`G=SU(1,1)`$ (this amounts to replacing $`(u,\overline{u})(iu,i\overline{u})`$ in the above) we find a target space with the $`dS_3`$ metric and an NS B-field,

    $`ds^2=d\varphi ^2e^{2\varphi }dud\overline{u},B_{NS}=e^{2\varphi }dud\overline{u}.`$ (41)
    This action can be reduced to Liouville theory by imposing further constraints appropriate for asymptotically de Sitter gravity . However, not much appears to be known about the properties of this sigma model itself. An initial step in the study of this model could be a minisuperspace analysis as carried out for the $`SL(2,C)/SU(2)`$ model in .
5. In the path integral, the cocycle gives rise to wavefunction(al)s

$`\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm [B]={\displaystyle D[A]D[\overline{A}]\text{e}^{isI_{tot}^\pm [A,\overline{A}]}},`$ (42)
($`s`$ is real for Euclidean $`AdS_3`$ and imaginary for Lorentzian $`dS_3`$ ) of the boundary gauge field $`B`$ which transform with a cocycle under $`G_C`$ gauge transformations,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm [B^{(g,\overline{g})}]=\text{e}^{\pm isI^\pm [g\overline{g}^1,B]}\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm [B]`$ (43)
6. To understand the role of the $`G_C/G`$ sigma model (cocycle) in the quantization of Chern-Simons gravity, one can gauge fix the above path integral by following the usual Faddeev-Popov procedure. Because of the non-trivial cocycle, the integral over the gauge group will not factor out of the path integral. Rather, one finds (see e.g. ) that the gauge fixed version of the wave function factorizes into the standard gauge fixed Chern-Simons gravity path integral $`Z_{CS}[B]`$ and the partition function of the WZW action $`I^\pm [g^1\overline{g},B]`$, with the $`B`$ treated as external sources,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }[B]=Z_{CS}[B]\times Z_{G_C/G}[J=B].`$ (44)
In particular, the latter is a generating functional for correlation functions of the left and right $`h`$-currents in the WZW model (32) with target space $`G_C/G`$. The addition of Wilson lines, gravitational sources, ending on the boundary will couple the bulk and boundary theories in a non-trivial way and will lead to operator insertions in the boundary partition function.

### 3.3 An analogous construction for $`G\times G`$

As we noted before, if the gauge fields $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ are taken to be independent $`G`$ gauge fields rather than complex conjugate $`G_C`$ gauge fields, then the (real) action $`I_{CS}[A]I_{CS}[\overline{A}]`$ describes Lorentzian Anti-de Sitter (ADS) gravity for $`G=SU(1,1)`$ or $`G=SL(2,R)`$, and Euclidean de Sitter (EdS) gravity for $`G=SU(2)`$.

Most of what we have done above for $`G_C`$ Chern-Simons gravity goes through verbatim in these cases as well with the replacements

$`G_CG\times GG\text{diag}(G\times G).`$ (45)
As EdS and AdS have some slightly different features, we treat them separately, beginning with AdS.

For AdS we might be interested in a Lorentzian boundary, and hence the boundary gauge field would be

$`B=A_\pm dx^\pm +\overline{A}_{}dx^{}.`$ (46)
This is an $`SU(1,1)`$ or $`SL(2,R)`$ gauge field, $`B^{}=\sigma _3B\sigma _3`$, and transforms as such under the diagonal subgroup of $`SU(1,1)\times SU(1,1)`$. The two components of $`B`$ transform independently under $`SU(1,1)\times SU(1,1)`$, and this extension of the $`𝒢`$-action on $`G`$ gauge fields to a $`𝒢\times 𝒢`$ action is the analogue in the present case of the extension of the $`𝒢`$-action to $`𝒢_C`$ encountered before.

In this case $`g`$ and $`\overline{g}`$ are independent elements of $`SU(1,1)`$, and $`g\overline{g}^1`$ is thus an element of $`(G\times G)/GG`$ itself. The cocycle we obtain in this case is the standard $`G=SU(1,1)`$ or $`G=SL(2,R)`$ WZW model which is real in Lorentzian signature. Note that once again the boundary action is thus a sigma model with target space the three-manifold $`GAdS_3`$ whose quantum gravity we set out to describe. By imposing further asymptotically $`AdS_3`$ constraints, this model can be reduced to Liouville theory . The coupling to the boundary gauge fields $`B`$ is such that with the latter treated as dynamical the action is actually precisely that of the topological $`G/G`$ model.

For EdS, on the other hand, the boundary gauge field

$`B=A_zdz+\overline{A}_{\overline{z}}d\overline{z}`$ (47)
(say) is not an $`SU(2)`$ gauge field, $`B^{}B`$, because $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ are independent connections (we would have encountered a similar situation for dS gravity with a Lorentzian boundary). Nevertheless, under the diagonal subgroup of $`G\times G`$ it transforms as such and this is all that we will need.

Consequently we are now choosing complex boundary conditions on the two independent fields $`A_z`$ and $`\overline{A}_{\overline{z}}`$. The gravitational action we are led to with these boundary conditions and the requirement of $`G`$-invariance is the sum of the standard Palatini action and an imaginary area term. While this may appear strange from the gravitational point of view, this is what emerges from our construction. However, these boundary conditions are most likely not natural for EdS.

The cocycle is now an $`SU(2)`$ WZW model (in agreement with the fact that $`EdS_3S^3SU(2)`$), which is complex in Euclidean space (and unitary in Lorentzian signature). With the $`B`$’s included as dynamical fields, it is a topological $`SU(2)/SU(2)`$ model (with slightly unusual reality properties).

Acknowledgements

We thank George Thompson for numerous helpful discussions.

The work of GA and MO is supported in part by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00131 Quantum Spacetime. The research of MB is partially supported by EC contract HPRN-CT-2000-00148.

## Appendix A Conventions

### A.1 Lie algebras, gauge fields and gauge transformations

Given a basis $`\tau _a`$ of the Lie algebra $`g`$ of $`G`$, $`\{\tau _a,i\tau _a\}`$ are a basis of $`g_C`$. A $`G_C`$ connection $`A`$ can then be written as

$`A=\omega +ie=\tau _a(\omega ^a+ie^a).`$ (48)
We also define the conjugate connection $`\overline{A}`$ by

$`\overline{A}=\omega ie=\tau _a(\omega ^aie^a)`$ (49)
Thus $`\overline{A}=A^{}`$ if the $`\tau _a`$ are anti-hermitian, $`\tau _a^{}=\tau _a`$, but not in general. In particular, $`\overline{A}=A`$ iff $`A`$ is a $`G`$-connection.

Likewise, for $`G\times G`$, we parametrise the two independent $`G`$-connections $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ as

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\omega +e=\tau _a(\omega ^a+e^a)`$
$`\overline{A}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega e=\tau _a(\omega ^ae^a),`$ (50)
which satisfy $`A^{}=A`$ and $`\overline{A}^{}=\overline{A}`$ if the $`\tau _a`$ are anti-hermitian.

For $`G=SU(2)`$ or $`G=SU(1,1)`$ we have $`G_C=SL(2,C)SO(3,1)`$ and $`G\times GSO(4)`$ or $`SO(2,2)`$. For $`G=SU(2)`$ we choose $`\tau _a=i\sigma _a/2`$, $`a=1,2,3`$ ($`\sigma _a`$ are standard hermitian Pauli matrices), and thus $`A^{}=\overline{A}`$, while for $`G=SU(1,1)`$ we take $`\tau _a=(i\sigma _3/2,\sigma _1/2,\sigma _2/2)`$, $`a=0,1,2`$ with $`A^{}=\sigma _3\overline{A}\sigma _3`$. The $`\tau _a`$ satisfy

$`[\tau _a,\tau _b]=ϵ_{abc}\tau ^c`$ (51)
where indices are raised and lowered with $`\delta _{ab}`$ or $`\eta _{ab}=\text{diag}(++)`$ and we use the convention that $`ϵ_{123}=ϵ_{012}=1`$. Explicitly, the curvature $`F_A=dA+A^2`$ of $`A`$ is

$`F_A`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _a(d\omega ^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{bc}^a\omega ^b\omega ^c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{bc}^ae^be^c)`$ (52)
$`+`$ $`i\tau _a(de^a+ϵ_{bc}^a\omega ^be^c)`$
for $`G_C`$, with an analogous expression for $`G\times G`$ obtained by sending $`eie`$.

$`G_C`$ gauge transformations act on $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ as

$`A`$ $``$ $`A^gg^1Ag+g^1dg`$ (53)
$`\overline{A}`$ $``$ $`\overline{A}^{\overline{g}}\overline{g}^1\overline{A}\overline{g}+\overline{g}^1d\overline{g}.`$ (54)
with $`\overline{g}^1=g^{}`$ for $`G=SU(2)`$, and $`\overline{g}^1=\sigma _3g^{}\sigma _3`$ for $`G=SU(1,1)`$ respectively.

Note that in both cases $`g\overline{g}`$ is an (outer) automorphism of $`G_C`$, $`\overline{gh}=\overline{g}\overline{h}`$, which fixes $`GG_C`$, i.e. $`g=\overline{g}gG`$. Thus $`gg\overline{g}^1`$ is the projection from $`G_C`$ to the coset $`G_C/G`$. In particular, for $`G=SU(2)`$ this is the projection $`gh=gg^{}`$ onto (positive) hermitian matrices, $`h^{}=h`$.

Likewise, for the $`G\times G`$ theory, $`g`$ and $`\overline{g}`$ are independent $`G`$ gauge transformations, and the map $`gg\overline{g}^1`$ is the projection from $`G\times G`$ to $`G`$ with kernel the diagonal subgroup $`G_d=\{(g,g)G\times G\}`$.

### A.2 Chern-Simons and WZW actions

The Chern-Simons action is

$`I_{CS}[A]={\displaystyle \text{tr}(AdA+\frac{2}{3}A^3)}.`$ (55)
Under a gauge transformation

$`A`$ $``$ $`A^gg^1Ag+g^1dg`$ (56)
$`\overline{A}`$ $``$ $`\overline{A}^{\overline{g}}\overline{g}^1\overline{A}\overline{g}+\overline{g}^1d\overline{g}.`$ (57)
the Chern-Simons action transforms as

$`I_{CS}[A^g]=I_{CS}[A]+C[g,A]`$ (58)
where the cocycle $`C[g,A]`$ is

$`C[g,A]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _M}\text{tr}(g^1dg)^3+{\displaystyle \text{tr}(Adgg^1)}`$ (59)
and analogously for $`I_{CS}[\overline{A}]`$.

The variation of $`I_{CS}[A]`$ is

$`\delta I_{CS}[A]=2{\displaystyle \text{tr}\delta A}F_A{\displaystyle \text{tr}A}\delta A.`$ (60)
Choosing a complex structure $`J`$ on the boundary, in terms of complex coordinates the boundary term reads

$`{\displaystyle \text{tr}A}\delta A={\displaystyle \text{tr}(A_z\delta A_{\overline{z}}A_{\overline{z}}\delta A_z)}`$ (61)
where we introduce the convention that any expression of the form $`𝒪_{z\overline{z}}`$ is to be interpreted as

$`{\displaystyle 𝒪_{z\overline{z}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑z}d\overline{z}𝒪_{z\overline{z}}.`$ (62)
This makes it easy to switch between differential form and complex notation,

$`{\displaystyle A}B={\displaystyle (A_zB_{\overline{z}}A_{\overline{z}}B_z)},`$ (63)
but has the drawback that terms that look real are imaginary, and vice-versa, because $`dzd\overline{z}`$ is imaginary,

$`\overline{dzd\overline{z}}=dzd\overline{z}.`$ (64)
To obtain an action that is suitable for fixing either $`A_z`$ or $`A_{\overline{z}}`$ on the boundary, we thus introduce the actions

$`I_{CS}^\pm [A]=I_{CS}[A]\pm {\displaystyle \text{tr}A_zA_{\overline{z}}}`$ (65)
which have the on-shell variations

$`\delta I_{CS}^+[A]`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \text{tr}A_{\overline{z}}\delta A_z}`$
$`\delta I_{CS}^{}[A]`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \text{tr}A_z\delta A_{\overline{z}}}.`$ (66)
We can thus fix the boundary conditions

$`A_z|_M=B_z\text{or}A_{\overline{z}}|_M=B_{\overline{z}}`$ (67)
for $`I_{CS}^+[A]`$ or $`I_{CS}^{}[A]`$ respectively.

One can proceed analogously if one wishes to consider a boundary with a Lorentzian metric, as for asymptotically AdS space-times. In this case, one replaces the $`(z,\overline{z})`$ by light-cone coordinates $`x^\pm `$, with $`dx^+dx^{}`$ real.

Under a gauge transformation, one finds that $`I_{CS}^\pm [A]`$ transforms as

$`I_{CS}^+[A^g]`$ $`=`$ $`I_{CS}^+[A]+I^+[g,B_z]`$ (68)
$`I_{CS}^{}[A^g]`$ $`=`$ $`I_{CS}^{}[A]I^{}[g,B_{\overline{z}}],`$ (69)
where

$`I^+[g,B_z]`$ $`=`$ $`I^+[g]+2{\displaystyle \text{tr}B_z_{\overline{z}}gg^1}`$
$`I^{}[g,B_{\overline{z}}]`$ $`=`$ $`I^{}[g]+2{\displaystyle \text{tr}B_{\overline{z}}_zgg^1}`$ (70)
with $`I^\pm [g]`$ the WZW actions

$`I^\pm [g]{\displaystyle \text{tr}(g^1_zgg^1_{\overline{z}}g)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _M}\text{tr}(g^1dg)^3.`$ (71)
They satisfy the Polyakov-Wiegman (PW) identities

$`I^+[gh]`$ $`=`$ $`I^+[g]+I^+[h]+2{\displaystyle \text{tr}g^1_zg_{\overline{z}}hh^1}`$
$`I^{}[gh]`$ $`=`$ $`I^{}[g]+I^{}[h]+2{\displaystyle \text{tr}g^1_{\overline{z}}g_zhh^1}.`$ (72)
To make contact with the usual way of writing the WZW action, note that with $`d^2z=|dzd\overline{z}|`$ we have

$`iI^\pm [g]={\displaystyle d^2z\text{tr}(g^1_zgg^1_{\overline{z}}g)}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{i}{3}}{\displaystyle _M}\text{tr}(g^1dg)^3`$ (73)
### A.3 $`SL(2,C)`$ Chern-Simons gravity

We review the Chern-Simons formulation of EAdS and dS gravity. We omit the discussion for AdS and EdS gravity which is precisely analogous.

In the first order formalism the fields are a dreibein (orthonormal frame) $`e^a`$ and the spin connection $`\omega _b^a`$. We use the convention that $`a=1,2,3`$ for $`EAdS_3`$ and $`a=0,1,2`$ for $`dS_3`$.

The torsion-free condition for the spin-connection is

$`de^a+\omega _b^ae^b=0.`$ (74)
The curvature two-form is

$`R_b^a=d\omega _b^a+\omega _c^a\omega _b^c.`$ (75)
In three dimensions, the Einstein equations with negative (positive) cosmological constant are equivalent to the constant curvature condition

$`R_b^a=e^ae_b,`$ (76)
where indices are raised and lowered with the orthonormal (Euclidean or Minkowskian) tangent space metric $`\delta _{ab}`$ or $`\eta _{ab}=\text{diag}(++)`$. Introducing the curvature radius by scaling $`e^ae^a/\mathrm{}`$, the cosmological constant could be shifted away from its canonical value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\pm 1`$.

To establish the connection of these equations with the equations of motion of Chern-Simons theory, one introduces the dual spin connection

$`\omega ^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{abc}\omega _{bc}`$ (77)
where $`ϵ_{123}=1`$, $`ϵ_{012}=1`$ and the upper (lower) sign refers to $`EAdS_3`$ ($`dS_3`$) respectively. Then the equations become

$`de^a+ϵ_{bc}^a\omega ^be^c=0`$
$`d\omega ^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{bc}^a\omega ^b\omega ^c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{bc}^ae^be^c.`$ (78)
Comparing with (52), we see that these are precisely the equations $`F_A=0`$ of the $`G_C=SL(2,C)`$-connection $`A`$ for $`G=SU(2)`$ or $`G=SU(1,1)`$.

The relation between the Chern-Simons action and the Palatini action for three-dimensional (EA)dS gravity,

$`I[e,\omega ]={\displaystyle e^a}(d\omega +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{abc}\omega ^b\omega ^c){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}ϵ_{abc}e^ae^be^c,`$ (79)
is

$`I_{CS}[A]I_{CS}[\overline{A}]=2i(I[e,\omega ]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle e^a}\omega )`$ (80)
(the signs arise beause for $`G=SU(2)`$ we are raising and lowering indices with $`\delta _{ab}`$, not with $`\text{tr}\tau _a\tau _b\delta _{ab}`$). This action thus descibes Euclidean gravity with a negative cosmological constant for $`G=SU(2)`$, and Lorentzian gravity with a positive cosmological constant for $`G=SU(1,1)`$.