text:
# Deformation quantization and the Baum–Connes conjectureDedicated to Rudolf Haag at his 80th birthday.

## 1 Introduction

As a tribute to Rudolf Haag, this paper is a double provocation. Firstly, it is about quantization, a concept Haag apparently doesn’t like. Indeed, he has always stressed that (local) quantum physics stands on its own, and should not be thought of as the quantization of some classical theory. Secondly, it fits in the ideology of ‘physical mathematics,’ in attempting to understand a concept in pure mathematics (viz. the Baum–Connes conjecture), in terms of ideas from physics (namely quantization). Characteristically, there is not a single theorem in this paper. As the founding editor of Communications in Mathematical Physics, Haag may well have second thoughts about the seemingly irrepressible development of his journal into a medium for both ‘mathematical physics’ and ‘physical mathematics.’ On the positive side, concerning the first point we use a formulation of quantization in terms of $`C^{}`$-algebras, and even manage to relate the Baum–Connes conjecture to the algebraic theory of superselection rules initiated by Haag . With regard to the second, we note that this paper only contains valid mathematics, which everyone can check and understand.

One source of inspiration for this paper is the known relationship between index theory (in the sense of Atiyah and Singer ) and quantum physics. This relationship was discovered in the context of anomalies in quantum field theory , and is closely related to supersymmetry . See, e.g.,  for representative mathematical literature generated by this line of research. On a different note, it turns out that index theory is closely linked to deformation quantization . It remains unclear (at least to the author) how the supersymmetric approach to index theory is related to the one based on deformation theory.

A promising way of looking at the relationship between quantization and index theory is to involve the K-theory of $`C^{}`$-algebras . Pragmatically speaking, K-theory is the (generalized) cohomology theory of algebraic topology that is best adapted to a generalization to noncommutative $`C^{}`$-algebras. K-theory is defined by functors $`K_n`$, $`n`$, from $`C^{}`$-algebras to abelian groups, which are stable, homotopy invariant, and satisfy Bott periodicity $`K_{n+2}(A)K_n(A)`$ (natural in $`A`$). One therefore simply writes the K-theory of $`A`$ as $`K_{}(A)`$, where $`=1,2`$. Bott periodicity leads to a periodic (or cyclic) 6-term exact sequence associated to a short exact sequence, which underlies most explicit computations in K-theory.

K-theory for $`C^{}`$-algebras is a fundamental tool in noncommutative geometry , and also plays a key role in Elliott’s classification program for simple nuclear $`C^{}`$-algebras . In mathematical physics, the best-known applications of noncommutative K-theory have been to the theory of the quantum Hall effect  and to the description of quasi-crystals . So far, the use of K-theory in physical mathematics seems limited to the commutative case .

The bivariant E-theory of Connes and Higson  is a generalization of the K-theory of $`C^{}`$-algebras, which at the same time provides maps between K-groups. E-theory is based on specific deformations of $`C^{}`$-algebras, and is closely related to index theory . Thus it seems natural to use E-theory in an attempt to further clarify the relationship between index theory and quantization. However, deformation quantization contains an ingredient that seems to be missing in E-theory, namely the Poisson bracket. This determines the ‘direction’ of a deformation, providing information that could be useful in understanding why certain maps between K-groups defined by E-theory occur naturally. Indeed, this is a guiding thought behind this paper.

One of the main issues in K-theory in the context of noncommutative geometry is the so-called Baum–Connes conjecture, which is closely related to index theory  (in this paper, we restrict ourselves to the conjecture “without coefficients”). Here the problem is to give a geometric description of the K-theory of the reduced $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C_r^{}(G)`$ of a group  or groupoid  $`G`$. This is potentially interesting for physics, since algebras of observables of a large class of quantum mechanical systems are of the form $`C_r^{}(G)`$ , and the K-theory of such algebras is an invariant of the physical description that deserves to be explored.

For a compact group, $`K_0(C_r^{}(G))`$ equals the free abelian group on $`\widehat{G}`$ (the unitary dual of $`G`$, which in this case is discrete), whereas $`K_1`$ is trivial. The groupoid analogue of a compact group is a proper groupoid; a groupoid $`G`$ with base $`G^{(0)}`$ and source and range maps $`s,r:GG^{(0)}`$, respectively, is called proper when $`(r,s):GG^{(0)}\times G^{(0)}`$ is a proper map. The K-theory of the reduced $`C^{}`$-algebra of such a groupoid can in principle be described in terms of the K-theory of the compact stability groups $`G_u^u`$ of points $`uG^{(0)}`$ , combined with the (equivariant) topological K-theory of the orbit space $`G^{(0)}/G`$ (which is locally compact and Hausdorff). Hence the compact or proper case is fully understood in principle.

One idea behind the Baum–Connes conjecture is to ‘tame’ a noncompact group or nonproper groupoid by letting it act properly on some space. Under a proper action, all stability groups are compact, and the orbit space is locally compact and Hausdorff . Baum and Connes define a computable topological K-theory $`K_{\mathrm{top}}^{}(G)`$ in terms of such proper actions, and relate it to the actual K-theory $`K_{}(C_r^{}(G))`$ by a map $`\mu `$, called the analytic assembly map. The Baum–Connes conjecture states that $`\mu `$ should be an isomorphism. This would, then, render $`K_{}(C_r^{}(G))`$ computable as well.

The Baum–Connes conjecture actually enjoys a number of different formulations. For groups, the standard version is that of . Here $`K_{\mathrm{top}}^{}(G)`$ is defined in terms of the $`G`$-equivariant K-homology of the classifying space $`\underset{¯}{E}G`$ of $`G`$ for proper actions. Roughly speaking, elements of $`K_{\mathrm{top}}^{}(G)`$ are equivalence classes of $`G`$-invariant operators on some Hilbert space carrying representations of $`G`$ as well as of $`C_0(X)`$, where $`X`$ is some proper $`G`$ space. These operators have an index taking values in $`K_{}(C^{}(G))`$, and $`\mu `$ is essentially this index, composed with the K-theory map $`\pi _r`$ induced by the canonical projection $`\pi _r:C^{}(G)C_r^{}(G)`$. Thus the Baum–Connes conjecture states that, in a suitably injective way, every element of $`K_{}(C_r^{}(G))`$ may be represented as an index.

In this form, the Baum–Connes conjecture has been proved for large classes of discrete or algebraic groups (cf. ), as well as for all almost connected locally compact groups . There exists an analogous formulation for locally compact groupoids with Haar system, surveyed in . The usual formulation of the Baum–Connes conjecture for both groups and groupoids is based on Kasparov’s KK-theory (cf. ), which is also the fundamental tool in the extant proofs of special cases of the conjecture.

A different approach to the Baum–Connes conjecture, based on E-theory, was initiated by Connes himself \[19, §II.10\]. The main purpose of this paper is to make explicit how Connes’s E-theoretic formulation of the Baum–Connes conjecture is nothing but the statement that the $`G`$-twisted Weyl–Moyal quantization of a certain space preserves K-theory. This is actually closely related to Connes’s own way of seeing the Baum–Connes conjecture as a $`G`$-equivariant version of Bott periodicity. To accomplish this, we have to slightly modify Connes’s construction of the analytic assembly map $`\mu `$ in order to bring it in line with the $`C^{}`$-algebraic approach to Weyl–Moyal quantization. Moreover, we prove a fundamental and nontrivial continuity property left to the reader in . As suggested above, the use of deformation quantization amplifies E-theory by providing the direction of the deformation defining $`\mu `$.

When $`G`$ is a Lie group, the classical mechanical systems underlying the above approach to the Baum–Connes conjecture are Poisson spaces of the type $`T^{}(P)/G`$, where $`P`$ is a proper $`G`$ space, and the $`G`$ action on $`T^{}(P)`$ is the pullback of the one on $`P`$. This action automatically preserves the canonical Poisson bracket (or, equivalently, the symplectic form) on $`T^{}(P)`$, which therefore descends to a Poisson structure on $`T^{}(P)/G`$. In case that $`P`$ is a principal $`G`$ bundle (i.e., when the $`G`$ action is free), $`T^{}(P)/G`$ is a manifold, whose physical interpretation is well understood in terms of a particle moving on the configuration space $`Q=P/G`$, coupled to an external gauge field . The algebra of observables of the corresponding quantum system  is the $`C^{}`$-algebra of the so-called gauge groupoid $`(P\times P)/G`$ of the principal $`G`$ bundle $`P`$ . Such a quantum system has a nontrivial superselection structure, which is fully described by the irreducible unitary representations of $`G`$. Similarly, the underlying classical system has ‘classical superselection sectors,’ defined as the symplectic leaves of $`T^{}(P)/G`$ . In analogy to the quantum situation, these turn out to correspond to the coadjoint orbits of $`G`$.

However, when the $`G`$ action on $`P`$ is not free (and this is the main case of interest in connection with the Baum–Connes conjecture), the quotient $`T^{}(P)/G`$ is no longer a manifold. In fact, the Baum–Connes conjecture for Lie groups à la Connes is formulated in terms of a noncommutative desingularization of $`T^{}(P)/G`$, namely the crossed product $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C_0(T^{}(P))G`$. The structure of $`T^{}(P)/G`$ as a singular space is well known : its naive symplectic leaves are actually stratified symplectic spaces , which further decompose as unions of symplectic manifolds. This introduces additional classical superselection sectors, which should be related to the structure of the desingularization $`C_0(T^{}(P))G`$ in some way. In any case, inspired by Connes’s E-theoretic formulation of the Baum–Connes conjecture, we are led to a concrete proposal to quantize the singular Poisson space $`T^{}(P)/G`$ by deforming its noncommutative desingularization.

The plan of this paper is as follows. In Section 2 we review the notion of $`C^{}`$-algebraic deformation quantization, and state the key technical lemma, on which most subsequent arguments will be based. In Section 3 we discuss a number of examples relevant to the Baum–Connes conjecture, and in Section 4 we turn to the Baum–Connes conjecture itself. Finally, in Section 5 we provide the details of the physical interpretation sketched above.

We hope that this expository paper attracts mathematical physicists to the Baum–Connes conjecture, and draws the attention of noncommutative geometers to the problem of quantizing singular symplectic spaces .

Acknowledgements The author is greatly indebted to Rudolf Haag for his profound intellectual influence, and wishes to take this opportunity to also thank Haag’s pupils and collaborators Detlev Buchholz, Klaus Fredenhagen, and Daniel Kastler for their generous hospitality and support in various phases of his scientific career.

This paper is based on lectures invited by B. Monthubert in the Séminaire Méditerranéen d’Algèbre et Topologie in Toulouse, March 2002, and at the Oberwolfach meeting on Noncommutative Geometry, April 2002 at the invitation of A. Connes, J. Cuntz, and M. Rieffel. It is a pleasure to thank many participants of these meetings for comments and criticism.

## 2 Basic setting

The $`C^{}`$-algebraic approach to deformation quantization was initiated in 1989 by Rieffel , who observed that a number of examples of quantization could be described by continuous fields of $`C^{}`$-algebras in a natural and attractive way. We refer to  for surveys of the starting period of $`C^{}`$-algebraic deformation quantization, including references.

We now review the basic definitions pertinent to $`C^{}`$-algebraic deformation quantization. On the classical side, we have

###### Definition 1

A Poisson algebra is a commutative algebra $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ over $``$ equipped with a Lie bracket $`\{,\}`$, such that for each $`f\stackrel{~}{A}`$ the map $`g\{f,g\}`$ is a derivation of $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ as a commutative algebra. A Poisson manifold $`P`$ is a manifold equipped with a Lie bracket on $`\stackrel{~}{A}=C^{\mathrm{}}(P)`$, such that it becomes a Poisson algebra with respect to pointwise multiplication.

On the quantum side, one needs

###### Definition 2

A field of $`C^{}`$-algebras over a compact Hausdorff space $`X`$ is a triple $`(X,\{A_x\}_{xX},A)`$, where $`\{A_x\}_{xX}`$ is some family of $`C^{}`$-algebras indexed by $`X`$, and $`A`$ is a family of sections (that is, maps $`a:X_{xX}A_x`$ for which $`a(x)A_x`$) that is:

1. A $`C^{}`$-algebra under pointwise operations and the natural norm

$$a=\underset{xX}{sup}a(x)_{A_x};$$
2. Closed under multiplication by $`C(X)`$;
3. Full, in that for each $`xX`$ one has $`\{a(x)aA\}=A_x`$.

The field is said to be continuous when for each $`aA`$ the function $`xa(x)`$ is in $`C(X)`$.

This is equivalent to the corresponding definition of Dixmier ; cf. . Such a field comes with a collection of $`^{}`$-homomorphisms $`\pi _x:AA_x`$, defined by $`\pi _x(a)=a(x)`$. We will use this with $`X=I=[0,1]`$, seen as the set of values of Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$.

Poisson manifolds are related to continuous fields through the concept of $`C^{}`$-algebraic deformation quantization.

###### Definition 3

A $`C^{}`$-algebraic deformation quantization of a Poisson manifold $`P`$ consists of:

1. A continuous field of $`C^{}`$-algebras $`(I,\{A_{\mathrm{}}\}_\mathrm{}I,A)`$ in which $`A_0=C_0(P)`$;
2. A Poisson subalgebra $`\stackrel{~}{A}_0`$ of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(P)`$ that is densely contained in $`C_0(P)`$;
3. A cross-section $`Q:\stackrel{~}{A}_0A`$ of $`\pi _0`$,

such that, in terms of $`Q_{\mathrm{}}=\pi _{\mathrm{}}Q`$, for all $`f,g\stackrel{~}{A}_0`$ one has

$$\underset{\mathrm{}0}{lim}\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[Q_{\mathrm{}}(f),Q_{\mathrm{}}(g)]Q_{\mathrm{}}(\{f,g\})_{\mathrm{}}=0.$$
(2.1)
The idea behind (2.1), which may be traced back to Dirac, is that the Poisson bracket on $`P`$ determines the direction in which $`C_0(P)`$ is deformed into a noncommutative $`C^{}`$-algebra. In any case, this definition (with evident modifications when $`I=[0,1]`$ is replaced by a more general index set) seems to cover practically all known examples.

A surprisingly large collection of examples can be constructed from the following data . We refer to  for the theory of groupoids. Recall that a Lie groupoid is a groupoid where all spaces and maps are smooth, and $`s`$ are $`r`$ are surjective submersions .

###### Definition 4

A field of groupoids is a triple $`(𝖦,X,p)`$, with $`𝖦`$ a groupoid, $`X`$ a set, and $`p:𝖦X`$ a surjection such that $`p=p_0r=p_0s`$, where $`p_0=p𝖦^{(0)}`$. If $`𝖦`$ is a locally compact groupoid and $`X`$ is a topological space, one requires that $`p`$ is continuous and open. When $`𝖦`$ is a Lie groupoid and $`X`$ a manifold, $`p`$ should be a surjective submersion.

It follows that each $`𝖦_x=p^1(x)`$ is a subgroupoid of $`𝖦`$ over $`𝖦^{(0)}p^1(x)`$, so that $`𝖦=_{xX}𝖦_x`$ as a groupoid. This holds algebraically, topologically, or smoothly, as appropriate.

In the context of deformation quantization, the following two cases occur: either $`𝖦`$ is smooth, or $`𝖦`$ is étale. In both cases, $`𝖦`$ and all $`𝖦_x`$ automatically have a (left or right) Haar system . More generally, one may simply assume that $`𝖦`$ is a locally compact groupoid with Haar system. One may then form the convolution $`C^{}`$-algebras $`C^{}(𝖦)`$ and $`C^{}(𝖦_x)`$, or the corresponding reduced $`C^{}`$-algebras $`C_r^{}(𝖦)`$ and $`C_r^{}(𝖦_x)`$ . Each $`aC_c(𝖦)`$ (or $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(𝖦)`$) defines $`a_x=a𝖦_x`$ as an element of $`C_c(𝖦_x)`$ (etc.). These maps $`C_c(𝖦)C_c(𝖦_x)`$ are continuous in the appropriate norms, and extend to maps $`\pi _x:C^{}(𝖦)C^{}(𝖦_x)`$. Hence one obtains a field of $`C^{}`$-algebras

$$(X,\{A_x=C^{}(𝖦_x)\}_{xX},A=C^{}(𝖦)),$$

where $`aC^{}(𝖦)`$ defines the section $`x\pi _x(a)`$. A similar statement applies to the corresponding reduced $`C^{}`$-algebras.

The question now arises when this field is continuous. The answer, generalizing certain results by Rieffel for groups , is as follows.

###### Lemma 1

The field $`(X,\{C^{}(𝖦_x)\}_{xX},C^{}(𝖦))`$ is continuous at all points where $`𝖦_x`$ is amenable  (and similarly for the case of reduced $`C^{}`$-algebras).

This lemma was first mentioned to the author by Skandalis in 1997; see \[36, p. 469\]. A complete proof, based on results of Skandalis’s student Blanchard , appeared in , and was repeated in . In our examples of deformation quantization, where $`X=I`$, two possibilities occur.

In the first situation, all $`𝖦_{\mathrm{}}`$ are amenable, in which case Lemma 1 immediately proves continuity of the field in question. See  for a description of the noncommutative tori of Rieffel  and of the noncommutative four-spheres of Connes and Landi  (and of many other examples) as deformation quantizations along these lines.

In the second situation, typically only $`𝖦_0`$ is amenable, and the field is trivial away from $`\mathrm{}=0`$ (see below). The former property then yields continuity at $`\mathrm{}=0`$ by the lemma, whereas the latter gives continuity on $`(0,1]`$. In the context of Definition 3, the reason why $`G_0`$ is amenable is that $`A_0`$ must be commutative, which implies that $`G_0`$ is a bundle of abelian groups. But such groupoids are always amenable . In both cases, one obtains a continuous field.

Here a continuous field $`(I,\{A_{\mathrm{}}\}_\mathrm{}I,A)`$ is said to be trivial away from $`\mathrm{}=0`$ when $`A_{\mathrm{}}=B`$ for all $`\mathrm{}(0,1]`$, and one has a short exact sequence

$$0CBAA_00,$$
(2.2)
in terms of the so-called cone $`CB=C_0((0,1],B)`$. For later use, we recall that such a field induces a map $`K_{}(A_0)K_{}(B)`$ in the following way . Since the cone $`CB`$ is contractible, and therefore has trivial K-theory, the periodic 6-term sequence shows that

$$\pi _0:K_{}(A)K_{}(A_0)$$
(2.3)
is an isomorphism; here $`\pi _0`$ stands for the image of the $`^{}`$-homomorphism $`\pi _0:AA_0`$ under the K-functor. The K-theory map defined by the field is then simply

$$\pi _1\pi _0^1:K_{}(A_0)K_{}(B).$$
(2.4)
## 3 Examples

### 3.1 Particle on a manifold

The simplest physically relevant example of this setting is provided by Connes’s tangent groupoid $`G_M`$ of a manifold $`M`$; see \[19, p. 102\]. Here

$$𝖦=G_M=\underset{\mathrm{}I}{}G_{\mathrm{}},$$

where $`𝖦_0=T(M)`$ is the tangent bundle of $`M`$, seen as a groupoid over $`M`$ under addition in each fiber, and $`𝖦_{\mathrm{}}=M\times M`$ for all $`\mathrm{}(0,1]`$ is the pair (or coarse) groupoid on $`M`$. The point is, of course, that $`𝖦`$ has a smooth structure turning it into a Lie groupoid (see below).

The corresponding field of $`C^{}`$-algebras has fibers

$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`C^{}(T(M))C_0(T^{}(M));`$
$`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`C^{}(M\times M)B_0(L^2(M))\mathrm{}(0,1],`$ (3.5)
where $`B_0(H)`$ is the $`C^{}`$-algebra of compact operators on $`H`$. For later use, it is crucial to remark that the isomorphism in the first equation is given by a fiberwise Fourier transformation. The continuity of this field follows from Lemma 1 as explained above (among many other proofs; cf.  and references therein). For the quantization maps $`Q_{\mathrm{}}`$ see ; these are essentially given by Weyl–Moyal quantization with respect to a Riemannian structure on $`M`$. The relationship between the tangent groupoid and quantization was independently noted by Connes during his lectures at Les Houches in 1995; see .

Combining the trace $`\mathrm{tr}`$ (to implement the isomorphism $`K_0(B_0)`$) with the map in (2.4), one obtains a map

$$\mathrm{ind}_a=\mathrm{tr}\pi _1\pi _0^1:K^0(T^{}(M)),$$
(3.6)
which is precisely the analytic index of Atiyah and Singer ; cf. Lemma II.5.6 in . For $`M=^n`$, one has $`K^0(^{2n})`$, and the analytic index is the isomorphism $`\beta `$ of the Bott periodicity theorem . The fact that the “classical algebra” $`C_0(^{2n})`$ and the “quantum algebra” $`B_0(L^2(^n))`$ have the same K-theory is peculiar to this special case; for general $`M`$ this will, of course, fail. The special case $`M=^n`$, however, lies behind the Baum–Connes conjecture; see below.

### 3.2 Particle with internal degree of freedom

The above example describes the quantization of a particle moving on $`M`$, with phase space $`T^{}(M)`$. If, on the other hand, a particle has no kinematic degrees of freedom (in that it does not move on a configuration space), but is only endowed with internal degrees of freedom, described by a Lie group $`G`$, its algebra of observables is the group $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C^{}(G)`$. As first recognized in  (under certain assumptions, which later turned out to be unnecessary ), this algebra is a deformation quantization in the sense of Definition 3 of the Poisson manifold $`𝔤^{}`$, where $`𝔤`$ is the Lie algebra of $`G`$, and its dual vector space $`𝔤^{}`$ is equipped with the so-called Lie–Poisson structure (which on linear functions is just given by the Lie bracket) .

The underlying Lie groupoid $`𝖦`$ has fibers $`𝖦_0=𝔤`$ and $`𝖦_{\mathrm{}}=G`$ for $`\mathrm{}(0,1]`$. Here $`𝔤`$ is regarded as an abelian group, so that it is amenable, and Lemma 1 proves continuity of the associated field of $`C^{}`$-algebras

$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`C^{}(𝔤)C_0(𝔤^{});`$
$`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`C^{}(G)\mathrm{}(0,1].`$ (3.7)
Here $`𝔤`$ is treated as an abelian group; once again, the isomorphism in the first equation is given by the Fourier transformation. The quantization maps $`Q_{\mathrm{}}`$ are defined in terms of the usual exponential map from $`𝔤`$ to $`G`$, and Definition 3 turns out to be satisfied.

### 3.3 The Connes–Mackey semidirect product deformation

The deformation described by Connes in \[19, p. 141\] is similar to the preceding example, with the difference that only the ‘noncompact part’ of $`G`$ is deformed. Let $`G`$ be a connected Lie group with maximal compact subgroup $`H`$. With $`𝔪=T_e(G/H)`$ one has $`𝔤=𝔥𝔪`$, and $`H`$ acts naturally on $`𝔪`$. One then has a Lie groupoid $`𝖦`$ that is a field of groups with fibers $`𝖦_0=𝔪H`$ and $`𝖦_{\mathrm{}}=G`$ for $`\mathrm{}(0,1]`$. Since $`𝔪H`$ is amenable, Lemma 1 proves continuity of the associated field of $`C^{}`$-algebras. Note that, unlike in the previous examples, $`A_0=C^{}(𝔪H)`$ is now noncommutative, like $`A_{\mathrm{}}=C^{}(G)`$ (except in trivial cases).

### 3.4 Poisson manifolds associated to Lie algebroids

Examples 3.1 and 3.2 are both special cases of a very general construction . A Lie algebroid $`E`$ is a (real) vector bundle over a manifold $`M`$, whose space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ of smooth sections is equipped with a Lie bracket satisfying the Leibniz rule

$$[s_1,fs_2]=f[s_1,s_2]+(\alpha s_1)fs_2$$
(3.8)
for some vector bundle map $`\alpha :ET(M)`$. Such a map, called the anchor map of the Lie algebroid, is unique when it exists. (This definition, which we learnt from Marius Crainic, is more efficient than the usual one .) The simplest example is $`E=T(M)`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the identity map.

A Lie groupoid $`G`$ has an associated Lie algebroid $`A(G)`$ over the base space $`G^{(0)}`$ . The dual vector bundle $`A^{}(G)`$ has a canonical Poisson structure, which generalizes both the usual symplectic structure on $`T^{}(M)`$ and the Lie–Poisson bracket on $`𝔤^{}`$ . Generalizing Connes’s tangent groupoid  (which emerges as a special case for $`G=M\times M`$), there exists a Lie groupoid $`𝖦=_\mathrm{}IG_{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`𝖦_0=A(G)`$ (seen as a Lie groupoid over $`G^{(0)}`$ under addition in each fiber) and $`𝖦_{\mathrm{}}=G`$ for $`\mathrm{}>0`$. With abuse of terminology, this is called the tangent groupoid of $`G`$.

As noted in , the Lie algebroid of $`𝖦`$ is the so-called adiabatic Lie algebroid associated to $`A(G)`$. In general, the adiabatic Lie algebroid $`E_t`$ associated to some Lie algebroid $`E`$ over $`M`$ is a vector bundle over $`M\times I`$ whose total space is the pullback $`\mathrm{pr}_1^{}E`$ of the map $`\mathrm{pr}_1:M\times IM`$; the Lie bracket is, in obvious notation,

$$[s_1,s_2]_{E_t}(,\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}[s_1(\mathrm{}),s_2(\mathrm{})]_E.$$
(3.9)
The tangent groupoid of $`G`$ is then obtained by applying the integration procedure of  to $`A(G)_t`$; this provides, in particular, the smooth structure.

By our standard argument, the associated field of $`C^{}`$-algebras

$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`C^{}(A(G))C_0(A^{}(G));`$
$`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`C^{}(G)\mathrm{}(0,1],`$ (3.10)
is continuous, and provides a deformation quantization of the Poisson manifold $`A^{}(G)`$ in the sense of Definition 3. As in the previous examples, the isomorphism in the first equation is given by a fiberwise Fourier transformation. The analogy between the maps $`GA^{}(G)`$ and $`GC^{}(G)`$ is quite deep; see .

### 3.5 Gysin maps

Certain constructions of Connes in index theory turn out to be special cases of Example 3.4. One instance is the ‘shriek’ map $`p!:K^{}(F^{})K_{}(C^{}(V,F))`$ on p. 127 of , which plays a key role both in the longitudinal index theorem for foliations and in the construction of the analytic assembly map for foliated manifolds. Here $`V`$ is a manifold with foliation $`FT(V)`$, and $`C^{}(V,F)=C^{}(G(V,F))`$ is the canonical $`C^{}`$-algebra of the holonomy groupoid $`G(V,F)`$ of the foliation. Now $`p!`$ is nothing but the K-theory map (2.4) induced by the continuous field (3.10), where $`G=G(V,F)`$. The analytic index (3.6) corresponds to the special case that $`V=M`$ is trivially foliated (i.e., $`F=T(M)`$).

The index groupoid defined in \[19, §II.6\] is another example of (2.4) with (3.10). Let $`L:EF`$ be a vector bundle map between vector bundles over a common base $`B`$. Then one has a Lie groupoid $`G=\mathrm{Ind}_L=F_LE`$ over $`F`$, whose Lie algebroid is $`F\times _BE`$. The latter is a vector bundle over $`B`$, and in the formalism of this paper it should be regarded as a groupoid over $`F`$ under addition in each fiber. Hence $`A_0=C^{}(F\times _BE)C_0(F\times E^{})`$. The corresponding map (2.4) is basic to Connes’s construction of the Gysin or shriek map $`f!:K^{}(X)K^{}(Y)`$ induced by a smooth K-oriented map $`f:XY`$ between two manifolds.

## 4 The Baum–Connes conjecture

We first recall a generalized semidirect product construction for groupoids, which is necessary to relate the Baum–Connes conjecture to quantization. We then describe the analytic assembly map à la Connes. In what follows, $`G`$ is a Lie groupoid over $`G^{(0)}`$.

### 4.1 On semidirect products

Recall  that a (right) $`G`$ space $`P`$ is a smooth map $`P\stackrel{\alpha }{}G^{(0)}`$ along with a map $`P\times _{G^{(0)}}GP`$, where

$$P\times _{G^{(0)}}G=\{(p,\gamma )P\times G\alpha (p)=r(\gamma )\},$$
(4.11)
written as $`(p,\gamma )p\gamma `$, such that $`(p\gamma _1)\gamma _2=p(\gamma _1\gamma _2)`$ whenever defined, $`p\alpha (p)=p`$ for all $`p`$, and $`\alpha (p\gamma )=s(\gamma )`$. The action is called proper when $`\alpha `$ is a surjective submersion and the map $`P\times _{G^{(0)}}GP\times P`$, $`(p,\gamma )(p,p\gamma )`$ is proper (in that the inverse images of compact sets are compact).

In Connes’s description of the Baum–Connes conjecture , the standard semidirect product construction in groupoid theory is used: if $`G`$ acts on a space $`P`$ as above, one forms a groupoid $`PG`$ over $`P`$, with total space $`P\times _{G^{(0)}}G`$, source and range maps $`s(p,\gamma )=p\gamma `$ and $`r(p,\gamma )=p`$, inverse $`(p,\gamma )^1=(p\gamma ,\gamma ^1)`$, and multiplication $`(p,\gamma )(p\gamma ,\gamma ^{})=(p,\gamma \gamma ^{})`$. However, as we shall see shortly, the use of these semidirect products distorts the relationship between the Baum–Connes conjecture and deformation quantization. For our purposes, we must work with generalized semidirect products (see  for the locally compact case and  (2nd ed.) for the smooth case).

Let a $`G`$ space $`H`$ be a Lie groupoid itself, and suppose the base map $`H\stackrel{\alpha }{}G^{(0)}`$ is a surjective submersion that satisfies

1. $`\alpha _0s_H=\alpha _0r_H=\alpha `$ (cf. Definition 4); in other words, $`H`$ is a field of groupoids over $`G^{(0)}`$, and $`\alpha `$ is a morphism of groupoids if $`G^{(0)}`$ is seen as a space (where a groupoid $`X`$ is a space when $`X^{(0)}=X`$ and $`s=r=\mathrm{id}`$).
2. For each $`\gamma G`$, the map $`\alpha ^1(r(\gamma ))\alpha ^1(s(\gamma ))`$, $`hh\gamma `$, is an isomorphism of Lie groupoids; note that for each $`uG^{(0)}`$, $`\alpha ^1(u)`$ is a Lie groupoid over $`\alpha ^1(u)H^{(0)}`$. In other words, one has $`(h_1h_2)\gamma =(h_1\gamma )(h_2\gamma )`$ whenever defined.

Under these conditions, one may define a Lie groupoid $`HG`$, called the generalized semidirect product of $`H`$ and $`G`$. The total space of $`HG`$ is $`H\times _{G^{(0)}}G`$ as in (4.11), the base space $`(HG)^{(0)}`$is $`H^{(0)}`$, the source and range maps are

$`s(h,\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`s_H(h)\gamma ;`$
$`r(h,\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`r_H(h),`$ (4.12)
respectively, the inverse is $`(h,\gamma )^1=(h^1\gamma ,\gamma ^1)`$ (note that one automatically has $`\alpha (h^1)=\alpha (h)`$, so that this element is well defined), and multiplication is given by $`(h_1,\gamma _1)(h_2\gamma _1,\gamma _2)=(h_1h_2,\gamma _1\gamma _2)`$, defined whenever the product on the right-hand side exists (this follows from the automatic $`G`$-equivariance of $`s_H`$ and $`r_H`$). Familiar special cases of this construction occur when $`H`$ is a space and $`G`$ is a groupoid, so that $`HG`$ is the usual semidirect product groupoid over $`H`$ discussed above, and when $`G`$ and $`H`$ are both groups, so that $`HG`$ is the usual semidirect product of groups.

Now let $`P`$ be a $`G`$ space. Connes \[19, §II.10\] notes that the tangent bundle $`T_G(P)`$ of $`P`$ along $`\alpha `$ (i.e., $`\mathrm{ker}(\alpha _{})`$, where $`\alpha _{}:T(P)T(G^{(0)})`$ is the derivative of $`\alpha `$) is a $`G`$ space, with base map $`\xi _p\alpha (p)`$ (where $`\xi _pT_G(P)_p`$) and with the obvious push-forward action. He then regards $`T_G(P)`$ as a space, and forms the standard semidirect product groupoid $`T_G(P)G`$ over $`T_G(P)`$; to emphasize this, we write the groupoid in question as

$$T_G(P)G\stackrel{}{}T_G(P).$$
(4.13)
This groupoid is proper, and therefore its $`C^{}`$-algebra has computable K-theory. Connes then defines a geometric cycle for $`G`$ as a proper $`G`$ space $`P`$ along with an element of

$$K_{}(C^{}(T_G(P)G\stackrel{}{}T_G(P))).$$

Alternatively , one could work with the generalized semidirect product

$$T_G(P)G\stackrel{}{}P,$$
(4.14)
where $`T_G(P)`$ is seen as a Lie groupoid over $`P`$ by inheriting the Lie groupoid structure from $`T(P)`$ (see Example 3.1). This groupoid fails to be proper, but the following property will be sufficient.

###### Lemma 2

If $`P`$ is a proper $`G`$ space, then the groupoid $`T_G(P)G\stackrel{}{}P`$ is amenable.

Proof. Cor. 5.2.31 in  states that a (Lie) groupoid $`H`$ is amenable iff the associated principal groupoid (that is, the image of the map $`HH^{(0)}\times H^{(0)}`$, $`h(r(h),s(h))`$) is amenable and all stability groups of $`H`$ are amenable. As to the first condition, the principal groupoid of $`T_G(P)G`$ is the equivalence relation on $`P`$ defined by $`pq`$ when $`q=p\gamma `$ for some $`\gamma G`$. This is indeed amenable, because this equivalence relation is at the same time the principal groupoid of $`PG\stackrel{}{}P`$, which is proper (hence amenable) because $`P`$ is a proper $`G`$ space. As to the second condition, the stability group of $`pP`$ in $`T_G(P)G`$ is $`T_G(P)_pG_p`$, where $`G_p`$ is the stability group of $`pP`$ in $`PG`$. The former is abelian, and the latter is compact by the properness of the $`G`$ action, so that $`T_G(P)_pG_p`$ is amenable as the semidirect product of two amenable groups.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Despite the fact that the groupoids (4.13) and (4.14) are not even equivalent (in the sense of ), they have isomorphic $`C^{}`$-algebras through a Fourier transformation along the fibers of $`T_G(P)`$ (seen as a vector bundle over $`P`$), and the use of (4.13) or (4.14) therefore leads to the same geometric cycles. Hence for the Baum–Connes conjecture it does not matter which of these two groupoids is used. However, for the interpretation of the Baum–Connes conjecture in terms of deformation quantization one has to work with (4.14). To see this, consider the case where $`G`$ is trivial. The $`C^{}`$-algebra of (4.13) is $`C_0(T(P))`$, which is isomorphic to $`C_0(T^{}(P))`$ through the choice of a Riemannian metric on $`P`$. On the other hand, the $`C^{}`$-algebra of (4.14) is isomorphic to $`C_0(T^{}(P))`$ through a fiberwise Fourier transform. It should now be clear from Example 3.1 that (4.14) rather than (4.13) is the correct groupoid to work with, if one is interested in relating the Baum–Connes conjecture to deformation quantization.

Furthermore, the fibered product $`P\times _{G^{(0)}}P`$ is a $`G`$ space under the base map $`(p,q)\alpha (p)=\alpha (q)`$ and the diagonal action $`(p,q)\gamma =(p\gamma ,q\gamma )`$. Now $`P\times _{G^{(0)}}P`$ inherits a Lie groupoid structure from the pair groupoid $`P\times P`$ over $`P`$, becoming a Lie groupoid over $`P`$. Hence one has the semidirect product groupoid

$$(P\times _{G^{(0)}}P)G\stackrel{}{}P.$$

The tangent groupoid $`G_P`$ associated to $`P`$ has a Lie subgroupoid $`G_P^{}`$ over $`I\times P`$ that by definition contains all points $`(\mathrm{}=0,\xi _p)`$ of $`G_P`$ whose $`\xi _p`$ lies in $`T_G(P)`$, and all points $`(\mathrm{}>0,p,q)`$ for which $`\alpha (p)=\alpha (q)`$. It is clear that $`G_P^{}`$ is a field of groupoids over $`I`$, whose fiber at $`\mathrm{}=0`$ is $`T_G(P)`$, and whose fiber at any $`\mathrm{}(0,1]`$ is $`P\times _{G^{(0)}}P`$. Combining the $`G`$ actions defined in the preceding two cases, there is an obvious fiberwise $`G`$ action on $`G_P^{}`$ with respect to a base map $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(\mathrm{},)=\alpha _{\mathrm{}}()`$, where $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}=\alpha _1`$ for $`\mathrm{}(0,1]`$. This action is smooth, so that one obtains a generalized semidirect product groupoid

$$G_P^{}G\stackrel{}{}I\times P.$$

This groupoid is the main tool in the construction of the analytic assembly map occurring in Connes’s version of the Baum–Connes conjecture.

### 4.2 The analytic assembly map

The following lemma provides the continuity conditions tacitly assumed in §II.10.$`\alpha `$ in .

###### Lemma 3

If $`P`$ is a proper $`G`$ space, then $`C^{}(G_P^{}G)`$ is the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ of sections of a continuous field of $`C^{}`$-algebras over $`I`$ with fibers

$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`C^{}(T_G(P)G\stackrel{}{}P);`$
$`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`C^{}((P\times _{G^{(0)}}P)G\stackrel{}{}P)\mathrm{}(0,1].`$ (4.15)
This field is trivial away from $`\mathrm{}=0`$. The same is true if all groupoid $`C^{}`$-algebras are replaced by their reduced counterparts.

Proof. The groupoid $`G_P^{}G`$ inherits the structure of a smooth field of groupoids over $`I`$ from the tangent groupoid $`G_P`$ in the obvious way. The claim is then immediate from Lemmas 1 and 2.

$`\mathrm{}`$

When $`G`$ is trivial, the continuous field of this proposition is, of course, the one defined by the tangent groupoid of $`P`$, which coincides with the field defined by the Weyl–Moyal deformation quantization of the cotangent bundle $`T^{}(P)`$; see Example 3.1. The general case is a $`G`$-twisted version of this, which cannot really be interpreted in terms of underlying an Poisson manifold, because the fiber algebra at $`\mathrm{}=0`$ is no longer commutative.

###### Lemma 4

The $`C^{}`$-algebras $`C^{}((P\times _{G^{(0)}}P)G\stackrel{}{}P)`$ and $`C^{}(G)`$ are (strongly) Morita equivalent, as are the corresponding reduced $`C^{}`$-algebras.

Proof. It is easily checked that the map $`(p,q,\gamma )\gamma `$ from $`(P\times _{G^{(0)}}P)G`$ to $`G`$ is an equivalence of categories. Since this map is smooth, it follows from Cor. 4.23 in  that $`(P\times _{G^{(0)}}P)G`$ and $`G`$ are equivalent as Lie groupoids (and hence as locally compact groupoids with Haar system). The lemma then follows from Thm. 2.8 in .

$`\mathrm{}`$

We have now provided the background for understanding Connes’s amazing construction of the analytic assembly map \[19, §II.10\]

$$\mu _P:K_{}(C^{}(T_G(P)G))K_{}(C_r^{}(G)),$$
(4.16)
where $`P`$ is a proper $`G`$ space. By (2.4), the continuous field of Lemma 3 yields a map

$$\pi _1\pi _0^1:K_{}(C^{}(T_G(P)G))K_{}(C^{}((P\times _{G^{(0)}}P)G)).$$
(4.17)
By Lemma 4 and the fact that the K-theories of Morita equivalent $`C^{}`$-algebras are isomorphic, the right-hand side of (4.17) may be replaced by $`K_{}(C^{}(G))`$. The canonical projection $`\pi _r`$ from $`C^{}(G)`$ to $`C_r^{}(G)`$ pushes forward to $`\pi _r:K_{}(C^{}(G))K_{}(C_r^{}(G))`$, so that Connes is in a position to define

$$\mu _P=\pi _r\pi _1\pi _0^1.$$
(4.18)
When the classifying space $`\underset{¯}{E}G`$ for proper $`G`$ actions is a smooth manifold (which is true, for example, when $`G`$ is a connected Lie group \[19, §II.10.$`\beta `$\], or when $`G`$ is the tangent groupoid of a manifold), the topological K-theory $`K_{\mathrm{top}}^{}(G)`$ is defined as

$$K_{\mathrm{top}}^{}(G)=K_{}(C^{}(T_G(\underset{¯}{E}G)G)).$$
(4.19)
In that case, Connes’s analytic assembly map is

$$\mu =\mu _{\underset{¯}{E}G}:K_{\mathrm{top}}^{}(G)K_{}(C_r^{}(G)).$$
(4.20)
In general, $`K_{\mathrm{top}}^{}(G)`$ is defined by putting a certain equivalence relation on the geometric cycles for $`G`$, and $`\mu `$ is given by (4.18) applied to each cycle. In any case, the Baum–Connes conjecture states that $`\mu `$ should be an isomorphism. Connes’s interpretation of this conjecture as a $`G`$-equivariant version of Bott periodicity \[19, §II.10.$`ϵ`$\] is consistent with the quantization-oriented approach in this paper, since the field (4.15) underlying the Baum–Connes conjecture is a $`G`$-twisted version of the field (3.5), which for $`M=^n`$ leads to Bott periodicity. (See  for a detailed analysis of the relationship between Bott periodicity and quantization.)

Similarly, the usual interpretation of the analytic assembly map as a generalized index is understandable in the light of the comment below (3.6) and a comparison between (3.5) and (4.15). In fact, the symbol of a $`G`$-invariant elliptic pseudodifferential operator $`D`$ on $`P`$  defines an element $`[\sigma _D]`$ of $`K_{}(C^{}(T_G(P)G))`$, and the image of this element under (4.17) is precisely the $`K_{}(C^{}(G))`$-valued index of $`D`$. At least when $`G`$ is a group, this argument also bridges the gap between the usual formulation of the Baum–Connes conjecture in KK-theory  and its formulation due to Connes discussed above, for in that case $`D`$ defines an element of the $`G`$-equivariant K-homology $`K_{}^G(P)`$ of $`P`$ in terms of which $`K_{\mathrm{top}}^{}(G)`$ is usually defined (A. Valette, private communication).

## 5 Physical interpretation

### 5.1 General comments

When (4.19) holds, the Baum–Connes conjecture claims that the $`G`$-twisted Weyl–Moyal deformation quantization of the phase space $`T^{}(\underset{¯}{E}G)`$ preserves K-theory. This conjecture is a far-reaching generalization of the fact that the deformation quantization of $`T^{}(^n)`$ preserves K-theory; as already mentioned, this fact comes down to Bott periodicity. More generally, Connes’s Thom isomorphism in K-theory , which implies Bott periodicity, can be understood through deformation quantization . The general question whether deformation quantization preserves K-theory has been the subject of some research  outside the context of the Baum–Connes conjecture, and there are only a few general results.

We now take a closer look at the continuous field (4.15). Since the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C^{}(T_G(P)G)`$ is noncommutative (unless $`G`$ is trivial), it has no immediate underlying Poisson manifold, so that $`G`$-twisted quantization cannot itself be seen as quantization. To analyze the situation, for simplicity we assume that $`G`$ is a Lie group. In that case, the continuous field (4.15) may be written in terms of conventional crossed product $`C^{}`$-algebras  as

$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`C_0(T^{}(P))G;`$
$`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`B_0(L^2(P))G\mathrm{}(0,1].`$ (5.21)
In the first equation the given $`G`$ action on $`P`$ is pulled back first to $`T^{}(P)`$ and subsequently to $`C_0(T^{}(P))`$, and in the second the natural unitary representation of $`G`$ on $`L^2(P)`$ defines an associated action on the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`B_0(L^2(P))`$ of compact operators by conjugation. We now first make the assumption that the $`G`$ action on $`P`$ is free, allowing a clean analysis, to drop it afterwards.

### 5.2 Free actions and superselection theory

When the $`G`$ action on $`P`$ is free (so that $`P`$ is a principal $`G`$ space), one has a Morita equivalence

$$C_0(T^{}(P))G\stackrel{M}{}C_0(T^{}(P)/G).$$
(5.22)
This is a special case of a well-known result of Rieffel ; in connection with what follows, another useful proof is to note that one has an equivalence of groupoids (in the sense of )

$$T^{}(P)G\stackrel{}{}T^{}(P)T^{}(P)/G\stackrel{}{}T^{}(P)/G$$
(5.23)
through the equivalence bibundle $`T^{}(P)`$. By , this induces a Morita equivalence of the corresponding groupoid $`C^{}`$-algebras, yielding (5.22).

Under the freeness assumption one has an analogous Morita equivalence on the quantum side, namely

$$B_0(L^2(P))G\stackrel{M}{}C^{}((P\times P)/G).$$
(5.24)
Here

$$(P\times P)/G\stackrel{}{}P/G$$

is the so-called gauge groupoid of the principal $`G`$ bundle $`P`$ . (When $`G`$ is compact, the corresponding groupoid $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C^{}((P\times P)/G)`$ consists of the $`G`$-invariant compact operators on $`L^2(P)`$.) To prove (5.24), one starts from the equivalence of groupoids

$$(P\times P)G\stackrel{}{}P\times P(P\times P)/G\stackrel{}{}P/G,$$
(5.25)
through the equivalence bibundle $`P\times P`$. Compare (5.23). Thus the Morita equivalent counterpart of the continuous field (5.21) is the field

$`A_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`C_0(T^{}(P)/G);`$
$`A_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`C^{}((P\times P)/G)\mathrm{}(0,1].`$ (5.26)
This field is continuous as well: in fact, (5.26) is just a special case of (3.10) in Example 3.4, in which (with abuse of notation) the groupoid $`G`$ is taken to be the gauge groupoid $`(P\times P)/G`$. In particular, the continuous field (5.26) is even a $`C^{}`$-algebraic deformation quantization of the Poisson manifold $`T^{}(P)/G`$ in the sense of Definition 3 (as already mentioned in the Introduction, $`T^{}(P)/G`$ inherits the canonical Poisson structure on $`T^{}(P)`$).

Poisson manifolds of this type  and their quantization  have been extensively analyzed. The underlying classical mechanical system is a particle moving on the configuration space $`Q=P/G`$ with an internal degree of freedom coupling to $`G`$. The classical phase space $`T^{}(P)/G`$ decomposes as a disjoint union of its symplectic leaves, which may be thought of as the ‘classical superselection sectors’ of the system. Specifically, if $`J:T^{}(P)𝔤^{}`$ is the momentum map of the $`G`$ action, the symplectic leaves of $`T^{}(P)/G`$ are the connected components of the Marsden–Weinstein quotients $`J^1(𝒪)/G`$, where $`𝒪𝔤^{}`$ is a coadjoint orbit for $`G`$. Locally, such a leaf is of the form $`T^{}(Q)\times 𝒪`$. The first factor is just the usual phase space of a particle moving on $`Q`$, and the second is the classical charge of the particle. The latter typically couples to an external gauge field .

The fact that the quantum algebra of observables $`C^{}((P\times P)/G)`$ is related to its classical counterpart $`C_0(T^{}(P)/G)`$ by a $`C^{}`$-algebraic deformation is reflected in the superselection structure of the model. One of Haag’s fundamental insights was that superselection sectors of a quantum system may be identified with inequivalent irreducible representations of its algebra of observables (in quantum field theory further selection criteria are needed, though) . By Lemma 4, both sides of (5.24) are Morita equivalent to $`C^{}(G)`$, so that, in particular, the superselection sectors of $`C^{}((P\times P)/G)`$ bijectively correspond to the irreducible unitary representations of $`G`$. Of course, this reflects the DHR theory in algebraic quantum field theory . A comparison with the classical situation then confirms Kirillov’s general principle that coadjoint orbits should be seen as the classical analogues of irreducible unitary representations ; also cf. Example 3.2.

### 5.3 General actions and singular quantization

When the $`G`$ action on $`P`$ is not free (and this is the main case of interest in connection with the Baum–Connes conjecture), the quotient $`T^{}(P)/G`$ is no longer a manifold. Nonetheless, its structure is well understood . Each naive symplectic leaf of the form $`J^1(𝒪)/G`$ (or rather a connected component thereof) of $`T^{}(P)/G`$ is not a symplectic manifold, but a stratified symplectic space . In particular, the leaf in question itself decomposes as a disjoint union of symplectic manifolds, which are glued together in a certain topological way that one can describe in detail. Compared to the regular situation discussed above, this introduces new classical superselection sectors.

The problem arises how to quantize such singular symplectic spaces; cf.  for a survey of what little is known. The noncommutative geometry approach to the situation would be to desingularize $`T^{}(P)/G`$ by starting from $`C^{}(T^{}(P)G)`$ rather than $`C_0(T^{}(P)/G)`$. Although the former $`C^{}`$-algebra is noncommutative, it is still a description of $`T^{}(P)/G`$ as a classical space. This is reflected by the fact that $`A_0=C^{}(T^{}(P)G)`$ carries a structure analogous to the notion of a Poisson fibered algebra defined in . In the $`C^{}`$-algebraic context, it is necessary to involve the multiplier algebra to make sense of this idea.

The multiplier algebra of $`A_0`$ contains $`\stackrel{~}{Z}=C_b^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}(P))^G`$ (where the suffix $`G`$ denotes the $`G`$-invariant functions) in its center, and also contains the subalgebra $`\stackrel{~}{A}_0`$ generated by $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ and $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}(P)G)`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{A}_0`$ is a Poisson fibered algebra over $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$, in that one has a bracket $`(f,a)\{f,a\}`$ from $`\stackrel{~}{Z}\times \stackrel{~}{A}_0`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{A}_0`$, which restricts to a Poisson bracket on $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$, and is a derivation on $`\stackrel{~}{A}_0`$ for fixed $`f`$ and a derivation on $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ for fixed $`a`$. This bracket is simply given by the one on $`T^{}(P)`$, ignoring the $`G`$-dependence of $`a`$.

To quantize the desingularized system, one has to deform $`C^{}(T^{}(P)G)`$. This is precisely what happens in Connes’s formulation of the Baum–Connes conjecture described in Section 4. The continuous field (4.15) may be seen as an educated guess to quantize the singular Poisson manifold $`T^{}(P)/G`$ by the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`B_0(L^2(P))G`$; the direction of the deformation is now determined by the more general notion of a Poisson structure discussed in the previous paragraph.

This proposal should be tested in concrete examples, such as the Universe with a Big Bang singularity. A complete analysis of this case will have to wait for Haag’s 90th birthday Festschrift.


format: text

text:
# Current in the light-front Bethe-Salpeter formalism II: Applications

## I Introduction

More than a half century ago, Dirac’s paper on the forms of relativistic dynamics Dirac:1949cp  introduced the front-form Hamiltonian approach. Applications to quantum mechanics and field theory were overlooked at the time due to the appearance of covariant perturbation theory. The reemergence of front-form dynamics was largely motivated by simplicity as well as physicality. The light-front approach has the largest stability group Leutwyler:1977vy  of any Hamiltonian theory. Today the physical connection to light-front dynamics is transparent: hard scattering processes probe a light-cone correlation of the fields. Not surprisingly, then, many perturbative QCD applications can be treated on the light front, see e.g. Lepage:1980fj . Outside this realm, physics on the light cone has been extensively developed for non-perturbative QCD Brodsky:1997de  as well as applied to nuclear physics Carbonell:1998rj ; Miller:2000kv .

Recently we investigated current matrix elements in the light-front Bethe-Salpeter formalism future , at task originally attempted in Tiburzi:2002mn . As an example, we considered the ladder approximation for the covariant kernel in the weak-binding limit. We calculated $`(1+1)`$-dimensional electromagnetic form factors in this reduction scheme to demonstrate the replacement of non-wave function vertices (as coined in Bakker:2000rd ) with contributions from higher Fock states. These higher Fock states originate from the light-front energy pole-structure of the Bethe-Salpeter and photon vertices.

Below, we take the model into $`(3+1)`$ dimensions and make clear the connection to higher Fock components by explicitly constructing the three-body wave function from our expressions for form factors. Additionally we show how the normalization of the covariant Bethe-Salpeter equation turns into a familiar many-body normalization in the light-front reduction. The immediate application of our development for form factors (in a frame where the plus-component of the momentum transfer is non-zero) is to compute generalized parton distributions. Connection is again made to the Fock space representation and continuity of the distributions is put under scrutiny. The formalism is also employed to obtain time-like form factors. This latter application in interesting since no Fock space expansion in terms of bound states is possible.

The paper is organized as follows. First in section II we review the normalization of the covariant Bethe-Salpeter wave function and then proceed to derive the light-front reduced version. This necessitates a review of the light-front reduction notation introduced in Sales:1999ec . The normalization condition resembles a diagonal matrix element of a pseudo current and has contributions from higher Fock states. We calculate the explicit normalization condition for the ladder model at next-to-leading order in perturbation theory. The connection to the familiar many-body Fock state normalization is made in Appendix B. Next in section III, we use the reduction scheme to calculate generalized parton distributions. We do so by using the integrand of the electromagnetic form factor calculated in an arbitrary frame (these expressions in $`(3+1)`$ dimensions are collected in Appendix A where the leading-order bound-state equation for the wave function also appears). We discuss the continuity of these distributions in terms of relations between Fock components at vanishing plus momentum. Connection is also made to the overlap representation of generalized parton distributions. Application of the reduction scheme to time-like form factors and their related generalized distribution amplitudes is presented in section IV. Finally we conclude with a brief summary (section V).

## II Normalization

In Sales:1999ec  the relation between the four-dimensional Bethe-Salpeter wave function and the reduced light-front wave function was presented. The normalization of the reduced wave function, however, was not discussed in much detail and will be addressed below.

Let $`G(R)`$ denote the two-particle disconnected propagator, where $`R`$ labels the total momentum. Thus between effective single-particle states of momenta $`p`$ and $`k`$, we have $`p|G(R)|k=(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(pk)G(k,R)`$, where $`G(k,R)=d(k)d(Rk)`$ and the scalar single-particle propagator is

$$d(k)=\frac{i}{(k^2m^2)[1+(k^2m^2)f(k^2)]+\mathrm{i}ϵ}.$$
(1)
Here the function $`f(k^2)`$ characterizes the renormalized, one-particle irreducible self-interactions and for simplicity shall be ignored below. The Bethe-Salpeter equation for the bound-state amplitude $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$ with mass $`R^2=M^2`$ reads

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_R=G(R)V(R)|\mathrm{\Psi }_R,$$
(2)
where $`V(R)`$ is the irreducible two-to-two scattering kernel (which we shall often call the potential).

From the behavior of the reducible four-point function near the bound-state pole $`R^2=M^2`$ one can deduce the covariant normalization condition Itzykson:rh  by application of l’Hôpital’s rule

$$2iR^\mu =\mathrm{\Psi }_R|\frac{}{R_\mu }\left(G^1(R)V(R)\right)|\mathrm{\Psi }_R|_{R^2=M^2}.$$
(3)
The normalization (3) takes the form of a diagonal matrix element of a pseudo current.

The light-front reduction is performed by integrating out the minus-momentum111For any vector $`a^\mu `$, we define the light-cone variables $`a^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a^0\pm a^3)`$. dependence with the help of an auxiliary Green’s function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}(R)`$. For simplicity, we denote the integration $`\frac{d\mathrm{k}^{}}{2\pi }\mathrm{k}^{}|𝒪(R)=|𝒪(R)`$. With this notation, we will always work in $`(3+1)`$-dimensional momentum space for which the only sensible matrix elements of $`|𝒪(R)`$ are of the form $`\mathrm{k}^+,𝐤^{}||𝒪(R)|\mathrm{p}^{},\mathrm{p}^+,𝐩^{}`$. The operator $`𝒪(R)|`$ is defined similarly. To obtain light-front time-ordered perturbation theory one chooses

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}(R)=G(R)\left|g^1(R)\right|G(R),$$
(4)
where $`g(R)=\left|G(R)\right|`$. This form of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}`$ allows for a systematic approximation scheme for the light-front energy poles of the Bethe-Salpeter vertex future . Lastly one defines an auxiliary kernel $`W(R)`$ by Woloshyn:wm

$$W(R)=V(R)+\left(G(R)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}(R)\right)W(R).$$
(5)
In what follows we shall omit total four-momentum labels since they are all identically $`R`$. The normalization condition for the reduced wave function is then deduced by using the conversion Sales:1999ec

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_R=(1+(G\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}})W)G||\gamma _R,$$
(6)
and the definition of the reduced wave function $`|\psi _R`$, namely

$$|\psi _R||\mathrm{\Psi }_R=g(R)|\gamma _R.$$
(7)
Hence taking the plus component of Eq. (3)

$$\begin{array}{c}2iR^+=\gamma _R||G\left(1+W(G\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}})\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left(\frac{}{R^{}}[G^1V]\right)(1+(G\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}})W)G||\gamma _R.\end{array}$$
(8)
The complicated normalization condition is indicative of the effects of higher Fock space components. To see this explicitly, we work in the ladder model in perturbation theory for which

$$V(k,p)=\frac{g^2}{(kp)^2\mu ^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ}.$$
(9)
Notice $`V/R^\mu =0`$.

Let us start with the contribution at leading order in $`G\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}`$ to the reduced wave function’s normalization.

$$\frac{i}{2R^+}\gamma _RG\left(\frac{}{R^{}}G^1\right)G\gamma _R=1.$$
(10)
To perform the integration, we note

$$\frac{}{R^{}}G^1(k,R)=2iR^+d^1(k)(1x),$$
(11)
where we have customarily chosen $`x=\mathrm{k}^+/R^+`$. Evaluation of the integral in equation (10) is standard and yields

$$N^{\text{LO}}\frac{dxd𝐤^{}}{2(2\pi )^3x(1x)}\psi ^{}(x,𝐤^{})\psi (x,𝐤^{})=1,$$
(12)
a simple overlap of the two-body wave function.

To analyze the normalization to first order in $`G\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}`$, we expand equation (8) to first order

$$N^{\text{LO}}+\delta N+\mathrm{}=1,$$
(13)
where $`N^{\text{LO}}`$ is the integral appearing in (12) and the first-order correction arising from (8) is

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta N=\frac{i}{2R^+}\gamma _R||G\left(\frac{}{R^{}}G^1\right)\left(G\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}\right)VG\hfill \\ \hfill +GV(G\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}})\left(\frac{}{R^{}}G^1\right)G||\gamma _R.\end{array}$$
(14)
The presence of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}`$ merely subtracts the leading-order result $`N^{\text{LO}}`$. Considering for the moment just the first term in the above equation (and omitting the subtraction $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}`$), we have

$$\begin{array}{c}i\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}(1x)\gamma ^{}(x,𝐤^{}|M^2)d(k)\hfill \\ \hfill \times d(Rk)^2V(k,p)d(p)d(Rp)\gamma (y,𝐩^{}|M^2).\end{array}$$
(15)
The minus-momentum integrals above are similar to those considered in deriving the bound-state equation to leading order in Appendix A. The only difference is the double pole due to the extra propagator $`d(Rk)`$. With $`x=\mathrm{k}^+/R^+`$ and $`y=\mathrm{p}^+/R^+`$, for $`x>y`$ we avoid picking up the residue at the double pole and the result is the same as in Eq. (10) after using the bound-state equation. This term is then subtracted by the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}`$ term in equation (14). On the other hand, when $`x<y`$ we pick up the residue at the double pole. Part of the residue is subtracted by the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}`$ term; the other half depends on $`V(k,p)/k^{}`$. The second term in Eq. (14) is evaluated identically up to $`\{kp\}`$. Now combining the two terms and their relevant $`\theta `$ functions, we can rewrite the result using the explicit form of the one-boson exchange potential Eq. 43, namely

$$\delta N=\frac{dxd𝐤^{}}{2(2\pi )^3x(1x)}\frac{dyd𝐩^{}}{2(2\pi )^3y(1y)}\psi ^{}(x,𝐤^{})\left(\frac{}{M^2}V(x,𝐤^{};y,𝐩^{}|M^2)\right)\psi (y,𝐩^{}).$$
(16)
Thus although the covariant derivative’s action on the potential vanishes, we can manipulate the correction to the normalization into the form of a derivative’s action on the light-front, time-ordered potential. With this form, we can compare to the familiar nonvalence probability discussed in Appendix B (in the frame where $`R^+=R^{}=M/\sqrt{2}`$ with $`M/\sqrt{2}`$ as the eigenvalue of the light-front Hamiltonian, denoted $`\mathrm{p}^{}`$ in Eq. (65)).

Here we have seen that the normalization of the light-cone wave function includes effects from higher Fock states. Since this normalization condition stemmed from a diagonal matrix element of a pseudo current, we should not be surprised that matrix elements of the electromagnetic current, when treated in this reduction scheme, pick up contributions from higher Fock states. These higher Fock contributions appear explicitly and are the subject of the next section.

## III Application to GPDs

Having worked through matrix elements of the electromagnetic current in a frame where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+0`$ future , we can now make the connection to generalized parton distributions (GPDs). These distributions, which in some sense are the natural interpolating functions between form factors and quark distribution functions, turn up in a variety of hard exclusive processes, e.g. deeply virtual Compton scattering, wide-angle Compton scattering and the electro-production of mesons Muller:1994fv . The scattering amplitude for these processes factorizes into a convolution of a hard part (calculable from perturbative QCD) and a soft part which the GPDs encode. Since light-cone correlations are probed in these hard processes, the soft physics has a simple interpretation and expression in terms of light-front wave functions Brodsky:2001xy . In this section, we cast our results for form factors future  in the language of GPDs and the light cone Fock space expansion. The $`(3+1)`$-dimensional expressions for form factors are presented in Appendix A. Additionally one can obtain these results directly from time-ordered perturbation theory using two-body projection operators as explicated in Appendix B.

The GPD for our meson model is defined by a non-diagonal matrix element of bilocal field operators

$$F(x,\zeta ,t)=\frac{dy^{}}{4\pi }e^{ixP^+y^{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_P^{}|q(y^{})i\stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{+}q(0)|\mathrm{\Psi }_P,$$
(17)
where $`q(x)`$ denotes the quark field operator and $`\stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }=\stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\stackrel{}{}^\mu `$. Comparing to the current matrix element $`J^\mu `$ in Appendix A, the definition of the GPD leads immediately to the sum rule

$$\frac{dx}{1\zeta /2}F(x,\zeta ,t)=F(t).$$
(18)
Hence one can calculate these distributions from the integrand of the form factor. In this way, the light-cone correlation defined in Eq. (17) has a natural description in terms of light-front time-ordered perturbation theory, e.g. for $`x>\zeta `$ the relevant graphs contributing to the GPD are in Figure 4 and 5, and those for $`x<\zeta `$ are in Figure 6.

### III.1 Continuity

Conversion of the contributions to the form factor into GPDs is straightforward using Eq. (18); we merely remove $`2iP^+`$ and $`𝑑x`$ from Eqs. (52-57). In order for the deeply virtual Compton scattering amplitude to factorize into hard and soft pieces (at leading twist), the GPDs $`F(x,\zeta ,t)`$ must be continuous at $`x=\zeta `$. Maintaining continuity at the crossover is more pressing because experiments which measure the beam-spin asymmetry are limited to the crossover Diehl:1997bu . The leading-order expressions are continuous. This is easy to see since the contribution for $`x<\zeta `$ is identically zero. The valence contribution for $`x>\zeta `$ is a convolution of wave functions one of which is $`\psi ^{}(x^{},\mathrm{})`$ which is probed at the end point since $`x^{}\frac{x\zeta }{1\zeta }0`$. From the bound-state equation Eq. (45), we see the two-body wave function vanishes quadratically at the end points. Taking into account the overall weight $`x^1`$, the valence piece vanishes linearly at the crossover. At leading order then, continuity is maintained at the crossover, while the derivative is discontinuous. Working only in the valence sector, valence quark models will never be of any use to beam-spin asymmetry measurements since the value at the crossover requires one wave function to be at an end point. In the three-body bound state problem (e.g. the nucleon), the valence GPD will vanish only if the three-body interaction is non-singular at the end points (which is physically reasonable and perturbatively true).

Let us now check the next-to-leading order contributions to the GPD for continuity. First we shall deal with the term stemming from iterating the Bethe-Salpeter equation for the initial state (55) (see diagram $`B`$ of Figure 5). Since there is no Z-graph generated from iterating the initial state, we expect this contribution to vanish. Looking at the expression, we see again $`\psi ^{}(x^{},\mathrm{})/x^{}`$ which vanishes linearly as $`x\zeta `$. Moreover there are the interaction terms: $`D(y,𝐩^{};x,𝐤^{}|M^2)`$ which is finite as $`x\zeta `$, and

$$D(\mathrm{y}^{},𝐩^{};\mathrm{x}^{},𝐤^{}|M^2)\stackrel{x\zeta }{=}\frac{\mathrm{x}^{}}{(𝐤^{}+𝚫^{})^2+m^2},$$
(19)
which vanishes at the crossover. Thus not only does the initial-state iteration term vanish at the crossover, its derivative does so as well.

Now we investigate the Born terms 53 (see diagram $`A`$ of Figure 5) and 54 (see diagram $`D`$ of Figure 6) at the crossover. Approaching $`\zeta `$ from above (53), we have the finite contribution at the crossover

$$F(\zeta ,\zeta ,t)^{\text{Born}}=\frac{d𝐤^{}dyd𝐩^{}}{(16\pi ^3)^2y(1y)\mathrm{y}^{}}\psi ^{}(y^{},𝐩^{})\frac{g^2\theta (y\zeta )/(y\zeta )}{(𝐤^{}+𝚫^{})^2+m^2}D(y,𝐩^{};\zeta ,𝐤^{}|M^2)\psi (y,𝐩^{}).$$
(20)
On the other hand, approaching the crossover from below (54) we have to deal with singularities as $`x^{\prime \prime }=x/\zeta 1`$. Writing out the propagator for the quark-antiquark pair heading off to annihilation, we see

$$\mathrm{D}_\text{W}(x^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{\prime \prime }|t)\frac{1x^{\prime \prime }}{(𝐤^{}+𝚫^{})^2+m^2}.$$
(21)
This linear vanishing cancels the weight $`(1x^{\prime \prime })^1`$. Taking the limit $`x\zeta `$ then produces equation (20) and thus the Born terms are continuous.

Lastly we must see how the final-state iteration terms match up at the crossover. Using Eq. (56) to approach $`\zeta `$ from above (see diagram $`C`$ of Figure 5), we have the contribution

$$F(\zeta ,\zeta ,t)^{\text{final}}=\frac{d𝐤^{}d\mathrm{y}^{}d𝐩^{}}{(16\pi ^3)^2(1\zeta )\mathrm{y}^{}(1\mathrm{y}^{})}\psi ^{}(y^{},𝐩^{})\frac{g^2/y}{(𝐤^{}+𝚫^{})^2+m^2}D(y,𝐩^{};\zeta ,𝐤^{}|M^2)\psi (\zeta ,𝐤^{}).$$
(22)
Approaching $`\zeta `$ from below (see diagram $`E`$ of Figure 6), we utilize equation (21) in taking the limit of (57). The result is (22) and hence we have demonstrated continuity to first order, i.e.

$$F(\zeta ,\zeta ,t)=F(\zeta ,\zeta ,t)^{\text{Born}}+F(\zeta ,\zeta ,t)^{\text{final}}$$
(23)
no matter how we approach $`x=\zeta `$.

### III.2 Fock space representation

We now write the GPDs in terms of Fock component overlaps. In the diagonal overlap region $`x>\zeta `$ this will be a mere rewriting of our results, while there is a subtlety for the non-diagonal overlaps. To handle the zeroth-order term (52), we define the two-body Fock component as

$$\psi _2(x_1,𝐤_1^{},x_2,𝐤_2^{})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{x_1x_2}}\psi (x_1,𝐤_{\text{rel}}^{}),$$
(24)
noting that the relative transverse momentum can be defined as $`𝐤_{\text{rel}}^{}=x_2𝐤_1^{}x_1𝐤_2^{}`$. In terms of Eq. (24), the GPD appears as

$$F(x,\zeta ,t)^{\text{LO}}=\frac{\theta (x\zeta )}{\sqrt{1\zeta }}[dx]_2[d𝐤^{}]_2\underset{j=1,2}{}\delta (xx_j)\psi _2^{}(x_i^{},𝐤_i^{}{}_{}{}^{})\frac{2x_j\zeta }{\sqrt{x_j^{}x_j}}\psi _2(x_i,𝐤_i^{}),$$
(25)
where the primed variables are given by

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}x_i^{}=\frac{x_i}{1\zeta }\hfill & \\ 𝐤_i^{}{}_{}{}^{}=𝐤_i^{}x_i^{}𝚫^{},\text{for}ij\hfill & \end{array}\{\begin{array}{cc}x_j^{}=\frac{x_j\zeta }{1\zeta }\hfill & \\ 𝐤_j^{}{}_{}{}^{}=𝐤_j^{}+(1x_j^{})𝚫^{}\hfill & \end{array}$$
(26)
and the integration measure is given by

$`[dx]_N`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}dx_i\delta \left(1{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}x_i\right)`$ (27)
$`[d𝐤^{}]_N`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{[2(2\pi )^3]^{N1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}d𝐤_i^{}\delta \left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}𝐤_i^{}\right).`$ (28)
Notice the sum over transverse momenta in the delta function is zero since our initial meson has $`𝐏^{}=0`$. The sum over $`j`$ in Eq. (25) produces the overall factor of two for our case of equally massive (equally charged) constituents.

To cast the next-to-leading order expressions for $`x>\zeta `$ in terms of diagonal Fock space overlaps, we must write out the three-body Fock component. Looking at the diagrams in Figure 5, it is constructed from the two-body wave function

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi _3(x_i,𝐤_i^{})=g\frac{2(2\pi )^3}{\sqrt{x_1x_2x_3}}[dy]_2[d𝐩^{}]_2[\theta (y_1x_1)x_3\delta (y_2x_3)\delta (𝐩_2^{}𝐤_3^{})D(y_1,𝐩_1^{};x_1,𝐤_1^{}|M^2)\hfill \\ \hfill +\theta (y_2x_3)x_1\delta (y_1x_1)\delta (𝐩_1^{}𝐤_1^{})D(y_2,𝐩_2^{};x_3,𝐤_3^{}|M^2)]\frac{\psi _2(y_j,𝐩_j^{})}{\sqrt{y_1y_2}},\end{array}$$
(29)
where $`i`$ runs from one to three and the label $`j`$, which stems from the integration measure, runs from one to two. We discuss how to obtain this three-body wave function directly from time-ordered perturbation theory in Appendix B. Using $`\psi _3`$ in Eq. (29), the terms in the GPD at first order in the weak coupling can then be written compactly as

$$F(x,\zeta ,t)^{\text{NLO}}=\frac{\theta (x\zeta )}{1\zeta }[dx]_3[d𝐤^{}]_3\underset{j=1,3}{}\delta (xx_j)\psi _3^{}(x_i^{},𝐤_i^{}{}_{}{}^{})\frac{2x_j\zeta }{\sqrt{x_j^{}x_j}}\psi _3(x_i,𝐤_i^{}).$$
(30)
One can verify that the diagrams in Figure 5 are generated by (30). Additionally there is a fourth diagram generated by Eq. (30) which does not appear in the figure. This missing diagram is characterized by the spectator quark’s one-loop self interaction and is absent since we have ignored $`f(k^2)`$ and the scale dependence of light-cone wave functions.222Recently the scale dependence of light-cone Fock components has been investigated Burkardt:2002uc . The absence of this diagram does not affect continuity at the crossover. The missing diagram vanishes at $`x=\zeta `$ since the final-state wave function is $`\psi ^{}(x^{},\mathrm{})`$. Lastly we note the above Fock component overlaps satisfy the positivity constraint for a composite scalar composed of scalar constituents Tiburzi:2002kr .

Now we must come to terms with the non-diagonal overlap region, $`x<\zeta `$. At first order, the diagrams of Figure 6 correspond to four-to-two Fock component overlaps. We have been cavalier about time ordering, however. The expressions Eqs. 54 and 57 do not correspond to time-ordered graphs. Both terms contain a product of time-ordered propagators: one for the two quarks leading to the final-state vertex and another for the quark-antiquark pair heading off to annihilation. But for an interpretation in terms of a four-body wave function, all four particles must propagate at the same time. This is a subtle issue as a graph containing the product of two independently time-ordered pieces (where one leads to a bound-state vertex) corresponds to a sum of infinitely many time-ordered graphs. It is easiest to write out the terms of concern in terms of the propagators’ poles. The quark, anti-quark heading to annihilation have propagators $`d(k)`$ and $`d(k+\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and poles we label $`k_a^{}`$ and $`k_c^{}`$, respectively. The remaining propagators of interest $`d(p^{})`$ and $`d(P^{}p^{})`$ have poles $`p_a^{}`$ and $`p_b^{}`$, respectively. We can then manipulate as follows

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{k_c^{}k_a^{}}\frac{1}{p_b^{}p_a^{}}\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{1}{p_b^{}p_a^{}+k_c^{}k_a^{}}\left(\frac{1}{p_b^{}p_a^{}}+\frac{1}{k_c^{}k_a^{}}\right).\end{array}$$
(31)
In this form, we have produced the correct energy denominator for the instant of light-front time where four particles are propagating. Multiplying this denominator by the three-body wave function yields the four-body wave function (up to constants). This is the part of the four-body wave function relevant for GPDs (there are additional pieces for two-quark, two-boson states, see Appendix B). In the resulting sum (31), the first term will produce the two-body wave function for the final state and we will have a genuine four-to-two overlap. We do not write this out explicitly.

The second term in Eq. (31), however, contains again the propagator for the pair heading to annihilation. Using the light-front Bethe-Salpeter equation for the vertex (which contains infinitely many times) we can introduce a factor of the time-ordered interaction. The resulting product of independent time orderings can again be manipulated as in Eq. (31). The result produces another overall four-body denominator which contributes to the four-body Fock component of the initial state. Since we iterated the interaction, however, this new contribution is no longer at leading order and can be neglected. Thus the second term in (31) does not contribute at this order.

Having manipulated the GPDs into non-diagonal overlaps for $`x<\zeta `$, we must wonder if continuity at the crossover is still maintained. In the limit $`x\zeta `$ the light-front energy of the struck quark goes to infinity. Consequently $`k_c^{}`$, which contains this on shell energy, is infinite and dominates the four-body energy denominator. This is identical to the reasoning in Eqs. 54 and 57 where instead of the four-body denominator, we have $`\mathrm{D}_\text{W}(x^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{}+x^{\prime \prime }𝚫^{}|t)`$ which is dominated by $`k_c^{}`$ at the crossover. Either way, we arrive at the expressions found above for the crossover (20) and (22).

Having cast our expressions for generalized parton distributions in terms of the Fock components, we can enlarge our understanding of the sum rule and continuity at the crossover. Both must deal with the relation between higher Fock components. The way $`\zeta `$-dependence disappears from (18) mandates a relation between the diagonal and non-diagonal Fock component overlaps that make up the GPD. The relation between Fock components must follow from the field-theoretic equations of motion. Continuity itself is a special case of the relation between Fock components, specifically at the end points. Above we have seen our expressions are continuous (and non-vanishing) at the crossover and explicitly that the three- and four-body components match at the end point (where $`x\zeta =0`$). This weak binding model for behavior at the crossover is a simple example of the relations between Fock components at the end points (see also Antonuccio:1997tw ). More general relations must be permitted from the equations of motion to guarantee Lorentz covariance (e.g. in the structure of the Mellin moments of the GPDs, of which the sum rule is a special case). Here, of course, Lorentz symmetry is broken. Infinitely many light-cone time-ordered graphs are needed in the reduced kernel to reproduce the covariant one-boson exchange (9). Thus exactly satisfying polynomiality requires not only infinitely many exchanges in the kernel but contributions from infinitely many Fock components. It should be possible, however, to show how the sum rule and polynomiality are improved order by order.

## IV Application to GDAs

Below we study time-like form factors to demonstrate the versatility of this approach and make the connection to the generalized distribution amplitudes (GDAs) for this model. Analogous to GPDs, GDAs encode the soft physics of two-meson production and can thus be thought of as crossed versions of the GPDs. The GDAs enter in convolutions for various two-meson production amplitudes Diehl:1998dk . These distribution functions as well as time-like form factors are a theoretical challenge for light-front dynamics, since there is no direct decomposition in terms of meson Fock components alone. Furthermore, we shall see the leading-order expressions are non-valence contributions (which necessarily excludes a description in terms of most constituent quark models).

The time-like form factor $`F(s)`$ for our model meson is defined by (see Figure 1)

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_p\mathrm{\Psi }_p^{}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu |0=i(pp^{})^\mu F(s),$$
(32)
where $`s=(p+\mathrm{p}^{})^2`$ is the center of mass energy squared. Now define $`P^\mu =p^\mu +\mathrm{p}^{}^\mu `$ and $`\zeta =\mathrm{p}^+/\mathrm{P}^+`$. We can work out the kinematics of this reaction in a frame where $`𝐏^{}=0`$

$`P^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{s}{2P^+}}`$
$`p^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(1\zeta )s}{2\mathrm{P}^+}}`$
$`𝐩^{}^2`$ $`=s(1\zeta )\zeta M^2,`$ (33)
where $`M`$ is the meson mass.

Similar to GPDs, the GDA for our model has a definition in terms of a non-diagonal matrix element of bilocal field operators

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{z},\zeta ,\mathrm{s})=\frac{dx^{}}{2\pi }e^{iz\mathrm{P}^+x^{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_p\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{p}^{}|q(x^{})i\stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{+}q(0)|0.$$
(34)
Such a definition of the GDA leads directly to a sum rule for the time-like form factor

$$\frac{dz}{2\zeta 1}\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{z},\zeta ,\mathrm{s})=F(s),$$
(35)
and hence a means to calculate $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ from the integrand of the time-like form factor.

Taking the appropriate residues of the five-point function, we arrive at Fig. 1 for the time-like form factor. Keeping only the leading order piece of the electromagnetic vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{z},\zeta ,\mathrm{s})=i\mathrm{P}^+(2z1)\frac{d\mathrm{k}^{}d𝐤^{}}{(2\pi )^4}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \gamma ^{}(\mathrm{z}^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{}\mathrm{z}^{\prime \prime }𝐩^{}|M^2)G(k,p)d^1(kp)\\ \hfill \times G(Pk,\mathrm{p}^{})\gamma ^{}(\mathrm{z}^{},𝐤^{}(1\mathrm{z}^{})𝐩^{}|M^2),\end{array}$$
(36)
where we have made use of $`z=\mathrm{k}^+/\mathrm{P}^+`$, $`\mathrm{z}^{}=\frac{z\zeta }{1\zeta }`$ and $`\mathrm{z}^{\prime \prime }=z/\zeta `$. Recall $`\gamma (x|M^2)\theta [x(1x)]`$. This translates to: $`0<\mathrm{z}^{\prime \prime }<1`$ and $`0<\mathrm{z}^{}<1`$, and hence we do not pick up a contribution at zeroth order in the coupling.

To work at first order, we pick up three terms analogous to those in Appendix A. We denote these as $`\delta J_\gamma ^\mu ,\delta J_p^\mu `$ and $`\delta J_\mathrm{p}^{}^\mu `$. The Born term for the three-point electromagnetic vertex $`\delta J_\gamma ^\mu `$ is quite simple. For the same reason as the zeroth-order result, the restriction of $`\gamma (x|M^2)\theta [x(1x)]`$ and momentum conservation force the contribution $`\delta J_\gamma ^\mu `$ to vanish. This leaves us to consider only diagrams that arise from iteration of the Bethe-Salpeter equation of either final-state meson.

Considering first the term $`\delta J_p^\mu `$, we have the contribution to the GDA

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_p(z,\zeta ,s)=i\mathrm{P}^+(2z1)\frac{d\mathrm{k}^{}d𝐤^{}}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \gamma ^{}(\mathrm{y}^{\prime \prime },𝐪^{}\mathrm{y}^{\prime \prime }𝐩^{})G(q,p)V(q,k)G(k,p)G(Pk,\mathrm{p}^{})\\ \hfill \times d^1(kp)\gamma ^{}(\mathrm{z}^{},𝐤^{}(1\mathrm{z}^{})𝐩^{}),\end{array}$$
(37)
where we have chosen to abbreviate $`y=\mathrm{q}^+/\mathrm{P}^+`$ and hence the label $`\mathrm{y}^{\prime \prime }=y/\zeta `$. We have customarily omitted the subtracted term containing $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}`$, which is zero because there is no leading-order term to subtract. Requiring wave function vertices mandates $`0<\mathrm{y}^{\prime \prime }<1`$ and $`\zeta <z<1`$.

Thus $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p`$ produces one contribution to the GDA

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_p(z,\zeta ,s)=\frac{\theta (z\zeta )}{(16\pi ^3)^2\zeta }\frac{d𝐤^{}dyd𝐪^{}(2z1)}{z(1z)\mathrm{z}^{}\mathrm{y}^{\prime \prime }(1\mathrm{y}^{\prime \prime })}\mathrm{D}_\text{W}(z,𝐤^{}|s)\frac{g^2\theta (zy)}{zy}\hfill \\ \hfill \times D(z,𝐤^{};y,𝐪^{}|s)\psi ^{}(\mathrm{z}^{},𝐤^{}(1\mathrm{z}^{})𝐩^{})\psi ^{}(\mathrm{y}^{\prime \prime },𝐪^{}\mathrm{y}^{\prime \prime }𝐩^{}).\end{array}$$
(38)
As a contribution to the time-like form factor, we can interpret Eq. (38) as the time-ordered diagram $`b`$ of Figure 2.

At first order in the weak coupling, we have one term remaining to consider $`\delta J_\mathrm{p}^{}^\mu `$. Again omitting the superfluous subtraction of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_p^{}(z,\zeta ,s)=i\mathrm{P}^+(2z1)\frac{d\mathrm{k}^{}d𝐤^{}}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\gamma ^{}(\mathrm{z}^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{}\mathrm{z}^{\prime \prime }𝐩^{}|M^2)G(k,p)d^1(pk)\hfill \\ \hfill \times G(Pk,\mathrm{p}^{})V(Pk,Pq)G(Pq,\mathrm{p}^{})\gamma ^{}(\mathrm{y}^{},𝐪^{}(1\mathrm{y}^{})𝐩^{}|M^2),\end{array}$$
(39)
with $`\mathrm{y}^{}=\frac{y\zeta }{1\zeta }`$. Both $`\mathrm{y}^{}`$ and $`z`$ are restricted: $`0<\mathrm{y}^{}<1`$ and $`0<z<\zeta `$, and the final contribution to the GDA is

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_p^{}(z,\zeta ,s)=\frac{\theta (\zeta z)}{(16\pi ^3)^2\zeta }\frac{d𝐤^{}d\mathrm{y}^{}d𝐪^{}(2z1)}{(1z)\mathrm{z}^{\prime \prime }(1\mathrm{z}^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{y}^{}(1\mathrm{y}^{})}\mathrm{D}_\text{W}(z,𝐤^{}|s)\frac{g^2\theta (yz)}{yz}\hfill \\ \hfill \times D(y,𝐪^{};z,𝐤^{}|s)\psi ^{}(\mathrm{z}^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{}\mathrm{z}^{\prime \prime }𝐩^{})\psi ^{}(\mathrm{y}^{},𝐪^{}+\mathrm{y}^{}𝐩^{}),\end{array}$$
(40)
In this form we recognize this contribution as diagram $`a`$ of Figure 2.

Having found the leading non-vanishing contribution to the GDA namely $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_p+\mathrm{\Phi }_p^{}`$, we observe that the higher Fock components derived in section III (as well as in Appendix B) do not fit naturally into (38) or (40). One needs a Fock space expansion for the photon wave function in order to have an expression for the GDA in terms of various Fock component overlaps. With the expressions derived for the GDA we can use Eq. (35) to obtain the time-like form factor.

## V Summary

Above we have investigated various applications of the light-front reduction of current matrix elements. First we considered the normalization of the light-front wave function in the reduction formalism deriving Eq. (8) from the covariant normalization Eq. (3). The complicated form of the reduced normalization was linked to effects of higher Fock components (which we illustrated by using the ladder model (9) in perturbation theory). Using the explicit form of the leading-order kernel, we were able to derive Eq. (16), which is the familiar many-body normalization condition (65).

In Appendix A, we reviewed the derivation of the form factor at next-to-leading order in the $`(3+1)`$-dimensional ladder model. These expressions were then converted into the GPD for the model. Continuity of these distributions at the crossover (where the plus momentum of the struck quark is equal to the plus component of the momentum transfer) was explicitly demonstrated, *cf* Eq. (23). Connection was made to the overlap representation of GPDs by constructing the three-body wave function to leading order in perturbation theory. As a check on our results, we also reviewed the construction of higher Fock states from the valence sector in old-fashioned time-ordered perturbation theory (Appendix B). The derived overlaps Eqs. (25) and (30) satisfy the relevant positivity constraint. The non-vanishing of the GPDs at the crossover could then be tied to higher Fock components, specifically at vanishing plus momentum, and are hence essential for any phenomenological modeling of these distributions. This rewriting allowed us to understand how continuity arises perturbatively from the small-$`x`$ behavior of Fock state wave functions. In perturbation theory, the diagonal valence overlap vanishes at the crossover, while the higher Fock component overlaps do not. In general the $`n`$-to-$`n`$ overlap matches up with the $`(n+1)`$-to-$`(n1)`$ overlap at the crossover due to the dominance of the rebounding quark’s infinite energy. The same seems to be true perturbatively for a three-body bound state due to the nature of the kernel.

Unfortunately issues involving Lorentz invariance (such as the sum rule for the electromagnetic form factor and the polynomiality constraints) are left untouched. To maintain covariance one would need infinitely many time-ordered exchanges in the kernel as well as infinitely many Fock components. It should be possible, however, to understand perturbatively how the $`\zeta `$-dependence disappears from Eq. (18). This requires further relations between Fock components and these should be afforded by the field-theoretic equations of motion.

Lastly we considered application of the reduction formalism for currents to the time-like form factor. We did so by calculating the ladder model’s GDA Eqs. (38-40), which is related to the time-like form factor via the sum rule in Eq. (35), systematically in perturbation theory. This is in contrast to the non-existent Fock space expansion for these types of processes.

With the formalism explored here, one could use phenomenological Lagrangian based models to explore both generalized parton distributions and generalized distributions amplitudes within the light-front framework. Such an investigation is interesting not only for testing phenomenological models, but also for anticipating problems for approximate non-perturbative solutions for the light-cone Fock states. Nonetheless more model studies are warranted before truly realistic calculations can be pursued.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank M. Diehl for enthusiasm, questions and critical comments. This work was funded by the U. S. Department of Energy, grant: DE-FG$`0397`$ER$`41014`$.

## Appendix A Wave functions and form factors in $`(3+1)`$ dimensions

In this Appendix we collect results relevant above for wave functions and form factors in the $`(3+1)`$-dimensional ladder model Eq. (9).

### A.1 Wave functions

Using the Bethe-Salpeter equation (2) and the definition of the light-cone wave function $`|\psi _R`$ (7) we have the light-cone bound-state equation

$$|\psi _R=g(R)w(R)|\psi _R,$$
(41)
where $`w(R)`$ is the reduced auxiliary kernel

$$w(R)=g^1(R)\left|G(R)W(R)G(R)\right|g^1(R),$$
(42)
with $`W(R)`$ defined in Eq. (5).

To leading order in $`G\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}`$, one calculates $`w(R)`$ for the ladder model to be:

$$\begin{array}{c}V(x,𝐤^{};y,𝐩^{}|M^2)xR^+,𝐤^{}|w(R)|yR^+,𝐩^{}\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{g^2}{xy}[\theta (xy)D(x,𝐤^{};y,𝐩^{}|M^2)\\ \hfill \{(x,𝐤^{})(y,𝐩^{})\}]\theta [x(1x)]\theta [y(1y)],\end{array}$$
(43)
where we have defined

$$\begin{array}{c}D^1(x,𝐤^{};y,𝐩^{}|M^2)=M^2\frac{𝐩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2}{y}\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{(𝐤^{}𝐩^{})^2+\mu ^2}{xy}\frac{𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2}{1x},\end{array}$$
(44)
and taken $`𝐑^{}=0`$. Graphically this one-boson exchange potential Eq. (43) is depicted in Figure 3.

For reference, the bound-state equation (41) appears as

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi (x,𝐤^{})=\mathrm{D}_\text{W}(x,𝐤^{}|M^2)\frac{dyd𝐩^{}}{2(2\pi )^3y(1y)}\hfill \\ \hfill \times V(x,𝐤^{};y,𝐩^{}|M^2)\psi (y,𝐩^{})\end{array}$$
(45)
### A.2 Form factors

To calculate form factors, we use the electromagnetic vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ constructed in future  up to the first Born approximation (notice that the ladder model’s gauged interaction $`V^\mu =0`$)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =(\stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }+VG\stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{\mu })d_2^1,$$
(46)
where $`\stackrel{}{}^\mu `$ denotes the electromagnetic coupling to scalars.

Now using Eq. (6) to first order in $`G\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}`$, the matrix element $`J^\mu =\mathrm{\Psi }_P^{}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (\mathrm{\Delta })|\mathrm{\Psi }_P`$ then appears

$$\begin{array}{c}J^\mu \gamma _P^{}||G(P^{})\left(1+V(P^{})(G(P^{})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}(P^{}))\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \times (\stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }(\mathrm{\Delta })d_2^1+V(\mathrm{\Delta })G(\mathrm{\Delta })\stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }(\mathrm{\Delta })d_2^1)\\ \hfill \times (1+(G(P)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}(P))V(P))G(P)||\gamma _P\\ \hfill =\left(J_{\text{LO}}^\mu +\delta J_i^\mu +\delta J_f^\mu +\delta J_\gamma ^\mu \right)+𝒪[V^2],\end{array}$$
(47)
with the leading-order result

$$J_{\text{LO}}^\mu =\gamma _P^{}||G(P^{})\stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }(\mathrm{\Delta })d_2^1G(P)||\gamma _P.$$
(48)
The first-order terms are

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta J_i^\mu =\gamma _P^{}||G(P^{})\stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }(\mathrm{\Delta })d_2^1\hfill \\ \hfill \times (G(P)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}(P))V(P)G(P)||\gamma _P\end{array}$$
(49)
$$\begin{array}{c}\delta J_f^\mu =\gamma _P^{}||G(P^{})V(P^{})\hfill \\ \hfill \times (G(P^{})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}(P^{}))\stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }(\mathrm{\Delta })d_2^1G(P)||\gamma _P\end{array}$$
(50)
$$\begin{array}{c}\delta J_\gamma ^\mu =\gamma _P^{}||G(P^{})\left(V(\mathrm{\Delta })G(\mathrm{\Delta })\stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }(\mathrm{\Delta })\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \times d_2^1G(P)||\gamma _P.\end{array}$$
(51)
As outlined in future , Eqs. (48) and (51) can be evaluated by residues being careful to remove two-particle reducible contributions by utilizing (45). Here we state the results of these calculations in $`(3+1)`$ dimensions. We denote $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu `$ as the momentum transfer and define $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+=\zeta P^+`$ (see Figure 4). The leading-order result appears

$$J_{LO}^+=2iP^+\frac{\theta (x\zeta )dxd𝐤^{}}{2(2\pi )^3x(1x)x^{}}(2x\zeta )\psi ^{}(x^{},𝐤^{})\psi (x,𝐤^{}),$$
(52)
where $`x^{}=\frac{x\zeta }{1\zeta }`$ and $`𝐤^{}=𝐤^{}+(1x^{})𝚫^{}`$ denotes the momentum of the final state. Using $`J^\mu =i(P+P^{})^\mu F(t)`$, Eq. (52) reduces to the Drell-Yan formula Drell:1969km  for $`\zeta =0`$.

The first of the leading order corrections is the Born term $`\delta J_\gamma ^+`$. For $`x>\zeta `$ we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta J_{\gamma (x>\zeta )}^+=\frac{+2iP^+}{(16\pi ^3)^2}\frac{\theta (x\zeta )dxd𝐤^{}dyd𝐩^{}(2x\zeta )}{xx^{}y(1y)y^{}}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \psi ^{}(y^{},𝐩^{})D(y^{},𝐩^{};x^{},𝐤^{}|M^2)\frac{g^2\theta (yx)}{yx}D(y,𝐩^{};x,𝐤^{}|M^2)\psi (y,𝐩^{}),\end{array}$$
(53)
where $`y^{}=\frac{y\zeta }{1\zeta }`$ and $`𝐩^{}=𝐩^{}+(1y^{})𝚫^{}`$. This contribution corresponds to diagram $`A`$ in Figure 5. On the other hand, for $`x<\zeta `$ we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta J_{\gamma (x<\zeta )}^+=\frac{+2iP^+}{(16\pi ^3)^2}\frac{\theta (\zeta x)dxd𝐤^{}dyd𝐩^{}(2x\zeta )/\zeta }{y(1y)\mathrm{y}^{}\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime }(1\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime })}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \psi ^{}(\mathrm{y}^{},𝐩^{})\mathrm{D}_\text{W}(\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{\prime \prime }|t)\frac{g^2\theta (yx)}{yx}D(y,𝐩^{};x,𝐤^{}|M^2)\psi (y,𝐩^{}),\end{array}$$
(54)
where $`\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime }=x/\zeta `$ and $`𝐤^{\prime \prime }=𝐤^{}+\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime }𝚫^{}`$ denotes the photon’s relative momentum. This expression is diagram $`D`$ in Figure 6.

The next leading-order term is the initial-state iteration $`\delta J_i^+`$. The only contribution is for $`x>\zeta `$, namely

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta J_i^+=\frac{+2iP^+}{(16\pi ^3)^2}\frac{\theta (x\zeta )dxd𝐤^{}dyd𝐩^{}(2x\zeta )}{xx^{}(1x^{})y(1y)}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \psi ^{}(x^{},𝐤^{})D(y^{},𝐩^{};x^{},𝐤^{}|M^2)\frac{g^2\theta (yx)}{yx}D(y,𝐩^{};x,𝐤^{}|M^2)\psi (y,𝐩^{}),\end{array}$$
(55)
which corresponds to diagram $`B`$ of Figure 5.

Lastly there is the final-state iteration term $`\delta J_f^+`$. For $`x>\zeta `$ we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta J_{f(x>\zeta )}^+=\frac{+2iP^+}{(16\pi ^3)^2}\frac{\theta (x\zeta )dxd𝐤^{}d\mathrm{y}^{}d𝐩^{}(2x\zeta )}{x(1x)\mathrm{x}^{}\mathrm{y}^{}(1\mathrm{y}^{})}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \psi ^{}(\mathrm{y}^{},𝐩^{})D(\mathrm{y}^{},𝐩^{};\mathrm{x}^{},𝐤^{}|M^2)\frac{g^2\theta (yx)}{yx}D(y,𝐩^{};x,𝐤^{}|M^2)\psi (x,𝐤^{}),\end{array}$$
(56)
where implicitly $`y=\zeta +(1\zeta )\mathrm{y}^{}`$ and $`𝐩^{}=𝐩^{}(1\mathrm{y}^{})𝚫^{}`$. This corresponds to diagram $`C`$ in Figure 4. While for $`x<\zeta `$, the expression

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta J_{f(x<\zeta )}^+=\frac{+2iP^+}{(16\pi ^3)^2}\frac{\theta (\zeta x)dxd𝐤^{}d\mathrm{y}^{}d𝐩^{}(2x\zeta )/\zeta }{(1x)\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime }(1\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{y}^{}(1\mathrm{y}^{})}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \psi ^{}(\mathrm{y}^{},𝐩^{})\mathrm{D}_\text{W}(\mathrm{x}^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{\prime \prime }|t)\frac{g^2\theta (yx)}{yx}D(y,𝐩^{};x,𝐤^{}|M^2)\psi (x,𝐤^{}),\end{array}$$
(57)
corresponds to diagram $`E`$ of Figure 6. Eqs. (52-57) are then the complete expressions for the form factor up to first order.

## Appendix B Old-fashioned time-ordered perturbation theory

The results of this paper can similarly be achieved directly from “old-fashioned” time-ordered perturbation theory in a form which utilizes projecting onto the two-body subspace of the full Fock space. For a nice, complete discussion of this formalism for the light-cone ladder model, see Cooke:2000ef . In this Appendix, we show how to derive higher Fock space components in this formalism, thereby demonstrating the generation of higher components from the lowest sector we found indirectly for GPDs and form factors in section III.

We write the light-cone Hamiltonian as a sum of a free piece and an interacting piece which carries an explicit power of the weak coupling $`g`$. In an obvious notation this is

$$P^{}=P_o^{}+gP_I^{}.$$
(58)
The free term $`P_o^{}`$ is diagonal in the Fock state basis, while the interaction generally mixes components of different particle number (in the scalar model we consider above, the interaction is completely off-diagonal since there are no instantaneous terms). Let us suppose that in the full Fock basis, we have an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, i.e.

$$\left(P_o^{}+gP_I^{}\right)|\psi =\mathrm{p}^{}|\psi ,$$
(59)
where the eigenvalue is labeled by $`\mathrm{p}^{}`$. Since the coupling is presumed small, the mixing of Fock components with a large number of particles will be small. Thus one imagines our bound state will be dominated by the two-body Fock component.

To make this observation formal, we define projections operators on the Fock space $`𝒫`$ and $`𝒬`$ in the usual sense. The operator $`𝒫`$ projects out only the two-particle subspace of the full Fock space and hence $`𝒬`$ projects out the compliment. Let us define the action of these operators on our eigenstate

$`𝒫|\psi `$ $`=|\psi _2`$ (60)
$`𝒬|\psi `$ $`=|\psi _𝒬.`$ (61)
As is well known, combination of Eqs. (60) and (61) leads to the following equation for the two-body Fock component

$$P_{\text{eff}}^{}|\psi _2=\mathrm{p}^{}|\psi _2,$$
(62)
where the effective two-body Hamiltonian is

$`P_{\text{eff}}^{}`$ $`P_{𝒫𝒫}^{}+V_{\text{eff}}`$ (63)
$`=P_{𝒫𝒫}^{}+P_{𝒫𝒬}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{p}^{}P_{𝒬𝒬}^{}}}P_{𝒬𝒫}^{},`$ (64)
and we have defined the following notation for any operators $`A`$ and $`B`$, $`P_{AB}^{}AP^{}B`$. The effective two-body interaction $`V_{\text{eff}}`$ defined in equation (63) is dependent upon the energy eigenvalue $`\mathrm{p}^{}`$ since we have suppressed the degrees of freedom of the $`𝒬`$ subspace. The relation between the $`𝒬`$-space probability (i.e. the non-valence contribution) and the effective interaction appears

$$\psi _𝒬|\psi _𝒬=\frac{}{\mathrm{p}^{}}\psi _2|V_{\text{eff}}|\psi _2.$$
(65)
In a weak-binding limit, we can series expand the effective interaction in powers of the coupling and thereby re-derive the light-front potential. Given that every boson emitted must be absorbed in the two-quark sector, we can have only an even number of interactions and hence

$$V_{\text{eff}}=𝒫gP_I^{}𝒬\frac{1}{\mathrm{p}^{}P_o^{}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{gP_I^{}}{\mathrm{p}^{}P_o^{}}\right)^{2n}𝒬gP_I^{}𝒫.$$
(66)
So, for example, at leading order we have all possible ways to propagate from the two-body sector and back with only two interactions in between. The diagrams in Figure 3 correspond to the two possibilities distinguished by the action of $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{p}^{}P_o^{}}`$ between interactions. At the next order, we have all possible ways to propagate from two bodies to two bodies with four interactions in between, *etc*.

To generate higher Fock components from the two-body sector, we necessarily must look at the $`𝒬`$-space state arrived at from Eqs. (60) and (61)

$$|\psi _𝒬=\frac{1}{\mathrm{p}^{}P_{𝒬𝒬}^{}}P_{𝒬𝒫}^{}|\psi _2.$$
(67)
To generate an $`n`$-body Fock component from this state, we merely act with an $`n`$-body projection operator which we shall denote $`𝒬_n`$. Similar to the above, we expand in powers of the coupling to find

$$|\psi _n=𝒬_n\frac{1}{\mathrm{p}^{}P_o^{}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{gP_I^{}}{\mathrm{p}^{}P_o^{}}\right)^n𝒬gP_I^{}|\psi _2.$$
(68)
For example, the leading-order three-body state is obtained by attaching a boson to a quark line in the only two possible ways (and adding the light-front energy denominator at the end). With these three-body states, we can consider all possible three-to-three overlaps that would contribute to the form factor. These are depicted in Figure 5 (with the exception of a quark self-interaction). The four-body sector is richer since there are two-boson, two-quark states as well as four-quark states. The two-to-four overlaps required for GPDs must have four quarks. At leading order, we generate the diagrams encountered above in Figure 6. Not surprisingly directly applying time-ordered perturbation theory from a light-front Hamiltonian agrees with our derivation above from covariant perturbation theory in the Bethe-Salpeter formalism.