text:
# Limits of residually irreducible 𝑝-adic Galois representations

## 1 Introduction

Consider a continuous representation

$$\rho :G_LGL_m(K)$$

of the absolute Galois group $`G_L`$ of a number field $`L`$, with $`K`$ a finite extension of $`𝐐_p`$, with $`𝒪`$ its ring of integers, $`||`$ its norm, and $`k`$ its residue field. Then $`\rho `$ has an integral model taking values in $`GL_m(𝒪)`$, and the semisimplification of its reduction modulo the maximal ideal $`𝗆`$ of $`𝒪`$, denoted by $`\overline{\rho }`$, is independent of the choice of integral model. We assume that $`\overline{\rho }`$ is absolutely irreducible and in fact will assume that all the $`p`$-adic representations considered in this paper are residually absolutely irreducible.

###### Definition 1

An infinite sequence of (residually absolutely irreducible) continuous representations $`\rho _i:G_LGL_m(K)`$ tends to $`\rho :G_LGL_m(K)`$, if $`|\mathrm{tr}(\rho _i(g))\mathrm{tr}(\rho (g))|0`$ uniformly for all $`gG_L`$. We also say that the $`\rho _i`$’s converge to $`\rho `$, or $`\rho `$ is their limit point.

By Theorem 1 of \[Ca\], which we can apply because of our blanket assumption of residual absolute irreducibility, this is equivalent to saying that given any integer $`n`$, for all $`i>>0`$, the reduction mod $`𝗆^n`$, $`\rho _{i,n}`$, of (an integral model of) $`\rho _i`$ is isomorphic to the reduction mod $`𝗆^n`$, $`\rho _n`$, of (an integral model of) $`\rho `$. Note that we are not assuming that the $`\rho _i`$’s (or $`\rho `$) are finitely ramified, though we do know by the main theorem of \[KhRa\] that the density of primes which ramify in a given $`\rho _i`$ is 0.

In this note we study the limiting behavior of the lifts produced in \[R1\] and completely characterise the limit points of these lifts (see Theorem 1 below). This suggests another approach to certain special cases of the modularity lifting theorems of Wiles, Taylor-Wiles et al. In the process we construct many sequences of converging $`p`$-adic Galois representations (of fixed determinant and fixed ramification behaviour at $`p`$). This raises many question that can be posed far more easily than answered.

Consider $`\overline{\rho }:G_𝐐GL_2(k)`$ that satisfies the conditions of \[R1\], namely:

* $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\mathrm{Ad}^0(\overline{\rho })`$ are absolutely irreducible Galois representations, and the finite field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p`$ is the minimal field of definition of $`\overline{\rho }`$.
* The (prime to $`p`$) Artin conductor $`N(\overline{\rho })`$ of $`\overline{\rho }`$ is minimal amongst its twists. Denote by $`S`$ set of primes given by the union of the places where $`\overline{\rho }`$ is ramified and $`\{p,\mathrm{}\}`$.
* If $`\overline{\rho }`$ is even then for the decomposition group $`G_p`$ above $`p`$ we assume that $`\overline{\rho }_{G_p}`$ is not twist equivalent to $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\chi & 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ or twist equivalent to the indecomposable representation $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\chi ^{p2}& \\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ where $`\chi `$ is the mod $`p`$ cyclotomic character.
* If $`\overline{\rho }`$ is odd we assume $`\overline{\rho }_{G_p}`$ is not twist equivalent to the trivial representation or the indecomposable unramified representation given by $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$.
* $`p7`$ and the order of the projective image of $`\overline{\rho }`$ is a multiple of $`p`$.

Let $`Q=\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_n\}`$ be a finite set of primes such that $`q_i\pm 1`$ mod $`p`$, unramified in $`\overline{\rho }`$, and the ratio of the eigenvalues of $`\overline{\rho }(\mathrm{Frob}_{q_i})`$ equal to $`q_i^{\pm 1}`$. We will call the primes as in $`Q`$ above Ramakrishna primes for $`\overline{\rho }`$ or R-primes for short (suppressing the $`\overline{\rho }`$ which is fixed). We consider the deformation ring $`R_{SQ}^{Qnew}`$ of \[KR\] (see Definition 1 of loc. cit.). To orient the reader we recall the definition of $`R_{SQ}^{Qnew}`$. For this we need:

###### Definition 2

If $`q`$ is a prime, $`G_{𝐐_q}`$ the absolute Galois group of $`𝐐_q`$ and $`R`$ a complete Noetherian local ring with residue field $`k`$, a continuous representation $`\rho :G_{𝐐_q}GL_2(R)`$ is said to be special if up to conjugacy it is of the form $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\epsilon \chi ^{}& \\ 0& \chi ^{}\end{array}\right)`$ for $`\epsilon `$ the $`p`$-adic cyclotomic character, and $`\chi ^{}:G_{𝐐_q}R^{}`$ a continuous character. A continuous representation $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }:G_𝐐GL_2(R)`$, is said to be special at a prime $`q`$ if $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }|_{D_q}`$, with $`D_q`$ a decomposition group at $`q`$, is special.

Then $`R_{SQ}^{Qnew}`$ is the universal ring that parametrises deformations of $`\overline{\rho }`$ that are minimally ramified at $`S`$ and such that at primes $`qQ`$ these deformations are special. The ring $`R_{SQ}^{Qnew}`$ is a complete Noetherian local $`W(k)`$-algebra, with $`W(k)`$ the Witt vectors of $`k`$. The deformation rings considered here are for the deformation problem with a certain fixed (arithmetic) determinant character, and all the deformations of $`\overline{\rho }`$ we consider will have this fixed determinant character.

###### Definition 3

A finite set of R-primes $`Q`$ is said to be auxiliary if $`R_{SQ}^{Qnew}W(k)`$.

In \[R1\] auxiliary sets $`Q`$ of the above type were proven to exist. The representation corresponding to $`R_{SQ}^{Qnew}W(k)`$ is denoted by $`\rho _{SQ}^{Qnew}`$. We will call these lifts Ramakrishna lifts of $`\overline{\rho }`$ or R-lifts for short (suppressing the $`\overline{\rho }`$ which is fixed).

###### Theorem 1

A continuous representation $`\rho :G_𝐐GL_2(W(k))`$ that is a deformation of $`\overline{\rho }`$, is a limit point of distinct R-lifts, if and only if $`\rho `$ is unramified outside $`S`$ and the set of all R-primes, and minimally ramified at primes of $`S`$.

Remark: Thus we have a complete description of the “$`p`$-adic closure” of R-lifts. Note that in particular each $`R`$-lift is a limit point of other $`R`$-lifts. Note also that any deformation $`G_𝐐GL_2(K)`$ of $`\overline{\rho }`$ that is a limit point of $`R`$-lifts has a model that takes values in $`GL_2(W(k))`$. The above theorem can be viewed in a sense as producing an “infinite fern” structure (cf., \[M\]) in the set of all $`R`$-lifts of a given $`\overline{\rho }`$ as above. From the proof of Theorem 1 above, we in fact can deduce that each $`R`$-lift gives rise to infinitely many “splines” passing through it, where a “spline” consists of a sequence of $`R`$-lifts converging to it, and each element in a spline gives rise to its own infinitely many splines. Missing from the picture are the limit points of $`R`$-lifts which themselves are not $`R`$-lifts and which the theorem above characterises completely.

Here is the plan of the paper. In Section 2 we prove Theorem 1 which is a simple consequence of the methods of \[R1\] and \[T1\]. In Section 3 we prove a result about converging sequences of representations arising from newforms, point out a possible approach to the lifting theorems of Wiles et al that is suggested by the work here. In Section 4 we raise questions about rationality and motivic properties of converging sequences of $`p`$-adic Galois representations.

## 2 Converging sequences of Galois representations

We now prove Theorem 1. It follows from the methods of \[R1\] and \[T1\]. For the proof we need the following lemma which follows from the methods of \[R1\] (see also Lemma 1.2 of \[T1\]) and Lemma 8 of \[KR\].

###### Lemma 1

Let $`\rho _n:G_𝐐GL_2(W(k)/(p^n))`$ be a lift of $`\overline{\rho }`$ that is unramified outside $`S`$ and the set of all R-primes, minimally ramified at primes of $`S`$, and special at all the primes outside $`S`$ at which it is ramified. Let $`Q_n^{}`$ be any finite set primes that includes the primes of ramification of $`\rho _n`$, such that $`Q_n^{}\backslash S`$ contains only $`R`$-primes and such that $`\rho _n|_{D_q}`$ is special for $`qQ_n^{}\backslash S`$. Then there exists a finite set of primes $`Q_n`$ that contains $`Q_n^{}`$, such that $`\rho _n|_{D_q}`$ is special for $`qQ_n\backslash S`$, $`Q_n\backslash S`$ contains only $`R`$-primes and $`Q_n\backslash S`$ is auxiliary.

Proof: We use \[R1\] and Lemma 8 of \[KR\] to construct an auxiliary set of primes $`T_n`$ such that $`\rho _n|_{D_q}`$ is special for $`qT_n`$. Then as $`Q_n^{}\backslash S`$ contains only $`R`$-primes, it follows (using notation of \[R1\]) from Proposition 1.6 of \[W\] that the kernel and cokernel of the map

$$H^1(G_{ST_nQ_n^{}},\mathrm{Ad}^0(\overline{\rho }))_{vST_nQ_n^{}}H^1(G_v,\mathrm{Ad}^0(\overline{\rho }))/𝒩_v$$

have the same cardinality. Then using Proposition 10 of \[R1\], or Lemma 1.2 of \[T1\], and Lemma 8 of \[KR\], we can augment the set $`ST_nQ_n^{}`$ to get a set $`Q_n`$ as in the statement of the lemma.

We are now ready to prove Theorem 1. If $`\rho :G_𝐐GL_2(W(k))`$ is a limit point of $`R`$-lifts, then it is clear that $`\rho `$ is unramified outside $`S`$ and the set of all $`R`$-primes, and minimally ramified at primes of $`S`$. We prove the converse. So let $`\rho `$ satisfy the conditions of Theorem 1, and recall that we denote by $`\rho _n`$ the reduction modulo $`p^n`$ of $`\rho `$. It is easily checked that if $`q`$ is a $`R`$-prime any deformation of $`\overline{\rho }|_{D_q}`$ to a ramified $`p`$-adic representation is special: this follows from the structure of tame inertia and the fact that $`q^21`$ mod $`p`$. Further from the method of proof of Proposition 1 of \[KhRa\], we easily deduce that the set of primes $`q`$ for which $`\rho |_{D_q}`$ is special is of density 0. Thus using Cebotarev and the assumptions on $`\overline{\rho }`$ in the introduction, we choose a finite set of primes $`Q_n^{}`$ such that

* $`Q_n^{}\backslash S`$ consists of $`R`$-primes and $`\rho _n|_{D_q}`$ is special for $`qQ_n^{}\backslash S`$,
* $`Q_n^{}`$ contains all the ramified primes of $`\rho _n`$,
* for some prime $`qQ_n^{}\backslash S`$, $`\rho |_{D_q}`$ is not special.

Using Lemma 1 we complete $`Q_n^{}`$ to a set $`Q_n`$ such that $`Q_n\backslash S`$ is auxiliary and $`\rho _n|_{D_q}`$ is special for $`qQ_n\backslash S`$. Then we claim $`\rho _{SQ_n}^{Q_n\backslash Snew}\rho `$ mod $`p^n`$. The claim is true as there is a unique representation $`G_𝐐GL_2(W(k)/(p^n))`$ (with the determinant that we have fixed) that is unramified outside $`SQ_n`$, minimal at $`S`$ and special at primes of $`Q_n\backslash S`$ (as $`R_{SQ_n}^{Q_n\backslash Snew}W(k)`$). By construction the sets $`Q_n`$ contain at least one prime at which $`\rho `$ is not special. Thus we see that we can pick a subsequence of mutually distinct representations $`\rho _i`$ from the $`\rho _{SQ_n}^{Q_n\backslash Snew}`$’s such that $`\rho _i\rho `$.

Remark: It is of vital importance that $`\rho `$ is $`GL_2(W(k))`$-valued as otherwise we would not be able to invoke the disjointness results that are used in the proof of Lemma 1 (Lemma 8 of \[KR\]).

Remark: Theorem 1 can be applied in practise to give many examples of converging sequences of $`p`$-adic representations: for a non-CM elliptic curve $`E_{/𝐐}`$ for most primes $`p`$ the mod $`p`$ representation satisfies the conditions given in the introduction, and the corresponding $`p`$-adic representation is minimally ramified and $`GL_2(𝐙_p)`$ valued.

We end this section with a result that refines the main result of \[KhRa\].

###### Proposition 1

If $`\rho _i:G_LGL_m(K)`$ is a sequence of (residually absolutely irreducible) continuous representations that converges to $`\rho `$, then the set of primes where any of the $`\rho _i`$’s is ramified (i.e., $`\mathrm{Ram}(\rho _i)`$ where $`\mathrm{Ram}(\rho _i)`$ is the set of primes at which $`\rho _i`$ is ramified) is of density zero.

Proof: Denote by $`\rho _{i,n}`$ (resp., $`\rho _n`$) the reduction mod $`𝗆^n`$ of an integral model of $`\rho _i`$ (resp., $`\rho `$). The proof consists in applying Theorem 1 of \[KhRa\] twice: more precisely first its statement, and then its proof. By an application of its statement we conclude that the density of $`_{i=1}^n\mathrm{Ram}(\rho _i)`$ is 0 for any $`n`$. Now applying the proof of Theorem 1 of \[KhRa\], we define $`c_{\rho ,n}`$ to be the upper density of the set $`S_{\rho ,n}`$ of primes $`q`$ of $`L`$ that

* lie above primes which split in $`L/𝐐`$
* are unramified in $`\rho _1`$ and $`p`$,
* $`\rho _n|_{D_q}`$ is unramified, but there exists a “lift” of $`\rho _n|_{D_q}`$, with $`D_q`$ the decomposition group at $`q`$, to a representation $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_q`$ of $`D_q`$ to $`GL_m(K)`$ that is ramified at $`q`$: by a lift we mean some conjugate of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_q`$ reduces mod $`𝗆^n`$ to $`\rho _n|_{D_q}`$.

We have from \[KhRa\] (see Proposition 1 of loc. cit. which was stated in greater generality than needed there with the present application in mind):

###### Lemma 2

Given any $`\epsilon >0`$, there is an integer $`N_\epsilon `$ such that $`c_{\rho ,n}<\epsilon `$ for $`n>N_\epsilon `$.

To prove Proposition 1 it is enough to show that given any $`\epsilon >0`$, the upper density of the set $`\mathrm{Ram}(\rho _i)`$ is $`<\epsilon `$. As $`_{i=1}^n\mathrm{Ram}(\rho _i)`$ has density 0 for (the finite) $`n`$ that is the supremum of the $`i`$’s such that $`\rho _{i,N_\epsilon }`$ is not isomorphic to $`\rho _{N_\epsilon }`$, and $`\rho _{N_\epsilon }`$ is finitely ramified, it follows from the lemma above that the upper density of $`\mathrm{Ram}(\rho _i)`$ is $`<\epsilon `$. Hence Proposition 1.

Remark: One can ask for more refined information about the asymptotics of ramified primes in (limits of) residually absolutely irreducible $`p`$-adic Galois representations. For instance in Theorem 1 of \[KhRa\] one can ask (clued by Theorem 10 of \[S1\]) if the order of growth of ramified primes can be proved to be bounded by $`O(x^{1\frac{1}{2N}+ϵ})`$, where $`N`$ is the $`p`$-adic analytic dimension of $`\mathrm{im}(\rho )`$, for any $`ϵ>0`$. Such quantitative refinements were asked for by Serre in an e-mail message to the author and seem hard and will require a new idea (that goes beyond \[KhRa\]) and a strong use of effective versions of the Cebotarev density theorem.

## 3 Finite and infinite ramification

Let $`L`$ be a number field and $`K`$ a finite extension of $`𝐐_p`$ as before.

###### Definition 4

We say that a residually absolutely irreducible continuous representation $`\rho :G_LGL_n(K)`$ is motivic if $`\rho `$ arises as a subquotient of the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ étale cohomology $`H^i(X\times _L\overline{L},K)`$ of a smooth projective variety $`X`$ defined over a number field $`L`$.

A motivic representation is finitely ramified. In \[R\] examples of residually irreducible representations $`\rho :G_𝐐GL_2(K)`$ were constructed that were infinitely ramified (see also the last section of \[KR\]). Infinitely ramified $`p`$-adic representations cannot be motivic. But they can arise as limits of $`p`$-adic representations that are motivic. Fix an embedding $`\overline{𝐐}\overline{𝐐_p}`$. Then as in \[R\] (and the last section of \[KR\]), there is a sequence of eigenforms $`f_iS_2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N_i))`$, for a sequence of squarefree integers $`N_i`$ such that $`N_i\mathrm{}`$ and $`(p,N_i)=1`$, new of level $`N_i`$ such that the corresponding $`p`$-adic representations $`\rho _{f_i}:G_𝐐GL_2(𝐙_p)`$ have a $`p`$-adic limit $`\rho `$, with $`\rho `$ infinitely ramified. Such a $`\rho `$ is non-motivic, but is the limit of motivic $`p`$-adic representations. Such limits of eigenforms (in the works of Serre and Katz for instance, cf., \[Ka\]) have been considered when varying weights or varying the $`p`$-power level, while fixing the prime-to-$`p`$ part of the level.

###### Proposition 2

Let $`f_iS_2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N_i))`$ be a sequence of eigenforms with coefficients in a finite extension $`K`$ of $`𝐐_p`$ with $`(N_i,p)=1`$ and $`p3`$, that tend in the $`p`$-adic $`q`$-expansion topology to an element $`fK[[q]]`$, such the corresponding residual representation $`\overline{\rho }`$ satisfies the conditions in the introuction. The element $`f`$, that gives rise naturally to a Galois representation $`\rho _f:G_𝐐GL_2(K)`$, is the $`q`$-expansion of a classical eigenform (of weight 2) if and only if $`\rho _f`$ is finitely ramified.

Proof: The only if part is clear. The if part follows from the methods of Wiles (see Chapter 3 of \[W\] and also \[TW\]) and their refinements: note that $`\rho _f`$ is finite, flat at $`p`$.

Remark: Applying Theorem 1 when $`\overline{\rho }`$ is odd and finite flat at $`p`$, in which case the $`R`$-lifts are modular by Theorem 1 of \[K\], we can construct systematically many examples of sequences of eigenforms $`f_if`$ ($`fK[[q]]`$), with the levels of $`f_i`$ unbounded and such that $`\rho _f`$ is finitely ramified ($`f`$ in fact then a classical eigenform as above). On the other hand as recalled above in \[R\] (see also last section of \[KR\]) we have examples of situations as above with $`\rho _f`$ infinitely ramified.

It will be of interest to see if Proposition 2 could be proved in a more self-contained manner. The proof above does not use seriously the fact that one does know that $`f`$ arises as a limit of the classical forms $`f_i`$. If such a proof could be devised, in conjunction with Theorem 1 above and Theorem 1 of \[K\] (which is due to Ravi Ramakrishna) it would give in special cases a simpler approach using $`R`$-primes to the modularity lifting theorems of Wiles et al (see also \[K\]) that directly works with the $`p`$-adic Galois representation that needs to be proved modular, and if it could be implemented would avoid (in special cases albeit) the sophisticated deformation theoretic approach of \[W\].

We elaborate on this: Assume that $`\overline{\rho }`$ is modular. In Theorem 1 we have characterised the limit points of $`R`$-lifts. By Theorem 1 of \[K\] which proves that the representation corresponding to $`R_{SQ}^{Qnew}W(k)`$ is modular as a consequence of the isomorphism $`R_{SQ}^{Qnew}𝐓_{SQ}^{Qnew}`$ (using notation of \[K\]), we know that $`R`$-lifts are modular. Hence limits of $`R`$-lifts do arise as limits of $`p`$-adic representations arising from classical newforms. It only (!) remains to prove that a limit of a converging sequence of $`p`$-adic representations arising from newforms (say of weight 2 and level prime to $`p`$ to avoid delicate considerations at $`p`$) that is finitely ramified itself arises from a newform (i.e., prove Proposition 2 without appealing directly to \[W\]). Note that for a semistable elliptic curve $`E`$, for all large enough primes $`p`$ (bigger than 3 for the methods here to directly work unfortunately!), $`T_p(E)`$ is a limit point of $`R`$-lifts.

Note: In recent work we have indeed been able to give a self-contained approach to a result like Proposition 2 above under some technical restrictions: see \[K1\].

## 4 Questions

Proposition 2 suggests that a representation that arises as a limit of motivic representations (of “bounded weights”: see Definition 6 below) is finitely ramified if and only if it is motivic. We first recall one of the main conjectures in \[FM\] in a form that is most pertinent for the considerations here.

###### Conjecture 1

(Fontaine-Mazur) Consider a continuous residually absolutely irreducible representation $`\rho :G_LGL_m(K)`$ that is potentially semistable at places above $`p`$. Then the following are equivalent:

1. $`\rho `$ is motivic
2. $`\rho `$ is finitely ramified.

From our earlier considerations it is natural to ask the following weaker question.

###### Question 1

Consider a continuous residually absolutely irreducible representation $`\rho :G_LGL_m(K)`$ that is potentially semistable at places above $`p`$ that arises as the limit of motivic representations $`\rho _i`$. Then if $`\rho `$ is finitely ramified, is $`\rho `$ motivic?

It seems unlikely that the infinitely ramified representations produced in \[R\] are algebraic (see definition below). This motivates the following considerations.

###### Definition 5

A continuous (residually absolutely irreducible) representation $`\rho :G_LGL_m(K)`$ is said to be algebraic if there is a number field $`F`$ such that the characteristic polynomial of $`\rho (\mathrm{Frob}_q)`$ has coefficients in the ring of integers of $`F`$ for all primes $`q`$ which are unramified in $`\rho `$. The minimal such field is the field of definition of $`\rho `$.

As by the main theorem of \[KhRa\], the set of primes at which $`\rho `$ ramifies is of density 0, the definition above is a sensible one.

###### Definition 6

A continuous (residually absolutely irreducible) algebraic representation $`\rho :G_LGL_m(K)`$ is said to be of weight $`t`$ ($`t𝐙`$) if for primes $`q`$ that are unramified in $`\rho `$, any root $`\alpha `$ of the characteristic polynomial of $`\rho (\mathrm{Frob}_q)`$ satisfies $`|\iota (\alpha )||k_q|^{\frac{t1}{2}}`$ for any embedding $`\iota :\overline{𝐐}𝐂`$, with $`k_q`$ the residue field at $`q`$.

###### Question 2

If $`\rho _i:G_LGL_m(K)`$ is an infinite sequence of (residually absolutely irreducible) distinct algebraic representations, all of weight $`t`$ for some fixed integer $`t`$, converging to $`\rho :G_LGL_m(K)`$, and $`K_i`$ the field of definition of $`\rho _i`$, does $`[K_i:𝐐]\mathrm{}`$ as $`i\mathrm{}`$?

Remark:

* It is observed in \[R\] (this is a remark of Fred Diamond) that in the situation of Question 2 only finitely many of the $`\rho _i`$’s can arise from elliptic curves: this is a consequence of the Mordell conjecture which gives that suitable twists of the classical modular curves $`X(p^n)`$ for $`n>>0`$ have finitely many $`L`$-valued points for a given number field $`L`$.
* If Question 2 has a negative answer, using Proposition 1, we deduce that for a set of primes $`\{r\}`$ of density one, the characteristic polynomials of $`\rho _i(\mathrm{Frob}_r)`$ are eventually constant. Hence we deduce that the characteristic polynomials of $`\rho (\mathrm{Frob}_r)`$ are defined and integral over a fixed number field $`F`$, i.e., $`\rho `$ is algebraic (in the case when $`\rho `$ is infinitely ramified this is linked to the questions below).

###### Question 3

Let $`\rho :G_LGL_m(K)`$ be a continuous, residually absolutely irreducible representation that is potentially semistable at places above $`p`$. Then are the following equivalent:

1. $`\rho `$ is motivic
2. $`\rho `$ is finitely ramified
3. $`\rho `$ is algebraic?

In the question above, the equivalence of 1 and 2 is the Fontaine-Mazur conjecture recalled above: the possible equivalence of 3 to 1 and 2 is the main thrust of the question. One might even ask the stronger question: If $`\rho :G_LGL_m(K)`$, a continuous, residually absolutely irreducible representation, is algebraic, then is $`\rho `$ forced to be both finitely ramified, and potentially semistable at places above $`p`$? All the questions of this section have a positive answer when $`m=1`$.

## 5 Acknowledgements

I thank Gebhard Böckle, Christophe Breuil, Dipendra Prasad and Ravi Ramakrishna for helpful correspondence, Kirti Joshi and C. S. Rajan for useful conversations, Haruzo Hida, David Rohrlich, J-P. Serre and the anonymous referee for helpful remarks on the manuscript.

## 6 References

\[Ca\] Carayol, H., Formes modulaires et représentations galoisiennes avec valeurs dans un anneau local complet, in $`p`$-adic monodromy and the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture, 213–237, Contemp. Math., 165, AMS, 1994.

\[FM\] Fontaine, J.-M., Mazur, B., Geometric Galois representations, Elliptic curves, modular forms, and Fermat’s last theorem, Internat. Press, Cambridge (1995), 41–78

\[K\] Khare, C., On isomorphisms between deformation rings and Hecke rings, preprint available at http://www.math.utah.edu/~shekhar/papers.html.

\[K1\] Khare, C., Modularity of $`p`$-adic Galois representations via $`p`$-adic approximations, in preparation.

\[KhRa\] Khare, C., Rajan, C. S. , The density of ramified primes in semisimple $`p`$-adic Galois representations, International Mathematics Research Notices no. 12 (2001), 601–607.

\[KR\] Khare, C., Ramakrishna, R., Finiteness of Selmer groups and deformation rings, preprint available at http://www.math.utah.edu/~shekhar/papers.html.

\[Ka\] Katz, N., Higher congruences between modular forms, Annals of Math. 101 (1975), 332–367.

\[R\] Ramakrishna, R., Infinitely ramified representations, Annals of Mathematics 151 (2000), 793–815.

\[R1\] Ramakrishna, R., Deforming Galois representations and the conjectures of Serre and Fontaine-Mazur, to appear in Annals of Math.

\[S1\] Serre, J-P., Quelques applications du theoreme de densite de Chebotarev, Collected Works, Vol. 3, 563–641.

\[T1\] Taylor, R., On icosahedral Artin representations II, preprint.

\[TW\] Taylor, R., Wiles, A., Ring-theoretic properties of certain Hecke algebras, Ann. of Math. (2) 141 (1995), 553–572.

\[W\] Wiles, A., Modular elliptic curves and Fermat’s last theorem, Ann. of Math. 141 (1995), 443–551.

Addresses of the author: Dept of Math, Univ of Utah, 155 S 1400 E, Salt lake City, UT 84112. e-mail address: shekhar@math.utah.edu

School of Mathematics, TIFR, Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, INDIA. e-mail addresses: shekhar@math.tifr.res.in


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

String theory in various backgrounds is a subject of much interest. In particular, noncommutative theories emerge from the open strings on the D-branes in constant $`B`$-field background . This suggests that such theories may be directly relevant to understanding the space-time structure at short distances in quantum gravity. It has been known that these theories have a very useful description in terms of gravity dual solutions , which have clarified many interesting properties of these theories.

Most of the investigations to date are focused on static backgrounds. It is then natural to study string theories in time-dependent backgrounds. These theories are expected to be important in understanding the evolution of our universe. In fact, there have already appeared several papers on string theories in time-dependent backgrounds -. Various quotients of Minkowski space-time have been studied recently as concrete realizations of string theories on time-dependent backgrounds. Among others, one of the simplest examples of the space-time orbifold is that of the “null-brane” .

The dynamics of D-branes can be studied by the attached open strings. In a certain decoupling limit, the massive modes of open strings as well as bulk closed strings are decoupled from the theory, and one can study the dynamics without the complication of gravity. It is also possible to understand the theory in terms of the dual description by a bulk theory of gravity, in the spirit of AdS/CFT correspondence. In particular, it has been shown that D-branes in the null-brane background have an interesting decoupling limit and that the resulting theory corresponds to a noncommutative Yang-Mills theory (NCYM) with a constant space-space noncommutativity but in a time-dependent background111As shown in , such a constant space-space noncommutativity can be transformed back to the original time-independent non-singular coordinate system and it becomes dependent on both space and time. . The dual description has been also given which is time-dependent. The theory is nonlocal in space in an interesting time-dependent manner, but no such a theory with a time-dependent noncommutativity in the time direction and in a time-dependent background has been considered so far. One is then naturally led to ask whether or not such a theory exists.

For this purpose, we study the S-dual of the above NCYM in this paper. We show that such a theory indeed exists in our simple setting of null-brane orbifold by using the dual gravity description and making S-duality transformation of the solution. We find that there is an interesting decoupling limit also in this time-dependent case. The resulting theory turns out to be a noncommutative open string theory (NCOS), in much the same way as time-independent case , but now with a time-dependent noncommutativity in the time direction and also in a time-dependent background. We also examine the properties of the theory under a more general $`SL(2,)`$ transformation. We find that the NCOS theory is transformed again into another NCOS in general, but under certain circumstances it is transformed into the aforementioned NCYM, again similar to static case .

## 2 D3-branes in time-dependent backgrounds and NCYM

Let us first review the D3-branes in time-dependent null-brane backgrounds . The geometry of the null-brane is simply an orbifold of a Minkowski space-time

$$ds^2=2dx^+dx^{}+dx^2+dz^2+dx_{}^2$$
(1)
by the identification

$`x^+x^+,xx+2\pi x^+,`$
$`x^{}x^{}+2\pi x+(2\pi )^2x^+/2,zz+2\pi R,`$ (2)
where $`dx_{}^2`$ denotes the line element of a six-dimensional Euclidean space. The resulting space can also be described by the metric

$$ds^2=2d\widehat{x}^+d\widehat{x}^{}+d\widehat{x}^2+(\widehat{x}^2+R^2)d\widehat{z}^2+2(\widehat{x}^+d\widehat{x}\widehat{x}d\widehat{x}^+)d\widehat{z}+dx_{}^2,$$
(3)
where these coordinates have the relations to those in (1) as follows:

$`\widehat{x}^+=x^+,\widehat{x}^{}=x^{}{\displaystyle \frac{zx}{R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{z^2x^+}{2R^2}},\widehat{x}=x{\displaystyle \frac{zx^+}{R}},\widehat{z}={\displaystyle \frac{z}{R}}.`$ (4)
In these coordinates the orbifold becomes simple

$$\widehat{z}\widehat{z}+2\pi .$$
(5)
There is another set of coordinates :

$$x^+=y^+,x=y^+y,x^{}=y^{}+y^+y^2/2,$$
(6)
in which the quotient identification is simple:

$`y^+y^+,yy+2\pi ,`$
$`y^{}y^{},zz+2\pi R,`$ (7)
and the metric is also much simpler than the one (3)

$$ds^2=2dy^+dy^{}+(y^+)^2dy^2+dz^2+dx_{}^2.$$
(8)
Note that the coordinate transformation (6) is singular when $`y^+=0`$. Since we will adopt the coordinates in (8), so in what follows $`y^+0`$ is assumed. In the coordinates (6) we write down the supergravity solution of D3-branes222For the 4-form gauge potential $`A_4`$, we have used a gauge transformation which removes the pure gauge term from the 4-form potential in the usual D3-brane configuration.,

$`ds^2=H^{1/2}(2dy^+dy^{}+(y^+)^2dy^2+dz^2)+H^{1/2}(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2),`$ (9)
$`A_4={\displaystyle \frac{y^+}{Hg_s}}dy^+dy^{}dydz,e^{2\varphi }=g_s^2,`$
where $`g_s`$ is the coupling constant of closed string and

$$H=1+\frac{4\pi g_sN\alpha ^2}{r^4}$$
(10)
with $`N`$ being the number of D3-branes in the configuration. Following the steps enumerated in , we obtain the required D3-brane configuration

$`ds^2=H^{1/2}\left[2dy^+dy^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{HR^2}{HR^2+(y^+)^2}}\left((y^+)^2dy^2+dz^2\right)\right]+H^{1/2}(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2),`$
$`2\pi \alpha ^{}B_{yz}={\displaystyle \frac{R(y^+)^2}{HR^2+(y^+)^2}},A_{y^+y^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{H^1}{g_sR}}y^+,`$
$`A_{y^+y^{}yz}={\displaystyle \frac{H^1y^+}{g_s}}{\displaystyle \frac{HR^2}{HR^2+(y^+)^2}},e^{2\varphi }=g_s^2{\displaystyle \frac{HR^2}{HR^2+(y^+)^2}}.`$ (11)
Taking the decoupling limit :

$$\alpha ^{}0,u=\frac{r}{\alpha ^{}}=\mathrm{fixed},\stackrel{~}{R}=\frac{\alpha ^{}}{R}=\mathrm{fixed},$$
(12)
and keeping $`g_s`$ constant, the supergravity configuration reduces to

$`ds^2=\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{\lambda ^2}}\left[2dy^+dy^{}+h^1((y^+)^2dy^2+dz^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^4}{u^4}}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2)\right],`$
$`2\pi \alpha ^{}B_{yz}=\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{R}(y^+)^2u^4}{\lambda ^4}}h^1,A_{y^+y^{}}=\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{R}y^+u^4}{g_s\lambda ^4}},e^{2\varphi }=g_s^2h^1,`$ (13)
where $`\lambda ^4=4\pi g_sN`$, and

$$h=1+\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}^2(y^+)^2u^4}{\lambda ^4}.$$

It is easy to confirm that under the decoupling limit (12), the resulting theory is indeed a noncommutative Yang-Mills theory in ($`3+1)`$ dimensions. Naively using the Seiberg-Witten relation  to the solution (2) in the “flat” limit $`H=1`$, we get the open string moduli $`G_s=g_s`$,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{yz}=2\pi \stackrel{~}{R},$$
(14)
and

$$G^{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& (y^+)^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(15)
This indicates that we have a good open string moduli with constant noncommutativity parameter in the coordinates (15), although the closed string metrics and hence the theory itself is time-dependent . It is quite interesting that even though the closed string metrics is time-dependent, they are so in an intricate way that the noncommutativity parameter is constant. However, it is worthwhile mentioning here that as shown in , if one uses the coordinates (1), the Yang-Mills theory lives in a flat static space with noncommutative parameter depending on space-time. We will see that the situation is drastically changed for our time-dependent NCOS theories.

## 3 S-duality and NCOS

In  it is shown that strongly coupled, spatially noncommutative $`𝒩=4`$ Yang-Mills theory has a dual description as a weakly coupled noncommutative open string theory. What is the case of D3-branes in time-dependent backgrounds?

Under the S-duality, the supergravity dual (2) becomes333In obtaining the following, we actually rescale the coordinates such that the various fields have the desired dependences on the $`g_s`$ factor which is convenient for us to discuss the corresponding NCOS in other dimensions. They are: $`y^+g_s^{1/2}y^+,y^{}g_s^{3/2}y^{},yg_s^1y,zg_s^{1/2}z,ug_s^{1/2}u,Rg_s^{1/2}R,\stackrel{~}{R}g_s^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{R}`$. This is not important in the present case but it will be for other D$`p`$-branes discussed in section 4 since the $`g_s`$ factor scales in the corresponding decoupling limit.

$`ds^2=\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{\lambda ^2}}h^{1/2}\left[2dy^+dy^{}+h^1((y^+)^2dy^2+dz^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^4}{u^4}}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2)\right],`$
$`2\pi \alpha ^{}B_{y^+y^{}}=\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{R}y^+u^4}{\lambda 4}},A_{yz}=\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{R}(y^+)^2u^4}{g_s\lambda ^4}}h^1,e^{2\varphi }=g_s^2h,`$ (16)
where $`\lambda ^4=4\pi g_sN`$ again.

What is the dual (open string) theory to the supergravity configuration (3)? To see this, let us first write down444We also rescale the coordinates as in footnote 3 with the replacement of $`ug_s^{1/2}u`$ by $`rg_s^{1/2}r`$. the S-dual of the solution (2):

$`ds^2=H^{1/2}F^{1/2}\left[2dy^+dy^{}+F((y^+)^2dy^2+dz^2)+H(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2)\right],`$
$`2\pi \alpha ^{}B_{y^+y^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{y^+}{HR}},A_{yz}={\displaystyle \frac{(y^+)^2F}{g_sRH}},e^{2\varphi }=g_s^2F^1,`$ (17)
where

$$F=\frac{HR^2}{HR^2+(y^+)^2},$$

and $`g_s`$ is the inverse of the original string coupling. Taking the decoupling limit (12), the resulting configuration from the solution (3) is identical to that of (3).

In the “flat” space limit $`H=1`$, we can examine the open string moduli by using Seiberg-Witten relation again. From eq. (3) with $`H=1`$, we find the open string parameters are given by

$`G^{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \sqrt{\frac{R^2+(y^+)^2}{R^2}}& 0& 0\\ \sqrt{\frac{R^2+(y^+)^2}{R^2}}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \sqrt{\frac{R^2+(y^+)^2}{R^2}}\frac{1}{(y^+)^2}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \sqrt{\frac{R^2+(y^+)^2}{R^2}}\end{array}\right),`$ (22)
and

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^{y^+y^{}}=2\pi \alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{y^+}{R}}=2\pi y^+\stackrel{~}{R}.`$ (23)
Note that the noncommutativity parameter (23) is well-defined in the decoupling limit (12) but it is now time-dependent, in contrast to the space-space noncommutative case (14) for the NCYM! Also $`\alpha ^{}G^{ij}`$ is finite in the decoupling limit (12), which means that although the modes of closed strings decouple in the limit (12), the massive modes from the open strings do not decouple, resulting in a noncommutative open string theory. Further, it is easy to find that in that case the effective open string scale is $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}=y^+\stackrel{~}{R}`$, depending on time and the coupling constant of open strings is still a constant, $`G_s=g_s`$.

The supergravity description (3) may be compared with the one dual to NCOS with constant time-space noncommutativity given in . Write

$`h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u^4}{A^4}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{A^4}{u^4}}\right)`$ (24)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u^4}{A^4}}f(u),A^4{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^4}{\stackrel{~}{R}^2(y^+)^2}},`$
and we get

$`ds^2=\alpha ^{}f^{1/2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u^4}{\lambda ^2A^2}}(2dy^+dy^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{\lambda ^2}}f^1((y^+)^2dy^2+dz^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{A^2}}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2)\right],`$
$`2\pi \alpha ^{}B_{y^+y^{}}=\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{R}y^+u^4}{\lambda ^4}},A_{yz}=\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_s\stackrel{~}{R}f}},e^{2\varphi }=g_s^2{\displaystyle \frac{u^4}{A^4}}f.`$ (25)
If $`A^4`$ were constant, this would be exactly the gravity solution dual to NCOS with constant noncommutativity . For small $`u`$, we recover the AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S5 but with an orbifolding of the flat 4-dimensional slice in $`AdS_5`$ since the open string theory reduces to $`N=2`$ super Yang-Mills theory at low energies or long distance ($`N=2`$ due to orbifolding). However, the theory significantly deviates from that for $`uA`$, which determines the size of the noncommutativity.

The solution has actually time-dependent noncommutativity, and along constant light-cone coordinate $`y^+`$, the theory looks exactly as the NCOS with constant noncommutativity. Away from that region, the theory has different noncommutativity scale.

More generally we can consider an $`SL(2,)`$ transformation to the solution (2). Since the axion field is zero, we have

$`\stackrel{~}{\tau }={\displaystyle \frac{a\tau +b}{c\tau +d}},\tau ie^\varphi ,adbc=1,a,b,c,d,`$ (26)
whose imaginary part gives

$`e^{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}={\displaystyle \frac{e^\varphi }{|c\tau +d|^2}}.`$ (27)
The Einstein-frame metric is unchanged under the $`SL(2,)`$, so $`ds_E^2=e^{\varphi /2}ds^2=e^{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }/2}d\stackrel{~}{s}^2`$, giving

$`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=|c\tau +d|ds^2.`$ (28)
We find from the solution (2) the transformed configuration as555In obtaining the following configuration, we have as before rescaled the coordinates as: $`y^+g_s^{1/2}(c^2+d^2g_s^2)^{1/4}y^+,y^{}g_s^{3/2}(c^2+d^2g_s^2)^{3/4}y^{},yg_s(c^2+d^2g_s^2)^{1/2}y,zg_s^{1/2}(c^2+d^2g_s^2)^{1/4}z,rg_s^{1/2}(c^2+d^2g_s^2)^{1/4}r,Rg_s^{1/2}(c^2+d^2g_s^2)^{1/4}R`$. Note that the string coupling $`g_s`$ here is the original one while the one used in footnotes 3 and 4 is the transformed one.

$`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=F^{1/2}H^{1/2}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{c^2+g_s^2d^2F}{c^2+g_s^2d^2}}}[2dy^+dy^{}+F((y^+)^2dy^2+dz^2)`$
$`+H(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2)],`$
$`2\pi \alpha ^{}\stackrel{~}{B}={\displaystyle \frac{d(y^+)^2F}{HR}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_s}{\sqrt{c^2+d^2g_s^2}}}dydz{\displaystyle \frac{cy^+}{HR}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{c^2+d^2g_s^2}}}dy^+dy^{},`$
$`e^{2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}=g_s^2F\left(c^2+d^2g_s^2F\right)^2,\stackrel{~}{\chi }=\left(ac+bdg_s^2F\right)\left(c^2+d^2g_s^2F\right)^1,`$ (29)
where the function $`F`$ is the same as before, $`g_s`$ is the original string coupling and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_s=g_s^1(c^2+d^2g_s^2)`$ is the new one. The harmonic function $`H=1+4\pi \alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{g}_sN/r^4`$.

Using the Seiberg-Witten relation, we obtain the open string moduli: the open string metric

$$G^{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \sqrt{\frac{g_s^2d^2+c^2w}{c^2+g_s^2d^2}}& 0& 0\\ \sqrt{\frac{g_s^2d^2+c^2w}{c^2+g_s^2d^2}}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{(y^+)^2}\sqrt{\frac{g_s^2d^2+c^2w}{c^2+g_s^2d^2}}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \sqrt{\frac{g_s^2d^2+c^2w}{c^2+g_s^2d^2}}\end{array}\right),$$
(30)
the noncommutative parameter

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}=2\pi \alpha ^{}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \frac{cy^+}{R\sqrt{c^2+g_s^2d^2}}& 0& 0\\ \frac{cy^+}{R\sqrt{c^2+g_s^2d^2}}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \frac{g_sd}{R\sqrt{c^2+g_s^2d^2}}\\ 0& 0& \frac{g_sd}{R\sqrt{c^2+g_s^2d^2}}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(31)
and the open string coupling constant $`G_s=\stackrel{~}{g}_s=g_s^1(c^2+g_s^2d^2)`$. In the above, the function $`w=1+(y^+)^2/R^2`$. One can check that the above moduli give the correct ones when $`a,b,c,d`$ are specialized to their corresponding values.

In the decoupling limit (12), assuming $`c0`$, we get

$`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=\alpha ^{}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{1+g_s^2d^2/c^2}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u^4}{\lambda ^2A^2}}(2dy^+dy^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{\lambda ^2}}f^1((y^+)^2dy^2+dz^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{A^2}}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2)\right],`$
$`2\pi \alpha ^{}\stackrel{~}{B}=\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f\stackrel{~}{R}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dg_s}{\sqrt{c^2+d^2g_s^2}}}dydz\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{R}u^4y^+}{\lambda ^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{c^2+d^2g_s^2}}}dy^+dy^{},`$
$`e^{2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}=g_s^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{u^4}{A^4}}\right)\left(c^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2d^2}{1+u^4/A^4}}\right)^2,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }=\left(ac+{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2bd}{1+u^4/A^4}}\right)\left(c^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2d^2}{1+u^4/A^4}}\right)^1,`$ (32)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{f}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{c^2+g_s^2d^2}{c^2u^4}}A^4.`$ (33)
This corresponds to a general NCOS theory with a time-dependent time-space noncommutativity and a constant space-space noncommutativity. The effective string scale is now $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}=y^+\stackrel{~}{R}c/\sqrt{c^2+d^2g_s^2}`$. The space-space noncommutativity is directly proportional to the original string coupling $`g_s`$ if $`c0`$. For the special case of $`c=0`$, it gives a gravity dual to NCYM. So we can see from (29) that in the case of $`c=0`$, the space-space noncommutative NCYM in a time-dependent background is transformed back to NCYM. Thus we find that the space-space noncommutative NCYM theory in a time-dependent background is transformed into NCOS in general, but for the special case $`c=0`$ it is transformed to NCYM again. Since we get an NCOS theory from the NCYM by an $`SL(2,)`$ transformation, which makes a group, by making a further $`SL(2,)`$ transformation to the obtained NCOS theory, we get another NCOS theory. This means that the NCOS theory itself transforms into NCOS in general, but of course it may transform into NCYM in special case. This is much the same as the time-independent noncommutative theories .

## 4 The Cases for Other dimensions

The authors of  have extended the study in  to other dimensional D$`p`$-branes, NS$`5`$-branes and M$`5`$-branes in time-dependent backgrounds, and discussed the supergravity duals of decoupled worldvolume theories. In the previous section we have discussed supergravity dual of ($`3+1`$)-dimensional NCYM with space-space noncommutativity but in a time-dependent background and its S-duality, resulting in NCOS with time-dependent noncommutativity. In this section we give the supergravity dual of other dimensional NCOS theory.

Applying T-duality to the solution (3), we can obtain D$`p`$-brane solution with electric field in the “null-brane” geometry which can be viewed as deformed (F, D$`p`$) bound states discussed in ,

$`ds^2=H^{1/2}F^{1/2}[2dy^+dy^{}+F((y^+)^2dy^2+dz^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p3}{}}}dx_i^2)+H(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2)],`$
$`2\pi \alpha ^{}B_{y^+y^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{y^+}{HR}},e^{2\varphi }=g_s^2H^{\frac{3p}{2}}F^{\frac{p5}{2}},`$
$`A_{yzx_1\mathrm{}x_{p3}}={\displaystyle \frac{(y^+)^2F}{g_sRH}},A_{y^+y^{}yzx_1\mathrm{}x_{p3}}={\displaystyle \frac{y^+F}{Hg_s}},`$ (34)
where

$$F=\frac{HR^2}{HR^2+(y^+)^2},H=1+\frac{c_pg_sN\alpha ^{(7p)/2}}{r^{7p}}$$

with $`c_p=2^{5p}\pi ^{\frac{5p}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }[(7p)/2]`$. Considering the following decoupling limit

$$\alpha ^{}0,\overline{g}_s=g_s\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(p3)/2}=\mathrm{fixed},u=\frac{r}{\alpha ^{}}=\mathrm{fixed},\stackrel{~}{R}=\frac{\alpha ^{}}{R}=\mathrm{fixed},$$
(35)
the supergravity solution becomes

$`ds^2=\alpha ^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{\lambda }}\right)^{(7p)/2}h^{1/2}(2dy^+dy^{}+h^1((y^+)^2dy^2+dz^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p3}{}}}dx_i^2)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{u}}\right)^{7p}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2)),`$
$`2\pi \alpha ^{}B_{y^+y^{}}=\alpha ^{}y^+\stackrel{~}{R}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{\lambda }}\right)^{7p},e^{2\varphi }=\overline{g}_s^2h^{(5p)/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{u}}\right)^{(7p)(3p)/2},`$ (36)
where

$$h=1+\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}^2(y^+)^2u^{7p}}{\lambda ^{7p}}$$

and $`\lambda ^{7p}=c_p\overline{g}_sN`$. Naively using Seiberg-Witten relation, we can easily show that the worldvolume theory on the D$`p`$-brane ($`p<6`$) in the solution (4) decouples from the closed string theory in the decoupling limit (35), resulting in a $`(p+1)`$-dimensioanl NCOS theory with time-dependent noncommutativity and open string scale $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}=\stackrel{~}{R}y^+`$. The open string coupling constant $`G_s=g_s(R^2/(R^2+(y^+)^2))^{(p3)/4}=\overline{g}_s(\stackrel{~}{R}y^+)^{(3p)/2}`$. So only for $`p=3`$, the $`G_s`$ is time-independent. The supergravity solution (4) is just the gravity dual description of the decoupled NCOS theory within the region where the supergravity description is valid in the usual manner .

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we have discussed time-dependent noncommutative theories obtained from string theories in time-dependent background on the simple null-brane orbifold. The resulting NCYM theory has only a constant space-space noncommutativity but in a time-dependent background. Using S-duality transformation, we have identified the resulting theory as a noncommutative NCOS in a time-dependent background but with a time-dependent time-space noncommutativity. We have also examined the transformation properties of the NCYM under a general $`SL(2,)`$ transformation, and find that it is transformed into NCOS in general, but under a special circumstance it is transformed back to NCYM . This is quite similar to the case of noncommutative theories resulting from D-branes in the static backgrounds.

## Acknowledgement

The work of R.G.C. was supported in part by a grant from Chinese Academy of Sciences. J.X.L. acknowledges also the partial support of a grant from the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The work of N.O. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No. 12640270.


text:
# On the quantum matrix string11footnote 1 Presented at the 3rd International Sakharov Conference on Physics, Moscow, June 2002.

## 1 Introduction

Supermembrane in eleven dimensions  plays an important role to understand the fundamental degrees of freedom in M-theory. At the classical level, it was shown that the supermembrane is related to type IIA superstring in ten dimensions by the double-dimensional reduction . The procedure is the following: (i) Consider the target space of $`R^{10}\times S^1`$. (ii) Set the compactified coordinate (with radius $`L`$) proportional to one of the spatial coordinates of the world volume, which we call $`\rho `$ coordinate. (iii) Simply ignore the infinite tower of the Kaluza-Klein (non-zero) modes. However, it is not obvious whether such a reduction is justified also in quantum theory.

Sekino and Yoneya analyzed the double-dimensional reduction quantum mechanically with the light-cone supermembrane action . They kept the Kaluza-Klein modes associated with the $`\rho `$ coordinate in the wrapped supermembrane theory on the target space $`R^{10}\times S^1`$ and integrated them out by using the perturbative expansion with respect to the radius $`L`$. Since the gauge coupling satisfies $`g1/L`$ in the wrapped supermembrane theory, the expansion can be regarded as the strong coupling expansion. They calculated the effective action for the zero modes along the $`\rho `$ direction to the one-loop order of $`O(L^2)`$ and found that the quantum corrections cancel out and the effective action agrees with the classical (free) action of type IIA superstring except at the points where the usual string interactions could occur. As is emphasized in their paper , however, the strong coupling expansion does not give a rigorous proof of the quantum double-dimensional reduction because the propagators are proportional to the two-dimensional $`\delta `$-function, $`\delta ^{(2)}(\xi )\delta (\tau )\delta (\sigma )`$, which will cause the ultraviolet divergences of $`\delta ^{(2)}(0)`$ type in loops. However it is very difficult to find a suitable regularization which respects symmetries, and hence the strong coupling expansion is not yet defined rigorously. In this sense, they gave a formal argument for the vanishing of the one-loop corrections of $`O(L^2)`$ by demonstrating that the coefficients of $`\delta ^{(2)}(0)`$ coming from both bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom cancel out.

The purpose of our work is essentially to extend their analysis to the two-loop order of $`O(L^2)`$. However, the naive extension is not straightforward because at the two-loop level, even the coefficients of the $`\delta ^{(2)}(0)`$ diverge due to the contribution of the infinite Kaluza-Klein towers. Thus, we need another regularization for the summation over the infinite tower of the Kaluza-Klein modes. We know the matrix regularization of the supermembrane on $`R^{11}`$ in the light-cone gauge  and also that of the wrapped supermembrane on $`R^{10}\times S^1`$ in the light-cone gauge . The former is called Matrix theory  and the latter is called matrix string theory  which will be a non-perturbative formulation of light-cone quantized type IIA superstring theory in the large $`N`$ limit. Furthermore, even at finite $`N`$, Matrix and matrix string theories are conjectured to be non-perturbative formulations of discrete light-cone quantized (DLCQ) M-theory and type IIA superstring theory, respectively . Thus, we consider matrix string theory and study whether the reduction from matrix strings to discrete light-cone type IIA superstrings is justified quantum mechanically.444We use a convention of the light-cone coordinates such that $`x^\pm =(x^0\pm x^{10})/\sqrt{2}`$. Furthermore, $`x^{}`$ is compactified on $`S^1`$ with radius $`R`$ in DLCQ.

## 2 From wrapped supermembrane to matrix string

The supermembrane action on the target space $`R^{11}`$  in the light-cone gauge is given by

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`LT{\displaystyle }d\tau {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\sigma d\rho [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(D_\tau X^i)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4L^2}}\{X^i,X^j\}^2`$ (2)
$`+i\psi ^TD_\tau \psi +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{L}}\psi ^T\gamma ^i\{X^i,\psi \}],`$
$`D_\tau =_\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\{A,\},\{A,B\}=_\sigma A_\rho B_\rho A_\sigma B,`$
where the indices $`i,j`$ run through $`1,2,\mathrm{},9`$, the spinor $`\psi `$ has sixteen real components555We use the real and symmetric gamma matrices $`\gamma ^i`$, which satisfy $`\{\gamma ^i,\gamma ^j\}=2\delta ^{ij}`$. and $`T`$ is the membrane tension. At this stage, $`L`$ is an arbitrary length parameter of no physical meaning. The action is invariant under the gauge transformation,

$$\delta A=_\tau \mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{L}\{\mathrm{\Lambda },A\},\delta X^i=\frac{1}{L}\{\mathrm{\Lambda },X^i\},\delta \psi =\frac{1}{L}\{\mathrm{\Lambda },\psi \}.$$
(3)
This gauge transformation generates the area-preserving diffeomorphism on the world volume. When the spatial surface of the supermembrane has a non-trivial topology, we have to impose further the global constraints.

Now we consider the wrapped supermembrane theory on the target space $`R^{10}\times S^1`$ and discuss the correspondence with matrix string . We take the $`X^9`$ direction as $`S^1`$ and identify the radius with the above parameter $`L`$,

$`X^9=L\rho +Y.`$ (4)
Thus $`L`$ has the physical meaning of the radius of the $`X^9`$ direction which is regarded as the “eleventh” direction in M-theory. Substituting eq.(4) into eq.(2), we obtain the light-cone gauge supermembrane action on $`R^{10}\times S^1`$,

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`LT{\displaystyle }d\tau {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\sigma d\rho [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{\tau \sigma }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(D_\tau X^k)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(D_\sigma X^k)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4L^2}}\{X^k,X^l\}^2`$ (6)
$`+i\psi ^TD_\tau \psi i\psi ^T\gamma ^9D_\sigma \psi +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{L}}\psi ^T\gamma ^k\{X^k,\psi \}],`$
$`F_{\tau \sigma }=_\tau Y_\sigma A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\{A,Y\},D_\sigma =_\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\{Y,\},`$
where the indices $`k,l`$ run through $`1,2,\mathrm{},8`$. This is also an action of the gauge theory of the area-preserving diffeomorphism, where the gauge coupling $`g1/L`$. In Ref., the area-preserving diffeomorphism in eq.(6) was regularized by the finite dimensional group $`U(N)`$ and it was shown that the matrix-regularized form of the action (6) agrees with that of matrix string theory,

$`S=LT{\displaystyle }d\tau {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\theta tr[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{\tau \theta }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(D_\tau X^k)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(D_\theta X^k)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4L^2}}[X^k,X^l]^2`$
$`+i\psi ^TD_\tau \psi i\psi ^T\gamma ^9D_\theta \psi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\psi ^T\gamma ^k[X^k,\psi ]],`$ (7)
$`F_{\tau \theta }=_\tau Y_\theta A{\displaystyle \frac{i}{L}}[A,Y],D_\tau =_\tau {\displaystyle \frac{i}{L}}[A,],D_\theta =_\theta {\displaystyle \frac{i}{L}}[Y,],`$ (8)
where each element of the matrices is a function of ($`\tau ,\theta `$). The action (7) is invariant under the $`U(N)`$ gauge transformations,

$`\delta A=_\tau \mathrm{\Lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{L}}[\mathrm{\Lambda },A],\delta Y=_\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{L}}[\mathrm{\Lambda },Y],`$
$`\delta X^k={\displaystyle \frac{i}{L}}[\mathrm{\Lambda },X^k],\delta \psi ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{L}}[\mathrm{\Lambda },\psi ].`$ (9)
The zero-modes along the $`\rho `$ direction in the wrapped supermembrane are mapped to the diagonal elements of matrix string while the Kaluza-Klein modes are mapped to the off-diagonal elements . Note that in the matrix regularization of the wrapped supermembrane on $`R^{10}\times S^1`$, there are no obvious counterparts of the global constraints, because the (matrix-regularized) Gauss law constraint, which is derived from eq.(7), cannot be manifestly interpreted as the integrability condition.

In the classical double-dimensional reduction, the Kaluza-Klein modes of every field along the $`\rho `$ direction are set zero. And then in the $`L0`$ limit, the action (6) reduces to the light-cone type IIA superstring action. As for the matrix-regularized action (7), the off-diagonal elements of every matrix are set zero in such a classical double-dimensional reduction. Then the action reduces to the DLCQ type IIA superstring action in the light-cone momentum $`p^+=N/R`$ sector. It is expected that the reductions are justified also in quantum theory, however, it is not so simple . In particular, the quantum double-dimensional reduction of the wrapped supermembrane was analyzed for the small radius $`L`$ in , which corresponds to the strong gauge coupling $`g1/L`$ in the wrapped supermembrane theory and also to the weak string coupling $`g_sL/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$ in type IIA superstring theory. By using the perturbative expansion with respect to $`L`$, the Kaluza-Klein modes along the $`\rho `$ direction were integrated out to the one-loop order of $`O(L^2)`$ and it was found that the effective action for the zero modes agrees with the classical (free) action of the type IIA superstring except at the interaction points of perturbative strings. So far the result is consistent with the expectation that the wrapped supermembrane theory in the region of small radius $`L`$ agrees with the perturbative type IIA superstring theory. Then we analyze the quantum reduction of the matrix string (7) to the diagonal elements for small radius $`L`$ to study whether the effective action for the diagonal matrix elements agrees with the classical (free) action of the DLCQ type IIA superstring.

## 3 Strong coupling expansion in matrix string theory

First every $`N\times N`$ hermite matrix in eq.(7) is decomposed into the diagonal and off-diagonal parts,

$$Aa+A,Yy+Y,X^kx^k+X^k,\psi \psi +\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(10)
where $`a,y,x^k`$ and $`\psi `$ are the diagonal and $`A,Y,X^k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are the off-diagonal parts of the original matrices, respectively, which are plugged into (7). The gauge transformations are also decomposed as

$$\delta a=_\tau \lambda +\frac{i}{L}[\mathrm{\Lambda },A]_{\mathrm{diag}},\delta A=_\tau \mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{i}{L}([\lambda ,A]+[\mathrm{\Lambda },a]+[\mathrm{\Lambda },A]_{\text{off-diag}}),\mathrm{}$$
(11)
where $`\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are the diagonal and off-diagonal parts of the gauge parameter, respectively. At this stage, we impose a boundary condition in $`\theta `$-direction. Here, for simplicity, we choose such boundary conditions as to have the $`N`$ string bits having $`p^+=1/R`$ for the diagonal matrix elements,

$$\varphi _a(\theta +2\pi )=\varphi _a(\theta ).(\text{for }\varphi =a,y,x^k,\psi )$$
(12)
As for the off-diagonal matrix elements, we naturally impose

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab}(\theta +2\pi )=\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab}(\theta ).(\text{for }\mathrm{\Phi }=A,Y,X^k,\mathrm{\Psi })$$
(13)
Next we fix the gauge. We choose the following gauge condition,

$$a=y,_\theta Y\frac{i}{L}[y,Y]\frac{i}{L}[x^k,X^k]+\frac{i}{L}[a,A]_\tau A=0,$$
(14)
and we proceed in the Landau gauge. Then we get

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟y𝒟x^k𝒟\psi 𝒟c𝒟\overline{c}𝒟A𝒟Y𝒟X^k𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }𝒟C𝒟\overline{C}𝒟B}`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{exp}[iLT{\displaystyle }d\tau {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\theta (^{string}+_0^B+L_1^B+L^2_2^B`$
$`+_0^F+L^{1/2}_{1/2}^F+L_1^F)],`$
$`^{string}`$ $`=`$ $`Tr[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\tau x^k)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\theta x^k)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{(_\tau _\theta )y\right\}^2`$ (16)
$`+i\overline{c}(_\tau _\theta )c+i\psi ^T_\tau \psi i\psi ^T\gamma ^9_\theta \psi ],`$
$`_0^B`$ $`=`$ $`Tr[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[x^k,A]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[x^k,Y]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[x^k,X^l]^2`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left([y,Y]+[x^k,X^k][y,A]\right)^2`$
$`iB([y,Y]+[x^k,X^k][y,A])+i[x^k,\overline{C}][x^k,C]],`$
$`_0^F`$ $`=`$ $`Tr\left[\mathrm{\Psi }^T[y,\mathrm{\Psi }]\mathrm{\Psi }^T\gamma ^9[y,\mathrm{\Psi }]\mathrm{\Psi }^T\gamma ^k[x^k,\mathrm{\Psi }]\right],`$ (18)
$`_{1/2}^F`$ $`=`$ $`Tr\left[2\mathrm{\Psi }^T[\psi ,A]+2\mathrm{\Psi }^T\gamma ^9[\psi ,Y]+2\mathrm{\Psi }^T\gamma ^k[\psi ,X^k]\right],`$ (19)
$`_1^B`$ $`=`$ $`Tr[i_\tau Y[y,Y]+2i_\tau Y[y,A]i_\tau A[y,Y]`$ (20)
$`+2i_\theta A[y,Y]i_\theta A[y,A]i_\theta Y[y,A]`$
$`i_\tau X^k[y,X^k]+2i_\tau X^k[x^k,A]i_\tau A[x^k,X^k]`$
$`+i_\theta X^k[y,X^k]2i_\theta X^k[x^k,Y]+i_\theta Y[x^k,X^k]`$
$`[y,Y][A,Y]+[y,A][A,Y][y,X^k][A,X^k]`$
$`+[x^k,A][A,X^k]+[y,X^k][Y,X^k][x^k,Y][Y,X^k]`$
$`+[x^k,X^l][X^k,X^l]+B_\theta YB_\tau A_\theta \overline{C}[y,C]`$
$`[y,\overline{C}]_\theta C+i[y,\overline{C}][Y,C]+i[x^k,\overline{C}][X^k,C]`$
$`+[y,\overline{C}]_\tau Ci[y,\overline{C}][A,C]+_\tau \overline{C}[y,C]],`$
$`_1^F`$ $`=`$ $`Tr[i\mathrm{\Psi }^T_\tau \mathrm{\Psi }i\mathrm{\Psi }^T\gamma ^9_\theta \mathrm{\Psi }`$ (21)
$`+\mathrm{\Psi }^T[A,\mathrm{\Psi }]\mathrm{\Psi }^T\gamma ^9[Y,\mathrm{\Psi }]\mathrm{\Psi }^T\gamma ^k[X^k,\mathrm{\Psi }]],`$
$`_2^B`$ $`=`$ $`Tr[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\tau Y_\theta A)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\tau X^k)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\theta X^k)^2`$ (22)
$`i_\tau Y[A,Y]+i_\theta A[A,Y]i_\tau X^k[A,X^k]`$
$`+i_\theta X^k[Y,X^k]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[A,Y]^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[A,X^k]^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[Y,X^k]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[X^k,X^l]^2i_\theta \overline{C}_\theta C_\theta \overline{C}[Y,C]`$
$`+i_\tau \overline{C}_\tau C+_\tau \overline{C}[A,C]+i[\overline{C},A]_{\mathrm{diag}}[C,A]_{\mathrm{diag}}`$
$`i[\overline{C},Y]_{\mathrm{diag}}[C,Y]_{\mathrm{diag}}i[\overline{C},X^k]_{\mathrm{diag}}[C,X^k]_{\mathrm{diag}}],`$
where ($`c`$,$`\overline{c}`$) are (ghost, anti-ghost) for the first condition of (14), while ($`C`$,$`\overline{C}`$,$`B`$) are (ghost, anti-ghost, $`B`$-field) for the second one, respectively, $`a`$ has been integrated out by using the Landau gauge condition for eq.(14) and some of the off-diagonal parts have been rescaled as

$$ALA,YLY,X^kLX^k,\mathrm{\Psi }L^{1/2}\mathrm{\Psi },CL^2C.$$
(23)
By using the above action, we perform the perturbative expansion with respect to $`L`$ and integrate only the off-diagonal matrix elements;

$`T={\displaystyle 𝒟y𝒟x^k𝒟\psi 𝒟c𝒟\overline{c}\mathrm{exp}\left(iS_{eff}[y,x^k,\overline{c},c,\psi ]\right)},`$ (24)
$`S_{eff}[y,x^k,\overline{c},c,\psi ]={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta \left(^{string}i\mathrm{ln}Z[y,x^k,\psi ]\right)},`$ (25)
$`Z[y,x^k,\psi ]={\displaystyle 𝒟A𝒟Y𝒟X^k𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }𝒟C𝒟\overline{C}𝒟B\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{~}{S})},`$ (26)
$`\stackrel{~}{S}={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta \left(_0^B+L_1^B+L^2_2^B+_0^F+L^{\frac{1}{2}}_{1/2}^F+L_1^F\right)},`$ (27)
where we have set $`LT=1`$ and $`\xi =(\tau ,\theta )`$ for brevity. We regard (17) and (18) as the free parts and (19)–(22) the interactions. Then we read off the propagators from the free parts,

$`\widehat{X}_{ab}^K(\xi )\widehat{X}_{ba}^L(\xi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(\delta ^{KL}{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{x}_a^K\widehat{x}_b^K)(\widehat{x}_a^L\widehat{x}_b^L)}{(\widehat{x}_a\widehat{x}_b)^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{G(\xi ,\xi ^{})}{(\widehat{x}_a\widehat{x}_b)^2}},`$ (28)
$`B_{ab}(\xi )Y_{ba}(\xi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`B_{ab}(\xi )A_{ba}(\xi ^{})={\displaystyle \frac{y_ay_b}{(x_ax_b)^2}}G(\xi ,\xi ^{}),`$ (29)
$`B_{ab}(\xi )X_{ba}^k(\xi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_a^kx_b^k}{(x_ax_b)^2}}G(\xi ,\xi ^{}),`$ (30)
$`\overline{C}_{ab}(\xi )C_{ba}(\xi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G(\xi ,\xi ^{})}{(x_ax_b)^2}},`$ (31)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ab}^\alpha (\xi )\mathrm{\Psi }_{ba}^\beta (\xi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(y_ay_b)(I+\gamma ^9)_{\alpha \beta }+(x_a^kx_b^k)\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^k}{(x_ax_b)^2}}G(\xi ,\xi ^{}),`$ (32)
where $`G(\xi ,\xi ^{})\delta ^{(2)}(\xi \xi ^{})`$, $`(x_ax_b)^2(x_a^kx_b^k)(x_a^kx_b^k)`$, the spinor indices $`\alpha ,\beta `$ run through $`1,2,\mathrm{},16`$ and we have introduced the hatted variables $`\widehat{X}^K`$ and $`\widehat{x}^K`$ $`(K=k,9,10(k=1,2,\mathrm{},8))`$,

$$\widehat{X}^k=X^k,\widehat{X}^9=Y,\widehat{X}^{10}=iA,\widehat{x}^k=x^k,\widehat{x}^9=y,\widehat{x}^{10}=iy,$$
(33)
and $`(\widehat{x}_a\widehat{x}_b)^2(\widehat{x}_a^K\widehat{x}_b^K)(\widehat{x}_a^K\widehat{x}_b^K)=(x_ax_b)^2`$. Notice that $`(x_ax_b)^2`$ (for $`ab`$$`1a,bN`$) must be non-zero in order that the perturbative expansion makes sense since the propagators are singular at $`(x_ax_b)^2=0`$. We recall that in matrix string theory, the usual string interactions are described by the exchange of coincident diagonal matrix elements and hence the perturbative expansion does not make sense even for small radius $`L`$ at the interaction points. Thus, henceforth we ignore the interaction points and integrate out the off-diagonal matrix elements to get the effective action for the diagonal matrix elements, which is expected to agree with the classical (free) action of DLCQ type IIA superstring.

The perturbative calculation is, however, formal as in Ref.: The propagators (28)-(32) are proportional to the $`\delta `$-function $`G(\xi ,\xi ^{})=\delta ^{(2)}(\xi \xi ^{})`$ and the loops suffer from the ultraviolet divergences like $`\delta ^{(2)}(0)`$. However, it is very difficult to find a suitable regularization which respects symmetries. If we adopt a certain regularization, e.g. cutoff regularization for large momenta, the regularized $`\delta `$-function $`G_{(r)}(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$ would not satisfy $`f(\xi )G_{(r)}(\xi ,\xi ^{})=f(\xi ^{})G_{(r)}(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$, which causes an ambiguity of how we choose the arguments of $`(x_a^kx_b^k)`$ and $`(y_ay_b)`$, which appear in the propagators (28)-(32). To avoid the ambiguity, henceforth we consider only the configurations of the diagonal matrix elements in which the differences of arbitrary two elements $`(x_a^kx_b^k)`$, $`(y_ay_b)`$ and $`(\psi _a\psi _b)`$ are independent of $`\xi `$, although $`x_a^k`$, $`x_b^k`$, $`y_a`$, $`y_b`$, $`\psi _a`$ and $`\psi _b`$ themselves depend on $`\xi `$, in general. We have not yet found such a suitable regularization, however, we give a formal argument about the quantum corrections order by order in the strong-coupling expansion.

(i) $`O(L^0)`$: The lowest order contribution in eq.(26) is the one-loop determinant of the free action. Actually, the determinant is unity due to the coincidence between bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedoms.

(ii) $`O(L^{1/2})`$: The next contribution in eq.(26) comes from $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^F=_{1/2}^F`$. $`i\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^F`$ vanishes because there is no way to self-contract in $`i\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^F`$.

(iii) $`O(L^1)`$: The $`O(L^1)`$ contributions in eq.(26) come from $`\stackrel{~}{S}_1^B`$, $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^F`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}_1^F`$. There are tree kinds of contributions, $`i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^B`$, $`(1/2!)i\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^F`$ and $`i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^F`$. The first one is given by

$`i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^B`$ $`=`$ $`iL{\displaystyle }d^2\xi d^2\xi ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\{i(y_ay_b)_\tau Y_{ab}(\xi )Y_{ba}(\xi ^{})`$ (34)
$`i(y_ay_b)_\tau Y_{ab}(\xi )A_{ba}(\xi ^{})i(y_ay_b)_\theta A_{ab}(\xi )Y_{ba}(\xi ^{})`$
$`+i(y_ay_b)_\theta A_{ab}(\xi )A_{ba}(\xi ^{})+i(y_ay_b)_\tau X_{ab}^k(\xi )X_{ba}^k(\xi ^{})`$
$`i(x_a^kx_b^k)_\tau X_{ab}^k(\xi )A_{ba}(\xi ^{})i(y_ay_b)_\theta X_{ab}^k(\xi )X_{ba}^k(\xi ^{})`$
$`+i(x_a^kx_b^k)_\theta X_{ab}^k(\xi )Y_{ba}(\xi ^{})_\theta B_{ab}(\xi )Y_{ba}(\xi ^{})`$
$`+_\tau B_{ab}(\xi )A_{ba}(\xi ^{})+2(y_ay_b)_\theta \overline{C}_{ab}(\xi )C_{ba}(\xi ^{})`$
$`2(y_ay_b)_\tau \overline{C}_{ab}(\xi )C_{ba}(\xi ^{})\}\delta ^{(2)}(\xi \xi ^{}).`$
From eqs.(28)-(32), we see that the quantity in the braces is antisymmetric in $`a`$ and $`b`$ and hence $`i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^B`$ is zero. Similarly we find that both $`i\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^F`$ and $`i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^F`$ are zero. Note that in order to show that the quantum correction of $`O(L)`$ is zero, we have never used the fact that $`G(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$ is a $`\delta `$-function. Hence it would hold even if $`G(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$ is some regularized $`\delta `$-function.

(iv) $`O(L^{3/2})`$: There are tree kinds of contributions,

$$\frac{1}{2!}i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Bi\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^F,\frac{1}{3!}i\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^F,\frac{1}{2!}i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^F.$$

Each of them is zero because there is no way of contraction, respectively.

(v) $`O(L^2)`$: The contributions are

$`i\stackrel{~}{S}_2^B,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Bi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^B,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^F,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Bi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^F,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}i\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^B,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}i\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^F,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}i\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^F.`$
The last three terms contain fermionic diagonal elements $`\psi _a`$ and they each vanish due to the anti-commutativity of the Grassmann variables $`\psi _a`$. Also it is easy to see that there is no contribution from $`(1/2!)i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Bi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^F`$. Then $`(1/2!)i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Bi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^B`$, $`i\stackrel{~}{S}_2^B`$ and $`(1/2!)i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^F`$ are to be considered below.

(v-1) One-loop: The one-loop contributions coming from $`(1/2!)i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Bi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^B`$, $`i\stackrel{~}{S}_2^B`$ and $`(1/2!)i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^F`$ are referred to as $`(1/2!)i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Bi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^B^{(1)}`$, $`i\stackrel{~}{S}_2^B^{(1)}`$ and $`(1/2!)i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^F^{(1)}`$, respectively. They are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Bi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^B^{(1)}=L^2{\displaystyle }d^2\xi d^2\xi ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{ab}{}}[{\displaystyle \frac{17(y_ay_b)^2}{\{(x_ax_b)^2\}^2}}_\tau _\theta ^{}G(\xi ,\xi ^{})G(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x_ax_b)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{17}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(y_ay_b)^2}{\{(x_ax_b)^2\}^2}}\right)_\tau _\tau ^{}G(\xi ,\xi ^{})G(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x_ax_b)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{17}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(y_ay_b)^2}{\{(x_ax_b)^2\}^2}})_\theta _\theta ^{}G(\xi ,\xi ^{})G(\xi ,\xi ^{})],`$ (35)
$`i\stackrel{~}{S}_2^B^{(1)}=L^2{\displaystyle }d^2\xi d^2\xi ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{ab}{}}[{\displaystyle \frac{(y_ay_b)^2}{\{(x_ax_b)^2\}^2}}_\tau _\theta ^{}G(\xi ,\xi ^{})\delta ^{(2)}(\xi \xi ^{})`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{(x_ax_b)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(y_ay_b)^2}{\{(x_ax_b)^2\}^2}}\right)_\tau _\tau ^{}G(\xi ,\xi ^{})\delta ^{(2)}(\xi \xi ^{})`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{3}{(x_ax_b)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(y_ay_b)^2}{\{(x_ax_b)^2\}^2}})_\theta _\theta ^{}G(\xi ,\xi ^{})\delta ^{(2)}(\xi \xi ^{})],`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^F^{(1)}=L^2{\displaystyle }d^2\xi d^2\xi ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{ab}{}}[{\displaystyle \frac{16(y_ay_b)^2}{\{(x_ax_b)^2\}^2}}_\tau _\theta ^{}G(\xi ,\xi ^{})G(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{(x_ax_b)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8(y_ay_b)^2}{\{(x_ax_b)^2\}^2}}\right)_\tau _\tau ^{}G(\xi ,\xi ^{})G(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{4}{(x_ax_b)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8(y_ay_b)^2}{\{(x_ax_b)^2\}^2}})_\theta _\theta ^{}G(\xi ,\xi ^{})G(\xi ,\xi ^{})].`$ (37)
Note that we have never used the fact that $`G(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$ is the $`\delta `$-function in deriving eqs.(35)-(37). Thus they are expected to be unaltered even if we adopt a certain regularization. At this stage we first use the fact that $`G(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$ is the $`\delta `$-function and it is shown that they are canceled, 666This result in matrix string theory is essentially the same as the one in the wrapped supermembrane theory . In Ref., however, the zero-mode gauge field $`a`$ is restricted to be zero by hand, while we have just fixed the gauge ($`a=y`$) and added the corresponding FP-ghost part following the standard procedure . In this sense the configuration of $`a`$ is not restricted in our calculations.

$$\frac{1}{2!}i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Bi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^B^{(1)}+i\stackrel{~}{S}_2^B^{(1)}+\frac{1}{2!}i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^F^{(1)}=0.$$
(38)
(v-2) Two-loop: The two-loop contributions, which are not calculated in Ref., are referred to as $`(1/2!)i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Bi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^B^{(2)}`$, $`i\stackrel{~}{S}_2^B^{(2)}`$ and $`(1/2!)i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^F^{(2)}`$, respectively. We obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Bi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^B^{(2)}=iL^2{\displaystyle }d^2\xi d^2\xi ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{ab,bc,ca}{}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{33}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x_ax_b)^2(x_bx_c)^2}}`$
$`16{\displaystyle \frac{\{(x_a^kx_b^k)(x_c^kx_a^k)\}^2}{(x_ax_b)^2(x_bx_c)^2\{(x_cx_a)^2\}^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\{(x_a^kx_b^k)(x_b^kx_c^k)\}^2}{\{(x_ax_b)^2(x_bx_c)^2\}^2}}\}(G(\xi ,\xi ^{}))^3,`$ (39)
$`i\stackrel{~}{S}_2^B^{(2)}=iL^2{\displaystyle }d^2\xi d^2\xi ^{}[{\displaystyle \underset{ab,bc,ca}{}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{73}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x_ax_b)^2(x_bx_c)^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\{(x_a^kx_b^k)(x_b^kx_c^k)\}^2}{\{(x_ax_b)^2(x_bx_c)^2\}^2}}\}+54{\displaystyle \underset{ab}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\{(x_ax_b)^2\}^2}}]`$
$`\times (G(\xi ,\xi ^{}))^2\delta ^{(2)}(\xi \xi ^{}),`$ (40)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^F^{(2)}=iL^2{\displaystyle }d^2\xi d^2\xi ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{ab,bc,ca}{}}\{20{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x_ax_b)^2(x_bx_c)^2}}`$
$`+16{\displaystyle \frac{\{(x_a^kx_b^k)(x_c^kx_a^k)\}^2}{(x_ax_b)^2(x_bx_c)^2\{(x_cx_a)^2\}^2}}\}(G(\xi ,\xi ^{}))^3.`$ (41)
Note that in calculating eqs.(39)–(41) we have never used the fact that $`G(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$ is the $`\delta `$-function and hence eqs.(39)–(41) are expected to be unaltered even if we adopt a certain regularization. At this stage we first use the fact that $`G(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$ is the $`\delta `$-function and sum up eqs.(39)–(41) to get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Bi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^B^{(2)}+i\stackrel{~}{S}_2^B^{(2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}i\stackrel{~}{S}_1^Fi\stackrel{~}{S}_1^F^{(2)}`$
$`=iL^2{\displaystyle d^2\xi d^2\xi ^{}\underset{ab}{}\frac{54}{\{(x_ax_b)^2\}^2}(G(\xi ,\xi ^{}))^3}.`$ (42)
The two-loop quantum corrections at $`O(L^2)`$ do not cancel out! One comment is in order: The remaining term is exactly that of the second summation in eq.(40). If we assume that the differences of the diagonal elements can be estimated as $`(x_a^kx_b^k)O(N^\alpha )`$777According to the correspondence of a long string in matrix string theory with the wrapped supermembrane, $`\alpha =1`$ for $`|ab|N`$ . with some common constant $`\alpha `$ for large $`N`$, we will see that the terms canceled in eq.(42) behave as $`_{ab,bc,ca}(x_a^kx_b^k)^2(x_b^kx_c^k)^2O(N^{34\alpha })`$, while the remaining term behaves as $`_{ab}(x_a^kx_b^k)^4O(N^{24\alpha })`$. In this sense, we could say that only the leading terms in the large $`N`$ are canceled in the two-loop quantum corrections to the classical string action at $`O(L^2)`$.

## 4 Conclusion

We have studied in matrix string theory whether the reduction to the diagonal elements of the matrices is justified quantum mechanically. We have seen that the quantum corrections do not cancel out at $`O(L^2)`$. We should note, however, that no suitable regularization for the divergences of $`\delta ^{(2)}(0)`$ type is found so far, and hence we have only studied a mechanism of cancellation of quantum corrections. In fact, we have found that at the two-loop level of $`O(L^2)`$, the sub-leading term in the large $`N`$ comes only from the bosonic degrees of freedom and cannot be canceled out. Even if we find a suitable regularization, such a structure seems to be unaltered and hence our result will be unchanged.

Finally, we comment on the global constraints in the wrapped supermembrane theory. Such constraints should be taken into account in the calculations of the quantum double-dimensional reduction.888The global constraints are not considered in the calculations . In matrix string theory, however, there are no counterparts of such constraints. In particular, in the standard derivation of matrix string theory, they do not appear naturally. However we can show that the global constraint does not alter our result .

Acknowledgments. One of the authors (SU) would like to thank the organizers of the “Third International Sakharov Conference on Physics” for the kind invitation. The work of SU is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No.13135212.