text:
# 1 Introduction and Summary

## 1 Introduction and Summary

Two-dimensional conformal field theories (CFTs) play a key role in the worldsheet formulation of string theory and in the description of universality classes of critical phenomena. In the attempt to gain a better understanding of their mathematical structure, several axiomatic approaches have been developed. When using an operator calculus, a space of states $`V`$ has to be specified that consists of representations of the symmetry algebra. The representation spaces form the basic structure of $`V`$, but it is not fully determined by physical requirements what topology should be given to this space, and hence how it should be completed. In unitary CFTs, one has, by definition, a positive definite inner product $`,`$; the conventional approach is then to use the norm $`.=\sqrt{,}`$ for completing $`V`$ so that one obtains a Hilbert space $``$. Problems usually arise from the fact that domains and ranges for different operators do not coincide. Special care has to be taken when considering operator products. Often this aspect is left aside and one works on the assumption that domain issues can be settled.

To define convergence in terms of an inner product is by no means the only possibility, nor is it clear that it provides the best starting point for dealing satisfactorily with domain questions. The theory of distributions shows that it can prove extremely useful to introduce topologies different from that of a (pre-) Hilbert space. It was especially Böhm who argued for the application of such topologies to quantum theory (see \[Ma\], sec. 1 for references). More recently this idea has reappeared in the context of CFT when Gaberdiel & Goddard \[GG\] and Huang \[Hu\] proposed new topologies for representation spaces of chiral symmetry algebras. A central role is played by chiral (or conformal) blocks whose properties lead to the definition of locally convex state spaces that are not Hilbert spaces. In both cases, one deals with a whole family of topologies which are parametrized by suitable subsets of the complex plane. In this article we investigate and compare the two approaches.

Questions of topology naturally occur when it comes to constructing a mathematically rigorous operator formalism. Gaberdiel, Goddard and Huang have achieved that for chiral CFT on the Riemann sphere. One hopes that these results can be further generalized, and that the topological properties of the spaces help in deriving statements that could not be proven so far. Let us mention a few possibilities:

* String theory makes it necessary to deal with CFTs on surfaces of arbitrary genus $`g`$. For $`g>1`$ and interacting theories, an operator formalism has yet to be developed. In a different approach one defines conformal blocks as linear functionals on tensor products of representation spaces \[FB\]. The nuclear mapping theorem for nuclear spaces could provide a way to construct vertex operators from these functionals.
* The space of physical superstring states $`V_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ is obtained by taking the BRST cohomology of the combined matter-ghost system. The choice of topology can influence the content of $`V_{\mathrm{phys}}`$, and should play a role in the construction of picture-changing operators \[BZ\].
* A cohomological approach to the Verlinde formula has been advocated in the literature \[Te, FS\]. The correct dimension of chiral blocks is obtained provided a certain sequence of coinvariants is exact. This may be easier to show if one chooses a suitable, possibly nuclear, topology on the state space.

The results of this paper contribute to a better understanding of the topologies given in \[GG\] and \[Hu\]. As they were defined in rather different axiomatic settings, we have translated them into a common framework that allows for the construction of both types of topologies. This framework is specified in the next section. Section 3 and 4 explain the definition of the topologies: they are denoted by $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪`$ and $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ and parametrized by open sets $`𝒪`$ and open disks $`𝒟`$ centered at 0 respectively. In section 5, we derive some simple properties of $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪`$ and $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$: it is shown that $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ is nuclear and that $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪`$ is nuclear if it is Hausdorff. We also take a look at the $`𝒪`$\- and $`𝒟`$-dependence:

$`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪^{}`$ is coarser than $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪`$, if $`𝒪^{}𝒪`$,
whereas $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ behaves in the opposite way:

$`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟^{}`$ is finer than $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ for $`𝒟^{}𝒟`$.
Section 6 deals with the comparison of the topologies. We prove that

$`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ is finer than $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪`$ if $`\underset{\zeta 𝒪}{inf}|\zeta |>r`$,
where $`r`$ is the radius of the disk $`𝒟`$. The techniques employed allow us to show in section 7 that conformal two-point blocks of the vacuum sector are continuous in $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ if the radius of $`𝒟`$ is less than half the distance of the two points. This result generalizes to an arbitrary number of points. (One can give another proof of continuity which is based on theorem 2.5 in \[Hu\].) Section 6 and 7 can be read independently of section 5. In the last section, we make some comments on open questions and speculate on the possibility that Huang’s and Gaberdiel’s & Goddard’s topologies are dual to each other.

We assume that the reader is familiar with the basics of the theory of vertex algebras and the theory of topological vector spaces. The necessary background material can be found in \[Ka, FB\] and \[Na, Tr\].

#### Acknowledgements

This work is part of F. Conrady’s diploma thesis and was supported by the “Schwerpunktprogramm String-Theorie” of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. We are grateful to M.G. Schmidt and J. Fuchs for their continuous interest in this work. We thank Y.-Zh. Huang for helpful correspondence.

## 2 Mathematical Framework

The state space of a CFT is built from representation spaces of a chiral symmetry algebra. The work of Huang and Gaberdiel & Goddard provides us with methods to topologize such spaces. This section fixes the definition of the chiral representations and specifies the additional assumptions needed for their topologization.

### 2.1 Vertex Algebras and Vertex Algebra Modules

In this article, we use the concept of vertex algebras to formally define the chiral symmetry algebra \[FLM, Ka, FB\]. The topologies will be defined on certain vertex algebras and modules of them.

Let $`V`$ be a $`_+`$-graded vertex algebra consisting of finite-dimensional graded components, that is

$$V=\underset{h_+}{}V_h$$

and

$$dimV_h<\mathrm{}.$$

The vacuum vector is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }V_0`$). The map

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\varphi :\hfill & V\hfill & \hfill & \mathrm{End}V[[z,z^1]],\hfill \\ & v\hfill & \hfill & \varphi (v,z)=\underset{n}{}(v)_nz^{n1},\hfill \end{array}$$

establishes the state-field correspondence. In physical jargon, the endomorphisms $`(v)_n`$ are called mode operators of the field $`\varphi (v,z)`$ associated to the state $`v`$. (The use of the letter $`\varphi `$ is conventional in quantum field theory; $`Y`$ is the standard symbol used in the theory of vertex algebras.) In a conformal vertex algebra, the grading corresponds to the assignment of conformal weights. The choice of an integer grading means that we only consider bosonic fields; the restriction to positive values follows from unitarity requirements (see below).

Take $`W`$ to be a $`_+`$-graded $`V`$-module \[FB\] satisfying

$$W=\underset{h_+}{}W_h$$

and

$$dimW_h<\mathrm{}.$$

The fields of the chiral algebra $`V`$ are represented on $`W`$ by

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\varphi _W:\hfill & V\hfill & \hfill & \mathrm{End}W[[z,z^1]],\hfill \\ & v\hfill & \hfill & \varphi _W(v,z)=\underset{n}{}(v)_nz^{n1}.\hfill \end{array}$$

In the remainder of the text the index $`W`$ is omitted: it will be clear from the context whether one deals with fields and operators of the vertex algebra or those of its module.

Let $`XV`$ and $`YW`$ be subspaces which generate $`V`$ and $`W`$ respectively:

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{span}\{(x_1)_{n_1}\mathrm{}(x_k)_{n_k}x_{k+1}|x_iX,n_i_+,k\},`$ (1)
$`W`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{span}\{(v_1)_{n_1}\mathrm{}(v_k)_{n_k}y|v_iV,yY,n_i_+,k\}.`$ (2)
We assume that $`X`$ contains $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Line (1) implies that every mode operator $`(v)_n`$ ($`vV`$, $`n_+`$) is a linear combination of products $`(x_1)_{n_1}\mathrm{}(x_k)_{n_k}`$. This can be shown by induction and a suitable integration of the operator product expansion (see sec. 1.6 of \[FB\]). Hence, as a consequence of (1) and (2), $`W`$ is spanned by vectors of the form

$$(x_1)_{n_1}\mathrm{}(x_k)_{n_k}y(k)$$

where $`x_1,\mathrm{}x_kX`$, $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_k_+`$ and $`yY`$.

### 2.2 Unitarity, Correlation Functions and Finiteness

Gaberdiel’s and Goddard’s axioms lead to state spaces of a chiral symmetry algebra that contains at least the Möbius algebra. An additional condition on the amplitudes implies the existence of an inner product and that Möbius transformations are unitary w.r.t. it (see sec. 3.5, \[G\]). In this paper, we assume that this condition is fulfilled, so effectively one deals with chiral representations that carry a (pseudo-)unitary structure.

We implement these requirements as follows: $`V`$ and $`W`$ are equipped with inner products $`,`$ (antilinear in the first variable), and the Lie algebra $`\mathrm{sl}(2,)`$ is unitarily represented on them; the associated operators $`L_0`$ and $`L_1`$ can be identified with the grading and shift operators respectively111cf. the definition of a Möbius-conformal vertex algebra (see, e.g. \[Ka\]). It follows that the inner products are compatible with the grading of $`V`$ and $`W`$. Note also that the inner products can be indefinite; for sake of simplicity, we restrict ourselves to unitary CFTs and thus assume that $`,`$ is positive definite. As a result, the grading of $`V`$ and $`W`$ has to be real and positive.

Matrix elements

$$\stackrel{~}{w},\varphi (v_1,z_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (v_k,z_k)w$$
(3)
of field products are obtained by inserting the formal sum

$$\varphi (v_1,z_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (v_k,z_k)$$

between states $`w,\stackrel{~}{w}W`$ and replacing the formal variables by complex numbers $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_k`$. In other words, we consider $`k+2`$ point blocks on the sphere with in- and out-state taken from the module $`W`$ and $`k`$ insertions that are descendants of the vacuum. It follows from the axioms of the vertex algebra module that (3) converges absolutely in the region

$$|z_1|>\mathrm{}>|z_k|>0,$$

and can be analytically extended to a meromorphic function on the domain

$$M^k=\{(z_1,\mathrm{},z_k)(^\times )^k|z_iz_j\text{for}ij\}.$$

$`M^k`$ is the moduli space of $`n`$ different ordered points on $`^\times `$.

In the theory of vertex algebras, one frequently considers “matrix elements” of the form

$$w^{}(\varphi (v_1,z_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (v_k,z_k)w),$$
(4)
where $`w^{}`$ is an element of the graded dual

$$W^{}=\underset{h_+}{}(W_h)^{}.$$

Since the graded components of $`W`$ are finite-dimensional, every bra-vector $`\stackrel{~}{w}|`$ can be represented by some dual vector $`w^{}W^{}`$, and all theorems for matrix elements (4) apply as well to (3). For later use, we note here that if $`W=V`$ and $`w=\stackrel{~}{w}=\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the amplitude (3) is translation-invariant:

$$\mathrm{\Omega },\varphi (v_1,z_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (v_k,z_k)\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega },\varphi (v_1,z_1+z)\mathrm{}\varphi (v_k,z_k+z)\mathrm{\Omega },z.$$

Given an open set $`𝒟`$ we define the space of “correlation functions”222Note that these functions are objects of the chiral CFT. They are the chiral (or conformal) blocks from which the physical correlators of the full CFT are constructed. $`\stackrel{~}{F}_k^𝒟`$ $`(k)`$ to be the vector space of all functions

$$\stackrel{~}{w},\varphi (v_1,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (v_k,.)w,$$

with $`v_1,\mathrm{}v_kV`$, $`w,\stackrel{~}{w}W`$ and arguments $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_k)`$ in the domain

$$M_𝒟^k=\{(z_1,\mathrm{},z_k)𝒟^k|z_iz_j\text{for}ij;z_i0\}.$$

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_k^𝒟`$ is endowed with the topology of compact convergence, i.e. the topology of uniform convergence on compact subsets of $`M_𝒟^k`$. We denote by $`F_k^𝒟`$ the completion of $`\stackrel{~}{F}_k^𝒟`$. The topological dual $`F_k^𝒟`$ receives the strong topology — the topology of uniform convergence on all weakly bounded subsets of $`F_k^𝒟`$.

For the construction of Huang’s topology it is necessary to impose two additional conditions on the vertex algebra $`V`$ and the $`V`$-module $`W`$. Both should be finitely generated: the spaces $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are assumed to be finite-dimensional; we write $`d=dimX`$ and $`n=dimY`$. (Gaberdiel and Goddard only require that $`X`$ has a countable basis. Various other finiteness conditions have been studied in the literature, see e.g. \[NT\].)

## 3 Gaberdiel’s and Goddard’s Topology

A set of meromorphic and Möbius covariant amplitudes provides the starting point for Gaberdiel’s and Goddard’s definition of chiral CFT. It allows for a direct construction of vertex operators as continuous maps between topological spaces. In sections 4 and 8 of \[GG\], it is explained how this leads to the more common description in terms of chiral algebras and their representations. We will not discuss this relation and define the topologies directly using the vertex algebra $`V`$ and the module $`W`$. Below we give the construction for the module $`W`$; it applies in particular to $`V`$, since $`V`$ is a finitely generated module over itself; in this case, $`X`$ plays the role of $`Y`$.

Let us first sketch the idea: we seek to define seminorms on $`W`$; to this end, we fix vectors $`\stackrel{~}{w}W`$ and $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_lV`$, and consider, for each vector $`w`$, the correlator

$$\stackrel{~}{w},\varphi (v_1,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (v_k,.)w$$

as a function of $`k`$ arguments in the complex plane. After choosing a suitable domain $`D`$ for these functions, a seminorm is provided by the supremum norm on compact subsets $`K`$ of $`D`$. In other words, one uses the topology of compact convergence on function spaces in order to topologize the vector space $`W`$. To keep the number of seminorms countable, we restrict the choice of out-states and insertions to $`Y`$ and $`X`$ respectively. That is, we only consider seminorms of the type

$$w=\underset{(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _l)K}{sup}|y,\varphi (x_1,\zeta _1)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_l,\zeta _l)w|.$$

The proofs in the following sections require us to put this scheme into more formal language: Let $`𝒪`$ be an arbitrary open subset of $``$ and $`l`$. (The spaces $`M_𝒪^l`$ and $`F_l^𝒪`$ were defined in sec. 2.2.) There is a linear map

$$g_l^𝒪:\overline{Y}X^lWF_l^𝒪$$

defined by

$$g_l^𝒪(yx_1\mathrm{}x_lw):=y,\varphi (x_1,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_l,.)w$$

for $`y\overline{Y}`$, $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_lX`$ and $`wW`$. Here, we use the complex conjugate space $`\overline{Y}`$ of $`Y`$ and thereby avoid the antilinearity of the inner product333$`\overline{Y}`$ and $`Y`$ are identical as sets and additive groups, only the scalar multiplications $`\overline{}`$ and $``$ differ: they are related by complex conjugation, $`a\overline{}y=\overline{a}y\overline{a}y`$ for $`a`$.. For fixed $`l`$ and $`x\overline{Y}X^l`$, we obtain a linear map

$$g_l^𝒪(x.):WF_l^𝒪.$$
(5)
The family of mappings $`g_l^𝒪(x.)`$, $`l`$, $`x\overline{Y}X^l`$, determines an initial topology $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪`$ on $`W`$, i.e. the weakest topology with respect to which all $`g_l^𝒪(x.)`$ are continuous. It is locally convex, but not necessarily Hausdorff. At this point, Goddard and Gaberdiel divide out the subspace of vectors that have zero length with regard to all seminorms and obtain a Hausdorff space. In this paper, we will not do so, as we want to compare topologies on $`W`$ (and not on some quotient space whose content depends on one of the topologies). We refer to $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪`$ on $`W`$ as Gaberdiel’s and Goddard’s topology, but it should be kept in mind that their space of states arises only after division by the “null states”.

Given bases

$$x_1,\mathrm{},x_d$$
(6)
for $`X`$ and

$$y_1,\mathrm{},y_n$$
(7)
for $`Y`$, multi-indices

$$I=(i_0,i_1,\mathrm{},i_l)\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\times \{1,\mathrm{},d\}^l$$

can be used to label a basis

$$x_I=y_{i_0}x_{i_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_l}$$

for $`\overline{Y}X^l`$. By linearity, $`g_l^𝒪(x.)`$ is continuous for every $`x\overline{Y}X^l`$ iff it is continuous for every $`x_I`$. $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪`$ is therefore the weakest topology on $`W`$ for which each $`g_l^𝒪(x_I.)`$, $`l`$, $`I\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\times \{1,\mathrm{},d\}^l`$, is continuous. It is characterized by the family of seminorms

$$w_{I,K}:=g_l^𝒪(x_I.)_K=y_{i_0},\varphi (x_{i_1},.)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_{i_l},.)w_K,$$
(8)
where the multiindex $`I`$ specifies the basis element $`x_I`$ and $`._K`$ is the supremum norm on compact subsets $`KM_𝒪^l`$. This family of seminorms is equivalent to a countable set of seminorms, since we may restrict our choice of $`K`$ to a sequence $`\{K_n\}_n`$ of compacta which exhaust $`M_𝒪^l`$. Note that in the definition we are free to replace the completion $`F_l^𝒪`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{F}_l^𝒪`$ itself without affecting the topology $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪`$.

## 4 Huang’s Topology

Huang constructs a topology for finitely generated conformal vertex algebras and for finitely generated modules associated to them \[Hu\]. His formalism does not rely on the existence of an inner product: the graded dual is employed for defining matrix elements. We use the inner product instead and adapt Huang’s scheme accordingly. The differences are pointed out at the end of this section. For the complete proofs, we refer the reader to Huang’s paper.

Again, we describe the topology for a finitely generated module $`W`$; this includes the specific case $`W=V`$ where $`Y`$ is given by $`X`$. $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪`$ was obtained by mapping $`W`$ into spaces whose topology was already known. Huang takes the reverse approach: he maps a sequence of topological spaces into a vector space containing $`W`$, and equips it with the strict inductive limit topology (for a definition, see e.g. \[Na\], chap. 12).

We take $`𝒟`$ to be an open disk of arbitrary radius $`r>0`$ around 0. Let $`\overline{\mathrm{Hom}}(W,)`$ be the space of antilinear functionals on $`W`$. Again, the conformal blocks are used as a key input; we specify a map

$$e_k^𝒟:X^kYF_k^𝒟\overline{\mathrm{Hom}}(W,)$$
(9)
by

$$e_k^𝒟(x_1\mathrm{}x_ky\mu )(\stackrel{~}{w}):=\mu (\stackrel{~}{w},\varphi (x_1,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_k,.)y)$$
(10)
for $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_kX`$, $`yY`$, $`\mu F_k^𝒟`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{w}W`$. Here,

$$\stackrel{~}{w},\varphi (x_1,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_k,.)y$$

is to be understood as a function on the domain $`M_𝒟^k`$.

Consider the image

$$G_k^𝒟:=e_k^𝒟(X^kYF_k^𝒟)$$

and the union over all $`k`$

$$G^𝒟:=\underset{k}{}G_k^𝒟.$$

The construction of the topology proceeds in two steps: first we show that $`W`$ can be embedded into $`G^𝒟`$; then a topology is given to $`G^𝒟`$ and thus also to $`W`$.

The space $`W`$ can be embedded into $`G^𝒟`$ as follows: for any $`k`$-tuple $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_k`$ one defines functionals $`\mu _{n_1,\mathrm{},n_k}F_k^𝒟`$ by

$`\mu _{n_1,\mathrm{},n_k}(\stackrel{~}{w},\varphi (v_1,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (v_k,.)w)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}}{\displaystyle _{|z_1|=r_1}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}}{\displaystyle _{|z_k|=r_k}}z_1^{n_1}\mathrm{}z_k^{n_k}v^{},\varphi (v_1,z_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (v_k,z_k)wdz_1\mathrm{}dz_k`$
$`=\stackrel{~}{w},(v_1)_{n_1}\mathrm{}(v_k)_{n_k}w,`$
where $`r>r_1>\mathrm{}>r_k>0`$. Note that the inner product provides an isomorphism between $`W`$ and a subspace of $`\overline{\mathrm{Hom}}(W,)`$. As explained in section 1, $`W`$ is spanned by vectors of the form

$$w=(x_1)_{n_1}\mathrm{}(x_k)_{n_k}y(k)$$

where $`x_1,\mathrm{}x_kX`$, $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_k_+`$ and $`yY`$.

The value of the inner product $`,w`$ coincides with the value of the functional

$$e_k^𝒟(x_1\mathrm{}x_ky\mu _{n_1,\mathrm{},n_k})$$

on any vector $`\stackrel{~}{w}W`$. Indeed,

$`e_k^𝒟(x_1\mathrm{}x_ky\mu _{n_1,\mathrm{},n_k})(\stackrel{~}{w})`$
$`=\mu _{n_1,\mathrm{},n_k}(\stackrel{~}{w},\varphi (x_1,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_k,.)y)`$
$`=\stackrel{~}{w},(x_1)_{n_1}\mathrm{}(x_k)_{n_k}y`$
$`=\stackrel{~}{w},w.`$
Thus, $`w`$ can be identified with the vector $`e_k^𝒟(x_1\mathrm{}x_ky\mu _{n_1,\mathrm{},n_k})`$ in $`G_k^𝒟G^𝒟`$. This defines our embedding of $`W`$ into $`G^𝒟`$.

Next one constructs a canonical embedding of $`G_k^𝒟`$ into $`G_{k+1}^𝒟`$: define the linear map

$$\gamma _k:F_{k+1}^𝒟F_k^𝒟$$

by

$$\gamma _k(\stackrel{~}{w},\varphi (v_1,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (v_{k+1},.)w)=(v_1)_1^{}\stackrel{~}{w},\varphi (v_2,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (v_{k+1},.)w.$$

$`(v_1)_1^{}`$ is the adjoint of the $`1`$st mode of $`\varphi (v_1,z_1)`$. For arbitrary $`\stackrel{~}{w}W`$, we have

$`e_k^𝒟(x_1\mathrm{}x_ky\mu )(\stackrel{~}{w})`$
$`=\mu (\stackrel{~}{w},\varphi (x_1,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_k,.)y)`$
$`=\mu (\gamma _k(\stackrel{~}{w},\varphi (\mathrm{\Omega },.)\varphi (x_1,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_k,.)y))`$
$`=(\gamma _k^{}(\mu ))(\stackrel{~}{w},\varphi (\mathrm{\Omega },.)\varphi (x_1,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_k,.)y)`$
$`=e_{k+1}^𝒟(\mathrm{\Omega }x_1\mathrm{}x_ky\gamma _k^{}(\mu ))(\stackrel{~}{w}),`$
where the adjoint

$$\gamma _k^{}:F_k^𝒟F_{k+1}^𝒟$$

has been used. This shows that $`G_k^𝒟G_{k+1}^𝒟`$, and that the union $`G^𝒟`$ of all such spaces is a vector space.

How can $`G^𝒟`$ be made topological? Both $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are finite-dimensional and carry a unique Banach space structure. So does the tensor product $`X^kY`$. $`F_k^𝒟`$ has the strong topology, and we equip $`X^kYF_k^𝒟`$ with the projective tensor product topology. $`G_k^𝒟`$ is the image of $`X^kYF_k^𝒟`$ under the linear and surjective map $`e_k^𝒟`$, and is given the final (identification) topology. It can be shown then that for any $`k`$, $`G_k^𝒟`$ is a topological subspace of $`G_{k+1}^𝒟`$. We have an increasing sequence of locally convex spaces whose union yields the vector space $`G^𝒟`$. The topology on $`G^𝒟`$ is defined as the strict inductive limit determined by this sequence.

As a subspace, $`W`$ inherits a locally convex and Hausdorff topology from $`G^𝒟`$; we denote it by $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$.

The proofs are analogous to those in section 1 and 3 of \[Hu\] except for the following replacements: $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ becomes $`W`$, i.e. the value $`\lambda ,w`$ of a functional $`\lambda \stackrel{~}{G}`$ on a vector $`wW`$ is replaced by the inner product $`\stackrel{~}{w},w`$ between a vector $`\stackrel{~}{w}W`$ and $`w`$. Instead of the dual space $`\stackrel{~}{G}^{}`$ we use the space $`\overline{\mathrm{Hom}}(W,)`$ of antilinear functionals on $`W`$, equipped with the weak topology. The function spaces in \[Hu\] correspond to $`F_k^𝒟`$ with $`𝒟`$ the open unit disk in $``$.

## 5 Properties of the Topologies

The proofs in section 5 and 6 are again formulated for a general finitely-generated $`V`$-module $`W`$.

### 5.1 Nuclearity

We show below that $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ is nuclear, and that $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪`$ is nuclear if it is Hausdorff. Gaberdiel’s and Goddard’s space of states results from dividing $`W`$ by the “null states” with respect to $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪`$, which renders it Hausdorff and nuclear.

In the proof the following properties of nuclear spaces are used:

1. A linear subspace of a nuclear space is nuclear.
2. The quotient of a nuclear space modulo a closed linear subspace is nuclear.
3. A projective limit of nuclear spaces is nuclear if it is Hausdorff.
4. A countable inductive limit of nuclear spaces is nuclear.
5. The projective tensor product of two nuclear spaces is nuclear.
6. A Fréchet space is nuclear if and only if its strong dual is nuclear. (A topological vector space is called a Fréchet space if it is complete, metrizable, locally convex and Hausdorff.)

For detailed definitions and proofs see, for instance, \[Tr\], chap. 50. The following theorem provides an alternative characterization for locally convex metrizable spaces:

1. A locally convex space is metrizable iff its topology can be described by a countable family of seminorms.

Given some open subset $`D`$ of $`^n`$, $`n`$, the space $`H(D)`$ of holomorphic functions on it is nuclear (\[Tr\], chap. 51). Accordingly, $`H(M_𝒪^l)`$ and $`H(M_𝒟^k)`$ are nuclear spaces, and the same holds true for the subspaces $`F_l^𝒪`$, $`F_k^𝒟`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_k^𝒟`$. $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪`$ is a projective limit of the spaces $`F_l^𝒪`$, and hence nuclear if it is Hausdorff (3.). If $`W`$ is divided by all null states, the projective limit becomes Hausdorff and therefore nuclear (3.).

Consider now Huang’s topology: Clearly, $`F_k^𝒟`$ is an example of a Fréchet space. By 6. the strong dual $`F_k^𝒟`$ of $`F_k^𝒟`$ is nuclear. Note that this conclusion cannot be made for $`\stackrel{~}{F}_k^𝒟`$, since $`\stackrel{~}{F}_k^𝒟`$ may not be complete and hence not a Fréchet space. It follows from the definition that

$$G_k^𝒟(X^kYF_k^𝒟)/(e_k^𝒟)^1(0),$$

where $``$ denotes a linear and topological isomorphism. The finite-dimensional space $`X^kY`$ is nuclear and according to 5. the tensor product with $`F_k^𝒟`$ is nuclear as well. $`e_k^𝒟`$ is continuous (Proposition 1.5 in \[Hu\]) and $`(e_k^𝒟)^1(0)`$ closed, so 2. tells us that $`G_k^𝒟`$ has the nuclear property. By 4., the latter is preserved under the inductive limit

$$G^𝒟=\underset{k}{}G_k^𝒟,$$

and $`W`$, as a subspace of $`G^𝒟`$, must again be nuclear.

### 5.2 Dependence on $`𝒪`$ and $`𝒟`$

In the case of Gaberdiel’s and Goddard’s topologies, it is immediate from the definition that

$`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪^{}`$ is coarser than $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪`$ when $`𝒪^{}𝒪`$.
Due to their definition by functionals, Huang’s topologies behave in the opposite way:

$`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒞`$ is finer than $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ for $`𝒞𝒟`$,
This can be seen as follows:

Proof. Suppose that $`𝒞𝒟`$ where $`𝒞`$ and $`𝒟`$ are open disks centered at 0. Consider the map from $`F_k^𝒟`$ to $`F_k^𝒞`$ given by restriction to $`M_𝒞^k`$: it is linear, surjective, and injective, since both pre-image and image are restrictions of a single meromorphic function on the domain $`M_{}^k=M^k`$. $`F_k^𝒞`$ and $`F_k^𝒟`$ can be identified as vector spaces, but the topology on $`F_k^𝒞`$ is weaker. Therefore, its dual space $`F_k^𝒞`$ is a subspace of $`F_k^𝒟`$. Both dual spaces carry the strong topology: the topology of uniform convergence on weakly bounded444Bounded = weakly bounded in locally convex Hausdorff spaces (see \[Na\], (9.7.6)). subsets. Neighbourhood bases at 0 are given by the polar sets

$$B_𝒟^{}=\{\mu F_k^𝒟|\underset{fB}{sup}|\mu (f)|1\}\text{for }B\text{ bounded in }F_k^𝒟\text{,}$$

and

$$B_𝒞^{}=\{\mu F_k^𝒞|\underset{fB}{sup}|\mu (f)|1\}\text{for }B\text{ bounded in }F_k^𝒞$$

respectively. The topology induced on $`F_k^𝒞`$ by $`F_k^𝒟`$ has the base

$$\stackrel{~}{B}_𝒞^{}=\{\mu F_k^𝒞|\underset{fB}{sup}|\mu (f)|1\}\text{for }B\text{ bounded in }F_k^𝒟\text{.}$$

A set $`B`$ is bounded in $`F_k^𝒟`$ iff it is bounded w.r.t. each seminorm in $`F_k^𝒟`$. Hence it is also bounded in $`F_k^𝒞`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{B}_𝒞^{}=B_𝒞^{}`$. Thus we see that the topology on $`F_k^𝒞`$ is finer than that induced by $`F_k^𝒟`$.

Furthermore, as topological vector spaces,

$$G_k^𝒟(X^kYF_k^𝒟)/(e_k^𝒟)^1(0),$$

and

$$G_k^𝒞(X^kYF_k^𝒞)/(e_k^𝒞)^1(0),$$

Since $`e_k^𝒞`$ is simply the restriction of $`e_k^𝒟`$ to $`X^kYF_k^𝒞`$, $`G_k^𝒞`$ is a subspace of $`G_k^𝒟`$. By definition, the topology on $`X^kYF_k^𝒟`$ is the projective tensor product of $`X^kY`$ and $`F_k^𝒟`$. A neighbourhood base at 0 of the space $`X^kYF_k^𝒟`$ is constituted by the sets

$$\mathrm{conv}(UN)$$

where $`U`$ and $`N`$ are neighbourhoods in $`X^kY`$ and $`F_k^𝒟`$ respectively. The set $`UN`$ consists of all $`u\mu `$, $`uU`$, $`\mu N`$, and conv stands for the convex hull. We have

$`\mathrm{conv}(UN)(X^kYF_k^𝒞)`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{conv}((UN)(X^kYF_k^𝒞))`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{conv}(U(NF_k^𝒞)),`$
and $`NF_k^𝒞`$ is a neighbourhood of 0 in $`F_k^𝒞`$. This implies that the topology of $`X^kYF_k^𝒞`$ is finer than that induced on it by $`X^kYF_k^𝒟`$. Therefore, the topology of $`G_k^𝒞`$ is finer than that induced by $`G_k^𝒟`$. The same holds true for the inductive limits $`G^𝒞`$ and $`G^𝒟`$, and we conclude that $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒞`$ is finer than $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 6 Comparison of the Topologies

We would like to show that $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ is finer than $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪`$ for suitable choices of $`𝒟`$ and $`𝒪`$. For that purpose it suffices to prove that each seminorm of Gaberdiel’s & Goddard’s topology is continuous in Huang’s topology. In the notation of sec. 3, this means that for each $`l`$, $`I\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\times \{1,\mathrm{},d\}^l`$ and compact subset $`KM_𝒪^l`$, the seminorm

$$._{I,K}:=g_l^𝒪(x_I.)_K$$

is continuous in $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$. Let us therefore consider $`I`$ and $`K`$ to be fixed. We have to show that for any net $`\{w_s\}_{sS}`$ ($`S`$ an index set) that converges to 0 in $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$, the net

$`w_s_{I,K}`$ $`=`$ $`y_{i_0},\varphi (x_{i_1},.)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_{i_l},.)w_s_K`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`\underset{𝜻K}{sup}|y_{i_0},\varphi (x_{i_1},\zeta _1)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_{i_l},\zeta _l)w_s|`$
goes to 0 as well. To simplify notation we drop the index $`i`$ and write $`y,x_1,\mathrm{},x_l`$ from now on.

The proof proceeds in three steps: We specify a neighbourhood base at 0 for $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ and express the convergence of $`\{w_s\}_{sS}`$ in terms of it. To apply this convergence property, we need to cast the correlator

$$y_{i_0},\varphi (x_{i_1},\zeta _1)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_{i_l},\zeta _l)w_s$$

into a different form. Eq. (21) below provides the desired reordering, and is proved by using the Laurent expansion of correlation functions. This equality is also essential for the proof in sec. 7. The third step consists in choosing a neighbourhood at 0 of $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ such that (11) becomes smaller than a given $`ϵ`$.

### 6.1 Convergence in Huang’s Topology

Let us recall what spaces were involved in the construction of Huang’s topology: $`X^kY`$ is of finite dimension $`nd^k`$ and has a norm topology. All norms on $`X^kY`$ are equivalent, so we can take it to be the 1-norm w.r.t. some basis (i.e. the sum of the absolute values of the coefficients in this basis). Let $`U_\delta (0)`$ denote the associated ball of radius $`\delta >0`$ around 0. $`F_k^𝒟`$ carries the strong topology, and a base for the neighbourhoods of $`0`$ in $`F_k^𝒟`$ is given by the polars

$$B^{}=\{\mu F_k^𝒟|\underset{fB}{sup}|\mu (f)|1\}$$

where $`B`$ is bounded in $`F_k^𝒟`$. As already mentioned in sec. 5.2, a neighbourhood base at 0 for $`X^kYF_k^𝒟`$ is provided by the sets $`\mathrm{conv}(UN),`$ where $`U`$ and $`N`$ are neighbourhoods in $`X^kY`$ and $`F_k^𝒟`$ respectively. Clearly, the sets

$$\mathrm{conv}(U_\delta (0)B^{})\text{(}\delta >0\text{}B\text{ bounded in }F_k^𝒟\text{)}$$

form an equivalent base. The space $`G_k^𝒟`$ is the image of $`X^kYF_k^𝒟`$ under the map $`e_k^𝒟`$ and carries the associated final or identification topology. Therefore, the sets

$$e_k^𝒟(\mathrm{conv}(U_\delta (0)B^{}))$$
(12)
provide us with a neighbourhood base at 0 for $`G_k^𝒟`$. The space

$$G^𝒟=\underset{k}{}G_k^𝒟$$

is the strict inductive limit of the spaces $`G_k^𝒟`$, and induces the topology $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ on its (embedded) subspace $`W`$. A base at 0 for $`G^𝒟`$ is constituted by the sets of the form

$$\mathrm{conv}\left(\underset{k}{}𝒰_k\right),$$
(13)
where each $`𝒰_k`$ is a neighbourhood of 0 in $`G_k^𝒟`$ (see \[Na\], p.287, sec. 12.1). Combining (12) and (13), we see that the sets

$$W\mathrm{conv}\left(\underset{k}{}e_k^𝒟(\mathrm{conv}(U_{\delta _k}(0)B_k^{}))\right)$$

give a base at 0 for Huang’s topology555It is understood that $`U_{\delta _k}(0)`$ and $`B_k^{}`$ belong to the spaces $`X^kY`$ and $`F_k^𝒟`$ respectively.. Since $`e_k^𝒟`$ is linear, the latter simplifies to

$$W\mathrm{conv}\left(\underset{k}{}e_k^𝒟(U_{\delta _k}(0)B_k^{})\right).$$
(14)
Note that in writing so we have identified $`W`$ with its image under the embedding in $`G^𝒟\overline{\mathrm{Hom}}(W,)`$.

Consider now the net $`\{w_s\}_{sS}`$ which converges to 0 in the topology $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ on $`W`$. Given a sequence of pairs $`(\delta _k,B_k)`$, $`k`$, there is an index $`s_0`$ such that for each $`ss_0`$, $`w_s`$ can be expressed as a finite sum

$$w_s=\underset{i}{}a_ie_{k_i}^𝒟(u_i\mu _i)$$
(15)
with

$$u_iU_{\delta _{k_i}}(0),\mu _iB_{k_i}^{},k_i,$$

and coefficients obeying

$$\underset{i}{}|a_i|1.$$

To simplify notation we write the right-hand side of (15) without index $`s`$.

### Laurent Expansion

We want to give an upper estimate for expression (11) when $`ss_0`$. Let us first consider the case when the sum (15) consists of only one term, i.e.

$$w_s=e_k^𝒟(u\mu ),uU_{\delta _k}(0)\text{}\mu B_k^{}$$

for some $`ss_0`$ and $`k`$. In the following the index $`k`$ is fixed, so we will omit it from $`U_\delta (0)`$ and $`B`$.

The correlator in (11) can now be written as

$$y_0,\varphi (x_1,\zeta _1)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_l,\zeta _l)w_s=y_0,\varphi (x_1,\zeta _1)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_l,\zeta _l)e_k^𝒟(u\mu ).$$
(16)
In (16) we would like to apply the definition of $`e_k^𝒟`$ and make the functional $`\mu `$ appear explicitly (see eq. (10)). The operators $`\varphi (x_1,\zeta _1)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_l,\zeta _l)`$ prevent us from doing so and should be removed somehow. Given a $`𝜻=(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _l)M_𝒪^l`$ such that

$$|\zeta _1|>\mathrm{}>|\zeta _l|>0,$$

one can expand the correlation function in its natural power series

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m^l}{}}y,(x_1)_{m_1}\mathrm{}(x_l)_{m_l}e_k^𝒟(u\mu )\zeta _1^{m_11}\mathrm{}\zeta _l^{m_l1}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m^l}{}}(x_l)_{m_l}^{}\mathrm{}(x_1)_{m_1}^{}y,e_k^𝒟(u\mu )\zeta _1^{m_11}\mathrm{}\zeta _l^{m_l1}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m^l}{}}e_k^𝒟(u\mu )((x_l)_{m_l}^{}\mathrm{}(x_1)_{m_1}^{}y)\zeta _1^{m_11}\mathrm{}\zeta _l^{m_l1}`$
Next we specify a basis

$$u^j=u_1^j\mathrm{}u_k^ju_{k+1}^j,$$

$$u_1^j,\mathrm{},u_k^jX\text{}u_{k+1}^jY\text{,}j=1,\mathrm{},nd^k,$$

for $`X^kY`$, and choose the associated 1-norm to be the norm on $`X^kY`$. Then, each $`uU_\delta (0)X^kY`$ is a linear combination

$$u=\underset{j=1}{\overset{nd^k}{}}b_ju^j,|b_j|\delta ,$$

and after applying the definition of $`e_k^𝒟`$, the power series (17) becomes

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{nd^k}{}}}b_j{\displaystyle \underset{m^l}{}}e_k^𝒟(u^j\mu )((x_l)_{m_l}^{}\mathrm{}(x_1)_{m_1}^{}y)\zeta _1^{m_11}\mathrm{}\zeta _l^{m_l1}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{nd^k}{}}}b_j{\displaystyle \underset{m^l}{}}\mu ((x_l)_{m_l}^{}\mathrm{}(x_1)_{m_1}^{}y,\varphi (u_1^j,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,.)u_{k+1}^j)`$
$`\times \zeta _1^{m_11}\mathrm{}\zeta _l^{m_l1}.`$
Each term in the sum over $`j`$ looks like the functional $`\mu `$ applied to

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m^l}{}}(x_l)_{m_l}^{}\mathrm{}(x_1)_{m_1}^{}y,\varphi (u_1^j,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,.)u_{k+1}^j\zeta _1^{m_11}\mathrm{}\zeta _l^{m_l1}`$ (19)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{m^l}{}}y,(x_1)_{m_1}\mathrm{}(x_l)_{m_l}\varphi (u_1^j,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,.)u_{k+1}^j\zeta _1^{m_11}\mathrm{}\zeta _l^{m_l1}.`$
Note that (19) is a Hartogs expansion in $`𝜻`$ of666Be reminded that dots represent variables of the function, whereas $`\zeta _1`$ to $`\zeta _l`$ are fixed.

$$f_j=y,\varphi (x_1,\zeta _1)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_l,\zeta _l)\varphi (u_1^j,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,.)u_{k+1}^j,$$
(20)
provided that

$$\underset{z𝒟}{sup}|z|<|\zeta _l|.$$

The partial sums of (19) take their values in the dense subspace $`\stackrel{~}{F}_k^𝒟`$ of $`F_k^𝒟`$. It is a sequence of functions in $`\stackrel{~}{F}_k^𝒟`$, but in general not convergent to a function of $`\stackrel{~}{F}_k^𝒟`$. At this point it becomes important that in the construction of $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ we have used the completion $`F_k^𝒟`$ instead of $`\stackrel{~}{F}_k^𝒟`$. A theorem of complex analysis states that the Hartogs series (19) converges compactly to $`f_j`$. As a result, $`f_j`$ is contained in the completion $`F_k^𝒟`$, and with $`\mu `$ being an element of $`F_k^𝒟`$ the infinite sums in (18) can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m^l}{}}\mu (y,(x_1)_{m_1}\mathrm{}(x_l)_{m_l}\varphi (u_1^j,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,.)u_{k+1}^j)\zeta _1^{m_11}\mathrm{}\zeta _l^{m_l1}`$
$`=\mu (y,\varphi (x_1,\zeta _1)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_l,\zeta _l)\varphi (u_1^j,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,.)u_{k+1}^j).`$
Recalling our starting point (eq. (16)) we get

$`y,\varphi (x_1,\zeta _1)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_l,\zeta _l)e_k^𝒟(u\mu )`$ (21)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{nd^k}{}}}b_j\mu (y,\varphi (x_1,\zeta _1)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_l,\zeta _l)\varphi (u_1^j,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,.)u_{k+1}^j).`$
Let us recollect what assumptions were needed in order to arrive at the relation (21): The values of $`\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _l`$ are taken from an open subset $`𝒪`$ of $``$ and (20) makes only sense as a function on $`M_𝒟^k`$ if $`𝒪`$ and $`𝒟`$ do not overlap. Furthermore, the Hartogs expansion (19) requires that

$$|\zeta _1|>\mathrm{}>|\zeta _l|>\underset{z𝒟}{sup}|z|.$$
(22)
Eq. (21) continues to hold for arbitrary orderings of $`\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _l𝒪`$ provided

$$\underset{\zeta 𝒪}{inf}|\zeta |>\underset{z𝒟}{sup}|z|=r.$$

For $`ij`$, $`\zeta _i\zeta _j`$, but what about values where $`|\zeta _i|=|\zeta _j|`$? Let $`𝜻_0=(\zeta _{1,0},\mathrm{}\zeta _{l,0})`$ be a point where at least two radii coincide. Clearly, there is a sequence $`𝜻_n`$ in a region of the type (22) such that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}𝜻_n=𝜻_0.$$

The corresponding sequence of functions

$$y,\varphi (x_1,\zeta _{1,n})\mathrm{}\varphi (x_l,\zeta _{l,n})\varphi (u_1^j,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,.)u_{k+1}^j$$

converges compactly to

$$y,\varphi (x_1,\zeta _{1,0})\mathrm{}\varphi (x_l,\zeta _{l,0})\varphi (u_1^j,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,.)u_{k+1}^j.$$

By continuity of $`\mu `$ it follows that equation (21) is valid for $`𝜻_0`$ and thus for arbitrary values of $`𝜻M_𝒪^l`$.

### Choice of Neighbourhood

Given $`ϵ>0`$, we seek neighbourhoods $`U_\delta (0)`$ and $`B^{}`$ such that

$$\underset{𝜻K}{sup}|y,\varphi (x_1,\zeta _1)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_l,\zeta _l)e_k^𝒟(u\mu )|ϵ$$

if $`uU_\delta (0)`$ and $`\mu B^{}`$.

For each point $`𝜻=(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _l)K`$ there is a correlation function

$$f_j=y,\varphi (x_1,\zeta _1)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_l,\zeta _l)\varphi (u_1^j,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,.)u_{k+1}^j.$$

Let $`B_j`$ denote the set of these functions. When regarded as a function of $`l+k`$ variables,

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_j=y,\varphi (x_1,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_l,.)\varphi (u_1^j,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,.)u_{k+1}^j$$

is holomorphic on $`M_𝒪^l\times M_𝒟^k`$, and for any compact subset $`K^{}`$ of $`M_𝒟^k`$

$$\underset{(𝜻,𝒛)K\times K^{}}{sup}|\stackrel{~}{f}_j(𝜻,𝒛)|<\mathrm{}.$$

This means that $`B_j`$ is bounded in $`F_k^𝒟`$, and the same holds true for the union over $`j`$

$$B=\underset{j=1}{\overset{nd^k}{}}B_j.$$

Then, if $`\mu B^{}`$ and $`uU_\delta (0)`$, $`\delta =ϵ/(nd^k)`$, eq. (21) implies that

$`|y,\varphi (x_{i_1},\zeta _1)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_{i_l},\zeta _l)e_k^𝒟(u\mu )|`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{nd^k}{}}}|b_j||\mu (y,\varphi (x_1,\zeta _1)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_l,\zeta _l)\varphi (u_1^j,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,.)u_{k+1}^j)|`$
$`nd^k\delta ϵ𝜻K,`$
as required. In general, $`w_s`$ is a finite sum of the type (15) for $`ss_0`$, and one has to consider the expression

$$|y,\varphi (x_1,\zeta _1)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_l,\zeta _l)\underset{i}{}a_ie_{k_i}^𝒟(u_i\mu _i)|.$$

Using linearity and

$$\underset{i}{}|a_i|1$$

we can repeat the same arguments to obtain

$$\underset{𝜻K}{sup}|y,\varphi (x_1,\zeta _1)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_l,\zeta _l)w_s|ϵ$$

for $`ss_0`$. Therefore the seminorms $`._{I,K}`$ are continuous in the topology $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$. The proof was based on the validity of (21), i.e. we need that

$$\underset{\zeta 𝒪}{inf}|\zeta |>\underset{z𝒟}{sup}|z|=r,$$

and in that case $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ is finer than $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 7 Continuity of Conformal Blocks

Associated to a choice of $`m`$ points $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n`$, we define a conformal $`m`$-point block as the linear functional

$$\begin{array}{cccc}C_m(z_1,\mathrm{},z_m):\hfill & V^m\hfill & \hfill & ,\hfill \\ & v_1\mathrm{}v_m\hfill & \hfill & \mathrm{\Omega },\varphi (v_1,z_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (v_m,z_m)\mathrm{\Omega }.\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
Note that we are now dealing with matrix elements of the vertex algebra $`V`$. Physically speaking, these are conformal blocks whose insertions are in the bosonic vacuum sector $`V`$; we do not consider conformal blocks of other sectors, since we have not introduced general intertwining operators.

In an arbitrary topology on $`V`$, the functionals (23) need not be continuous. We present a proof that two-point blocks are continuous in Huang’s topology $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$, provided $`𝒟`$ is small enough. The method can be generalized to arbitrary $`m`$-point blocks in principle, though it becomes rather unwieldy for $`m>2`$.

For fixed points $`z,\stackrel{~}{z}`$, the two-point block

$$\begin{array}{cccc}C_2(z,\stackrel{~}{z}):\hfill & VV\hfill & \hfill & ,\hfill \\ & v\stackrel{~}{v}\hfill & \hfill & \mathrm{\Omega },\varphi (\stackrel{~}{v},\stackrel{~}{z})\varphi (v,z)\mathrm{\Omega }.\hfill \end{array}$$

is continuous on $`VV`$ iff it is continuous as a bilinear map from $`V\times V`$ into the complex numbers. A net $`\{(\stackrel{~}{v}_s,v_s)\}_{sS}`$ converges to 0 in $`V\times V`$ iff both $`\{\stackrel{~}{v}_s\}_{sS}`$ and $`\{v_s\}_{sS}`$ converge to 0 in $`V`$. Given such nets we want to demonstrate that

$$|\mathrm{\Omega },\varphi (\stackrel{~}{v}_s,\stackrel{~}{z})\varphi (v_s,z)\mathrm{\Omega }|$$
(24)
goes to zero.

The proof is similar to the one of sec. 6: We express the convergence of $`v_s`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}_s`$ in terms of neighbourhoods at 0, and manipulate expression (24) such that eq. (21) can be applied. Then we choose suitable neighbourhoods to make the value of (24) smaller than $`ϵ`$.

Repeating arguments of sec. 6.1 we see that given a sequence of $`\delta _k>0`$ and bounded sets $`B_k`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}_k`$ in $`F_k^𝒟`$, there is an index $`s_0`$ such that for each $`ss_0`$, $`v_s`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}_s`$ are finite sums of the type

$$v_s=\underset{i}{}a_ie_{k_i}^𝒟(u_i\mu _i),\stackrel{~}{v}_s=\underset{i}{}\stackrel{~}{a}_ie_{k_i}^𝒟(\stackrel{~}{u}_i\stackrel{~}{\mu }_i),$$
(25)
with

$$u_i,\stackrel{~}{u}_iU_{\delta _{k_i}}(0)\text{}\mu _iB^{}\text{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }_i\stackrel{~}{B}^{},k_i,$$

and coefficients obeying

$$\underset{i}{}|a_i|1,\underset{i}{}|\stackrel{~}{a}_i|1.$$

Suppose for the moment that for an $`ss_0`$ each of the two sums contains only one term, that is

$$v_s=e_k^𝒟(u\mu ),\stackrel{~}{v}_s=e_k^𝒟(\stackrel{~}{u}\stackrel{~}{\mu }),$$

and

$`u,\stackrel{~}{u}U_{\delta _k}(0),`$$`\mu B_k^{},\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{B}_k^{}`$
for some $`k`$. Below the index $`k`$ is omitted from $`U_\delta (0)`$, $`B`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$. Again, we write $`u`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ as linear combinations of orthonormal basis vectors:

$$u=\underset{j=1}{\overset{nd^k}{}}b_ju^j,\stackrel{~}{u}=\underset{j^{}=1}{\overset{nd^k}{}}\stackrel{~}{b}_j^{}\stackrel{~}{u}^j^{},$$

where

$$|b_j|\delta ,u^j=u_1^j\mathrm{}u_k^ju_{k+1}^j,$$

$$u_1^j,\mathrm{},u_k^jX\text{}u_{k+1}^jY\text{,}j=1,\mathrm{},nd^k,$$

and

$$|\stackrel{~}{b}_j^{}|\delta ,\stackrel{~}{u}^j^{}=\stackrel{~}{u}_1^j^{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{u}_k^j^{}\stackrel{~}{u}_{k+1}^j^{},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{u}_1^j^{},\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{u}_k^j^{}X\text{}\stackrel{~}{u}_{k+1}^j^{}Y\text{,}j^{}=1,\mathrm{},nd^k.$$

We are now ready to express the two-point correlator $`\mathrm{\Omega },\varphi (\stackrel{~}{v}_s,\stackrel{~}{z})\varphi (v_s,z)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in terms of the defining maps of Huang’s topology. The calculation employs translation invariance (t), locality (l), equation (21) and the state-operator correspondence (s). Within correlation functions $`\varphi (v,0)`$ stands for the zero limit in the complex variable.

$`\mathrm{\Omega },\varphi (\stackrel{~}{v}_s,\stackrel{~}{z})\varphi (v_s,z)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (26)
$`\stackrel{t}{=}`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega },\varphi (\stackrel{~}{v}_s,\stackrel{~}{z}z)\varphi (v_s,0)\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega },\varphi (\stackrel{~}{v}_s,\stackrel{~}{z}z)e_k^𝒟(u\mu )`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{21})}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{nd^k}{}}}b_j\mu (\mathrm{\Omega },\varphi (\stackrel{~}{v}_s,\stackrel{~}{z}z)\varphi (u_1^j,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,.)u_{k+1}^j)`$
$`\stackrel{s}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{nd^k}{}}}b_j\mu (\mathrm{\Omega },\varphi (\stackrel{~}{v}_s,\stackrel{~}{z}z)\varphi (u_1^j,.)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,.)\varphi (u_{k+1}^j,0)\mathrm{\Omega })`$
$`\stackrel{l,t}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{nd^k}{}}}b_j\mu (\mathrm{\Omega },\varphi (u_1^j,.\stackrel{~}{z}+z)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,.\stackrel{~}{z}+z)\varphi (u_{k+1}^j,\stackrel{~}{z}+z)\varphi (\stackrel{~}{v}_s,0)\mathrm{\Omega })`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{21})}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{nd^k}{}}}b_j{\displaystyle \underset{j^{}=1}{\overset{nd^k}{}}}\stackrel{~}{b}_j^{}\mu (\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\mathrm{\Omega },\varphi (u_1^j,.\stackrel{~}{z}+z)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,.\stackrel{~}{z}+z)\varphi (u_{k+1}^j,\stackrel{~}{z}+z)`$
$`\times \varphi (\stackrel{~}{u}_1^j^{},\stackrel{~}{.})\mathrm{}\varphi (\stackrel{~}{u}_k^j^{},\stackrel{~}{.})\stackrel{~}{u}_{k+1}^j^{}))`$
$`\stackrel{t}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{nd^k}{}}}b_j{\displaystyle \underset{j^{}=1}{\overset{nd^k}{}}}\stackrel{~}{b}_j^{}\mu (\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\mathrm{\Omega },\varphi (u_1^j,z+.)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,z+.)\varphi (u_{k+1}^j,z)`$
$`\times \varphi (\stackrel{~}{u}_1^j^{},\stackrel{~}{z}+\stackrel{~}{.})\mathrm{}\varphi (\stackrel{~}{u}_k^j^{},\stackrel{~}{z}+\stackrel{~}{.})\varphi (\stackrel{~}{u}_{k+1}^j^{},\stackrel{~}{z})\mathrm{\Omega })).`$
The notation should be understood as follows: $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ acts on

$$\mathrm{\Omega },\varphi (u_1^j,z+.)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,z+.)\varphi (u_{k+1}^j,z)\varphi (\stackrel{~}{u}_1^j^{},\stackrel{~}{z}+\stackrel{~}{.})\mathrm{}\varphi (\stackrel{~}{u}_k^j^{},\stackrel{~}{z}+\stackrel{~}{.})\varphi (\stackrel{~}{u}_{k+1}^j^{},\stackrel{~}{z})\mathrm{\Omega }$$

as a function of the variables marked by $`\stackrel{~}{.}`$ while the remaining points are fixed parameters. The expression

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\mathrm{\Omega },\varphi (u_1^j,z+.)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,z+.)\varphi (u_{k+1}^j,z)\varphi (\stackrel{~}{u}_1^j^{},\stackrel{~}{z}+\stackrel{~}{.})\mathrm{}\varphi (\stackrel{~}{u}_k^j^{},\stackrel{~}{z}+\stackrel{~}{.})\varphi (\stackrel{~}{u}_{k+1}^j^{},\stackrel{~}{z})\mathrm{\Omega })$$

is a function of the variables marked by a dot (without tilde) and serves, in turn, as an argument for the functional $`\mu `$. Note that for equation (21) to be applicable in the third and sixth equality, it is necessary that

$$|\stackrel{~}{z}z|>\underset{\zeta 𝒟}{sup}|\zeta |\text{and}\underset{\zeta 𝒟}{inf}|\zeta \stackrel{~}{z}+z|>\underset{\zeta 𝒟}{sup}|\zeta |.$$

This is ensured if the radius $`r`$ of the disk $`𝒟`$ is less than half the distance $`|\stackrel{~}{z}z|`$.

Following the same approach as in the previous section we try to make (26) arbitrarily small by a suitable choice of the sets $`B`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$. Take a sequence of compact sets $`K_mM_𝒟^k`$ such that

$$M_𝒟^k=\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}K_m.$$

For each $`m`$ we define $`B_m`$ to be the set of functions

$`f_{𝜻jj^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega },\varphi (u_1^j,z+\zeta _1)\mathrm{}\varphi (u_k^j,z+\zeta _k)\varphi (u_{k+1}^j,z)`$
$`\times \varphi (\stackrel{~}{u}_1^j^{},\stackrel{~}{z}+\stackrel{~}{.})\mathrm{}\varphi (\stackrel{~}{u}_k^j^{},\stackrel{~}{z}+\stackrel{~}{.})\varphi (\stackrel{~}{u}_{k+1}^j^{},\stackrel{~}{z})\mathrm{\Omega },`$
with $`𝜻=(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _l)`$ running through $`K_m`$ and $`j,j^{}=1,\mathrm{},nd^k`$. $`B_m`$ is bounded in $`F_k^𝒟`$. For a sequence of bounded sets $`B_m`$ one can find $`\rho _m>0`$ such that the union

$$\stackrel{~}{B}=\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\rho _mB_m$$

is again bounded. This is true in any space described by a countable family of seminorms (see \[Ko\], p.397). If $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ is taken from $`\stackrel{~}{B}^{}`$,

$$\underset{1jnd^k}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{1j^{}nd^k}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{𝜻K_n}{sup}|\stackrel{~}{\mu }(f_{𝜻jj^{}})|\frac{1}{\rho _n}$$

for each $`n`$. The set $`B`$ of functions

$$h_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }jj^{}}:M_𝒟^k,𝜻\stackrel{~}{\mu }(f_{𝜻jj^{}}),\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{B}^{}\text{}j,j^{}=1,\mathrm{},nd^k$$

is therefore bounded in $`F_k^𝒟`$. For $`\mu B^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{B}^{}`$ and $`\delta =ϵ^{1/2}/(nd^k)`$, we obtain

$`|\mathrm{\Omega },\varphi (\stackrel{~}{v}_s,\stackrel{~}{z})\varphi (v_s,z)\mathrm{\Omega }|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{nd^k}{}}}|b_j|{\displaystyle \underset{j^{}=1}{\overset{nd^k}{}}}|\stackrel{~}{b}_j^{}||\mu (\stackrel{~}{\mu }(f_{\text{.}jj^{}}))|`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{nd^k}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j^{}=1}{\overset{nd^k}{}}}\delta ^2|\mu (B)|`$
$``$ $`(nd^k\delta )^2=ϵ.`$
The inequality remains valid for $`v_s`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}_s`$ of the form (25). Thus, we arrive at the result that two-point blocks $`C_2(z,\stackrel{~}{z})`$ are continuous in $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ if the open disk $`𝒟`$ has radius

$$r<\frac{|\stackrel{~}{z}z|}{2}.$$

## 8 Further Questions

Let us briefly address some of the open questions:

* Given that 2-point blocks are continuous in Huang’s topology (for sufficiently small $`𝒟`$), does a corresponding statement hold in the case of Gaberdiel’s and Goddard’s topologies? The task would be to show that

$$|\mathrm{\Omega },\varphi (\stackrel{~}{v}_s,\stackrel{~}{z})\varphi (v_s,z)\mathrm{\Omega }|$$
(27)
goes to zero when both nets $`\{\stackrel{~}{v}_s\}_{sS}`$ and $`\{v_s\}_{sS}`$ converge to 0 in the topology $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪`$ on $`V`$. The latter means that for all $`ϵ>0`$, compact subsets $`KM_𝒪^l`$ and multiindices $`I=(i_0,i_1,\mathrm{},i_l)\{1,\mathrm{},d\}^{l+1}`$, there is an index $`s_0`$ such that

$$x_{i_0},\varphi (x_{i_1},.)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_{i_l},.)v_s_K<ϵ$$
(28)
for all $`ss_0`$ (see sec. 3 and 6). The difference to Huang’s topology is that here we do not see an obvious way in which the convergence property (28) could be used to make estimates on (27).
* What is the relation to the (pre-)Hilbert space topology, i.e. the one induced by the inner product? Are $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒪`$ and $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ finer, coarser or neither of it?
* Are $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ and $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒟`$ dual to each other? Suppose that the two topologies are defined on linear spaces $`W_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ and $`W_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒟`$ containing $`W`$ and let us denote the completions by $`\widehat{W}_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ and $`\widehat{W}_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒟`$ respectively. Duality would mean that $`\widehat{W}_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟=\widehat{W}_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒟`$ and/or $`\widehat{W}_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒟=\widehat{W}_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$. The question is motivated by a certain correspondence in the way the topologies are constructed. $`W_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒟`$ arises from a projective limit of maps

$$g_l^𝒟(x_I.):W_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒟F_l^𝒟,$$

where, for each $`l`$, $`I`$ indexes a basis in the space $`\overline{Y}X^l`$ (see (5) in sec. 3). Dualizing these maps gives

$$g_l^𝒟(x_I.):F_l^𝒟W_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒟,$$
(29)
and the topology on $`W_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒟`$ is presumably an inductive limit topology associated to these maps. This resembles the sequence

$$e_k^𝒟(x_J.):F_k^𝒟\overline{\mathrm{Hom}}(W,)W_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟$$

we obtain from the maps $`e_k^𝒟`$ of Huang’s topology if $`J`$ indexes a basis of $`X^kY`$ for each $`k`$ (see (9) in sec. 4). One should note, however, that $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ is a strict inductive limit and likely to be different from a simple inductive limit as in (29), even if $`g_l^𝒟`$ and $`e_k^𝒟`$ turned out to be equivalent for $`l=k`$. In that case, it should at least be possible to define alternative topologies that represent the exact duals of $`𝒯_{\mathrm{Hu}}^𝒟`$ and $`𝒯_{\mathrm{GG}}^𝒟`$. A detailed analysis of this issue will appear elsewhere.


format: text

text:
# Monte Carlo study of the critical temperature for the planar rotator model with nonmagnetic impurities

## I Introduction

The planar rotator (PR) model in two dimensions is a prototype for several physical systems as for example high temperature superconductors and granular superconductors. The PR model supports topological excitations and although there is no long range order at any finite temperature, it undergoes a BKT phase transition driven by the unbinding of vortex-antivortex pairs. In short the BKT picture of the phase transition is as follows. At low temperature spin waves are the relevant excitations of the system. Spin-spin correlation functions fall off slowly with distance, free vortices do not exist but pairs strongly binded. Vortices pairs can not disorder the system significantly since they affect only close spins. As the temperature is rised, the distance between vortex-ativortex pairs grows until $`T_{BKT}`$. Then free vortices exist, the system is disordered and the spin-spin correlation function falls off exponentially. The hamiltonian describing the model is

$$H=\underset{<i,j>}{}J_{i,j}\stackrel{}{S}_i.\stackrel{}{S}_j,$$
(1)
where $`i`$ and $`j`$ enumerate sites in a square lattice, $`J_{i,j}`$ is an exchange coupling and $`\stackrel{}{S}_i=\{S_i^x,S_i^y\}=\left|S\right|\{\mathrm{cos}\theta _i,\mathrm{sin}\theta _i\}`$ is a two dimensional spin vector. Of course, Hamiltonian(1) describes an ideal system, in which each site of a regular square lattice is occupied by a spin vector $`\stackrel{}{S}`$. However, impurity and/or defects are present in any material sample. In fact, the effect of impurities on superconductors has been of theoretical and experimental interest in its own right for a long time. Particularly, the interaction of topological excitations with spatial inhomogeneities is of considerable importance from both theoretical and applied points of view. For example, solitons near a nonmagnetic impurity in 2D antiferromagnets cause observable effects in EPR experimentsKSC ; ZKK . In this scenario it would be important to study the effects of the presence of nonmagnetic sites diluted in magnetic materials. In a recent work, Mól, Pereira and PiresMPP , have studied the interaction between a static spin vacancy and a planar vortex and they have shown that the effective potential experienced between the two defects is repulsive. It indicates that the presence of spinless atoms on the magnetic plane may affect the BKT critical temperature. The main goal in this paper is to consider the effect of magnetic dilution to the BKT temperature by using numerical and analytical methods. To take into account the presence of nonmagnetic impurities in our model (Eq 1) we can replace some spin vector $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ by a $`\stackrel{}{S}=0`$ creating a vacancy at that lattice site. First we consider that the spin vacancies are randomly distributed on the sites of the lattice. The case in which the spin vacancies are grouped into a cluster will also be analyzed in order to compare with the random case.

The paper is organized as follows: in section $`II`$, we describe the model and the Monte Carlo (MC) method. In section $`III`$ we present the MC results. In section $`IV`$, the continuum theory is used to study the vortex-pair-impurity interaction and a simple heuristic argument to justify the MC results is presented and section $`V`$ contains a summary and final comments.

## II Background

We consider in this work a quenched site diluted $`PR`$ model. In order to introduce dilution we define a variable $`\sigma _i`$ with the following properties: It is $`1`$ if site $`i`$ is magnetic and $`0`$ otherwise. To acomodate this changes we have to modify Eq 1 as

$$H=J\underset{<i,j>}{}\sigma _i\stackrel{}{S}_i.\sigma _j\stackrel{}{S}_j=J\underset{<i,j>}{}\sigma _i\sigma _j\mathrm{cos}\left(\theta _i\theta _j\right).$$
(2)
The precise determination of the BKT temperature is a difficult task due to absence of sharp peaks in the thermodynamic quantities. One way to extract $`T_{BKT}`$ was suggested by Weber and MinnhagenMIN1 ; MIN2  by calculating the helicity modulus defined as

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\frac{^2F}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}$$
(3)
where $`F`$ is the free energy and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a small twist across the system in one direction. Using Eq 2 we get

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\frac{1}{2(Nn)}<H_{xy}>\frac{1}{k_bT(Nn)}[\underset{i,j}{}\sigma _i\sigma _jsin(\theta _i\theta _j)\widehat{e}_{i,j}.\widehat{x}]^2,$$
(4)
where $`N`$ is the volume of the system, $`n`$ is the number of non-magnetic sites, $`\widehat{e}_{i,j}`$ is the vector pointing from site $`j`$ to site $`i`$ and $`\widehat{x}`$ is a unit vector pointing along the x-direction. The Kosterlitz renormalization-group equationsKOS  lead to the prediction that $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ jumps from the value $`\left(\frac{2}{\pi }\right)T_c`$ to zero at the critical temperature,

$$\underset{TT_c}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{k_bT}=\frac{2}{\pi }.$$
(5)
To calculate the quantity $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ we use a Monte Carlo (MC) approach using a standard Metropolis algorithm with periodic boundary conditionsMET . In order to reach the thermodynamical equilibrium we performed long runs of size $`100\times L\times L`$, where $`L`$ is the linear size of the lattice. The temperature was varied in steps of size $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=0.1K`$. Each point in our simulations is the result of the average over $`2\times 10^5`$ independent configurations. In the figures showing the results of our simulations, when not indicated, the error bars are smaller than the symbols.

Figure 1 shows the results from MC simulations of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ for lattices with $`5\%`$ of impurities and sizes $`L=30,60`$ and $`80`$. The straight line represents $`\left(\frac{2}{\pi }\right)T`$. The crossing point between this line and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ gives an estimate of the $`BKT`$ temperature. Of course, this estimate becomes more accurate as the lattice size increases. However, as we can see in figure 1, the lattice of size $`L=60`$ gives already a good result adequated for our purposes. From now on we use the following, $`k_b=1`$ and the symbol $`T_{BKT}`$ is used for $`T_c(\rho =0)`$, i.e, $`T_{BKT}=T_c(\rho =0)`$.

## III Monte Carlo Results

In this section we present the results obtained by MC simulations. First, we distribute the nonmagnetic impurities at random in the lattice sites. Figure 2 contains the helicity modulus as a function of the temperature considering several values of the impurity concentration $`(\rho )`$. It is also shown the straight line representing the function $`\left(\frac{2}{\pi }\right)T`$. As noticed before the intersection of this line with the value of each $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, gives $`T_c`$ for the corresponding impurity concentration.

We observe that $`T_c(\rho )`$ decreases with increasing $`\rho `$. Since the helicity modulus is a measurement of the phase correlations of the systemMIN2 , it is not surprising that these correlations are strongly affected by the dilution. It can be understood as follow: if we remove a spin from the lattice, the nearest neighbors of that spin will have coordination number of three, one less than in the bulk. The spins in the boundary have larger fluctuations than the spins in the bulk lowering the spin correlations. We should expect that the fluctuation becomes appreciable disordering the system for large enough nonmagnetic concentrations up to a critical value where the $`BKT`$ temperature goes down to zero. In figure 3 we show the $`BKT`$ temperature as a function of the nonmagnetic impurity concentration. Note the abrupt fall of the critical temperature for $`\rho _c0.3`$.

We also performed MC simulations for the case in which the nonmagnetic impurities are clustered for $`\rho =0.2`$ and $`0.3`$ (see figure 4). Note that in this case, the critical temperature practically does not depend on the impurity concentration $`(T_c(0.2)T_c(0.3))`$. In fact this is an expected result. Since the nonmagnetic cluster is confined in a region of size $`\rho \times L^2`$ and the boundary grows as $`\rho \times L`$, meaning that spins are still strongly correlated driving the $`BKT`$ transition even for large values of $`\rho `$. A comparison between the two cases is shown in figure 4.Note the considerable difference between them. Due to the short range of the spin interactions, only the spins near the boundary of the cluster will become influenced by the vacancies and hence the correlations of the rest of the system will have a behavior almost independent of the vacancies. It must not affect considerably the vortices that are formed far way from the cluster and the phase transition occurs normally.

## IV Vortex-Antivortex-Impurity interaction

In this section we discuss the effect of nonmagnetic sites on the vortex-antivortex structure. The interaction between the topological excitation and a single nonmagnetic impurity below the critical temperature may help us to understand in more detail the phase transition mechanism. In the continuum limit, Hamiltonian (1) can be written as

$$H_c=(1/2)J(\stackrel{}{}\theta )^2d^2x.$$
(6)
Following reference MPP , to take into account the absence of one spin in the lattice site we modify $`H_c`$ as

$$H_I=(1/2)J(\stackrel{}{}\theta )^2V(\stackrel{}{r})d^2x,$$
(7)
where $`V(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is a localized potential given by: $`V(\stackrel{}{r})=1`$ if $`|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_o|a`$, and $`V(\stackrel{}{r})=0`$ if $`|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_o|<a`$. Here, the nonmagnetic site is placed at $`\stackrel{}{r}_o`$ and $`a`$ stands for the lattice constant. This lack of magnetic interaction inside the circle of radius $`a`$, means that a spin located at $`\stackrel{}{r}_o`$ was removed from the lattice. The equation of motion obtained from (7) is

$$V(\stackrel{}{r})^2\theta =\stackrel{}{}V(\stackrel{}{r}).\stackrel{}{}\theta .$$
(8)
In polar coordinates, the vectors $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}_o`$ are written as $`(r,\varphi )`$ and $`(r_o,\varphi _o)`$respectively. Then, the gradient of the potential is

$$\stackrel{}{}V(\stackrel{}{r})=a[\widehat{r}cos(\alpha |\varphi \varphi _o|)+\widehat{\varphi }sin(\alpha |\varphi \varphi _o|)]\delta (\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_o\stackrel{}{a}),$$
(9)
where $`\delta `$ is the Dirac delta function and $`\alpha `$ is the angle that the vector $`\stackrel{}{a}`$, with origin at the point $`\stackrel{}{r}_o`$ and end at a point on the circumference of the potential ($`|\stackrel{}{a}|=a`$), makes with the vector $`\stackrel{}{r}_o`$. In the limit $`a0`$, we write

$$\stackrel{}{}V(\stackrel{}{r})a[\widehat{r}cos(\alpha )+\widehat{\varphi }sin(\alpha )]\delta (\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_o),$$
(10)
where $`cos(\alpha )`$ and $`sin(\alpha )`$ are anisotropic coupling constants. A vortex-antivortex pair solution with ”center of mass” at the origin is given by $`\theta _{2\nu }=arctan[(yP)/x]arctan[(y+P)/x]`$, where $`R=2P`$ is the distance between the vortex centers. The energy of a pair is $`E_{2\nu }=\pi ^2J+2\pi Jln(R/a)`$. Note that the energy $`E_{2\nu }`$ increases with increasing R implying an attractive force between vortices of opposite sign. Suppposing $`\theta _1`$ is the deformation introduced in the vortex-antivortex structure by the absence of a spin at $`\stackrel{}{r}_o`$ we can write $`\theta =\theta _{2\nu }+\theta _1`$. Rewriting $`\theta _{2\nu }`$ in polar coordinates and substituting $`\theta =\theta _{2\nu }+\theta _1`$ into Eq.(8), we obtain

$$\theta _1=\frac{\beta }{\pi }ln\left(\frac{|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_0|}{a}\right),$$
(11)
where

$$\beta =\frac{Pa[rr_0^2cos(2\varphi _0\varphi )+rP^2cos\varphi r_0^3cos\varphi _0P^2r_0cos\varphi _0]}{|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_0|(P^4+r_0^4+2P^2r_0^2cos(2\varphi _0))}.$$
(12)
The configuration of this deformed vortex-antivortex pair is shown in figure 5. As the vortex (or antivortex) center approaches the nonmagnetic impurity, the pair structure becomes more and more deformed, indicating that there is a repulsive interaction potential between each vortex core and the spin vacancy. This phaenomenum is in agreement with the results of Ref.MPP , where the calculations took in consideration a single vortex.

In order to understand how is the effective interaction potential between the two defects, we substitute $`\theta =\theta _{2\nu }+\theta _1`$ into Eq.(7) to calculate the energy of the pair-impurity system $`E_{PI}`$. Unfortunately, the integral in Eq.(7) can not be done analytically for a general impurity position, but in the special case the spin vacancy is located at the center of mass we can solve it exactly. Using the dominant terms, the effective potential is given by

$$V_{eff}\frac{a^2J}{2\pi P^2}\left[\frac{1}{3}ln^3\left(\frac{d}{a}\right)+ln\left(\frac{d}{a}\right)+\frac{4\pi d}{a}\right],$$
(13)
where $`V_{eff}=E_{PI}E_{2\nu }`$, and $`d`$ is the lattice size. Since $`P`$ is the distance between the vortex (or antivortex) center and the spin vacancy, this expression is very alike with the effective potential obtained in Ref.MPP , between a single vortex and a nonmagnetic impurity. Note that the effective interaction potential increases with decreasing $`R=2P`$, implying a repulsive force between vortices and impurities. In fact, the spin vacancy force obtained from Eq.(13) acts as a ”repulsive force” weakening the coupling strength between the bound vortices, and becomes stronger as $`P`$ decreases. Here, the nonmagnetic impurity must repel simultaneously the two vortices in a pair, affecting the spin field for large distances (see fig. 5). For a lattice of size $`d`$, the effective potential (13) is a minimum only if $`Pd/2(Rd)`$, showing the tendency of a complete separation of the vortices in a pair due to the presence of the vacancy. We conclude that static spin vacancies repel vortices, independently if they are free or bound into pairs. Based on the above results, we propose a phenomenological model to explain the behavior of the $`BKT`$ temperature as a function of the impurity concentration. As discussed above a nonmagnetic site can induce a a repulsive potential between a pair vortex-antivortex in such a way we can have the two scenario. If the nonmagnetic impurity is in between the pair vortex-antivortex the effective repulsive potential created tends to unbind the pair. On the other hand, if the impurity is not in between the pair the force in the nearest vortex will be stronger than in the other and the tendency is to increase the vortex-antivortex attraction leading to the annihilation of the pair. Then, impurities may induce either vortex-antivortex unbinding process or pair annihilation. In a system containing a random distribution of impurities one can expect a lower density of vortices at any temperature than in a pure system due to the annihilation of pairs. Beside that, the unbinding of vortices-antivortices should occurs at lower temperature inducing the $`BKT`$ transition.

Hence, we may expect a critical nonmagnetic impurity concentration in which vortex pairs are not more formed and the BKT critical temperature goes to zero. The situation is different for the case in which the nonmagnetic impurities are clustered. In this case, vortex pairs will be excited far way from the cluster in order to minimize their energies and the cluster would have only a small influence on the vortex-antivortex unbinding. The critical temperature should not be much affected. The results presented in figure 4 confirms this conjecture.

## V Summary

We have performed Monte Carlo simulation for the diluted planar rotator model in a square lattice. We have found that the $`BKT`$ temperature decreases with increasing impurity concentration and that there is a critical impurity concentration $`\rho _c0.3`$ at which the transition temperature goes to zero. The interaction between a vortex-pair and a static spin vacancy was studied in the continuum approximation. By considering the decoupling of vortex pairs induced by impurities we argumented that the BKT critical temperature should decrease, justifying the MC simulations. Our results may also have applications for granular superconducting films such as the ceramic high-$`T_c`$ materials. These systems could be modeled as two-dimensional (2D) Josephson-junction arrays because such films contain large number of Josephson boundaries between the small superconducting grains forming a complex Josephson-junction network. However, the actual situation is not so ideal as the perfect array since grains with different sizes and orientations are arranged almost randomly. This makes the model with vacancies more realistic than the usual perfect array. The results can also be extrapolated to models with three spin components such as easy-plane and XY magnets. In these cases, the problem with impurities could be still more interesting since they have a true dynamics. In fact, it can shed some light over the important question about the origin of the central peak in the dynamical spin-spin correlation function in the two dimensional anisotropic Heisenberg model FAG ; AAMB ; AJE ; HD ; EVA1 ; EVA2 ; DG . However, much work has to be done in order to understand those effects.

## VI Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by CNPq and FAPEMIG(Brazilian agencies). Numerical work was done at the Laboratório de Computação e Simulação do Departamento de Física da UFJF.


text:
# Fermionic decays of sfermions in the MSSM: a full one-loop calculation Talk presented at 6th International Symposium on Radiative Corrections Application of Quantum Field Theory to Phenomenology (RADCOR 2002) and 6th Zeuthen Workshop on Elementary Particle Theory Loops and Legs in Quantum Field Theory, Kloster Banz, Germany, 8-13 September, 2002.

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetry (SUSY) is one of the firmest candidates for physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) of particle interactions. If new particles are discovered at the LHC, the forthcoming step will be to establish their nature. This step could be performed at a high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider. One of the basic predictions of SUSY is the equality of the couplings in the different sectors: the SM gauge couplings must be equal to the superpartners gauge couplings and to the Yukawa coupling between a particle and its superpartner.

We present a full one-loop computation of the electroweak (EW) corrections to the sfermion partial decay width

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{f}f^{}\chi ),$$
(1)
$`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ being a sfermion, $`f^{}`$ a SM fermion and $`\chi `$ a chargino ($`\chi _{1,2}^\pm `$) or a neutralino ($`\chi _{1\mathrm{}4}^0`$). The process (1) probes the fermion-sfermion-gaugino/higgsino coupling, and can be used to test the SUSY relations. As we will see, the radiative corrections induce finite shifts in these relations which are non-decoupling.

The QCD corrections to the process (1), in the framework of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), were computed in . However, the electroweak effects are much more cumbersome as their computation requires the renormalization of the whole MSSM Lagrangian. A first estimate was given in , where the contribution from the Yukawa couplings of bottom quarks decaying into chargino-neutralinos was analyzed within the so-called higgsino approximation. The electroweak effects have been further elaborated in .

## 2 Renormalization and radiative corrections

The computation to one-loop level of the partial decay width (1) requires the renormalization of the full MSSM Lagrangian, taking into account the relations among the different sectors and the mixing parameters. We choose to work in an on-shell renormalization scheme, in which the renormalized parameters are the measured quantities. The SM sector is renormalized according to the standard on-shell SM $`\alpha `$-scheme , and the MSSM Higgs sector (in particular the renormalization of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$) is treated as in .

As far as the sfermion sector is concerned, each squark doublet contains 5 independent parameters. We choose to use the following set of input parameters111Throughout this work we make use of third generation notation. The notation is as in .:

$$(m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2},\theta _b,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2},\theta _t),m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}>m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_2}.$$
(2)
The remaining parameters are computed as a function of those in (2). In particular, the trilinear soft-SUSY-breaking couplings read:

$$A_{\{b,t\}}=\mu \{\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\mathrm{cot}\beta \}+\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_2}^2}{2m_f}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _f,$$
(3)
with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$, the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs boson doublets. The mass parameters in (2) are defined to be on-shell. For the mixing angle counterterm we adopt the following convention:

$$\delta \theta _f=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^{21}(m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_2}^2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^{12}(m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}^2)}{m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}^2},$$
(4)
being $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ij}(k^2)`$ the mixing self-energy between sfermions $`i`$ and $`j`$. The convention (4) is known to introduce gauge parameter dependence in the definition of the mixing angle, but the result is the same as the gauge independent computation of the self-energies in (4) within the ’t Hooft-Feynman gauge . Since the heaviest top-squark mass is not an input parameter, it receives finite radiative corrections:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2=\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2),$$
(5)
where $`\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2`$ is a combination of the counterterms of the parameters in (2), and the counterterms of the gauge and Higgs sectors.

The chargino/neutralino sector contains six particles, but only three independent input parameters ($`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ –the soft-SUSY-breaking $`SU(2)_L`$ and $`U(1)_Y`$ gaugino masses– and the higgsino mass parameter $`\mu `$). The situation in this sector is quite different from the sfermion case, since in this case no independent counterterms for the mixing matrix elements can be introduced. We stick to the following procedure: First, we introduce a set of renormalized parameters $`(M,M^{},\mu )`$ in the expression of the chargino and neutralino matrices ($``$ and $`^0`$), and diagonalize them by means of unitary matrices $`M_D=U^{}V^{}`$, $`M_D^0=N^{}^0N^{}`$. Now $`U`$, $`V`$ and $`N`$ must be regarded as renormalized mixing matrices. The counterterm mass matrices are then $`\delta M_D=U^{}\delta V^{}`$, $`\delta M_D^0=N^{}\delta ^0N^{}`$, which are non-diagonal. At this point, we introduce renormalization conditions for certain elements of $`\delta M_D`$ and $`\delta M_D^0`$. In particular, using the unitarity properties of $`U`$ and $`V`$ we can write the following set of equations

$$\begin{array}{c}M_1\delta M_1+M_2\delta M_2=M\delta M+\mu \delta \mu +\delta M_W^2,\hfill \\ M_1M_2\left(M_1\delta M_2+M_2\delta M_1\right)=\hfill \\ =(M\mu M_W^2s_{2\beta })\times [M\delta \mu +\mu \delta M\hfill \\ M_W^2\delta s_{2\beta }s_{2\beta }\delta M_W^2].\hfill \end{array}$$

$`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are the chargino on-shell masses, and $`\delta M_i`$ is a shortcut for the following combination of chargino self-energies:

$$\frac{\delta M_i}{M_i}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_L^i(M_i^2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^i(M_i^2)\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_S^i(M_i^2).$$
(6)
Conditions (2) and (6) are equivalent to one-loop on-shell renormalization of the chargino masses. As a last renormalization condition, we require on-shell renormalization for one of the neutralinos, which we choose the lightest one, and find the expression for the $`M^{}`$ counterterm:

$$\delta M^{}=\frac{1}{N_{11}^2}(\delta M_1^0\underset{\alpha \mathrm{or}\beta 1}{}N_{1\alpha }^{}\delta _{\alpha \beta }^0N_{1\beta }^{}),$$
(7)
where $`\delta M_1^0`$ is as in (6), but for te lightest neutralino ($`\chi _1^0`$). Solving eqs. (2) for $`\delta M`$ and $`\delta \mu `$, and using eq. (7) for $`\delta M^{}`$, the renormalization conditions for the chargino/neutralino sector are complete. The other neutralino masses receive radiative corrections. In this framework the renormalized one-loop chargino/neutralino 2-point functions are non-diagonal. Therefore one must take into account this mixing either by including explicitly the reducible $`\chi _r\chi _s`$ mixing diagrams, or by means of external mixing wave-function terms, e.g. the left- and right-chiral form factors for the creation of a neutralino $`\chi _\alpha ^0`$ must be multiplied by,

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒵_R^{0\beta \alpha }=\frac{1}{M_{\alpha }^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}M_{\beta }^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}}\times \hfill \\ [M_\beta ^0\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{SL}^{\beta \alpha }(M_{\alpha }^{0}{}_{}{}^{2})+M_\alpha ^0\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{SR}^{\beta \alpha }(M_{\alpha }^{0}{}_{}{}^{2})\hfill \\ +M_\beta ^0M_\alpha ^0\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_L^{\beta \alpha }(M_{\alpha }^{0}{}_{}{}^{2})+M_{\alpha }^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_R^{\beta \alpha }(M_{\alpha }^{0}{}_{}{}^{2})],\hfill \\ 𝒵_L^{0\beta \alpha }=\frac{1}{M_{\alpha }^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}M_{\beta }^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}}\times \hfill \\ [M_\beta ^0\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{SR}^{\beta \alpha }(M_{\alpha }^{0}{}_{}{}^{2})+M_\alpha ^0\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{SL}^{\beta \alpha }(M_{\alpha }^{0}{}_{}{}^{2})\hfill \\ +M_\beta ^0M_\alpha ^0\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_R^{\beta \alpha }(M_{\alpha }^{0}{}_{}{}^{2})+M_{\alpha }^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_L^{\beta \alpha }(M_{\alpha }^{0}{}_{}{}^{2})].\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
Here $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{}^{\beta \alpha }(k^2)`$ are the renormalized mixing two-point functions $`\chi _\beta ^0\chi _\alpha ^0`$. Equivalent expressions can be worked out for the chargino sector. See Refs.  for different (but one-loop equivalent) approaches to the renormalization of the chargino/neutralino sector.

The complete one-loop computation consists of:
$``$ renormalization constants for the parameters and wave functions in the bare Lagrangian,
$``$ one-loop one-particle irreducible three-point functions,
$``$ mixing terms among the external charginos and neutralinos,
$``$ soft- and hard- photon bremsstrahlung.
All kind of MSSM particles are taken into account in the loops: SM fermions, sfermions, electroweak gauge bosons, Higgs bosons, Goldstone bosons, Fadeev-Popov ghosts, charginos, neutralinos. The computation is performed in the ’t Hooft-Feynman gauge, using dimensional reduction for the regularization of divergent integrals. The loop computation itself is done using the computer algebra packages FeynArts 3.0 and FormCalc 2.2 . The numerical evaluation of one-loop integrals makes use of LoopTools 1.2 .222The resulting FORTRAN code can be obtained from http://www-itp.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de/$``$guasch/progs/.

## 3 Results

The results show the very interesting property that none of the particles of the MSSM decouples from the corrections to the observables (1). This can be well understood in terms of renormalization group (RG) running of the parameters and SUSY breaking. Take, e.g., the effects of squarks in the electron-selectron-photino coupling. Above the squark mass scale ($`Q>m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$) the electron electromagnetic coupling ($`\alpha (Q)`$) is equal (by SUSY) to the electron-selectron-photino coupling ($`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(Q)`$), and both couplings run according to the same RG equations. At $`Q=m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ the squarks decouple from the RG running of the couplings. At $`Q<m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$, $`\alpha (Q)`$ runs due to the contributions from pure quark loops, but $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(Q)`$ does not run anymore, and it is frozen at the squark scale, that is: $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(Q<m_{\stackrel{~}{q}})=\alpha (m_{\stackrel{~}{q}})`$. Therefore, when comparing these two couplings at a scale $`Q<m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$, they differ by the logarithmic running of $`\alpha (Q)`$ from the squark scale to $`Q`$: $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(Q)/\alpha (Q)1=\beta \mathrm{log}(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}/Q)`$.

The above discussion has two important consequences:
1) The non-decoupling can be used to extract information of the high-energy part of the SUSY spectrum: one can envisage a SUSY model in which a significant splitting among the different SUSY masses exists, e.g. $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}m_{\stackrel{~}{l}}`$, where the sleptons lie below the production threshold in an $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider, but the squarks are above it. By means of high precision measurements of the lepton-slepton-chargino/neutralino couplings one might be able to extract information of the squark sector of the model, to be checked with the available data from the LHC.
2) By the same token, it means that the value of the radiative corrections depends on all parameters of the model, and we can not make precise quantitative statements unless the full SUSY spectrum is known. This drawback can be partially overcome by the introduction of effective coupling matrices, which can be defined as follows. The subset of fermion-sfermion one-loop contributions to the self-energies of gauge-boson, Higgs-bosons, Goldstone-bosons, charginos and neutralinos form a gauge invariant finite subset of the corrections. Therefore these contributions can be absorbed into a finite shift of the chargino/neutralino mixing matrices $`U`$, $`V`$ and $`N`$ appearing in the couplings: $`U^{eff}=U+\mathrm{\Delta }U^{(f)},V^{eff}=V+\mathrm{\Delta }V^{(f)},N^{eff}=N+\mathrm{\Delta }N^{(f)}`$. In this way we can decouple the computation of the universal (or super-oblique ) corrections. These corrections contain the non-decoupling logarithms from sfermion masses. We have been able to derive an analytic expression containing these logarithms in a simple case. We have computed the electron-selectron contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }U^{(f)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V^{(f)}`$ matrices, assuming zero mixing angle in the selectron sector ($`\theta _e=0`$), we have identified the leading terms in the approximation $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_i},m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}(M_W,M_i)m_e`$, and analytically cancelled the divergences and the renormalization scale dependent terms; finally, we have kept only the terms logarithmic in the slepton masses. The result for $`\mathrm{\Delta }U^{(f)}`$ reads as follows:

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }U_{i1}^{(f)}=\frac{\alpha }{4\pi s_W^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2}{M_X^2}\right)[\frac{U_{i1}^3}{6}\hfill \\ U_{i2}\frac{\sqrt{2}M_W(Mc_\beta +\mu s_\beta )}{3(M^2\mu ^2)\left(M_1^2M_2^2\right)^2}(M^4M^2\mu ^2+\hfill \\ +3M^2M_W^2+\mu ^2M_W^2+M_W^4+M_W^4c_{4\beta }\hfill \\ +(\mu ^2M^2)M_i^2+4M\mu M_W^2s_{2\beta })],\hfill \end{array}`$ (12)
$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }U_{i2}^{(f)}=\frac{\alpha }{4\pi s_W^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2}{M_X^2}\right)U_{i1}\times \hfill \\ \times \frac{M_W(Mc_\beta +\mu s_\beta )}{3\sqrt{2}(M^2\mu ^2)\left(M_1^2M_2^2\right)^2}((M^2\mu ^2)^2+\hfill \\ +4M^2M_W^2+4\mu ^2M_W^2+2M_W^4+\hfill \\ +2M_W^4c_{4\beta }+8M\mu M_W^2s_{2\beta }),\hfill \end{array}`$ (17)
$`M_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2`$ being the soft-SUSY-breaking mass of the $`(\stackrel{~}{e}_L,\stackrel{~}{\nu })`$ doublet, whereas $`M_X`$ is a SM mass. In the on-shell scheme for the SM electroweak theory we define parameters at very different scales, basically $`M_X=M_W`$ and $`M_X=m_e`$. These wide-ranging scales enter the structure of the counterterms and so must appear in eq.(17) too. As a result the leading log in the various terms of this equation will vary accordingly. For simplicity in the notation we have factorized $`\mathrm{log}M_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2/M_X^2`$ as an overall factor. In some cases this factor can be very big, $`\mathrm{log}M_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2/m_e^2`$; it comes from the electron-selectron contribution to the chargino-neutralino self-energies.

Although above we have singled out the non-decoupling properties of sfermions, we would like to stress that the whole spectrum shows non-decoupling properties. By numerical analysis we have been able to show the existence of logarithms of the gaugino mass parameters ($`M/M_X`$ and $`M^{}/M_X`$), and the Higgs mass ($`M_{H^\pm }/M_X`$). However, due to the complicated mixing structure of the model, we were not able to derive simple analytic expressions containing these non-decoupling logarithms. Note that in any observable which includes the fermion-sfermion-chargino/neutralino Yukawa couplings at leading order we will have this kind of corrections, therefore the full MSSM spectrum must be taken into account when computing radiative corrections, since otherwise one could be missing large logarithmic contributions of the heavy masses.

As for the non-universal part of the contributions, we summarize here the main features:
a) The corrections grow as the logarithm squared of the decaying particle mass, due to the presence of electroweak Sudakov double-logs .
b) The corrections show multiple threshold singularities when varying any of the parameters of the model, however they are well behaved in the regions between thresholds. Therefore, in order to give a quantitative value of the corrections the correlation between the different particle masses must be known.
c) The third sfermion family contains a large contribution that can be traced back to the presence of corrections similar to the threshold-like corrections to the bottom-quark (and $`\tau `$-lepton) Yukawa coupling $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\{b,\tau \}}`$ . This contribution contains (aside from $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\{b,\tau \}}`$) terms from the sfermion mixing self-energies $`\stackrel{~}{f}_L\stackrel{~}{f}_R`$, and is (approximately) proportional to the sfermion mass splitting. It is also present in the QCD corrections.
d) The three-point vertex functions contain the soft SUSY-breaking trilinear Higgs-sfermion-sfermion couplings $`A_f`$. If $`A_f`$ is large, it would induce large corrections (even larger than $`100\%`$!). However, as long as $`A_f`$ is in the perturbative coupling regime, the corrections stay below $`20\%`$.
Points c) and d) play a complementary role in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime due to the relation (3). A small mass splitting (or small mixing angle) means small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\{b,\tau \}}`$ corrections, but a large value of $`A_{\{b,\tau \}}\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta `$. However a large $`A_f`$ value would both spoil perturbativity and generate charge and/or colour breaking vacua. Therefore, at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the bottom-squarks and $`\tau `$-sleptons must have significant splitting and mixing angle, providing large corrections of the type c) above.

The $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\{b,\tau \}}`$ corrections play also an important role in the phenomenology of the MSSM Higgs bosons at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, showing non-decoupling properties for $`M_{SUSY}M_{SM},M_{H^\pm }`$, as stressed e.g. in . The $`\stackrel{~}{f}_af^{}\chi _r`$ coupling, on the other hand, exhibits a new kind of non-decoupling properties, which are independent of the value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

As an example of the numerical value of the corrections, we present in Table 1 the tree-level and corrected branching ratios for bottom-squarks, for the following set of input parameters:

$$\begin{array}{c}m_t=175\text{ GeV},m_b=5\text{ GeV},\mathrm{tan}\beta =4,\hfill \\ m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}=m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_2}=m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_2}=m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_2}=300\text{ GeV},\hfill \\ m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}=m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_1}=m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_1}=m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}+5\text{ GeV},\hfill \\ m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_2}=290\text{ GeV},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}=300\text{ GeV},\hfill \\ \theta _b=\theta _d=\theta _u=\theta _e=0,\theta _t=\pi /5,\hfill \\ \mu =150\text{ GeV},M=250\text{ GeV},\hfill \\ M_{H^\pm }=120\text{ GeV},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=500\text{ GeV}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
The results of Table 1 show that a high precision measurement of the partial decay branching ratios of sfermions, to be performed at a high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider, is sensitive to the EW corrections. From Table 1 it is also clear that the EW corrections can induce a change on the branching ratios of the leading decay channels comparable to the QCD corrections. Therefore both contributions must be taken into account on equal footing in the analysis of the phenomenology of sfermions.

Acknowledgments: The calculations have been done using the QCM cluster of the DFG Forschergruppe “Quantenfeldtheorie, Computeralgebra und Monte-Carlo Simulation”. This collaboration is part of the network “Physics at Colliders” of the European Union under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149. The work of J.G. has been partially supported by the European Union under contract No. HPMF-CT-1999-00150. The work of J.S. has been supported in part by MECYT and FEDER under project FPA2001-3598.


text:
# Transmission probability through small interacting systems: application to a series of quantum dots

## Abstract

We apply the theory for the transmission probability $`𝒯(ϵ)`$ through small interacting systems, which was formulated based on the Kubo formalism in the previous study, to a series of quantum dots described by the $`N`$-impurity Anderson model. Specifically, we calculate $`𝒯(ϵ)`$ for $`N=2`$ with the order $`U^2`$ self-energy and vertex corrections which satisfy the current conservation, and examine the two different parameter regions at $`t<\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`t>\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Here $`t`$ is the inter-dot transfer and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the level broadening caused by the coupling with the noninteracting leads.

thanks: E-mail: oguri@sci.osaka-cu.ac.jp

Recently, we have reformulated the conductance $`g`$ for small interacting systems connected to two noninteracting leads based on the Kubo formula . Carrying out the analytic continuation of the vertex corrections following Éliashberg , we have obtained a Landauer-type expression applicable to the interacting electrons,

$$g=\frac{2e^2}{h}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}dϵ\left(\frac{f}{ϵ}\right)𝒯(ϵ),$$
(1)
where $`f(ϵ)`$ is the Fermi function. The transmission probability $`𝒯(ϵ)`$ is defined in terms of the vertex corrections or the three point correlation function , and depends on temperature $`T`$ in the interacting systems. Our derivation uses neither the precise form of the Hamiltonian nor the perturbation expansion, and thus the formulation can be applied to various systems such as quantum dots and atomic wires of nanometer size.

In this report we will apply the theory to the series of $`N`$ Anderson impurities, which can be regarded as a model for a network of quantum dots, and examine the parameter region that was not studied in the previous paper . The system we consider consists of three regions; a small interacting region at the center ($`C`$), and two noninteracting leads at left ($`L`$) and right ($`R`$). The total Hamiltonian is $`_{\mathrm{tot}}=^0+_C^{\mathrm{int}}`$, with $`^0=_\mathrm{L}+_R+_C^0+_{\mathrm{mix}}`$. Here, $`_L`$ and $`_R`$ are the Hamiltonian for the noninteracting leads. The central region and the connection to the leads are described by

$`_C^0`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}(c_{j+1\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }^{}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.),`$ (2)
$`_C^{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`U{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left[n_jn_j(n_j+n_j)/2\right],`$ (3)
$`_{\mathrm{mix}}`$ $`=`$ $`v{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\left(c_{1\sigma }^{}c_{0\sigma }^{}+c_{N+1\sigma }^{}c_{N\sigma }^{}+\text{H.c.}\right),`$ (4)
in the standard notation. Here the label $`0`$ ($`N+1`$) assigned to the site at the interface of the left (right) lead. The contributions of $`_{\mathrm{mix}}`$ are described through the parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\pi \rho v^2`$, where $`\rho `$ is the density of states of the isolated lead.

Specifically, in this report we consider the electron-hole symmetric case and focus on the system of $`N=2`$. The conductance $`g`$ for the two-impurity Anderson model has been studied extensively. Particularly, the competition between the Kondo effect and the inter-dot magnetic exchange coupling occurring in this system has been investigated in detail based on the precise calculations by the numerical renormalization group method . Nevertheless, the transmission probability $`𝒯(ϵ)`$ has not been studied systematically, and as seen below it contains important information about the excitation spectrum.

To calculate $`𝒯(ϵ)`$ from the expression which is written in terms of the Green’s functions and vertex corrections , we take into account the order $`U^2`$ self-energy and vertex part illustrated in Fig. 1, taking $`^0`$ to be the unperturbed Hamiltonian. We note that the current conservation is satisfied in the calculations. In Fig. 2 the transmission probability at $`T=0`$ is plotted for $`N=2`$, where $`U/(2\pi t)`$ is chosen to be (—) $`0.0`$, (–$``$–) $`1.0`$, and (–$``$–) $`2.5`$. The ratio of the mixing to the inter-dot transfer, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/t`$, is taken to be (a) $`0.75`$ and (b) $`1.25`$.

The low-energy behavior of $`𝒯(ϵ)`$ is quit different depending on the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/t`$. As seen in Fig. 2 (a), for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<t`$ there are two resonant peaks at $`ϵ\pm t`$, which for $`U=0`$ correspond to the bonding and anti-bonding states of the two dots. As $`U`$ increases, the height of these two low-energy peaks decreases, but the width of the peaks becomes sharp and the valley at $`ϵ=0`$ becomes deep. Two additional broad peaks at high energy $`ϵ\pm U/2`$ appearing for $`U/(2\pi t)1.0`$ correspond to the upper and lower Hubbard levels of the atomic character. Fig. 2 (b) shows the results in the other parameter region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>t`$. For $`U/(2\pi t)1.0`$, the transmission probability $`𝒯(ϵ)`$ has only a single peak at low energies. The hight of this low-energy peak increases with $`U`$ until it reaches the unitary limit value. Then for $`U/(2\pi t)1.0`$ the hight of the peak decreases with increasing $`U`$, and eventually the single peak splits into two as seen in the results for $`U/(2\pi t)=2.5`$.

The conductance can be obtained from eq. (1), and at $`T=0`$ it is determined by the value of $`𝒯(ϵ)`$ at $`ϵ=0`$. Thus for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<t`$ the conductance decreases monotonically with increasing $`U`$, while for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>t`$ it shows a maximum at the value of $`U`$ which corresponds to the unitary limit. At low temperatures, the $`T`$ dependence of the conductance is scaled by the energy determined by the width of the valley when $`𝒯(ϵ)`$ has the two-peak structure at low energies. In the other case, for the single-peak structure, the energy scale is determined by the width of the central peak. We note that the temperature dependence of $`𝒯(ϵ)`$ arises through that of the self-energy and vertex corrections, and at high temperatures the peak structure at low energies is smeared by the thermal fluctuations as demonstrated for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/t=0.75`$ in the previous paper .

The transmission probability $`𝒯(ϵ)`$ we have formulated can also be written in terms of the three-point correlation function , and the Lehmann representation of it can be used for the nonperturbative approaches such as the numerical renormalization group and the quantum Monte Carlo methods.

We would like to thank H. Ishii for valuable discussions. Numerical computation was partly carried out at Yukawa Institute Computer Facility. This work is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Japan.