text:
# Minimum-error discrimination between symmetric mixed quantum states

## I Introduction

The theory of quantum information and communication is a well-developed field of research . It concerns the transmission of information using quantum states and channels. The transmission party encodes a message onto a set of quantum states $`\{\rho _k\}`$ with prior probability $`p_k`$ for each of the states $`\rho _k`$. The set of signal states and the prior probabilities are also known to the receiving party. The task of the receiving party is to decode the received message, i.e., finding the best measurement strategy based upon the knowledge of the signal states and their prior probabilities. One possibility is to choose the strategy that minimizes the probability of detection error. In this paper we will consider the minimization of the probability of error for a certain class of quantum ensembles.

In general, the measurement strategy is described in terms of a set of nonnegative-definite operators called the probability operator measure (POM) . The measurement outcome labeled by $`\mathrm{"}k\mathrm{"}`$ is associated with the element ($`\pi _k`$) of POM that has all the eigenvalues be either positive or zero. The POM elements must sum into the identity operator $`_k\pi _k=\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$. The probability that the receiver will observe the outcome $`k`$ given that the transmitted signal is $`\rho _j`$ is $`P(k|j)=\mathrm{𝚝𝚛}(\pi _k\rho _j)`$. Here `tr` denotes the trace operation. It follows that the error probability is given by

$$P_{error}=1\underset{k}{}p_k\mathrm{𝚝𝚛}(\pi _k\rho _k).$$
(1)
The necessary and sufficient conditions that lead to the minimum error probability are known to be

$`\pi _k(p_k\rho _kp_j\rho _j)\pi _j`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}p_k\pi _k\rho _kp_j\rho _j`$ $``$ $`0.`$ (3)
The first condition holds for all $`j`$ and $`k`$. The second condition means that all the eigenvalues of the operator at the left-hand side are nonnegative and it holds for all $`j`$. These conditions are highly nontrivial such that the required POM elements for the best measurement strategy are not easily derived from the conditions. In fact, only some classes of quantum ensembles are known for their best measurement strategies. These include the cases of only two signal states , symmetric states , mirror-symmetric states , linearly independent states , and equiprobable states that are complete in the sense that a weighted sum of projectors onto the states equals the identity operator .

In this paper, we will provide the optimal measurement strategy for a set of $`N`$ mixed symmetric quantum states $`\{\rho _k\}`$. These states are of equal prior probabilities $`p_k=1/N`$ and assumed to respect the $`Z_N`$ symmetry

$`\rho _k`$ $`=`$ $`R^k\rho _0R^k,k=0,1,\mathrm{},(N1),`$ (4)
$`R^N`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}},`$ (5)
where the operator $`R`$ denotes the relevant part of the symmetry operator that lives in the same Hilbert subspace of the signal states $`\{\rho _k\}`$. $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ denotes the identity operator of the Hilbert subspace of the signal states. We also assume $`R`$ to be unitary $`(RR^{}=R^{}R=\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}})`$ and nondegenerate, i.e., all its eigenvalues $`\{b_\lambda \}`$ are different for different eigenstates $`\{|\lambda \}`$. Therefore the dimensionality of $`R`$ cannot be larger than the number of the signal states $`N`$ otherwise at least two of the eigenvalues of $`R`$ will be the same. Besides, we also assume that at least one of the the signal states (assigned to be $`\rho _0`$) can be made to have all it matrix elements be real and nonnegative, i.e., $`\lambda |\rho _0|\lambda ^{}0`$ for some chosen set of the eigenstates $`\{|\lambda \}`$ of the operator $`R`$.

## II The Optimal Measurement Strategy

In many of the cases  where the optimal strategies are known to be the square-root measurements with POM elements

$`\pi _k`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\frac{1}{2}}(p_k\rho _k)\mathrm{\Phi }^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}p_k\rho _k`$ (7)
where $`\rho _k`$ denotes the $`k`$-th quantum signal states to be discriminated, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is invariant under the transformation $`R`$. In this paper, we assume the invariant operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}R^k\mathrm{\Gamma }_0R^k,$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0|\phi _0\phi _0|`$ is the rank one operator that is formed by some normalized pure quantum state $`|\phi _0`$. From equation (8), $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is Hermitian and nonnegative-definite, and commutes with $`R`$. This implies that both $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be expanded in terms of the same orthonormal basis $`\{|\lambda \}`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}a_\lambda |\lambda \lambda |,`$ (9)
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}b_\lambda |\lambda \lambda |,`$ (10)
where $`a_\lambda =N|\lambda |\phi _0|^2`$ for all $`\lambda `$. In general, it is difficult to obtain the POM elements that satisfy the conditions (2) and (3). However, we can obtain a solution to these conditions for the symmetric mixed quantum states described in the equations (4) and (5).

Proposition. Given the mixed symmetric quantum states as described in the equations (4) and (5), the optimal measurement strategy that minimizes the error probability $`P_{error}`$ is described by the POM $`\{\pi _k\}`$ that is defined by

$`\pi _k`$ $``$ $`R^k\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_2R^k,k=0,1,..,N1.`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ $``$ $`|\phi _0\phi _0|,`$ (12)
where $`|\phi _0`$ is chosen such that $`\lambda |\phi _0`$ is real for all $`|\lambda `$ and satisfies $`\lambda |\phi _00`$. The operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ is defined by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2_\lambda c_\lambda |\lambda \lambda |`$ with $`c_\lambda N^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda |\phi _0^1`$.

It is noted that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ is Hermitian and commutes with the operator $`R`$. The square of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ equals the inverse of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^2=\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$. The operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ becomes the inverse square-root of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ only when all $`\lambda |\phi _0`$ are real and positive.

Proof of the Proposition. We need to prove that the POM elements defined in equations (11) and (12) are indeed POM elements and satisfy the necessary and sufficient conditions in equations (2) and (3). From equations (11) and (12), we can prove that all $`\pi _k0`$ as follows

$$\varphi |\pi _k|\varphi =|\varphi |R^k\mathrm{\Phi }_2|\phi _0|^20,\text{ for arbitrary }k,|\varphi .$$
(13)
We can also see that $`\pi _00`$ by expanding $`\pi _0`$ in the basis $`\{|\lambda \}`$, $`\pi _0=\frac{1}{N}_{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}|\lambda \lambda ^{}|`$. Under the basis all the matrix elements of $`\pi _0`$ equals $`1/N`$, thus $`\pi _0`$ has only one non-vanishing eigenvalue $`1`$. The requirement that all eigenvalues of $`R`$ are different guarantees that all the POM elements sum into identity operator

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\pi _k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}R^k\pi _0R^k`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{b_\lambda }{b_\lambda ^{}}})^k|\lambda \lambda ^{}|`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}|\lambda \lambda |`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}.`$ (17)
We proceed to prove that the POM given by equation (11) does satisfy the necessary and sufficient conditions listed in equations (2) and (3). By taking equation (11) into (2), we find

$`\pi _k`$ $`(p_k\rho _kp_j\rho _j)\pi _j`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}R^k\mathrm{\Phi }_2|\phi _0\phi _0|\mathrm{\Phi }_2(\rho _0R^{jk}R^{jk}\rho _0)\mathrm{\Phi }_2|\phi _0\phi _0|\mathrm{\Phi }_2R^j.`$ (19)
By using equations (9) and (10) and that all $`\lambda |\rho _0|\lambda ^{}`$ and $`\lambda |\phi _0`$ are real, we derive the following identity thus prove that equation (19) actually equals zero

$``$ $`\phi _0|\mathrm{\Phi }_2(\rho _0R^{jk}R^{jk}\rho _0)\mathrm{\Phi }_2|\phi _0`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}{}}c_\lambda c_\lambda ^{}\phi _0|\lambda \lambda |\rho _0|\lambda ^{}\lambda ^{}|\phi _0(b_\lambda ^{}^{jk}b_\lambda ^{jk})`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`0.`$ (22)
The condition in equation (3) is proved as follows. First we observe that $`_k\pi _k\rho _k`$ is Hermitian by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\pi _k\rho _k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}R^k\pi _0\rho _0R^k`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\lambda ^{},\lambda ^{\prime \prime }}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{b_\lambda }{b_{\lambda ^{\prime \prime }}}})^k|\lambda \lambda ^{}|\rho _0|\lambda ^{\prime \prime }\lambda ^{\prime \prime }|`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}{}}|\lambda \lambda ^{}|\rho _0|\lambda \lambda |`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\rho _k\pi _k.`$ (26)
Therefore the operators $`(_k\pi _k\rho _k\rho _j)`$ are also Hermitian for all $`j`$. By sandwiching $`(_k\pi _k\rho _k\rho _0)`$ using an arbitrary state $`|\varphi `$, we have

$`\varphi |{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\pi _k\rho _k\rho _0|\varphi `$ (27)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}{}}(|\varphi |\lambda |^2\varphi |\lambda ^{}\lambda |\varphi )\lambda ^{}|\rho _0|\lambda `$ (28)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}{}}(|\varphi |\lambda |^2+|\varphi |\lambda ^{}|^2\varphi |\lambda ^{}\lambda |\varphi \varphi |\lambda \lambda ^{}|\varphi )\lambda ^{}|\rho _0|\lambda `$ (29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}{}}\epsilon _{\lambda \lambda ^{}}(\varphi )\lambda ^{}|\rho _0|\lambda 0,`$ (30)
$`\epsilon _{\lambda \lambda ^{}}`$ $`(\varphi )(\lambda |\varphi \lambda ^{}|\varphi )(\lambda |\varphi \lambda ^{}|\varphi )^{}0.`$ (31)
From equation (30) we conclude that $`(_k\pi _k\rho _k\rho _0)`$ is a Hermitian operator and nonnegative-definite. This then leads to the fact that $`(_k\pi _k\rho _k\rho _j)`$ are also nonnegative-definite and Hermitian for all possible $`j`$ since $`(_k\pi _k\rho _k\rho _j)=R^j(_k\pi _k\rho _k\rho _0)R^j`$.

## III Examples

It is instructive to consider some examples of symmetric quantum signals and solve for the optimal discrimination strategies by using the proposition provided in the previous section. Ex. 1: Signals as pure quantum states

Although our proposition aims at providing optimal discrimination strategy for mixed quantum states, it can also be applied to the case that has only symmetric pure quantum states. Given that $`\rho _k=R^k(\theta )|\mathrm{\Psi }_0\mathrm{\Psi }_0|R^k(\theta )`$ with

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right),`$ (34)
$`R(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}[\frac{\theta }{2}]& \mathrm{sin}[\frac{\theta }{2}]\\ \mathrm{sin}[\frac{\theta }{2}]& \mathrm{cos}[\frac{\theta }{2}]\end{array}\right),\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{N}}.`$ (37)
we find that $`R(\theta )`$ has two eigenstates $`|\lambda _1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,i)`$, $`|\lambda _2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,i)`$ with eigenvalues $`\lambda _1=e^{i\theta /2}`$ and $`\lambda _2=e^{i\theta /2}`$, respectively. The matrix elements $`\lambda |\rho _0|\lambda ^{}`$ are found to be real and nonnegative for all $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$ in the basis $`\{|\lambda _1,|\lambda _2\}`$. On the other hand, we may choose the operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0|\phi _0\phi _0|`$ by assigning $`|\phi _0=|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ so that all $`\lambda |\phi _0`$ are positive real numbers. With such choice of $`|\phi _0`$, the operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ becomes the inverse square-root of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\mathrm{\Phi }^{\frac{1}{2}})`$. Therefore, we have

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}R^k|\mathrm{\Psi }_0\mathrm{\Psi }_0|R^k={\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}\widehat{\text{1}},`$ (38)
$`\pi _k`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\frac{1}{2}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_k\mathrm{\Psi }_k|\mathrm{\Phi }^{\frac{1}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_k\mathrm{\Psi }_k|,`$ (39)
$`(P_{error})_{min}`$ $`=`$ $`1|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|\mathrm{\Phi }^{\frac{1}{2}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|^2=1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}.`$ (40)
Equations (38-40) are exactly the same results obtained in the literatures . In this example, our method is identical to the square-root measurement .

Ex. 2: Signals as mixed quantum states (I)

Consider three symmetric mixed quantum states that satisfy equations (4, 5) with

$$\rho _0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1/3& 0\\ 0& 2/3\end{array}\right).$$
(41)
The rotation operator $`R(\theta )`$ is also given in equation (37) with $`\theta =2\pi /3`$. We find that if we choose $`\{|\lambda _1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(i,1),|\lambda _2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(i,1)\}`$ as the basis that spans the Hilbert space of the signal states, all the matrix elements of $`\rho _0`$ will be real and nonnegative in the basis. According to the proposition in the previous section, the pure quantum state $`|\phi _0`$ must be chosen such that all $`\lambda |\phi _0`$ are nonzero and real. It is easy to see that any pure quantum state $`(a|\lambda _1+b|\lambda _2)`$ with nonzero real coefficients $`a,b`$ that satisfy $`a^2+b^2=1`$ could be a candidate for $`|\phi _0`$. By choosing $`|\phi _0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\lambda _1+|\lambda _2)`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{3}{2}\widehat{\text{1}}`$ and

$`\pi _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (44)
$`(P_{errer})_{min}`$ $`=`$ $`1\text{tr}(\pi _0\rho _0)={\displaystyle \frac{5}{9}}.`$ (45)
Although we have just obtained the results by using the proposition, we can also solve for the optimal measurement strategy in a direct way. Let us expand the mixed quantum state $`\rho _0`$ in terms of Pauli matrices $`\{\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3\}`$ and the identity operator $`\widehat{\text{1}}_2`$ in the spin-$`1/2`$ Hilbert space, $`\rho _0=(\frac{1}{2}\widehat{\text{1}}_2\frac{1}{3}\sigma _3)`$. Consider that $`R`$ is the rotation about the $`\widehat{2}`$-direction by an angle $`\theta =2\pi /3`$, therefore the optimal POM elements $`\pi _k`$ should be of the following general forms:

$$\pi _k=R^k(b_0\widehat{\text{1}}_2+2b_1\sigma _1+2b_3\sigma _3)R^k,k=0,1,2.$$
(46)
where $`b_0`$, $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ are the coefficients to be determined. It is found that $`b_0=1/3`$ by requiring $`_k\pi _k=\widehat{\text{1}}_2`$. By considering that all the POM elements are Hermitian and nonnegative we get the constraint on $`b_1`$ and $`b_3`$, $`\sqrt{b_1^2+b_3^2}1/3`$. We then use the constraint to find the minimum of the error probability $`P_{error}`$

$`P_{error}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{2}{}}}\text{tr}(\pi _k\rho _k)`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`1\text{tr}(\pi _0\rho _0)`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_3}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{9}}.`$ (49)
From equation (49), the probability of error $`P_{error}=5/9`$ is optimal at $`b_1=0`$ and $`b_3=1/3`$, which is exactly the same measurement strategy as described in equation (44).

Ex. 3: Signals as mixed quantum states (II)

In the previous examples we discussed the optimal discrimination among single-qubit quantum states. Here we would like to discuss how to discriminate the mixed quantum states with higher dimensions of Hilbert space.

Let $`|0`$, $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ be the trine states $`(1,0)`$, $`(1/2,\sqrt{3}/2)`$ and $`(1/2,\sqrt{3}/2)`$ that respect the $`Z_3`$ symmetry $`R(\theta =2\pi /3)`$, respectively.

$`R(\theta )^3`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\text{1}}_2,\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}`$ (50)
$`|k`$ $`=`$ $`R(\theta )^k|0,k=0,1,2.`$ (51)
The quantum states to be discriminated are not single-qubit states but the two-qubit quantum states that also respect the $`Z_3`$ symmetry

$`\rho _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{(|1|2)(1|2|)+(|2|1)(2|1|)\},`$ (52)
$`\rho _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{(|2|0)(2|0|)+(|0|2)(0|2|)\},`$ (53)
$`\rho _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{(|0|1)(0|1|)+(|1|0)(1|0|)\}.`$ (54)
It is obvious that these quantum states are reducible mixed states. They can be decomposed into direct sums of spin-$`1`$ and spin-$`0`$ parts by $`\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}=10`$. The spin-$`1`$ Hilbert subspace is spanned by the spin-$`1`$ states $`|1,1`$, $`|1,0`$ and $`|1,1`$. The spin-$`0`$ subspace is of dimension one, and is spanned by the spin-$`0`$ state $`|0,0`$. By assigning $`|1,1=(1,0,0)`$, $`|1,0=(0,1,0)`$ and $`|1,1=(0,0,1)`$ we can rewrite the mixed signals in the following matrix forms

$`\rho _k`$ $`=`$ $`R_3^k\stackrel{~}{\rho }_0R_3^k{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}|0,00,0|,k=0,1,2.`$ (55)
$`\stackrel{~}{\rho _0}`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/16& 0& 3/16\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 3/16& 0& 9/16\end{array}\right),`$ (59)
$`R_3`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}^2[\frac{\theta }{2}]& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}[\theta ]& \mathrm{sin}^2[\frac{\theta }{2}]\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}[\theta ]& \mathrm{cos}[\theta ]& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}[\theta ]\\ \mathrm{sin}^2[\frac{\theta }{2}]& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}[\theta ]& \mathrm{cos}^2[\frac{\theta }{2}]\end{array}\right),\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}.`$ (63)
It is easy to verify that the rotation operator $`R_3`$ does respect the $`Z_3`$ symmetry by $`R_3^3=\widehat{\text{1}}`$, and has three different eigenvalues. The best measurement strategy $`\{\pi _k\}`$ can also be decomposed into direct sums as $`\pi _k=\stackrel{~}{\pi }_k\frac{1}{3}|0,00,0|`$. Again, the operators $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_k`$ denote the POM elements in spin-$`1`$ subspace.

The probability of error can also be viewed as being contributed from different Hilbert subspaces as

$`P_{error}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \underset{subspaces}{}}({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\text{tr}(p_k\stackrel{~}{\pi }_k\stackrel{~}{\rho }_k))`$ (64)
$`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_k\stackrel{~}{\rho }_k)_{spin1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}},`$ (65)
where $`1/8`$ in equation (65) comes from tracing over spin-$`0`$ subspace. As seen from equation (65), only the measurement in spin-$`1`$ subspace needs to be optimized. We will solve the optimization problem by using the proposition given in the previous section.

First we note that the rotation operator $`R_3`$ has three different eigenvalues $`1`$, $`e^{i2\pi /3}`$ and $`e^{i2\pi /3}`$ with normalized eigenstates $`|\lambda _1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,0,1)`$, $`|\lambda _2=\frac{1}{2}(1,i\sqrt{2},1)`$ and $`|\lambda _3=\frac{1}{2}(1,i\sqrt{2},1)`$, respectively. In the basis formed by $`\{|\lambda _1,|\lambda _2,|\lambda _3\}`$, all matrix elements of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_0`$ are real and nonnegative. According to the proposition, the pure quantum state $`|\phi _0`$ must be chosen such that $`\lambda |\phi _0`$ are real and nonzero for all possible $`|\lambda `$. A convenient choice for $`|\phi _0`$ is $`|\phi _0=(0,0,1)`$. We then obtain the operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ in spin-$`1`$ Hilbert subspace

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+\sqrt{2}& 0& 1\sqrt{2}\\ 0& 2\sqrt{2}& 0\\ 1\sqrt{2}& 0& 1+\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right).$$
(66)
Therefore we get

$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}32\sqrt{2}& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 3+2\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right),`$ (71)
and the optimal error probability is $`(3\sqrt{2})/6`$. This result coincides with our previous calculation that uses von Neumann measurement for signal discrimination . This coincidence is reasonable. Since the dimension of Hilbert space is larger than the number of the signal states in this example, both the optimal POM and the optimal von Neumann measurement may have the same optimal probability of error.

### Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by National Science Council of Taiwan.


format: text

text:
# A simple theorem to generate exact black hole solutions

## I Introduction

Static and spherically symmetric spacetimes are one of the simplest kind of spacetimes that one can imagine in general relativity. Yet, even in this simple situation, solving the Einstein field equations may be far from trivial. The difficulty relies mainly on the nature of the energy-momentum tensor considered. At this regard, only a few exact solutions are known. Most of them represent hairless black hole (BH) solutions, like the Schwarzschild , Reissner-Nordstrom (RN) and Schwarzschild -de Sitter/anti-de Sitter (SdS/SAdS) solutions, for the vacuum, electromagnetic and cosmological constant sources respectively. The first two, are asymptotically flat while the latter is not. In fact, the uniqueness theorems of BH (with asymptotically flat boundary conditions) in Einstein-Maxwell (EM) theory establishes that the unique BH solutions are stationary and axially symmetric and contained within the three-parameter Kerr-Newman family uniqueness . The parameters are identified with the mass, electric charge and angular momentum of the BH. Therefore, in the static and spherically symmetric limit, this corresponds to the Schwarzschild -RN two-parameter family of solutions.

When the energy-momentum tensor includes more complicated fields, uniqueness theorems or even solutions are difficult to obtain. However, other theorems nohair ; eloy  forbid the existence of hairy BH solutions in a variety of theories (no-hair theorems). In theories with non-Abelian fields nonabel , Einstein-Skyrme heusler , and scalar fields with non-positive semidefinite potentials nucsal , BH solutions with hair have been found, but the nonlinearity and complexity of the field equations usually demands a numerical treatment.

The question that arises is if it is possible to generate new static and spherically symmetric (non-vacuum) exact BH solutions with matter fields satisfying certain conditions. For instance, it is interesting to note that when written in the radial gauge, that is, in the coordinate system where the area of the two-spheres is given by $`4\pi r^2`$, various static and spherically symmetric exact BH solutions have the form $`g_{tt}=g_{rr}^1=(12m(r)/r)`$ where $`m(r)`$ is a rather simple function of $`r`$ (a power-law like form), namely $`m_{RN}(r)=M\frac{Q^2}{2r}`$, $`m_{SdS}(r)=M+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r^3}{6}`$, for the RN and SdS/SAdS solutions, respectively. Then one can ask if it is a mathematical coincidence that in those exact solutions, the metric has such a simple form with only one “degree of freedom” given by $`m(r)`$. A theorem proven below shows that rather than a mathematical coincidence, the above form of the metric is a consequence of the features of the energy-momentum tensor (hereafter T-tensor) considered. In the above exact solutions, the associated T-tensors share some properties that are taken into account in the theorem in a general fashion without specifying the nature of the matter. Therefore the theorem helps to characterize a whole two-parameter family of solutions to the Einstein field equations. The interpretation of the two parameters ($`M`$ and $`C`$) depends on the fields associated with the T-tensor and on the boundary conditions (one of these parameters is usually associated with the mass). The theorem is not restricted to asymptotically flat (AF) spacetimes and can be trivially extended as to include a three parameter family of solutions.

## II The theorem

Theorem (T1): Let $`(M,g_{ab})`$ be a four dimensional spacetime \[sign($`g_{ab})=(,+,+,+)`$\] such that: (1) It is static and spherically symmetric, (2) It satisfies the Einstein field equations, (3) In the radial gauge (area-$`r`$) coordinate system adapted to the symmetries of the spacetime where $`ds^2=N^2(r)dt^2+A^2(r)dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )d\phi ^2`$, the energy-momentum tensor $`T^{ab}`$ satisfies the conditions $`T_t^t=T_r^r`$ and $`T_\theta ^\theta =\kappa T_r^r`$ ($`\kappa =\mathrm{const}.`$), (4) It possess a regular Killing horizon or a regular origin. Then, the metric of the spacetime is given by

$$ds^2=\left[1\frac{2m(r)}{r}\right]dt^2+\left[1\frac{2m(r)}{r}\right]^1dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )d\phi ^2,$$
(1)
where

$`m(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}M\hfill & \mathrm{if}C=0\hfill & \\ & & \\ M\frac{4\pi Cr^{2\kappa +1}}{2\kappa +1}\hfill & \mathrm{if}\kappa \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{and}C0\hfill & \\ & & \\ M4\pi C\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r}{|C|}\right)\hfill & \mathrm{if}\kappa =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{and}C0\hfill & \end{array}`$ (7)
$`T_b^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{r^{2(1\kappa )}}}\mathrm{diag}[1,1,\kappa ,\kappa ],`$ (8)
$`M`$ and $`C`$ are integration constants whose values depend on the boundary conditions and on the fundamental constants of the underlying theory for the matter fields.

Proof: Since the spacetime is assumed to be static and spherically symmetric (hypothesis 1) one can always adopt a coordinate system adapted to the Killing fields such that the metric $`g_{ab}`$ is given by

$$ds^2=N^2(r)dt^2+A^2(r)dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )d\phi ^2.$$
(9)
Using the Einstein field equations (hypothesis 2)

$$R_{ab}\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}R=8\pi T_{ab},$$
(10)
it is easily shown that the relevant equations for $`N`$ and $`A`$ are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left(A^21\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{rA}}_rA=8\pi A^2T_t^t,`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{rN}}_rN{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left(A^21\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{rA}}_rA=4\pi A^2\left(T_t^t+T_r^r\right).`$ (12)
Moreover, Eq. (9) together with Eq. (10) also imply

$`T_\phi ^\phi =T_\theta ^\theta ,`$ (13)
$`T^{ta}=T^{rb}=T^{\theta \phi }=0\mathrm{for}at\mathrm{and}br.`$ (14)
Therefore

$$T_b^a=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}T_t^t& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& T_r^r& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& T_\theta ^\theta & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& T_\theta ^\theta \end{array}\right).$$
(15)
Introducing the following reparametrization

$$A(r)=\left(1\frac{2m(r)}{r}\right)^{1/2},$$
(16)
Eq.(11) reads

$$_rm=4\pi r^2T_t^t.$$
(17)
Moreover, Eqs. (11) and (12) combine to give

$$\frac{1}{AN}_r(AN)=4\pi rA^2\left(T_r^rT_t^t\right).$$
(18)
Now, if $`T_t^t=T_r^r`$ (hypothesis 3), then from the above equation on has $`N=\mathrm{const}.A^1`$, where the constant can be reabsorbed by a redefinition of the time coordinate. So without loss of generality

$$N(r)=A^1=\left(1\frac{2m(r)}{r}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(19)
Therefore, the whole metric is determined by the function $`m(r)`$ which is given from Eq. (17).

The Einstein Eq. (10) implies the conservation of the energy-momentum tensor

$$_bT_a^b=0,$$
(20)
which for the metric Eq. (9) together with Eq. (19) and the energy-momentum tensor given by Eq. (15) provide the equilibrium equation

$$_rT_r^r=\left(T_t^tT_r^r\right)\frac{_rN}{N}\frac{2}{r}\left(T_r^rT_\theta ^\theta \right).$$
(21)
Since it is assumed that $`T_t^t=T_r^r`$ and moreover if $`T_\theta ^\theta =\kappa T_r^r`$ (hypothesis 3), one obtains

$$_rT_r^r=\frac{2}{r}T_r^r(1\kappa ).$$
(22)
Therefore, integrating Eq.(22) yields

$$T_r^r=\frac{C}{r^{2(1\kappa )}},$$
(23)
where $`C`$ is an integration constant. Then, one concludes

$$T_b^a=\frac{C}{r^{2(1\kappa )}}\mathrm{diag}[1,1,\kappa ,\kappa ].$$
(24)
Finally, using this for $`T_t^t`$ in Eq. (17), one obtains

$$m(r)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}M\hfill & \mathrm{if}C=0\hfill & \\ & & \\ M\frac{4\pi Cr^{2\kappa +1}}{2\kappa +1}\hfill & \mathrm{if}\kappa \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{and}C0\hfill & \\ & & \\ M4\pi C\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r}{|C|}\right)\hfill & \mathrm{if}\kappa =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{and}C0\hfill & \end{array}$$
(25)
where $`M`$ is another integration constant. The values of the constants $`C`$ and $`M`$ depend on the boundary conditions and on the fundamental constants of the underlying theory for the matter fields. The value of $`M`$ can be fixed so as to avoid naked singularities (hypothesis 4), while a nonzero $`C`$ together with the value of $`\kappa `$ determine the asymptotic structure of the spacetime. Therefore the metric (9) together with Eq. (19) finally writes

$$ds^2=\left[1\frac{2m(r)}{r}\right]dt^2+\left[1\frac{2m(r)}{r}\right]^1dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )d\phi ^2.$$
(26)
where $`m(r)`$ is given by Eq. (25) $`\mathrm{}`$. This concludes the proof.

Table 1 displays some examples of energy-momentum tensors satisfying the conditions of the theorem (T1) and which give rise to well known spacetimes. Note that apart from dS/AdS, no other perfect fluid model verifies the condition $`T_t^t=T_r^r`$. Therefore, none of the solutions provided by T1 will correspond to more general perfect fluids (i.e., inhomogeneous perfect fluids) .

The hypothesis (4) concerning the existence of a Killing horizon or a regular origin was not required a priori for the formal proof of T1. However, the assumption $`T_t^t=T_r^r`$ is indeed suggested by the general condition of a regular horizon in these coordinates (i.e., regardless of the specific form of the energy-momentum tensor in these coordinates): if one demands that the components $`T_r^r`$, $`T_\theta ^\theta `$ and $`_rT_r^r`$ be bounded at the horizon $`r_h`$ \[$`N(r_h)=0`$\], then from Eq. (21), one obtains the regularity condition $`\left(T_t^tT_r^r\right)|_{r_h}=0`$. Note also that if regularity at the origin is imposed, then $`\left(T_r^rT_\theta ^\theta \right)|_{r=0}=0`$. If both conditions can be imposed, then the solution suggests the existence of a globally regular black hole. The well known example satisfying these conditions is the (pure) dS solution (i.e., with $`M=0`$) which possesses a cosmological horizon with a regular origin and which corresponds to $`\kappa =1`$. The T-tensor indeed verifies (see Table 1) $`T_t^t=T_r^r=T_\theta ^\theta =T_\phi ^\phi =\mathrm{const}.`$, and so the regularity conditions at the horizon and origin are automatically satisfied.

The globally regular AF exact BH solution with a nonlinear electrodynamics source eloy0 , shows that $`T_t^t=T_r^r`$. In particular, the equality holds at the horizon. The solution has therefore the form $`N=A^1`$. Nonetheless, the condition $`T_\theta ^\theta =T_r^r`$ is not verified by the solution in general although it is satisfied at the origin. Since in that solution $`T_\theta ^\theta \kappa T_r^r`$ (for all $`r`$) then the theorem T1 is not able to account for it. In fact, one can associate a mass function $`m(r)`$ with that solution, but the expression is not as simple as in Eq. (25). Hence, it is important to stress that T1 does not cover all possible static and spherically symmetric exact BH solutions, not even all those where $`N=A^1`$ ($`T_t^t=T_r^r`$), as it was just illustrated for $`T_\theta ^\theta \kappa T_r^r`$ eloy0 .

Now, if the condition $`T_\theta ^\theta =\kappa T_r^r`$ is dropped, the metric has still the form as proposed in T1 but $`m(r)`$ is not given explicitly by Eq. (25), but rather by integrating Eq. (17). Moreover, in order to integrate the equation of equilibrium

$$_rT_r^r=\frac{2}{r}\left(T_r^rT_\theta ^\theta \right).$$
(27)
a closure relationship between $`T_r^r`$ and $`T_\theta ^\theta `$ is needed. An example of this is the Reissner-Nordstrom-de Sitter solution (RNdS) Kramer :

$$m(r)=M\frac{Q^2}{2r}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r^3}{6}.$$
(28)
In order to recover this result, one needs to consider the T-tensor as the sum of the electromagnetic and the cosmological-constant contributions:

$$T_b^a=T_{EMb}^a+T_{\mathrm{\Lambda }b}^a.$$
(29)
Now, clearly $`T_t^t=T_r^r`$ since the individual contributions verify this. On the other hand $`T_\theta ^\theta \kappa T_r^r`$. In fact, adding the above expressions for $`T_r^r`$ and $`T_\theta ^\theta `$, and using $`T_{EM\theta }^\theta =T_{EMr}^r`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\theta }^\theta =T_{\mathrm{\Lambda }r}^r=\mathrm{\Lambda }/(8\pi )`$, it turns out

$$T_\theta ^\theta =T_r^r\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4\pi }.$$
(30)
In this way Eq. (27) can be integrated explicitly as

$$T_r^r=Cr^4\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi }=T_t^t,$$
(31)
and in turn Eq. (30) becomes

$$T_\theta ^\theta =Cr^4\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi }.$$
(32)
These results are obvious in light that $`T_{EM}^{ab}`$ and $`T_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ab}`$ conserves separately and therefore the total solution for $`T^{ab}`$ is the solution for $`T_{EM}^{ab}`$ plus the one for $`T_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ab}`$.

Since $`T_t^t=T_r^r`$, Eq. (17) integrates as follows:

$$m(r)=M\frac{Q^2}{2r}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r^3}{6},$$
(33)
where $`C=Q^2/(8\pi )`$. This is a three-parameter class of spacetime characterized by $`M,Q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This shows, that T1 can be easily generalized as to include this case (hereafter referred to as the trivial extension of the theorem T1) by replacing the condition $`T_\theta ^\theta =\kappa T_r^r`$ with

$$T_\theta ^\theta =\kappa T_r^r\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(1\kappa )}{8\pi }.$$
(34)
For $`\kappa =1`$ the latter condition reduces to the case of dS/AdS of T1. As is shown below, the new condition is equivalent to say that $`T_b^a=T_{\mathrm{fields}b}^a\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi }\delta _b^a`$ with $`T_{\mathrm{fields}b}^a`$ satisfying the conditions of T1, that is, $`T_{\mathrm{fields}t}^t=T_{\mathrm{fields}r}^r`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{fields}\theta }^\theta =\kappa T_{\mathrm{fields}r}^r`$. The spacetime is then parametrized by $`M`$, $`C`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Indeed, using Eq. (34) in Eq. (27) one obtains

$$T_r^r=\frac{C}{r^{2(1\kappa )}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi }=T_{\mathrm{fields}r}^r\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi },$$
(35)
and in turn using this result in Eq. (34) one has

$$T_\theta ^\theta =\frac{\kappa C}{r^{2(1\kappa )}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi }=\kappa T_{\mathrm{fields}r}^r\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi },$$
(36)
which confirms the announced result. Finally, $`T_t^t=T_r^r`$ since one assumes that $`T_{\mathrm{fields}t}^t=T_{\mathrm{fields}r}^r`$, then using (35) in Eq. (17) one can straightforwardly integrate for $`m(r)`$. Then the trivial generalization of T1 writes in full detail as follows:

Theorem (T2): Let $`(M,g_{ab})`$ be a four dimensional spacetime \[sign($`g_{ab})=(,+,+,+)`$\] such that: (1) It is static and spherically symmetric, (2) It satisfies the Einstein field equations, (3) The total energy-momentum tensor $`T_b^a`$ is given by $`T_b^a=T_{\mathrm{fields}b}^a\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi }\delta _b^a`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cosmological constant and $`T_{\mathrm{fields}b}^a`$ is the energy-momentum tensor of the matter fields, (4) In the radial gauge (area-$`r`$) coordinate system adapted to the symmetries of the spacetime where $`ds^2=N^2(r)dt^2+A^2(r)dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )d\phi ^2`$, the energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mathrm{fields}b}^a`$ satisfies the conditions $`T_{\mathrm{fields}t}^t=T_{\mathrm{fields}r}^r`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{fields}\theta }^\theta =\kappa T_{\mathrm{fields}r}^r`$ ($`\kappa =\mathrm{const}.`$), (5) It possess a regular Killing horizon or a regular origin. Then, the metric of the spacetime is given by

$$ds^2=\left[1\frac{2m(r)}{r}\right]dt^2+\left[1\frac{2m(r)}{r}\right]^1dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )d\phi ^2,$$
(37)
where

$`m(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}M+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r^3}{6}\hfill & \mathrm{if}C=0\hfill & \\ & & \\ M\frac{4\pi Cr^{2\kappa +1}}{2\kappa +1}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r^3}{6}\hfill & \mathrm{if}\kappa \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{and}C0\hfill & \\ & & \\ M4\pi C\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r}{|C|}\right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r^3}{6}\hfill & \mathrm{if}\kappa =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{and}C0\hfill & \end{array}`$ (43)
$`T_b^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{r^{2(1\kappa )}}}\mathrm{diag}[1,1,\kappa ,\kappa ]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi }}\mathrm{diag}[1,1,1,1].`$ (44)
It is to note that the dS/AdS spacetime given by Eqs. (7) and (8) with $`\kappa =1`$ and $`C=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi }`$, corresponds in Eqs. (43) and (44) (which ab-initio includes the cosmological constant) to $`C=0`$. When $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, T2 reduces to T1 comment0 . Theorem T2 provides thus static and spherically symmetric exact solutions to the Einstein field equations with matter fields satisfying the conditions of T1 and in the presence of a cosmological constant.

In more complicated situations, where the relationship between $`T_t^t`$, $`T_r^r`$ and $`T_\theta ^\theta `$ is not as simple as in T1 (or its trivial extension T2), the usual procedure to find solutions is not to use the first order differential equation for $`T_r^r`$ Eq. (21), but rather to employ the equation of motion for the matter fields themselves (i.e., the fundamental fields entering in the energy-momentum tensor) which results from Eq. (21). It is a higher order equation for the fields (usually a second order differential equation). This is what happens in most of the hairy BH solutions where the relationship between the components of the T-tensor is not linear and therefore one usually requires a numerical analysis to solve the equations. On the other hand, as showed in Sec. V, in some cases one can push the equations as far as possible so that T1 or T2 applies. This is rather surprising an allows one to understand the existence of exact BH solutions in more complicated theories of gravity.

For simplicity, only the results of theorem T1 will be discussed in sections III and IV, since for the trivial extension T2 the analogous results are easily obtained.

## III Asymptotics and regularity

Scalar invariants are often used to test the regularity at the horizons and to analyze the falloff of the geometry asymptotically. Among these, the Ricci scalar, the squared Ricci, and the Kretschmann invariant (for more scalars see Ref. scalars ). For the solution given by T1, the expressions for these scalars are as follows:

$`R`$ $`=8\pi T_a^a={\displaystyle \frac{4(1+\kappa )_rm}{r^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{16\pi C(\kappa +1)}{r^{2(1\kappa )}}},`$ (45)
$`R^{ab}R_{ab}`$ $`=(8\pi )^2T^{ab}T_{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{8(1+\kappa ^2)(_rm)^2}{r^4}}={\displaystyle \frac{128\pi ^2C^2(1+\kappa ^2)}{r^{4(1\kappa )}}},`$ (48)
$`𝒦`$ $`=R^{abcd}R_{abcd}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{r^6}}\left\{8r^2(_rm)^216rm(_rm)+12m^2+r^4(_{rr}^2m)^24r^3(_{rr}^2m)(_rm)+4mr^2_{rr}^2m\right\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{48M^2}{r^6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{256\pi ^2C^2}{r^6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r^{2\kappa +1}}{2\kappa +1}}\right)^2\left[\left(\kappa 1\right)^2\left(2\kappa +1\right)^2+2\kappa \left(4\kappa 1\right)\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi MC}{r^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{r^{2\kappa +1}}{2\kappa +1}}\left[\left(4\kappa 3\right)^21\right],\mathrm{if}\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{48M^2}{r^6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{64\pi C}{r^6}}\left\{13\pi C+M\left[56\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{|C|}}\right)\right]4\pi C\left[53\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{|C|}}\right)\right]\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{|C|}}\right)\right\},`$
$`\mathrm{if}\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{and}C0.`$
For $`C=0`$ the above invariants reduce to the Schwarzschild case. These invariants are regular everywhere except at the origin $`r=0`$ where they can become singular.

The null Killing horizons are located at $`r=r_h`$ satisfying

$$g_{tt}(r_h)=N^2(r_h)=0=\{\begin{array}{ccc}1\frac{2M}{r_h}\hfill & \mathrm{if}C=0\hfill & \\ & & \\ 1\frac{2M}{r_h}+\frac{8\pi Cr_{h}^{}{}_{}{}^{2\kappa }}{2\kappa +1}\hfill & \mathrm{if}\kappa \frac{1}{2},C0\hfill & \\ & & \\ 1\frac{2M}{r_h}+\frac{8\pi C}{r_h}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r_h}{|C|}\right)\hfill & \mathrm{if}\kappa =\frac{1}{2},C0\hfill & \end{array}$$
(49)
Case $`\kappa 1`$. The spacetime is not AF (unless it is the trivial Minkowski spacetime $`M=0=C`$) and can be singular at $`r=0`$ but it is regular everywhere else. Regularity at the origin requires $`M=0`$ \[cf. Eq. (48)\]. From Eq. (23) one can also see that $`T_r^r=T_\theta ^\theta `$ at the origin regardless of the value $`\kappa `$, which is consistent what it was said previously in Sec. II after proving the theorem T1. The asymptotic structure depends on the value of $`\kappa `$ and the sign of $`C`$. For $`C>0`$ there can be an horizon only if $`M0`$ \[cf. Eq. (49) \]. For $`C<0`$ a cosmological and event horizon may be present. This case includes $`\kappa =1`$ which is associated with a cosmological constant (cf. Table 1) and the spacetime is asymptotically dS/AdS depending on the sign of $`C`$. Asymptotically the invariants behave as

$`R`$ $``$ $`Cr^{2(\kappa 1)},`$ (50)
$`R^{ab}R_{ab}`$ $``$ $`C^2r^{4(\kappa 1)},`$ (51)
$`𝒦`$ $``$ $`C^2r^{4(\kappa 1)}.`$ (52)
Case $`\kappa <1`$. In this case, a nontrivial spacetime cannot be regular at the origin. However, a regular horizon can be present covering the singularity at $`r=0`$. Several horizons appear depending on the values of $`\kappa `$, $`M`$ and $`C`$. The following subcases provide more details.

Case $`1/2\kappa <1`$. The spacetime is not AF (except in vacuum $`C=0`$). Then, the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner mass $`M_{ADM}`$ (or alternatively the Komar mass) given simply by $`m(\mathrm{})`$ is not well defined. In such cases, another definition of $`M_{ADM}`$ has to be provided according to the asymptotic structure of the corresponding spacetime. For instance, the case $`\kappa =0`$ will be discussed in Sec V (see also Table 1). The asymptotic behavior of the invariants is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}RCr^{2(1\kappa )}\hfill & \mathrm{if}1/2\kappa <1,\hfill \\ & \\ R^{ab}R_{ab}C^2r^{4(1\kappa )}\hfill & \mathrm{if}1/2\kappa <1,\hfill \\ & \\ 𝒦C^2r^{4(1\kappa )}\hfill & \mathrm{if}1/2<\kappa <1,\hfill \\ & \\ 𝒦\left[Cr^3\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r}{|C|}\right)\right]^2\hfill & \mathrm{if}\kappa =1/2,C0\hfill \end{array}$$
(53)
For $`1/2<\kappa <1`$ and $`C>0`$ one requires that $`M0`$ to avoid a naked singularity \[cf. Eq. (49) \]. If $`C<0`$ and $`M=0`$, $`\kappa 1/2`$ , then $`r_h=\left[\frac{2\kappa +1}{8\pi |C|}\right]^{\frac{1}{2\kappa }}`$. If $`\kappa =1/2`$ some horizons may be present as well even with $`M=0`$, and they are located at the roots of $`x+8\pi \mathrm{sign}(C)\mathrm{ln}x=0`$ (where $`x=r_h/|C|`$ and $`\mathrm{sign}(C)=C/|C|`$). For $`C>0`$, $`r_h0.96243C`$, and for $`C<0`$ there are two horizons: $`r_h^{}1.04235|C|`$ and $`r_h^+120.408|C|`$.

Case $`\kappa <1/2`$. The spacetime is AF and the horizons can appear at different $`r`$’s as well \[cf. Eq. (49) \]. The ADM-mass is given by $`M_{ADM}=M`$. The value $`\kappa =1`$ give rise to the RN solution with $`C=Q^2/8\pi `$ (cf. Table 1). The asymptotic behavior of the invariants is

$`R`$ $``$ $`C(1|\kappa |)r^{2(1+|\kappa |)},`$ (54)
$`R^{ab}R_{ab}`$ $``$ $`C^2r^{4(1+|\kappa |)},`$ (55)
$`𝒦`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{48M^2}{r^6}}.`$ (56)
## IV Energy conditions and causality

In addition to the different asymptotic structures that can arise from the values of $`\kappa `$, the matter associated with those spacetimes might violate the energy conditions (EC). In order to discuss such EC of the matter fields, it is useful to remind that in the rest frame associated to the time-like Killing vector $`(/t)^a`$, the energy-density of the matter will be given by \[cf. Eq. (24) \],

$$\rho =T_t^t=T_r^r=\frac{C}{r^{2(1\kappa )}},$$
(57)
and the principal pressures by

$$p_i=T_i^i(\mathrm{no}\mathrm{sum}\mathrm{convention}).$$
(58)
Therefore $`p_r=T_r^r=\rho `$ and $`p_\theta =p_\varphi =T_\theta ^\theta =\kappa p_r=\kappa \rho `$ (hypothesis 3 of T1). One can introduce the effective pressure (in the same rest-frame) by averaging the principal pressures:

$$p_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}:=\frac{1}{3}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}T_i^i=(1+2\kappa )\frac{T_r^r}{3}.$$
(59)
Therefore from the above definitions one can write an effective “equation of state” as follows

$$p_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}=(1+2\kappa )\frac{\rho }{3}.$$
(60)
So, for the cases $`\kappa =1`$ and $`\kappa =1`$ corresponding to the energy-momentum tensors associated with a cosmological constant and the electromagnetic field respectively, one recovers the usual equations of state $`p_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}=\rho `$ and $`p_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}=\rho /3`$, respectively.

Since $`p_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}`$ includes the tangential pressures, which for $`\kappa 1`$ are not equal to the radial pressure, then the case $`\kappa =1/2`$ leading to $`p_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}=0`$, does not pertain to a dust pressureless fluid, since there exists indeed a radial pressure. Now, according to the weak energy condition (WEC) wald ,

$$\rho 0\mathrm{and}\rho +p_i0(i=1,2,3).$$
(61)
Therefore the WEC is satisfied if $`C0`$ and $`\kappa 1`$.

On the other hand, the strong energy condition wald ,

$$\rho +\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}p_i0\mathrm{and}\rho +p_i0(i=1,2,3),$$
(62)
will be verified if $`C0`$ and $`\kappa 0`$ or if $`C0`$ and $`\kappa 1`$ (cf. with AdS solution).

Finally, the dominant energy condition wald ,

$$\rho |p_i|(i=1,2,3),$$
(63)
is satisfied if $`C0`$ and $`|\kappa |1`$. Therefore the three EC are compatible if $`C0`$ and $`1\kappa 0`$. Moreover, if $`1\kappa 1/2`$, all the energy conditions are verified, and furthermore, the effective pressure $`p_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}0`$ and the causality condition (i.e., the mean speed of sound in the medium less than the speed of light) $`0p_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}/\rho <1`$ will be satisfied as well.

## V Applications and discussion of the theorem

Clearly, the theorem T1 (or its trivial extension T2) just proved, includes a broad class of T-tensors, some of which might be unphysical or do not represent plausible matter fields comment . However, a priori this is difficult to judge only by the conditions imposed on $`T^{ab}`$. For instance, the case $`\kappa =0`$, corresponding to $`T_\theta ^\theta =T_\phi ^\phi =0`$ but not necessarily $`T_r^r=0`$, could seem rather odd and not to correspond to a physical situation at first glance (cf. Table 1). Nonetheless, the T-tensor that indeed verifies those conditions and furthermore $`T_t^t=T_r^r0`$ represents the matter distribution of a trivial global monopole (see Ref. vilenkin  for a review on the subject) $`\varphi ^i=\eta x^i/r`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) that remains in the true vacuum of its potential: $`V(\varphi ^i\varphi _i)=\frac{\lambda }{4}\left(\varphi ^i\varphi _i\eta ^2\right)^20`$, and which is given by

$$T_{ab}=(_a\varphi ^i)(_b\varphi _i)g_{ab}\left[\frac{1}{2}(\varphi ^i)^2+V(\varphi ^i\varphi _i)\right]=(_a\varphi ^i)(_b\varphi _i)\frac{g_{ab}}{2}(\varphi ^i)^2.$$
(64)
In particular $`T_r^r=T_t^t=\eta ^2/r^2`$, which fixes the value $`C=\eta ^2`$ in Eq. (23). The spacetime generated by this kind of source is the one of a static and spherically symmetric black hole with a global monopole inside nucsud0 . The spacetime is not AF but AF with a solid angle deficit given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }=8\pi \eta ^2`$ ($`0\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$). The corresponding ADM-mass has been well defined nucsud1 , and it is indeed given by $`M_{\mathrm{ADM}_\mathrm{\Delta }}=M(1\mathrm{\Delta })^{3/2}`$ where $`M\eta ^1\lambda ^{1/2}`$ commentmon . This example shows, that as odd as it could appear, different values of $`\kappa `$ could indeed be associated with T-tensors interesting from the mathematical or the theoretical-physics point of view.

Another natural question that arises is: Until what extent T1 or T2 of Sec. II covers the maximum of situations ?, or in which situations the hypothesis need to be strengthen or relaxed ?

In order to give some insight relevant to this question, more complicated examples corresponding to scalar-tensor theories (STT) of gravity are considered below. The general action for a STT with a single scalar field and a cosmological constant is given by

$$S[g_{ab},\varphi ]=\left\{\frac{1}{16\pi }F(\varphi )R\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi }\left(\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2+V(\varphi )\right)\right\}\sqrt{g}d^4x.$$
(65)
The equations of motion obtained from the above action are

$`G_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi T_{ab},`$ (66)
$`T_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`G_{eff}\left(T_{ab}^F+T_{ab}^\varphi +T_{ab}^\mathrm{\Lambda }\right),`$ (67)
$`T_{ab}^F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\left[_a\left(_\varphi F_b\varphi \right)g_{ab}_c\left(_\varphi F^c\varphi \right)\right],`$ (68)
$`T_{ab}^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`(_a\varphi )(_b\varphi )g_{ab}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi )^2+V(\varphi )\right],`$ (69)
$`T_{ab}^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi }}g_{ab},`$ (70)
$`G_{eff}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}},`$ (71)
$$\mathrm{}\varphi =\frac{F_\varphi V2(_\varphi F)V\frac{1}{2}(_\varphi F)\left(1+\frac{3_{\varphi \varphi }^2F}{8\pi }\right)(\varphi )^2+\frac{1}{2}(_\varphi F)T_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{F+\frac{3(_\varphi F)^2}{16\pi }}.$$
(72)
where $`T_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ stands for the trace of $`T_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ab}`$ and $`G_{ab}=R_{ab}\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}R`$.

Two particular examples of the above STT are considered below.

The first example is the Bekenstein-Bocharova-Bronnikov-Melnikov (BBBM) asymptotically flat BH solution of a scalar field conformally coupled to the curvature Bek1 ; BBM , and which is identified with the extreme Reissner-Nordstrom solution. Therefore in principle this solution should be covered by T1. The solution has been the object of controversy and I will elaborate more on this once the solution is recovered along the lines of the theorem T1.

The BBBM solution corresponds to the choice

$$F(\varphi )=1+16\pi \xi \varphi ^2=1\frac{4\pi }{3}\varphi ^2,$$
(73)
with $`\xi =1/12`$ and $`V(\varphi )=0=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The theory is invariant with respect to the conformal transformations: $`g_{ab}\mathrm{\Omega }^2g_{ab}`$, $`\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }^1\varphi `$. From Eqs. (67)$``$(71), one writes the following effective energy-momentum tensor

$$T_{ab}=\frac{1}{6F}\left[4(_a\varphi )(_b\varphi )2\varphi _a_b\varphi g_{ab}(^c\varphi )(_c\varphi )\right].$$
(74)
Like in the electromagnetic case, the T-tensor is traceless $`T_a^a=0`$. Moreover, for the choice of $`F`$ Eq. (73) and with $`V(\varphi )=0=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, Eq. (72) reduces simply

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =0.$$
(75)
From the form of $`T_{ab}`$, it is clear that T1 cannot a priori be applied. However, the conditions required on $`T_{ab}`$ will be imposed “by force” and then check that all the equations are fully consistent \[except perhaps for one subtle point that is discussed below Eq. (91)\]. First, for the metric Eq. (9), the Klein-Gordon Eq. (75) reads

$$\frac{1}{r^2AN}_r\left(r^2\frac{N}{A}_r\varphi \right)=0.$$
(76)
In addition, from Eq. (74) a simple calculation that uses Eq. (76) to replace the second order derivatives, leads to

$$T_r^rT_t^t=\frac{2(_r\varphi )}{3FA^2}\frac{1}{rN}_r\left(rN\varphi \right).$$
(77)
Now, for $`T_r^r=T_t^t`$, one requires

$$rN\varphi =\mathrm{const}.=d.$$
(78)
In that case $`A=N^1`$, and therefore

$$\varphi =\frac{dA}{r}.$$
(79)
On the other hand Eq. (76) leads to

$$_r\varphi =\frac{aA^2}{r^2},a=\mathrm{const}.$$
(80)
Therefore, Eqs. (79) and (80) imply

$$_r\varphi =\frac{1}{e}\varphi ^2.$$
(81)
where $`e=d^2/a=\mathrm{const}.`$ The solution of this equation is given by

$$\varphi =\frac{e}{rM},$$
(82)
where $`M`$ is an integration constant. Now, from Eq. (74), it turns out

$$T_t^t=\frac{d^2}{6eFr^2}\left(_r\varphi +\frac{2\varphi }{r}\right).$$
(83)
where Eqs. (79) and (80) were used. Finally, using Eqs. (73) and (82), one has

$$T_t^t=\frac{d^2\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)}{6r^4\left[1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{M^2}{r^2}\left(1\frac{4\pi e^2}{3M^2}\right)\right]}.$$
(84)
In the same way

$$T_\theta ^\theta =\frac{e^2\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)}{6r^4\left[1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{M^2}{r^2}\left(1\frac{4\pi e^2}{3M^2}\right)\right]}.$$
(85)
Clearly the choice $`d^2=e^2`$ leads to the requirement $`T_\theta ^\theta =T_t^t=T_r^r`$. To conclude, using Eqs. (78) and (82), one is led to

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`A^1=1{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r}}=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m(r)}{r}}\right)^{1/2},`$ (86)
$`m(r)`$ $`=`$ $`M{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2r}}.`$ (87)
One can check independently that Eq. (87) is consistent with Eqs. (17) and (84) if and only if $`d^2=e^2=3M^2/(4\pi )`$ for which

$$T_t^t=\frac{M^2}{8\pi r^4}=T_r^r.$$
(88)
In this way, one recovers the result of T1 with $`\kappa =1`$, and $`C=M^2/(8\pi )`$ which is no other but the extreme RN spacetime with the scalar field solution given by Eq. (82). In summary, the black hole solution found by BBBM is comment2

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r}}\right)^2dt^2+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r}}\right)^2dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )d\phi ^2,`$ (89)
$`T_b^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{8\pi r^4}}\mathrm{diag}[1,1,1,1],`$ (90)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{rM}}.`$ (91)
As mentioned before, this example is “in principle” covered by T1. However, during the derivation, regularity at the horizon was not imposed. The invariants of Sec. III show that the only singularity is located at $`r=0`$. However, the scalar field Eq. (91) has a singularity at the black hole horizon $`r=M`$, and therefore, since $`\varphi `$ is a scalar, it implies that the horizon is not regular. From Eq. (78) or Eq. (80) \[cf. also Eqs. (77) and (21)\], regularity at the horizon (with $`\varphi `$ and $`_r\varphi `$ bounded there) implies $`d=0=a`$, and the only possibility for $`\varphi `$ to be regular is $`M=0`$, at which case the solution reduces to the Minkowski spacetime. This solution has been the issue of several controversies that will not be discussed and repeated in detail here. Bekenstein Bek2  has argued that since the tidal effects on test particles are bounded at the horizon, the singularity of the scalar field has no physical consequences. On the other hand in Refs. Zannias ; sudzan , it has been argued that the pathology of $`\varphi `$ at the horizon reflects the fact that the solution is not a genuine solution to the Einstein field equations since it is not satisfied at the horizon $`r=M`$. This has been shown using different regularization techniques that lead to different results at the horizon sudzan . Whether the BBBM solution is or is not a genuine solution of the Einstein field equations, what it is clear is that the pathology at the horizon is present.

It is to note, that the solutions characterized by T1 are genuinely regular as is shown by the invariants, except perhaps at the origin, but such a physical singularity is to be covered by a regular horizon. The theorem T1 states nothing about the matter fields themselves but stems from the form of the energy-momentum tensor. The ill behavior arises in the BBBM solution when integrating the equation for the scalar field and the regularity condition is not imposed during the process. This example clearly shows that special care has to be taken when the conditions on the energy-momentum tensor required by T1 are a priori not satisfied but imposed as to obtain the desired form of the solution.

The following and second example treats another solution similar to BBBM but with a regular horizon. The example, corresponds to the very recent solution found in Ref. zanelli  using an action like (65) with $`F(\varphi )`$ given also by Eq. (73) and taking again $`\xi =1/12`$, but with $`V(\varphi )=\lambda \varphi ^4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$. The case with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ is also conformal invariant and for such a theory no-hair theorems exist eloy .

As will be shown in the following, the static and spherically symmetric solution of the corresponding field equations is the extreme RNdS solution Eqs. (31) and (33) with $`M=Q`$ and $`C=Q^2/(8\pi )`$, $`\lambda =2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }/9`$ and with $`\varphi `$ given also by Eq. (91) zanelli . Therefore, the solution is covered by theorem T2. To show this, the starting point is the Klein-Gordon Eq. (72), which reads

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =4\varphi \left(\lambda \varphi ^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6}\right).$$
(92)
On the other hand, from Eqs. (67)$``$(71), and using Eq. (92) one has

$$T_{ab}=\frac{1}{6F}\left\{4(_a\varphi )(_b\varphi )2\varphi _a_b\varphi g_{ab}\left[(^c\varphi )(_c\varphi )2V(\varphi )+\frac{8\pi }{3}\varphi ^2T_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]+6T_{\mathrm{\Lambda }ab}\right\}.$$
(93)
One can show that the trace of the above tensor for the scalar field alone (i.e., with $`T_{\mathrm{\Lambda }ab}=0`$), vanishes like in the first example with $`V=0`$, reflecting the conformal invariance of the theory when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. One can construct the solution in the same way as in the BBBM example by imposing the condition $`T_r^r=T_t^t`$. Indeed, from Eq. (93) the condition $`T_r^r=T_t^t`$ leads to

$$\frac{N(_r\varphi )}{r}_r\left(rN\varphi \right)=2V+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi ^2}{3}.$$
(94)
On the other hand, the Klein-Gordon Eq. (92) with $`A=N^1`$ (since $`T_r^r=T_t^t`$) reads

$$_{rr}^2\varphi +\frac{2(_r\varphi )}{rN}_r\left(rN\right)=\frac{4\varphi }{N^2}\left(\lambda \varphi ^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6}\right).$$
(95)
From Eqs. (94) and (95) one obtains

$$\varphi _{rr}^2\varphi 2(_r\varphi )^2=0.$$
(96)
This equation is equivalent to Eq. (81), as one can see by differentiating Eq. (81). Therefore, one solution of Eq. (96) is also given by,

$$\varphi =\frac{e}{rM}.$$
(97)
The second solution $`\varphi =\mathrm{const}.`$ will be discussed later.

A straightforward calculation, with the help of Eq. (94), shows that the condition Eq. (30) is verified. In addition, Eq. (94) together with Eq. (97), provide

$$\frac{N^2M}{r}\left(rM\right)N_rN=2\lambda e^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\left(rM\right)^2.$$
(98)
One can verify that

$$N^2=\left(1\frac{M}{r}\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2}{3},$$
(99)
is the solution of Eq. (98) if and only if

$$\lambda =\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }M^2}{6e^2}.$$
(100)
Finally, from Eq. (93) and using Eqs. (94), (97) and (99), one obtains

$$T_t^t=\frac{e^2\left(1\frac{M}{r}\right)\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)}{6\left[r^4\left(1\frac{M}{r}\right)\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)+r^2\left(1\frac{M}{r}\right)\left(M^2\frac{4\pi e^2}{3}\right)\right]}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi }.$$
(101)
Clearly, the choice $`e^2=\frac{3M^2}{4\pi }`$ leads to

$$T_t^t=\frac{M^2}{8\pi r^4}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi }=T_r^r.$$
(102)
and from Eq. (100), one finds $`\lambda =2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }/9`$. This is precisely the solution Eq. (31) with $`C=M^2/(8\pi )`$. In addition, it is not difficult to show that the T-tensor Eq. (93) then verifies the condition \[cf. Eq. (30)\] $`T_\theta ^\theta =T_r^r\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4\pi }`$ needed to obtain the expression Eq. (102) directly from the equilibrium Eq. (27). This shows the full consistency in what regards the matter fields. It remains to obtain the solution for $`m(r)`$.

From Eq. (99) and since $`N^2=A^2=(12m(r)/r)`$ (given that $`T_r^r=T_t^t`$) one concludes

$$m(r)=M\frac{M^2}{2r}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r^3}{6},$$
(103)
which is consistent with the expression one would obtain independently using Eqs. (17) and (102).

Summarizing, as announced, the static and spherically symmetric solution of the theory given by Eq. (65) with a conformal nonminimal coupling scalar field and with a positive cosmological constant is given by the extreme Reissner-Nordstrom-de-Sitter Eqs. (43) and (44) taking $`\kappa =1`$, $`Q=M`$, $`C=M^2/(8\pi )`$:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2}{3}}\right]dt^2+\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2}{3}}\right]^1dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )d\phi ^2,`$ (104)
$`T_b^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{8\pi r^4}}\mathrm{diag}[1,1,1,1]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi }}\mathrm{diag}[1,1,1,1],`$ (105)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{rM}}.`$ (106)
and with $`V(\varphi )=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}{9}\varphi ^4`$.

Unlike the BBBM solution, this solution is regular in the domain of outer communication, since none of the horizons coincide with $`M`$. Moreover, the singularity of the scalar field at $`M`$ is hidden by the event horizon located at $`r_h=\frac{l}{2}\left(1\sqrt{14M/l}\right)`$ where $`l=\sqrt{3/\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The static BH solution is then restricted to $`0<M<l/4`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ zanelli . Note that in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, it turns out $`V(\varphi )0`$ and the BBBM solution is recovered.

Another solution of Eqs. (94) and (95) is zanelli

$$\varphi ^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6\lambda }=\mathrm{const}.$$
(107)
provided $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\lambda <0`$. Using Eq. (107) in Eqs. (73) and (93) one finds

$`T_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi }}g_{ab},`$ (108)
$`G_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\frac{2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}{9\lambda }}},`$ (109)
where Eq. (71) was also used. A positive $`G_{eff}`$ (together with the condition $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\lambda <0`$) demands therefore $`\frac{9}{2\pi }<\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\lambda }<0`$. The static and spherically symmetric solution to Einstein’s field equations is then given by the Schwarzschild -dS/AdS solution.

This example like the previous one shows that the theorem T1 or its trivial extension T2 are useful to understanding in a rather systematic and straightforward fashion the existence of solutions like the ones analyzed above.

Finally, the theorem T1 helps also to clarify certain confusions Edery , about the form of the canonical metric Eq. (9) used to describe some kind of static and spherically symmetric spacetimes (see also the comment of Ref. Bek3 ). Namely, the spacetime generated by the dark matter in spiral galaxies. According to T1, one can assume $`N=A^1`$, if and only if $`T_t^t=T_r^r`$. As is showed in Refs. us ; lesgourgues , one can, in principle, model the dark matter in galactic halos with an (inhomogeneous) perfect fluid or scalar fields. For those matter fields $`T_t^tT_r^r`$, and therefore $`NA^1`$, at least in the region where the dark halo is presumably the responsible for the so-called flat rotation curves. That analysis does not contradict at all the fact that in the vicinity of a star (like the Sun) within the galaxy, where the curvature produced by the dark halo is very small as compared with the curvature generated by the star, the metric is to a very good approximation given by the Schwarzschild metric $`N_{}=A_{}^1=12M_{}/r`$, which successfully reproduces the solar system experiments. In other words, the laws of gravity are the same (given by the Einstein field equations) but the same laws can produce distinct effects due to the concentration of different kinds of matter at different scales.

## VI Conclusion

A simple theorem based on certain restrictions on the energy-momentum tensor was proved, showing a large variety of two-parameter static and spherically symmetric black hole solutions. Among them, the most known exact black hole solutions and some recent ones are included. A trivial extension of the theorem allows one to cover a three-parameter family of solutions, with one of the parameters being a cosmological constant. An issue that remains to be investigated is if there exist indeed physical fields or some field theory behind some of the new solutions proposed by the theorem, as the latter does not include the specific form of those fields. In the same way, one can also ask (in the spirit of the no-hair theorems or no-hair conjectures) if two different energy-momentum tensors (that satisfy however the conditions of the theorem) can generate the same spacetime (same $`\kappa `$). That is, if the corresponding spacetimes can be identified with each other (belonging to the same family) but with the constant $`C`$ playing different roles in each theory. If it were not by the fact that the scalar field is not well defined at the horizon, the BBBM solution Eqs. (89)$``$(91) which is contained within the Reissner-Nordstrom family but with a scalar field instead of the electric field, would undisputedly answer the question in the affirmative. On the other hand, the solution Eqs. (104)$``$(106) zanelli , it does represent the same spacetime that the extreme RNdS solution but with a different energy-momentum tensor and moreover, it does not show the same pathology as the BBBM solution. Therefore, this solution seems to truly answer the question positively refs .

Acknowledgments

I thank U. Nucamendi for helpful comments and J.A. González for some assistance with Maple. This work was partially supported by Conacyt grant 32551-E and DGAPA-UNAM grants IN112401 and IN122002.


text:
# Dynkin diagram strategy for orbifolding with Wilson lines

## I Introduction

The heterotic string introduced an interesting simply-laced semi-simple group $`E_8\times E_8^{}`$ in 10 dimension(10D) which can be a candidate for the fundamental theory near the Planck scale ghmr . However, one must compactify the six internal spaces so as to reconcile with the observed 4 dimensional(4D) physics. Among a few directions for compactification, the orbifolding has been known to be especially simple and efficient, and gives a rich spectra for 4D particlesdhvw ; inq . In addition, this orbifold method has led to interesting 4D models which exhibit some desirable physical phenomena such as the standard model gauge group and the doublet-triplet splittingiknq .

The so-called standard-like models, leading to the gauge group $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)^n`$ with three chiral families, have been constructed vigorously along this lineiknq ; munoz ; imnq . In case of no Wilson line, there even exist extensive tables for all $`Z_N`$ orbifoldstable . However, the possibilities for inclusion of Wilson lines are exponentially larger than those without Wilson lines. Therefore, the inclusion of Wilson line(s) was limited to the study toward the standard-like models. Along this line, an equivalence relation was even devised to ease the study cmmg .

However, this initial study toward string derivation of the supersymmetric standard model could not overcome two serious hurdles along this direction, one the $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ problem and the other the problem of too many Higgs doublets. Therefore, recently the orbifold has been tried at the field theory levelfield . Here, the doublet-triplet splitting problemfield  and the flavor problemhwang  have been reconsidered, but it did not exhibit a predictive power due to the arbitrariness of the field content introduced at the fixed points.

This led us to consider the string orbifolds again. One recent suggestion has been that a semi-simple gauge group such as $`SU(3)^3`$ is plausible for a unification group at high energy to solve the $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ problem in the orbifold compactificationkim . This opens a new door toward string orbifolds. In this respect, it is worthwhile to consider possible string vacua through orbifold compactifications. Of course, the previous classifications can be useful, but they are not complete in that there does not exist a complete classification with Wilson lines. Therefore, in this paper we try to investigate how to implement the Wilson lines without much computer time.

In this study, the simple group theoretical method, originally devised by Kac and Peterson kac , is found to be extremely useful. This method uses the Dynkin diagram, and can be understood pictorially. In this method, we can easily tell the origin and the symmetry of the resulting gauge group. However, cases with more than one shift vector, which is the case of our interest with Wilson lines, have not been studied completely. Here, generalizing Kac and Peterson, we present a systematic search criteria for the gauge groups in cases with more than one shift vector. And we seek the behind symmetry of group, which is in fact apparent in the Dynkin diagram. With the criteria present in this paper, it is in principle possible to classify the groups completely.

## II Orbifold and shift vector

### II.1 Breaking the group by a shift vector

We begin with the conventional root space the dimension of which is the rank of the group. Let us restrict the discussion to the self dual lattices. For a group $`G`$ and its root lattice spanned by its roots $`P`$, we can make a transformation of $`P`$ by the shift vector $`V`$,

$`|P`$ $`e^{2\pi iPV}|P,`$ (1)
$`|Q`$ $`|Q,`$ (2)
where we have casted roots as states and $`|Q`$ is the set of Cartan generators. If we require that this transformation is the symmetry of the system, it breaks the group $`G`$ into its subgroup $`H`$, which consists of the root vectors $`|P`$ satisfying

$$PV=\text{integer}.$$
(3)
The order of the shift vector $`V`$ is defined to be the minimum integer number $`N`$ such that $`N`$ successive transformation becomes the identity operation up to a lattice translation, i.e., $`NV`$ belongs to the root lattice.

### II.2 Orbifold

The orbifold embedding of shift vector is a natural realization of this property. An orbifold is defined by moding out the manifold $`𝐑^n`$ by the space group $`𝒮`$, which is seen equivalently as moding out the torus $`T^n`$ by the point group $`𝒫`$,

$$𝐑^n/𝒮=T^n/𝒫.$$

Under $`𝒮`$, an element $`x`$ of $`𝐑^n`$ transforms as,

$$x\theta x+v.$$

Here, the (usually rotation) element $`\theta `$ also belongs to the point group $`𝒫`$, or the automorphism of the lattice vector defining the torus. The order $`N`$ has the same meaning as that of the shift vector, i. e., $`\theta ^N=1`$. Naively speaking, the orbifolding is the identification of points on $`T^n`$ up to the transformation $`\theta `$. We associate this space group transformation with the gauge group transformation,

$`\text{“rotation” by }\theta `$ $`e^{2\pi iPV}`$ (4)
$`\text{translation by }v`$ $`e^{2\pi iPa}.`$ (5)
We refer the latter as the Wilson line shift vector.

### II.3 Symmetries of Lie group

A simple Lie group has many symmetries. Any set of shift vectors which are connected by these symmetries are equivalent, leading to the same subgroup.

1. Lattice translation: Although this is not a symmetry of the gauge group, it is the redundancy of the formulation by the shift vector. Under the translation

$$VV+\alpha ,$$

by a root vector $`\alpha `$, the condition (3) does not change, since the root vector is also an element of the dual lattice (self dual), any vector of which has only integer value when taking the dot product with any root vector.
2. Weyl reflection: The Weyl reflection($`\sigma _\alpha `$) is defined as a reflection about the plane whose normal vector is the root($`\alpha `$) of the group.

$$V\sigma _\alpha V=\sigma _\alpha V=V2\frac{\alpha V}{\alpha ^2}\alpha =V(\alpha V)\alpha .$$

We know that the set of any number of successive reflections form a group. The group generated by the Weyl reflections is called Weyl group.
3. Outer automorphism: The Dynkin diagram, which is a diagrammatical representation of the Cartan matrix, contains almost every information of the given group. Every small circle(or bullet) represents a simple root and the linking lines rerepresents the angle between the simple roots linked.\[In our case, we consider only small circles and singly connected lines.\] Some Dynkin diagram possesses some exchange symmetry, which is the outer automorphism of the group. Some of the previous works classifying orbifold models neglected this possibility. In fact, many breaking patterns turn out to be the identical one.

## III Dynkin diagram technique for seaching surviving groups

What will be the subgroup $`H`$ which survives the condition Eq.(3) ? The basic method of finding the group structure is to identify the simple roots for the set of all roots which survive the projection (3). By choosing the form of the shift vector carefully, one can find the simple roots without identifying all roots surviving the projection. For the case of one shift vector, i.e. when there is no wilson line shift, Kac and Peterson kac  introduced a very useful choice of such form of the shift vector.

Let us concentrate on the group $`E_8`$. $`E_8`$ has eight simple roots $`\alpha ^i,i=\mathrm{1..8}`$, represented by the small circles in the (extended) Dynkin diagram in FIG.(1). The highest root $`\theta `$ of $`E_8`$ is given by

$$\theta =2\alpha ^1+3\alpha ^2+4\alpha ^3+5\alpha ^4+6\alpha ^5+4\alpha ^6+2\alpha ^7+3\alpha ^8.$$
(6)
Let us define the Coexter label $`\{n_i\}`$ as the coefficients of $`\alpha ^i`$ in this simple root expansion :

$$\theta =\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}n_i\alpha ^i,$$

where $`r=\mathrm{rank}\mathrm{of}G`$. If we define $`\alpha ^0=\theta `$, its dot product with the other simple roots vanishes except with $`\alpha ^1`$, for which it is $`1`$. It cannot be included in the set of simple roots of $`E_8`$, since $`\alpha ^0`$ is not linearly independent on the other simple roots $`\alpha ^i`$ nor a positive root. However, it can be a candidate of new simple root when some simple root fails to pass the criterion Eq.(3). This set is called an extended root system $`\widehat{G}`$ and the extended Dynkin diagram is shown in FIG.(1).

Let us expand the shift vector in the basis of the fundamental weight, namely Dynkin basis $`\{\gamma _i\}`$, satisfying $`\gamma _i\alpha ^j=\delta _i^j`$,

$$V=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}s_i\gamma _i,$$
(7)
where $`N`$ is the order of the shift vector and $`s_i`$ is given by $`N\alpha ^iV`$. We can limit our consideration for the shift vector satifying

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}n_is_iN,s_i0,$$
(8)
for it is well known that one can always transform the shift vector into this ’standard form’ by lattice translation and Weyl reflection of $`E_8`$.

With this form of shift vector, it is easy to identify the simple roots of the surviving roots. Let us define the set of indices $`J`$ which is made of the indices $`i`$ for which $`s_i`$ does not vanish.

$$J=\{i|s_i0\}$$
(9)
First, let us consider the case where the inequality of Eq.(8) holds. For any positive root $`P`$ of $`E_8`$

$$P=\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}c_i\alpha ^i,c_i0,$$
(10)
the projection condition Eq.(3) becomes

$$PV=\underset{iJ}{}c_is_i=\mathrm{integer}.$$
(11)
This value is always smaller than one since that for the highest root is less than one.

$$PV\theta V=\underset{iJ}{}n_i\frac{s_i}{N}<1$$
(12)
Thus, any root having non-zero $`c_i`$ for $`iJ`$, fails to pass the condition. This means we can safely remove the corresponding circle in the Dynkin diagram without causing any side effect. The resulting subgroup can be read off from the resulting diagram.

Now, let us consider the case when the equality in Eq.(8) holds. In this case, there are some roots, which still survives the projection condition even though $`c_i0`$ for some $`iJ`$, which means we cannot just remove the corresponding circle in the Dynkin diagram. Let us call the set of such roots as $`A`$. Any positive root $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ in $`A`$ has $`c_i=n_i`$ for all indices $`iJ`$, hence it is expressed as

$$\stackrel{~}{P}=\theta \underset{iJ}{}b_i\alpha ^i=\alpha ^0\underset{iJ}{}b_i\alpha ^i,b_i0,$$
(13)
for some non-negative integer $`b_i`$. Hence any negative root $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$, being the minus of $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$, in $`A`$ can be expressed by the sum of the root vectors $`\{\alpha ^0`$, $`\alpha ^i`$ for $`iJ\}`$ with positive coefficients. Thus, by changing the definition of positive root for the root in $`A`$ in such a way that a previous negative root is a positive root and vise versa, one can confirm that {$`\alpha ^0`$, $`\alpha ^i`$ for $`iJ`$} forms a proper set of simple roots. Thus the surviving subgroup is represented by the extended Dynkin diagram with $`i`$-th circle being removed for $`iJ`$, i.e. $`s_i0`$.

Observing that whether we add the extended simple root $`\alpha ^0`$ to the Dynkin diagram or not depends on the value $`s_0`$ defined by

$$s_0N(1\theta V)=N\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}n_is_i$$
(14)
vanishes or not, both cases considered in the last two paragraphs can be treated universally by formaly defining the Coexter label $`n_0`$ for the extended simple root $`\alpha ^0`$ as 1 and restrict our consideration to the case which satisfies

$$\underset{I=0}{\overset{8}{}}n_Is_I=N,s_I0.$$
(15)
For a solution $`\{s_I,I=\mathrm{0..8}\}`$ of Eq.(15), the unbroken subgroup by the shift vector given by Eq.(7) can be read off from the extended Dynkin diagram with $`I`$-th circle removed for any index $`I`$ with $`s_I0`$ including $`I=0`$. If the rank of the diagram is smaller than 8, there are additional $`U(1)`$’s which fill up the rank to 8. The trivial case is $`s_0=N`$ where the group $`G`$ remains unbroken.

It will be interesting to think about what will be the unbroken subgroup for the shift vector which does not satisfy the condition Eq.(8). For example, take $`V=\frac{1}{3}\gamma _5`$, hence $`n_is_i=6>N`$ where $`N=3`$. It is tempting to speculate that deleting the 5th circle($`\alpha _5`$) in the extended Dynkin diagram resulting in $`SU(6)\times SU(2)\times SU(3)`$. However, the set $`\{\alpha ^0,\alpha ^i\}\{\alpha ^5\}`$ cannot generate a root vector with $`c_5=3`$ which survives the projection. In this case, the proper simple root turns out to be

$$\alpha =\alpha ^3+2\alpha ^4+3\alpha ^5+2\alpha ^6+\alpha ^7+\alpha ^8.$$

It links to $`\alpha ^2`$ and $`\alpha ^8`$, whose resulting “extended” Dynkin diagram is again $`E_6\times SU(3)`$, which is depicted in FIG. 2. By the theorem above, there is an equivalent shift vector obeying the condition (8) leading to the same subgroup. One can show that this is an equivalent breaking to the second one in TABLE 1, by lattice translations and Weyl reflections.

The complication of this example comes from the fact that there are surviving roots which cannot be expressed in terms of the highest root and the surviving simple roots. Those roots are allowed since $`\theta V=n_is_i/N`$ is greater than 1. Hence this example shows the importance of the condition Eq.(8) in reading off the gauge group directly from the Dynkin diagram.

The power of the condition Eq.(15) lies not only in the easyness to identify the unbroken subgroup but also in the fact that there are only a few possible set of $`s_I`$’s that can satisfy it. Thus the procedure of finding all possible gauge symmetry breaking by the shifts can be very simplified using the condition Eq.(15) and the extended Dynkin diagram. For example, let us consider an order $`N=3`$ shift. From Eq. (15) and watching $`n_I`$, there are only five possibilities. The shift vector (7) in the Dynkin basis and the corresponding five unbroken groups are listed in TABLE 1.

## IV Introduction of Wilson line

In addition to the shift vector associated with the point group, we introduce another shift vector when we turn on a Wilson line inq  $`a`$, which should also satisfy the same condition as $`V`$ and is required to satisfy additional conditions on the modular invariance stated in the next section. Extending the diagramatic method of finding the unbroken subgroup for the first breaking of $`E_8`$, we can find a well-defined procedure of finding the unbroken subgroup for the further breaking by the additional Wilson line shift vector. One can introduce as many Wilson lines as the number of the compact dimensions in the orbifold compactification bases on torus. Most of the statements in this section assumes that the procedure is applied recursively for each additional Wilson line $`a_i`$. Some of the statements is for the first Wilson line $`a_1`$, for the sake of definiteness and simpleness of the argument, though. These statements can be generalized appropriately to the next Wilson line easily.

Let us call the unbroken subgroup of the first breaking in the previous section as $`H=H_1\times H_2\times \mathrm{}`$, where each $`H_x`$ is a simple group. The first step of the method in the previous section was to find an efficient form of a shift vector expanded in the dual basis, i.e. the fundamental weight of $`E_8`$. For now we are dealing with the subgroup of $`E_8`$, one might try to expand in terms of the fundamental weights of $`H_x`$. However, it is not useful since the fundamental weight vectors of $`H_x`$ are not on the root lattice of $`H_x`$ since it does not form a self-dual lattice in general. For some cases, they reside in the root lattice of $`H_x`$ if they are multiplied by some positive integer $`\widehat{N}`$, implying they might be useful for $`Z_{\widehat{N}}`$ orbifold. Still, it lacks the generalities and do not allow the formulation for the general order $`N`$, hence we do not use them in this paper. Instead, we keep using the expansion by the fundamental weights of $`E_8`$, $`\gamma _i`$. They are not exactly a dual of the simple roots we found in the previous section in the strict sence, since $`\alpha ^0`$, the negative of the highest root of $`E_8`$, which does not have its dual among $`\gamma _i`$, can be one of the simple roots of $`H`$. However, this expansion is quite useful since all the other simple roots of $`H`$ are still identified as simple roots of $`E_8`$. For the simple root $`\alpha ^0`$, if present, whether the corresponding circle should be removed or not can be deduced from the coefficients of the other simple roots. The central point of our method is to provide a neat formulation of keeping track of the fate of those extended simple roots at the previous stage in a similar form of Eq.(15).

We start our discussion by defining the highest root $`\theta ^x=\alpha ^{H_x}`$ and the labels $`\{n_I^{H_x}\}`$ for each simple group factor $`H_x`$ as

$$\theta ^x=\underset{iJ_x}{}n_i^{H_x}\alpha ^i,$$
(16)
where $`J_x`$ is the set of indices $`i`$ for which the $`E_8`$ simple root $`\alpha ^i`$, including $`\alpha ^0`$, is identified to be a simple root of $`H_x`$ at the previous stage of breaking. By adding $`\alpha ^{H_x}`$, the root system of each $`H_x`$ is extended to $`\widehat{H_x}`$. We expand the Wilson line shift vector $`a`$ in terms of the fundamental weights of $`E_8`$.

$$a=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}w_i\gamma _i.$$
(17)
The next important step is to reduce the possibilities of $`w_i`$ by requiring the analogous condition of Eq.(8). For each simple group $`H_x`$, we can transform a shift vector $`a`$ into its own standard form by the lattice translation and the Weyl reflection by the root of $`H_x`$. Here we can not use the standard form itself since we do not expand $`a`$ in terms of the fundamental weight of $`H`$. Still, a slightly different form of the same theorem is very useful to constrain the shift vector $`a`$:

Theorem : One can always transform any vector $`a`$ in the combined root space of $`H=H_1\times H_2\times \mathrm{}`$ by lattice translation and Weyl reflection by the root of $`H_x`$ into the one that satisfies

$$N\theta ^xa=\underset{iJ_x}{}n_i^{H_x}\left(N\alpha ^ia\right)N,\alpha ^ia0$$
(18)
for each simple group $`H_x`$. This transformation does not change the set of shift vectors $`\{V,a_1,\mathrm{}\}`$ which leads to the symmetry breaking $`E_8H`$, upto lattice translation.

The proof of the first statement of the theorem is manifest since it is just the substitution of $`s_i`$ by $`N\alpha ^ia`$ in Eq.(8) and each simple group $`H_x`$ is completely independent among one another since $`\alpha ^i\alpha ^j=0`$ if $`\alpha ^i`$ and $`\alpha ^j`$ belong to different subgroup. The second statement of the theorem, which is an important consistency condition of our scheme, is also obvious since any root $`P`$ which survive the projection of the previous stage satisfies $`PV=`$ integer, $`Pa_1=`$ integer, etc..

For the sake of simplicity, we illustrate the usage of this theorem in dealing with the extended root $`\alpha ^0`$ of $`E_8`$ only. The generalization to the other extended roots for the subgroup of $`E_8`$ can be made easily. For the simple group $`H_x`$ which does not contain $`\alpha ^0`$ as its simple root, this theorem is simply equivalent to

$$\underset{iJ_x}{}n_i^{H_x}w_iN,w_i0,$$
(19)
just like the $`E_8`$ case in the first breaking by $`V`$. For the simple group $`H_x`$ which contains $`\alpha ^0`$, it translates into

$`N\theta ^xa`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{iJ_x\{0\}}{}}n_i^{H_x}w_i+n_0^{H_x}w_0N,w_i,w_00,`$ (20)
$`w_0`$ $``$ $`N\alpha ^0a={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}}n_iw_i.`$ (21)
The non-trivial condition on the quantity $`w_00`$ is the simple consequance of the theorem. The apparent sign inconsistency between Eq.(21) and Eq.(19),(20) is to be resolved by the negative value of $`w_i`$ with $`iJ`$, where $`J`$ is the set of all indices $`i`$ for which $`\alpha ^i`$ fails to pass the projection at the previous stage. Thus $`w_i`$ for $`iJ`$ should be fixed by hand in such a way that $`w_0`$ defined by Eq.(21) satisfies Eq.(20). When $`J`$ has only one element $`\widehat{i}`$, the constraints on $`w_0`$ is equivalent to find a solution of

$$\underset{I=0}{\overset{8}{}}n_iw_i=N\text{mod}N,$$
(22)
with $`w_{\widehat{i}}=0`$ since $`n_{\widehat{i}}`$ is already a multiple of $`N`$. This property is useful for some physically interesting cases like further breaking of $`SU(3)\times E_6`$ on $`Z_3`$ orbifold which we will see in detail in the next section. When $`J`$ has more than one element, there may be more than one way for $`w_i,iJ`$ to satisfy Eq.(21). Each such solution may or may not lead to the same gauge group, depending on whether they are related to one another by Weyl reflection or not. It cannot be knwon at this stage in general way. Thus, for the classification purpose, they must be treated as a different one unless they are proven to be related by Weyl reflection.

Given the restriction of Eq.(19),(20), with the proper definition of $`w_0`$ in Eq.(21), we can define the coefficient $`w_0^{H_x}`$ for the extended root $`\alpha ^{H_x}`$ of the simple group factor $`H_x`$ such that

$$\underset{IJ_x}{}n_i^{H_x}w_i+w_0^{H_x}=N,w_i,w_0^{H_x}0,$$
(23)
by the same argument of the previous section. One can read off the surviving gauge group from the extended Dynkin diagram after removing of the corresponding circle for $`\alpha _i`$ or $`\alpha ^{H_x}`$ if $`w_i0`$ or $`w_0^{H_x}0`$.

If there are more than one Wilson line, we can do this procedure recursively with every extended root $`\alpha ^{H_x}`$ at the previous stage being taken care of by the same way as $`\alpha ^0`$ is in the above illustration. As we took more Wilson lines, surviving gauge group has more factor groups with smaller rank, leading to many extended roots to be taken care of. It may become quite tedious but is trivial at the same time since we deal with small groups like $`SU(n)`$ for which all Coexter label is one.

### IV.1 Further breaking of $`SU(3)\times E_6`$

As an illustration of the method presented in the previous section. we will study the further breaking of $`SU(3)\times E_6`$ by one Wilson line. The subgroup $`SU(3)\times E_6`$ is obtained when the orbifold shift vector is given by $`V=\gamma _2/3`$ for $`Z_3`$ orbifold, as can be seen from the TABLE 1. The $`E_6`$ has $`\alpha ^3,\mathrm{},\alpha ^8`$ as its simple roots and the highest weight is given by

$$\theta ^{E_6}=\alpha ^{E_6}=\alpha ^3+2\alpha ^4+3\alpha ^5+2\alpha ^6+\alpha ^7+2\alpha ^8.$$
(24)
On the $`SU(3)`$ side, the simple roots consists of $`\alpha ^1`$ and $`\alpha ^0`$, the $`E_8`$ extended root, and the highest weight is given by

$$\theta ^{SU_3}=\alpha ^{SU_3}=\alpha ^0+\alpha ^1.$$
(25)
The extended Dynkin diagrams for $`SU(3)\times E_6`$ are shown in the FIG. 3.

1. Take $`a=\frac{1}{3}\gamma _4`$, or $`w=[00010000|w_0w_0^{SU_3}w_0^{E_6}]`$. Since $`n_iw_i=50`$ mod 3, $`\alpha ^0`$ fails to pass the projection. $`w_0`$ is determined to be 1 with $`w_2=2`$ from Eq.(21). Having $`n_0^{SU_3}=1`$ and $`n_4^{E_6}=2`$, the other coefficients are determined to be $`w_0^{SU_3}=2`$ and $`w_0^{E_6}=1`$ from Eq.(19) and (20). The resulting group is $`SU(2)\times SU(2)\times SU(5)`$ and the final $`w`$ leading to this group is $`w=[00010000|121]`$. We leave $`w_2`$ to be zero for simplicity in this paper since it gives no information about the group structure.
2. Consider $`a=\frac{1}{3}\gamma _8`$. In this case $`\alpha ^0`$ survives since $`n_iw_i=3`$. Thus no simple root in $`SU(3)`$ group fail to pass the projection. We can take either $`w_0=0`$ or $`w_0=3`$, the result is the same, being $`w_0^{SU_3}=3`$ or $`w_0^{SU_3}=0`$, respectively. For $`E_6`$ part, $`n_8^{E_6}=2`$, thus we have $`w_0^{E_6}=1`$. As a result, we have $`w=[00000001|031]`$ and the resulting group is $`SU(3)\times SU(6)`$.
3. A more interesting case is $`a=\frac{1}{3}\gamma _5`$, or $`w=[00001000|030]`$. Both $`\alpha ^0`$ and $`\alpha ^{E_6}`$ survive. Therefore, a fairly large group of $`SU(3)^4`$ survives. By looking at the Dynkin diagram, one notes a symmetry by permutating three of $`SU(3)`$’s. This has been used for an $`SU(3)^3`$ unification modelkim .

In this way, all possible other $`w_i`$’s are examined and the resulting gauge groups are listed in TABLE 2. Some comments are in order. The extended Dynkin diagram of $`\widehat{E_6}`$ shows the symmetry, namely triality, under permutations of $`(\alpha ^3,\alpha ^4),(\alpha ^7,\alpha ^6)`$ and $`(\alpha ^{E_6},\alpha ^8)`$ pairs. Nonetheless, the breakings of $`E_6`$ by deleting the corresponding spots under this triality are not Weyl-equivalent since they have different $`E_8`$ characteristic like the Coexter labels $`\{n_i\}`$. As a result, it can be easily seen that some $`w`$ vectors resulting in the same gauge group are related by the triality symmetry.

## V Heterotic string and modular invariance

So far the procedure presented for finding an unbroken subgroup of $`E_8`$ by the Dynkin diagram has been general. In string theory, however, the consistency under the quantum corrections demands further conditions which is called the modular invariance conditions. In this case, the unbroken group by the shift vectors is more restricted. The search for the groups via shift vectors was the original motivation for introducing the orbifold compactification dhvw  in physics. In fact, these root systems naturally arise from the heterotic string ghmr . Here, we employ the bosonic string description. A string state excited by an oscillator describes a Cartan generator in Eq. (2). The momentum and winding states around the compact dimension, which describe “charged bosons” under this Cartan generator describe roots in Eq. (1). The modular invariance condition restricts the relations among these states.

By orbifolding we identify the space (in the compact dimension coordinate $`z_m=x_{2m}+ix_{2m+1}`$)

$$z_mz_me^{2\pi i\varphi _m}$$

Similarly shift vector is defined on the group space

$$z_nz_ne^{2\pi iv_n}$$

By the definition of order, $`N`$ successive twist is identity operation, hence

$$N\varphi _m=Nv_n=0(\mathrm{mod}2),$$

where the modulo 2 condition results for the case of spinorial states, e.g. in the $`E_8\times E_8^{}`$ theory.

Here, the modular invariance condition dhvw  for the orbifold restricts the form of the shift vector. Constraining the discussion on the abelian orbifold, i.e. when the orbifold action is commutative imnq  then the only necessity from the modular invariance condition dhvw  is that under $`\tau \tau +1`$. In terms of the shift vectors $`\varphi `$ and $`V`$, we have

$`(N\varphi )^2`$ $`=(NV)^2,(\text{mod }2N)`$ (26)
where

$`(NV)^2`$ $`=({\displaystyle s_i\gamma _i})^2`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}s_iA_{ij}^1s_j`$ (27)
$`=sA^1s,`$
where the dot product between two vectors in the Dynkin basis is understood. In this basis, we can easily read off the modular invariance condition from the inverse Cartan matrix $`A^1`$. This is especially useful in implementing the procedure into the computer code. For a concrete form of the Cartan matrix, see georgi .

### V.1 Wilson lines

The presence of Wilson lines changes the modular invariance condition dhvw . In addition to Eq. (26), we have the condition for each Wilson line shift $`a_i`$,

$$(N\varphi )^2=(NV+Nm_ia_i)^2(\text{mod }2N).$$

Here, by the point group action as well as the lattice translation by $`m_i`$, the Wilson-line-shifted vector is made coincident to another shift vector. Since we have no preference on the choice of reference lattice axis, we can always set $`m_i`$ to be 1. Therefore, one can show that this can be simply restated as,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill NVa_i& =\text{integer},\hfill \\ \hfill Na_ia_j& =\text{integer},(ij).\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
This can be written in the Dynkin basis as,

$$w_iA^1s=0\text{(mod }N),$$

and

$$w_iA^1w_j=0\text{(mod }N,ij).$$

In the presence of more than one Wilson line, these conditions constrain the theory severely and reduce drastically the number of possibilities.

In the $`E_8\times E_8^{}`$ heterotic string, we can independently consider two sectors independently. When we focus on the “visible” sector only, the modular invariance condition is loosened, because we can put the unwanted shift vector components into the hidden sector. For the modular invariance, the full rank–16 group must be considered for the condition (26). However, physics of the hidden sector is still important. When we consider twisted sectors, generally multiplets are hung on both sectors.

It is easily checked that these modular invariance conditions are not spoiled by the automorphisms of the group. As seen in TABLE 2, therefore the same groups that come from the equivalent breaking survive together if one survives.

## VI Classification scheme

From the above construction, we can classify which group emerges when we orbifold. The general strategy for obtaining an orbifolded unbroken group is the following:

1. Determine the number of compact dimensions and the orbifold which determines the order $`N`$ of the shift.
2. Find all possible shift vector $`v`$ having the coefficient $`s_i`$ which satisfies Eq.(15) for given order $`N`$, for single gauge group $`E_8`$.
3. The allowed shift vector $`V`$ for $`E_8\times E_8`$ can be selected from the combination of two shift vectors for single $`E_8`$ by requiring the modular invariance condition (26).
4. The surviving gauge group for the chosen shift vector can be read off from the extended Dynkin diagram using the method explained in this paper.
5. Whenever we add Wilson line $`a_i`$, repeat the process from step 2, using Eq.(23) this time.

We note the merits of this procedure,

* Simple and intuitive.
* Complete classificiation: We can take into account all the symmetries from a given group.
* Easy to find the origin of a symmetry: We can see pictorially which symmetry comes from which group. From the example we presented earlier, the origin of $`SU(3)^3`$ from $`E_6`$ is easily seen.

Since the above procedure is easily implementable in the computer program, we will present the classification tables of unbroken groups with shift vectors and Wilson lines, including the matter spectrum, in a separate publicationchk .

In this paper, we set out the rules for finding out all the unbroken gauge groups with all the possible shift vectors and Wilson lines. The main point of the procedure we proposed is that we can exhaust the Weyl reflection symmetry by requiring the shift vectors and the Wilson lines to be the standard form for each subgroup, which is still simple enough to read off the surviving gauge group from the extended Dynkin diagram at the same time. Since we obtain all the allowed gauge groups with shift vectors and Wilson lines, the search for models with different sets of chiral matters within a given gauge group is much more simplified and tractable. It is even straight forward to identify the untwisted and twisted matter representations for every possible orbifold models, since we have done the classification of the Weyl-non-equivalent shift vectors and Wilson lines, if needed by the aid of the computer programchk .

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the Physikalisches Institut of the Universität Bonn for the hospitality extended to us during our visit when this work was completed. This work is supported in part by the KOSEF Sundo Grant(2002), the BK21 program of Ministry of Education, and Korea Research Foundation Grant No. KRF-PBRG-2002-070-C00022.