text:
# Distillable entanglement in 𝑑⊗𝑑 dimension

## 1 Introduction

Entanglement is believed to be a genuine resource for quantum computation and teleportation. Entanglement shows up in composite quantum systems where subsystems do not have pure states of their own. This is a strict quantum phenomena with no classical analogue. However it is highly nontrivial to keep such entangled states away from the effect of the environment. The environment destroys “part” of such entanglement. The residual entanglement could be purified or distilled to give maximally entangled states. The maximally entangled states (MES), among which there is singlet states, can be taken as the basic unit to quantifying entanglement. The distillation process uses only local operation (e.g. unitary transformation) and classical communication (e.g. phone calls) known as LOCC. Different LOCC processes could give different number of singlet MES or states that could be transformed into singlet state. The maximum number of singlet MES is the distillable entanglement. Distillable entanglement is of major importance in quantum information processing, the transmission of a pure state through a noisy channel introduces noise  to the initial pure state and the state becomes mixed. Therefore it is important to know the distillable entanglement of the state after transmission.
For pure bipartite states there is a widely acceptable measure of entanglement, the Von Neumann entropy. Whereas for mixed states111A mixed state is entangled if it cannot be represented as a mixture of unentangled pure states. different quantities are proposed as a measure of the degree of entanglement. Few of these quantities survive nowaday, among the acceptable degrees of entanglement is the distillable entanglement $`E_d`$ and the relative entropy of entanglement $`E_r`$ . The later is an upper bound for the former . This upper bound will be used to calculate $`E_d`$. Hence our strategy in evaluating the distillable entanglement will be

Number of singlet MES $``$ $`E_d`$ $``$ $`E_r`$.

To saturate the lower bound we use discrimination of orthogonal MES by LOCC as a distillation procedure. It should be mentioned that any orthogonal states $`|\psi `$ and $`|\varphi `$ could be discriminated perfectly by global measurement, since they satisfy the necessary condition for discrimination $`\varphi |\psi =0`$. Walgate et al.  have shown that two orthogonal pure states can always be discriminated by LOCC without need for global measurements. However two orthogonal entangled states can be discriminated by LOCC if only one copy is provided. Recently, Ghosh et al.  have generalized this result, by using the teleportation protocol of , and proved that $`d`$ pairwise orthogonal MES in $`dd`$ (spin $`(d1)/2`$ particles) can always be discriminated by LOCC with a single copy provided.
Following the outlined strategy of saturating the lower and upper bound for $`E_d`$ and based on the above results of discrimination in $`dd`$, we will consider two classes of mixtures of orthogonal MES in $`dd`$, and evaluate their $`E_d`$.

## 2 Four-party state

The first class of states we consider is the generalization of the state studied in

$$\rho =\frac{1}{d}\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_i|_{AB}|\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_i|_{CD},$$
(1)
where the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ are any $`d`$ pairwise orthogonal MES chosen out of the $`d^2`$ orthogonal MES, $`\{|\psi _{nm}`$; $`n,m=0,1,\mathrm{},d1\}`$, in $`dd`$ defined by

$$|\psi _{nm}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}e^{2\pi ijn/d}|j|(j+m)\mathrm{mod}d,$$
(2)
where $`\{|j`$; $`j=0,1,\mathrm{},d1\}`$ is the standard orthogonal basis of the $`d`$-dimensional Hilbert space. $`\rho `$ could be understood as a four party state where $`A`$ and $`B`$ share one of the $`d`$ orthonormal MES, but don’t know which one (all terms are equally weighted by $`1/d`$), and $`C`$ and $`D`$ share the same MES, also not knowing which state they are sharing.

As in , in order to compute the distillable entanglement of $`\rho `$ we will use the relative entropy of entanglement for an entangled quantum state $`\sigma `$ defined as

$$E_r(\sigma )=\underset{\sigma ^{}𝒟}{\mathrm{min}}S(\sigma ||\sigma ^{}),$$
(3)
where $`𝒟`$ is the set of all separable states on the Hilbert space on which $`\sigma `$ is defined and $`S(\sigma ||\sigma ^{})=\mathrm{Tr}\{\sigma (\mathrm{log}_2\sigma \mathrm{log}_2\sigma ^{})\}`$ is the relative entropy of $`\sigma `$ with respect to $`\sigma ^{}`$.

The relative entropy of entanglement for $`\rho `$ could be found by computing the relative entropy of $`\rho `$ with respect to the equal combination of all the $`d^2`$ MES:

$$\rho ^S=\frac{1}{d^2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{d^2}{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_i|_{AB}|\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_i|_{CD}.$$
(4)
We will show that $`\rho ^S`$ minimizes $`S(\rho ||\rho ^{})`$ over $`\rho ^{}𝒟`$. What is particular about $`\rho ^S`$ is that it is separable across all two party cuts, $`AC:BD`$, $`AD:BC`$ and by construction across $`AB:CD`$ (see  for the bipartite case, the generalization to multipartite case is straight forward). Hence the relative entropy of entanglement for $`\rho `$ across $`AC:BD`$ cut is

$$E_r(\rho )S(\rho ||\rho ^S)=\mathrm{log}_2d.$$
(5)
However the distillable entanglement is bounded above by $`E_r(\rho )`$ , so $`E_d(\rho )\mathrm{log}_2d`$. But it has been shown  that it is possible to distinguish between the $`d`$ orthogonal MES by only LOCC if one copy of the state is provided. C and D can then know which state they have by LOCC and hence enabling $`A`$ and $`B`$ to know with certainty which Bell state they share, which could then be transformed by local operation into a singlet state, this corresponds to $`\mathrm{log}_2d`$ ebit222For the bipartite case a 1 ebit describes any quantum system which contains entanglement equivalent to that of a singlet. However a multipartite MES of two subsystems A and B has $`d`$ equally weighted terms in its Schmidt decomposition, giving $`\mathrm{log}_2d`$ of entanglement., hence the distillable entanglement of $`\rho `$ in $`AC:BD`$ cut is at least $`\mathrm{log}_2d`$ ($`E_d(\rho )\mathrm{log}_2d),`$ from the lower and upper bound for $`E_d`$ we deduce that

$$E_d(\rho )=\mathrm{log}_2d.$$
(6)
This result is a generalization for the bipartite case

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_i|_{AB}|\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_i|_{CD},$$
(7)
where the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ is one of the four Bell states

$`\psi _{00}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|00+|11,`$
$`\psi _{01}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|01+|10,`$
$`\psi _{11}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|01|10,`$
$`\psi _{10}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|00|11,`$ (8)
and the distillable entanglement in this case is $`E_d(\rho )=1`$ ebit as found in .

## 3 Multi-copy Bill state

The second class of state we will study is the multi-copy Bill state defined by

$$\rho _n=\frac{1}{d^2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{d^2}{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_i^n\mathrm{\Psi }_i|,$$
(9)
where each biparty among the $`n`$-biparties333not to be confused with bipartite shares one of the $`d^2`$ orthogonal MES, with an equal probability. To compute the distillable entanglement of $`\rho _n`$ we will use the method described in  (for the $`2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ case).
For $`n=1,2`$ the state $`\rho _n`$ is separable  and hence the distillable entanglement is zero.
When $`n`$ is even: $`n=2m`$ with $`m>1`$ the separable state $`\rho _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}`$ could be used to optimize the relative entropy of $`\rho _{2m}`$. Indeed,

$$E_d(\rho _{2m})S(\rho _{2m}||\rho _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{m})=(2m2)\mathrm{log}_2d.$$
(10)
However, it has been shown  that two copies are necessary and sufficient to discriminate between $`d^2`$ orthogonal MES and hence any two biparties from the $`2m`$ biparties can use their two copies of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ to determine which state they have initially shared and hence distill $`(2m2)\mathrm{log}_2d`$ ebit between the remaining $`2m2`$ biparties. So the distillation entanglement is at least $`(2m2)\mathrm{log}_2d`$. Combining this with Eq. (10) we get

$$E_d(\rho _{2m})=(2m2)\mathrm{log}_2d.$$
(11)
For odd $`n`$: $`n=2m+1`$, an additional step is needed. We first use the fact that one can always decompose $`\rho _{2m+1}^2`$ into two copies of the optimal decomposition of $`\rho _{2m+1}`$, i.e. $`2E_r(\rho _{2m+1})E_r(\rho _{2m+1}^2)`$. Then the relative entropy of $`\rho _{2m+1}^2`$ is evaluated with respect to $`\rho _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2m+1}`$, which is separable:

$$E_r(\rho _{2m+1}^2)S(\rho _{2m+1}^2||\rho _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2m+1})=(4m2)\mathrm{log}_2d,$$
(12)
hence, the distillable entanglement of $`\rho _{2m+1}`$ is bounded above as

$$E_d(\rho _{2m+1})E_r(\rho _{2m+1})\frac{1}{2}S(\rho _{2m+1}^2||\rho _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2m+1})=(2m1)\mathrm{log}_2d.$$
(13)
Again, using two copies, out of the $`2m+1`$ copies, to distinguish between the $`d^2`$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$’s we get the lower bound

$$E_d(\rho _{2m+1})(2m+12)\mathrm{log}_2d=(2m1)\mathrm{log}_2d.$$

The lower and upper bound for $`E_d`$ give

$$E_d(\rho _{2m+1})=(2m1)\mathrm{log}_2d.$$
(14)
Here we do not venture to conjecture any statement concerning the additivity of the relative entropy of entanglement for the multipartite case, this will be investigated further in a future work.
Finally, combining the even and odd $`n`$ cases, the distillable entanglement of $`\rho _n`$ in $`dd`$ is

$$E_d(\rho _n)=(n2)\mathrm{log}_2d.$$
(15)
This is a generalization of the $`d=2`$ case, studied in , where $`E_{d=2}(\rho _n)=n2`$. Again discrimination is shown to be an optimal distillation procedure.

## 4 Conclusion

In this note we have made a generalization to $`dd`$ of the results found in  and  for the distillable entanglement of the four-party state Eq. (1) and the multi-copy Bell state Eq. (9) respectively. Discrimination was used as distillation procedure and was shown to be optimal, for the specific studied classes of states.
A natural extension to our work would be the study of more than $`d`$ states for the first class of states we used. For more than $`d`$ state mixtures discrimination is no longer a good candidate for distillation (a mixture of $`d+1`$ states can not be discriminated with one copy provided ). Another important issue is the distillation entanglement of orthogonal partially entangled mixtures, this will be addressed a in future work.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank G. Kunstatter for carful reading of this manuscript. The work of H. Z. was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking is one of the important features in low-energy QCD. This symmetry breaking is expected to be restored in hot and/or dense QCD and properties of hadrons will be changed near the critical temperature of the chiral symmetry restoration . The CERN Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) observed an enhancement of dielectron ($`e^+e^{}`$) mass spectra below the $`\rho /\omega `$ resonance. This can be explained by the dropping mass of the $`\rho `$ meson (see, e.g., Refs. ) following the Brown-Rho scaling proposed in Ref. . Further the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) has started to measure several physical processes in hot matter which include the dilepton energy spectra. Therefore it is interesting to study the vector meson mass including the all possible thermal effects, which is one of the important quantities in the chiral phase transition.

For studying the vector meson mass in hot matter, it is convenient to use a model including the vector meson in a manner consistent with the chiral symmetry. One of such models is the model based on the hidden local symmetry (HLS) which successfully describes the systems including the pions and vector mesons at zero temperature . In the framework of HLS, the vector meson is introduced as the gauge boson into the system and acquires its mass through the Higgs mechanism. Based on the chiral perturbation theory (ChPT) with HLS, the Wilsonian matching was proposed . This is a manner which determines the parameters of the HLS Lagrangian from the underlying QCD at the matching scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Recently in Ref. , by using the Wilsonian matching, the vector manifestation (VM) was proposed as a novel manifestation of the chiral symmetry in the Wigner realization, in which the chiral symmetry is restored by the massless degenerate pion (and its flavor partners) and vector meson (and its flavor partners) as the chiral partner. (For a review of the ChPT with HLS, the Wilsonian matching and VM, see Ref. .)

In Ref. , we extended the Wilsonian matching to the one at non-zero temperature and showed that the VM actually occurs at the critical temperature of the chiral symmetry restoration. There, the intrinsic temperature dependences of the parameters of the HLS Lagrangian play the essential roles to realize the chiral symmetry restoration consistently: In the framework of the HLS the equality between the axial-vector and vector current correlators at critical point can be satisfied only if the intrinsic thermal effects are included. Since the VM is a new picture which realizes the dropping mass of the vector meson such as the one predicted by the Brown-Rho scaling , it is important to study what the VM predicts on the properties of the pion and vector mesons in hot matter.

In this talk, we shed a light on the validity of the vector dominance (VD) in hot matter. In several analyses such as the one on the dilepton spectra in hot matter done in Ref , the VD is assumed to be held even in the high temperature region. However, the analysis in Ref. , which shows that the thermal vector meson mass goes up if the VD holds, seems to imply that the assumption of the VD excludes the possibility of the dropping mass of the vector meson from the beginning. In the present analysis, we present a new prediction of the VM in hot matter on the direct photon-$`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ coupling which measures the validity of the VD of the electromagnetic form factor of the pion. We find that the VM predicts the large violation of the VD at the critical temperature . This indicates that the assumption of the VD may need to be weakened, at least in some amounts, for consistently including the effect of the dropping mass of the vector meson.

## 2 Hidden Local Symmetry

In this section, we briefly review the model based on the hidden local symmetry (HLS).

The HLS model is based on the $`G_{\mathrm{global}}\times H_{\mathrm{local}}`$ symmetry, where $`G=SU(N_f)_L\times SU(N_f)_R`$ is the chiral symmetry and $`H=SU(N_f)_V`$ is the HLS. The basic quantities are the HLS gauge boson $`V_\mu `$ and two matrix valued variables $`\xi _L(x)`$ and $`\xi _R(x)`$ which transform as

$$\xi _{L,R}(x)\xi _{L,R}^{}(x)=h(x)\xi _{L,R}(x)g_{L,R}^{},$$
(1)
where $`h(x)H_{\mathrm{local}}\text{and}g_{L,R}[\text{SU}(N_f)_{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}]_{\mathrm{global}}`$. These variables are parameterized as

$$\xi _{L,R}(x)=e^{i\sigma (x)/F_\sigma }e^{i\pi (x)/F_\pi },$$
(2)
where $`\pi =\pi ^aT_a`$ denotes the pseudoscalar Nambu-Goldstone bosons associated with the spontaneous symmetry breaking of $`G_{\mathrm{global}}`$ chiral symmetry, and $`\sigma =\sigma ^aT_a`$ denotes the Nambu-Goldstone bosons associated with the spontaneous breaking of $`H_{\mathrm{local}}`$. This $`\sigma `$ is absorbed into the HLS gauge boson through the Higgs mechanism, and then the vector meson acquires its mass. $`F_\pi \text{and}F_\sigma `$ are the decay constants of the associated particles. The phenomenologically important parameter $`a`$ is defined as

$$a=\frac{F_{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{F_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}.$$
(3)
The covariant derivatives of $`\xi _{L,R}`$ are given by

$`D_\mu \xi _L`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \xi _LiV_\mu \xi _L+i\xi _L_\mu ,`$
$`D_\mu \xi _R`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \xi _RiV_\mu \xi _R+i\xi _R_\mu ,`$ (4)
where $`V_\mu `$ is the gauge field of $`H_{\mathrm{local}}`$, and $`_\mu \text{and}_\mu `$ are the external gauge fields introduced by gauging $`G_{\mathrm{global}}`$ symmetry.

The HLS Lagrangian with lowest derivative terms at the chiral limit is given by

$$=F_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\text{tr}\left[\widehat{\alpha }_\mu \widehat{\alpha }_{}^\mu \right]+F_{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\text{tr}\left[\widehat{\alpha }_\mu \widehat{\alpha }_{}^\mu \right]\frac{1}{2g^2}\text{tr}\left[V_{\mu \nu }V^{\mu \nu }\right],$$
(5)
where $`g`$ is the HLS gauge coupling, $`V_{\mu \nu }`$ is the field strength of $`V_\mu `$ and

$`\widehat{\alpha }_{}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}\left[D^\mu \xi _R\xi _R^{}D^\mu \xi _L\xi _L^{}\right],`$
$`\widehat{\alpha }_{}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}\left[D^\mu \xi _R\xi _R^{}+D^\mu \xi _L\xi _L^{}\right].`$ (6)
Expanding the Lagrangian (5) in terms of the $`\pi `$ field with taking the unitary gauge of the HLS ($`\sigma =0`$), we find the expressions for the mass of vector meson $`M_\rho `$, $`\rho \pi \pi `$ coupling $`g_{\rho \pi \pi }`$, $`\rho `$-$`\gamma `$ mixing strength $`g_\rho `$ and direct $`\gamma \pi \pi `$ coupling $`g_{\gamma \pi \pi }`$. Especially $`g_{\gamma \pi \pi }`$ coupling constant is expressed as

$`g_{\gamma \pi \pi }=e\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}\right).`$ (7)
By taking the parameter choice $`a=2`$, the HLS reproduces the following phenomenological facts : $`g_{\rho \pi \pi }=g`$ (universality of the $`\rho `$ coupling) ; $`M_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=2g_{\rho \pi \pi }^2F_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ (the KSRF relation, version II) ; $`g_{\gamma \pi \pi }=0`$ (vector dominance of the electromagnetic form factor of the pion) . Note that in framework of the HLS model, the vector dominance (VD) is satisfied by the choice $`a=2`$.

In the HLS model it is possible to perform the derivative expansion systematically . In this ChPT with HLS the vector meson mass is considered as small compared with the chiral symmetry breaking scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$, by assigning $`𝒪(p)`$ to the HLS gauge coupling :

$$g𝒪(p).$$
(8)
For details of the ChPT with HLS, see Ref. .

## 3 Wilsonian Matching in Hot Matter

When we naively extended a result obtained in the low temperature region to the higher temperature region, the axial-vector and vector current correlators do not agree with each other at the critical temperature. Disagreement between these current correlators is obviously inconsistent with the chiral symmetry restoration in QCD. However the parameters of the HLS Lagrangian should be determined by the underlying QCD. Thus it is natural that these parameters are dependent on temperature. In Ref.  the Wilsonian matching, which was originally proposed at $`T=0`$ , was extended to non-zero temperature and it was shown that the parameters of the HLS Lagrangian have the intrinsic temperature dependences. Further in Ref. , it was shown that the effects of Lorentz symmetry violation at bare level are small through the Wilsonian matching at non-zero temperature. As is stressed in Ref. , the disagreement between the axial-vector and vector current correlators mentioned above is cured by including the intrinsic temperature dependences of the parameters of the HLS Lagrangian.

The Wilsonian matching proposed in Ref.  is done by matching the axial-vector and vector current correlators derived from the HLS with those by the operator product expansion (OPE) in QCD at the matching scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In Refs. , this matching scheme was extended to the one at non-zero temperature. Since the Lorentz symmetry breaking effect in the bare pion decay constant is small, $`F_{\pi ,\mathrm{bare}}^tF_{\pi ,\mathrm{bare}}^s`$ , it is a good approximation that we determine the bare pion decay constant at non-zero temperature through the matching condition at zero temperature with putting possible temperature dependences on the gluonic and quark condensates :

$$\frac{F_\pi ^2(\mathrm{\Lambda };T)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\left[1+\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }+\frac{2\pi ^2}{3}\frac{\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }_T}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}+\pi ^3\frac{1408}{27}\frac{\alpha _s\overline{q}q_T^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}\right].$$
(9)
Through this condition the temperature dependences of the quark and gluonic condensates determine the intrinsic temperature dependences of the bare parameter $`F_\pi (\mathrm{\Lambda };T)`$, which is then converted into those of the on-shell parameter $`F_\pi (\mu =0;T)`$ through the Wilsonian RGEs.

Now we consider the Wilsonian matching near the critical temperature with assuming that the quark condensate becomes zero for $`TT_c`$. As was discussed in Ref. , we can use the Lorentz invariant Lagrangian at bare level as long as we study the pion decay constant and validity of VD. Then we start from the Lorentz invariant bare Lagrangian even in hot matter. The agreement between the current correlators, which characterizes the chiral symmetry restoraion, $`G_A^{(\mathrm{HLS})}=G_V^{(\mathrm{HLS})}`$ is satisfied only if the following conditions are met :

$`g(\mathrm{\Lambda };T)`$ $`\stackrel{TT_c}{}`$ $`0,`$
$`a(\mathrm{\Lambda };T)`$ $`\stackrel{TT_c}{}`$ $`1.`$ (10)
Note that $`(g,a)=(0,1)`$ is the fixed point of RGEs for $`g`$ and $`a`$ . This implies that the parameter $`M_\rho `$ goes to zero for $`TT_c`$:

$$M_\rho \stackrel{TT_c}{}0.$$
(11)
Including the hadronic thermal effects as well as quantum corrections through the RGEs, we obtain the physical quantities. Near the critical temperature, we find that the pole mass of the vector meson is the form

$$m_\rho ^2(T)M_\rho ^2\left[1+\delta _{(\mathrm{had})}(T)\right],$$
(12)
where the hadronic correction is obtained as

$$\delta _{(\mathrm{had})}(T)=N_f\frac{15a^2}{144a}\frac{1}{F_\pi ^2}T^2>0.$$
(13)
i.e., the hadronic thermal effect gives a positive correction near $`T_c`$. However the pole mass $`m_\rho `$ goes to zero by vanishing parameter $`M_\rho `$ at the critical temperature and the vector manifestation (VM) of chiral symmetry is realized .

## 4 Vector Manifestation of Chiral Symmetry

The VM is highly in contrast with the standard chiral symmetry restoration based on the linear sigma model. In order to clarify this difference, we consider the multiplet structure. In the broken phase, the chiral representation does not agree with the mass eigenstate and there exists a mixing. Then the scalar, pseudoscalar, vector and axial-vector mesons belong to the following representations for $`N_f=3`$ respectively:

$`|s`$ $`=`$ $`|(3,3^{})(3^{},3),`$
$`|\pi `$ $`=`$ $`|(3,3^{})(3^{},3)\mathrm{sin}\psi +|(1,8)(8,1)\mathrm{cos}\psi ,`$
$`|\rho `$ $`=`$ $`|(1,8)(8,1),`$
$`|A_1`$ $`=`$ $`|(3,3^{})(3^{},3)\mathrm{cos}\psi |(1,8)(8,1)\mathrm{sin}\psi ,`$ (14)
where $`\psi `$ denotes the mixing angle and is given by $`\psi 45^{}`$ .

Now we consider the chiral symmetry restoration, where it is expected that the above mixing disappears. There are two possibilities of chiral symmetry realization. One possible pattern is the case $`\mathrm{cos}\psi 0`$ for $`TT_c`$. In this case, the pion belongs to $`|(3,3^{})(3^{},3)`$ and becomes the chiral partner of the scalar meson. The vector and axial-vector mesons are in the same multiplet $`|(1,8)(8,1)`$. This is of course the standard scenario of chiral symmetry restoration. Another possibility is the case $`\mathrm{sin}\psi 0`$ for $`TT_c`$ . In this case, the pion belongs to purely $`|(1,8)(8,1)`$ and so its chiral partner is the vector meson:

$`|\pi `$ $`=`$ $`|(1,8)(8,1),`$
$`|\rho `$ $`=`$ $`|(1,8)(8,1)\text{for}\mathrm{sin}\psi 0.`$ (15)
The scalar meson joins with the axial-vector meson in the same representation $`|(3,3^{})(3^{},3)`$. This is nothing but the VM of chiral symmetry.

## 5 Violation of the Vector Dominance

As we mentioned in introduction, in Ref. , we studied the validity of the vector dominance (VD) which describes the phenomena in low energy region very well. At non-zero temperature there exists the hadronic thermal correction to the parameters. Thus it is nontrivial whether or not the VD is realized in hot matter, especially near the critical temperature. Here we will show that the intrinsic temperature dependences of the parameters of the HLS Lagrangian play essential roles, and then the VD is largely violated near the critical temperature.

We first mention the direct $`\gamma \pi \pi `$ interaction at zero temperature. At the leading order of the derivative expansion in the HLS, we can read the form of the direct $`\gamma \pi \pi `$ interaction from Eq. (5) as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \pi \pi (\mathrm{tree})}^\mu =e(qk)^\mu (1\frac{a}{2}),$$
(16)
where $`e`$ is the electromagnetic coupling constant and $`q`$ and $`k`$ denote outgoing momenta of the pions. As we have mentioned in section 2, for the parameter choice $`a=2`$ the direct $`\gamma \pi \pi `$ coupling vanishes, which leads to the vector dominance of the electromagnetic form factor of the pion.

Next we evaluate the $`\gamma \pi \pi `$ coupling including quantum corrections as well as hadronic thermal effects. We obtained the parameters $`a^t(T)`$ and $`a^s(T)`$ which are the extension of the parameter $`a`$ in hot matter, in low temperature region $`(TM_\rho )`$ as follows:

$$a^t(T)a^s(T)a(0)\left[1+\frac{N_f}{12}\left(1\frac{a^2}{4a(0)}\right)\frac{T^2}{F_\pi ^2(0;T)}\right],$$
(17)
where $`a`$ is the parameter renormalized at the scale $`\mu =M_\rho `$, while $`a(0)`$ is the parameter defined from the $`\gamma \pi \pi `$ interaction at one-loop order. By using $`F_\pi (0)=86.4\text{MeV}`$, $`a(0)2.31`$ and $`a(M_\rho )=1.38`$ obtained through the Wilsonian matching for $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}},\mathrm{\Lambda })=(0.4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.1})\text{GeV}`$ and $`N_f=3`$ , $`a^t`$ and $`a^s`$ in Eq. (17) are evaluated as

$$a^t(T)a^s(T)a(0)\left[1+0.066\left(\frac{T}{50\text{MeV}}\right)^2\right].$$
(18)
This implies that the parameters $`a^t`$ and $`a^s`$ increase with temperature in the low temperature region. However, since the correction is small, we conclude that the VD is still satisfied in the low temperature region.

When we consider the situation near the critical temperature, the intrinsic thermal effects are important. From the VM conditions in hot matter (10), the parameters $`(g,a)`$ approach $`(0,1)`$ for $`TT_c`$ by the intrinsic temperature dependences. Taking the limit $`TT_c`$, we find that

$$a^t(T),a^s(T)\stackrel{TT_c}{}1.$$
(19)
This implies that the vector dominance is largely violated near the critical temperature.

## 6 Summary

In the picture based on the vector manifestation (VM), we presented a new prediction associated with the validity of vector dominance (VD) in hot matter . In the HLS model at zero temperature, the Wilsonian matching predicts $`a2`$  which guarantees the VD of the electromagnetic form factor of the pion. Even at non-zero temperature, this is valid as long as we consider the thermal effects in the low temperature region, where the intrinsic temperature dependences are negligible. However the situation is changed when we consider the validity of the VD in higher temperature region. We showed that, as a consequence of including the intrinsic effect, the VD is largely violated at the critical temperature. In general, full temperature dependences include both hadronic and intrinsic thermal effects. Then there exist the violations of VD and universality of the $`\rho `$-coupling at generic temperature, although at low temperature the VD and universality are approximately satisfied.

In several analyses such as the one on the dilepton spectra in hot matter done in Ref , the VD is assumed to be held even in the high temperature region. We should note that the analysis in Ref.  shows that, if the VD holds, the thermal vector meson mass goes up. Then the assumption of the VD, from the beginning, seems to exclude the possibility of the dropping mass of the vector meson such as the one predicted by the Brown-Rho scaling . Our result, which is consistent with the result in Ref.  in some sense, indicates that the assumption of the VD may need to be weakened, at least in some amounts, for consistently including the effect of the dropping mass of the vector meson into the analysis.

## Acknowledgment

I would like to appreciate many discussions with Professor Masayasu Harada, Doctor Youngman Kim, Professor Mannque Rho and Professor Koichi Yamawaki for our works.


text:
# ALTERNATIVES TO THE SEESAW: EXTRA 𝑍’S AND CONSTRAINTS ON LARGE EXTRA DIMENSIONS11footnote 1Presented at Neutrinos and Implications for Physics Beyond the Standard Model, Stony Brook, October 2002.

## 1 Introduction

* The GUT seesaw
* Large Extra Dimensions
* Extra $`U(1)^{}`$s
* Implications of $`U(1)^{}`$ for Neutrino Mass
* Primordial Nucleosynthesis
* Natural Decoupling of the $`\nu _R`$
* A Comment on Majorana Phases in Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay

i

## 2 The GUT Seesaw

The grand unified theory seesaw model  is an elegant mechanism for generating small Majorana neutrino masses, which leads fairly easily to masses in the correct range. It also provides a simple framework for leptogenesis , in which the decays of heavy Majorana neutrinos produce a lepton asymmetry, which is later partially converted to a baryon asymmetry by electroweak sphaleron effects.

However, the expectation of the simplest grand unified theories is that the quark and lepton mixings should be comparable and that the neutrino mixings (i.e., the mismatch between the neutrino and charged lepton mixings) should be small, rather than the large mixings that are observed. This can be evaded in more complicated GUTs, e.g., those involving “lopsided” mass matrices , in which there are large mixings in the right-handed charge $`1/3`$ quarks (where it is unobservable) and in the left-handed charged leptons; those with complicated textures  for the heavy Majorana neutrino mass matrix; or in Type II seesaw models involving a Higgs triplet , but the need to do so makes the GUT seesaw concept less compelling. Furthermore, a number of promising extensions of the standard model or MSSM do not allow the canonical GUT seesaw. For example, the large Majorana masses needed are often forbidden, e.g., by extra $`U(1)^{}`$ symmetries predicted in many string constructions and some GUTs. Similarly, it is difficult to accomodate traditional grand unification (especially the needed adjoint and high dimension Higgs multiplets needed for GUT breaking and the seesaw) in simple heterotic string constructions. Such constructions also tend to forbid direct Majorana mass terms and large scales. Finally, the active-sterile neutrino mixing  required in the four-neutrino schemes 222It is difficult to accomodate the data in such schemes. See, for example, ref . motivated by the LSND experiment  is difficult to implement in canonical seesaw schemes.

For all of these reasons it is useful to explore alternatives to the canonical GUT seesaw with small Dirac and/or Majorana masses.

In this talk I will briefly describe some possible alternatives. These include large extra dimensions , which can lead to small (volume-suppressed) Dirac masses ; models involving an extra $`U(1)^{}`$ gauge symmetry broken at the TeV scale, for which small Majorana masses can be generated by an extended “TeV” seesaw mechanism ; models in which small masses (Dirac, Majorana, or both) are generated by higher dimensional operators, such as can occur if an extra $`U(1)^{}`$ is broken at an intermediate scale ; and the implications of a $`U(1)^{}\times U(1)^{}`$ gauge symmetry, which can lead to the decoupling of a TeV-scale $`Z^{}`$ from right-handed neutrinos $`\nu _R`$333Other directions include loop-induced masses  or masses associated with $`R`$-parity breaking in supersymmetry .. I also mention a new detailed calculation of big bang nucleosynthesis constraints on $`U(1)^{}`$ models involving Dirac neutrinos , which motivate the need for $`\nu _R`$ decoupling, and comment on the possibility of observing Majorana phases in neutrinoless double beta decay .

## 3 Large Extra Dimensions

The possibility of extra space dimensions is suggested by string/M theory, which implies 5 or 6 new dimensions, and by bottom-up motivated brane world scenarios. These could all be very small, with radii $`R`$ of order the inverse Planck scale $`R1/\overline{M}_{Pl}`$, where $`\overline{M}_{Pl}=1/\sqrt{8\pi G_N}2.4\times 10^{18}`$ GeV. However, it is possible that at least some of them are larger . A major motivation is the hierarchy problem, i.e., why is $`\overline{M}_{Pl}`$ so much larger than the electroweak scale? One possibility is that the true fundamental scale of nature, $`M_F`$, is much smaller than $`\overline{M}_{Pl}`$, e.g., $`M_F1100`$ TeV, and that there are $`\delta `$ roughly comparable extra dimensions with a volume $`V_\delta R^\delta `$ that is very large compared to $`M_F^\delta `$ (note that this introduces a new hierarchy problem to explain why $`R`$ is so large). Gravity is modified on scales smaller than $`R`$, so that

$$\overline{M}_{Pl}^2=M_F^{2+\delta }V_\delta M_F^2.$$
(1)
For $`M_F=100`$ TeV, this implies $`R10^8`$ cm for $`\delta =1`$, which is clearly excluded, or $`R5\times 10^6`$ cm for $`\delta =2`$. These ideas could be implemented in a brane scenario in which the gravitons propagate in the extra-dimensional bulk, and the other matter fields are confined to four-dimensional branes. The implications for the production or exchange of gravitons and their Kaluza-Klein excitations (of mass $`k/R,k=1,\mathrm{})`$ at colliders as well as in cosmology and supernovae have been studied extensively . Cavendish-type laboratory experiments imply that the largest extra dimension is smaller than around 0.02 cm , with a future sensitivity to around 0.005 cm.

A number of authors  have discussed the implications of large extra dimensions for neutrino masses in a scenario in which one extra dimension is much larger than the other $`\delta 1`$ (but still allowing the other dimensions to be much larger than $`M_F^1`$). The idea is that sterile ($`SU(2)`$-singlet) neutrinos $`N_{L,R}`$ could propagate in the bulk along with gravitons, with other matter confined to the brane444This does not occur in most specific string constructions, however. Rather, the $`N_R`$ are generally confined to branes.. One of the $`N_R`$ becomes the right-handed partner of an active ($`SU(2)`$-doublet) neutrino on the brane. The advantage is that the Dirac mass coupling the active neutrino to its partner is suppressed by a volume factor, so that it is naturally small, i.e.,

$$m_DhvM_F/\overline{M}_{Pl},$$
(2)
where $`h`$ is a Yukawa coupling and $`v`$ is the electroweak scale. For $`h1`$ and $`M_F`$ 100 TeV this yields $`m_D`$ around $`10^2`$ eV. Unfortunately, no light is shed on the family structure, mass hierarachy, or mixings. In addition to predicting a small (or even too small) Dirac mass, such schemes predict the existence of Kaluza-Klein excitations of the sterile $`N_{L,R}`$, with masses around $`k/R`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{}`$. For $`R^1>`$ O(1 eV), for example, $`R<`$ O($`10^5`$ cm). These excitations are sterile, leading to the possibility of oscillations of active neutrinos into these sterile states. Unlike most other schemes for active-sterile oscillations , however, there is a conserved lepton number, at least in the simplest versions, so that there would be no neutrinoless double beta decay555Active-sterile oscillations require the existence of two types of mass terms of comparable magnitude: the Higgs-generated Dirac masses coupling active and sterile states, and mass terms connecting sterile neutrinos. In most other models, the latter are given by Majorana masses, but in the present case they are the lepton number-conserving Kaluza Klein masses..

Some of the early papers attempted to interpret the atmospheric and/or Solar neutrino oscillations as active into sterile. This is no longer viable in view of Superkamiokande, MACRO, and SNO data. Also, some authors have combined the notion of small Dirac masses from large dimensions with Majorana mass terms generated by some other mechanism. In  we analyzed a minimal viable scheme in which there are three active neutrinos on the brane and three sterile neutrinos, with their towers of Kaluza-Klein excitations, in the bulk, and in which the only mass terms in the effective four-dimensional theory were the lepton number conserving but naturally small Dirac masses and the Kaluza-Klein masses. The Solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations were assumed to be primarily due to the dominant active-active oscillations. The only roles of the extra dimensions were (a) to provide a natural explanation for small Dirac masses (but not to explain the details of the mass hierarchy and mixings), and (b) to allow subdominant active to Kaluza-Klein sterile transitions as a perturbation. Results from reactor, accelerator, Solar, and atmospheric experiments were used to constrain the amount of active-sterile mixing, and therefore to bound the radius $`R`$ of the largest dimension in these schemes. The results in Table 1, taken from , assuming hierarchical, inverted, and degenerate mass patterns, are quite stringent. For the hierarchical scheme, $`R>8.2\times 10^5`$ cm and $`1/R<0.24`$ eV, with stronger constraints for the other mass patterns. These limits are stronger than those obtainable in Cavendish type experiments (which, however, are still relevant in schemes not involving sterile neutrinos in the bulk), and weaker than but complementary to constraints from cosmology  and supernova energy loss .

One of the motivations of the study was to generalize the marginally-successful $`3+1`$ schemes  proposed to accomodate the LSND results, with multiple sterile states. However, despite the large number of sterile Kaluza-Klein excitations, this simplest scheme cannot accomodate the LSND results because of cancellations between the effects of mixings with the sterile states in the three Kaluza-Klein towers. More complicated schemes are still possible .

## 4 Extra $`U(1)^{}`$s

Additional heavy $`Z^{}`$ gauge bosons  are predicted in many superstring  and grand unified  theories, and also in models of dynamical symmetry breaking . If present at a scale of a TeV or so they could provide a solution666This has the advantage of not introducing the undesirable domain walls generally found in the NMSSM , in which the effective $`\mu `$ term is generated by the expectation value of a new standard model singlet but there is no $`U(1)^{}`$ gauge symmetry. to the $`\mu `$ problem  and other problems of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) . This can be implemented in both supergravity  and gauge-mediated models of supersymmetry breaking . Current limits from collider  and precision  experiments are model dependent, but generally imply that $`M_Z^{}>(500800)`$ GeV and that the $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing angle is smaller than a few $`\times 10^3`$. A $`Z^{}`$could be relevant to the NuTeV experiment  and, if the couplings are not family universal , to the anomalous value of the forward-backward asymmetry $`A_{FB}^b`$ . Earlier hints of a discrepancy in atomic parity violation  have largely disappeared due to improved calculations of radiative corrections . A $`Z^{}`$ lighter than a TeV or so should be observable at Run II at the Tevatron. Future colliders should be able to observe a $`Z^{}`$ with mass up to around 5 TeV and perform diagnostics on the couplings up to a few TeV .

The $`E_6`$ grand unified group contains two extra $`U(1)^{}`$ factors, one or both of which could survive to low energies. However, canonical grand unification is unlikely to lead to a TeV-scale $`Z^{}`$ because (a) there is no special reason for the $`Z^{}`$ to be light without a second fine-tuning, (b) chiral colored scalars with masses at the $`Z^{}`$ scale would mediate too rapid proton decay unless the $`E_6`$ Yukawa relations are broken. The latter could occur if the larger group were broken by underlying string or higher-dimensional effects. In any case, $`E_6`$ $`U(1)^{}`$ models are generally viewed simply as examples of anomaly-free $`U(1)^{}`$ gauge couplings for the ordinary particles and for the new exotic particles that are typically present in $`U(1)^{}`$ theories, and not as full grand unified theories .

Detailed quasi-realistic heterotic  and open-string  constructions (including the analysis of the relevant flat directions ) usually lead to additional $`U(1)^{}`$ gauge factors and associated exotic chiral supermultiplets. These typically survive to the TeV scale  777The natural expectation is $`M_Z^{}M_Z`$. A TeV scale $`Z^{}`$can occur by a moderate tuning of parameters , or more naturally if the breaking would occur along a direction that becomes flat in the limit in which a small Yukawa coupling vanishes ., although some flat directions allow breaking at an intermediate scale (e.g., $`10^{12}`$ GeV) if the spectrum of the theory allows breaking along a $`F`$ and $`D`$-flat direction . The $`Z^{}`$ couplings are typically family-nonuniversal, which could have implications for $`A_{FB}^b`$ , and lead to associated flavor changing $`Z^{}`$ and (including $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing) $`Z`$ couplings . The experimental constraints from $`K`$ and $`\mu `$ decays imply that the couplings of the first two families are most likely universal, but non-universality for the third family could be of importance for $`B`$ and $`\tau `$ decays, as well as leading to second order effects in $`K`$ decays, $`\mu 3e`$, etc.

## 5 Implications of $`U(1)^{}`$ for Neutrino Mass

Let $`\nu _R`$ be a sterile ($`SU(2)`$-singlet) neutrino. This would be the (“right-handed”) partner of an ordinary ($`SU(2)`$-doublet) neutrino $`\nu _L`$ for a Dirac neutrino or the superheavy Majorana neutrino in a seesaw model . In four-neutrino interpretations of the LSND experiment, there must be significant mixing between the $`\nu _L`$ and the left-handed CP-conjugate of the $`\nu _R`$, requiring Dirac mass terms to connect the doublet with the singlet and also mass terms888In most models these are Majorana. However, it is also possible to introduce lepton-number conserving singlet-singlet mass terms, as in the case of the simple large extra dimension constructions. to connect two singlets (or two doublets). These must both be small and comparable.

If the $`\nu _R`$ in a model with an electroweak or TeV-scale $`Z^{}`$ carry a non-zero $`U(1)^{}`$ charge, then the $`U(1)^{}`$ symmetry forbids them from obtaining a Majorana mass much larger than the $`U(1)^{}`$-breaking scale. This would forbid a conventional neutrino seesaw model .

In this case, it might still be possible to generate small Majorana masses for the ordinary (active) neutrinos by some sort of TeV-scale seesaw mechanism in which there are additional mass suppressions , in schemes in which the masses are suppressed by supersymmetry breaking , or schemes involving a superheavy Higgs triplet . Another possibility is that there are no Majorana mass terms, and that the neutrinos have Dirac masses which are small for some reason, such as volume suppressions in theories with large extra dimensions  or other suppression mechanisms .

A small Dirac mass could also arise due to higher dimensional operators associated with an intermediate scale . In the $`U(1)^{}`$ context these could occur if an extra $`U(1)^{}`$ is associated with a potential which is $`F`$ and $`D`$ flat at tree level, with the flatness lifted by higher dimensional operators or loop effects . (For the present application, a second $`U(1)^{}`$ could survive to low energies). For example, if there are two standard model singlet fields $`S_{1,2}`$ whose expectation values would break the $`U(1)^{}`$ and which have opposite signs for their $`U(1)^{}`$ charges999Whether such pairs actually occur in a given string construction, for example, depends on the flat directions of the construction and on the model ., then $`F`$-flatness would imply a tree level potential

$$V(S_1,S_2)=m_1^2|S_1^2|+m_2^2|S_2^2|+\frac{g^2Q^2}{2}(|S_1^2||S_2^2|)^2,$$
(3)
where $`g^{}`$ and $`Q^{}`$ are the $`U(1)^{}`$ gauge coupling and charge (assumed equal and opposite for simplicity), and $`m_i^2`$ are their soft mass-squares, assumed to be of the order of the supersymmetry breaking (and electroweak) scale $`m_{soft}`$. For $`m_1^2<0`$ but $`m_1^2+m_2^2>0`$, the minimum occurs for $`S_1m_{soft}`$ and $`S_2=0`$. However, for $`m_1^2+m_2^2<0`$, the minimum occurs along the $`D`$-flat direction $`S_1=S_2S`$, for which

$$V(S)=m^2|S^2|,$$
(4)
where $`m^2=m_1^2+m_2^2<0`$. This potential appears to be unbounded from below. However, the potential will be stabilized by loop corrections, which will cause the $`m_i^2`$ to become positive at a high enough scale, and/or by higher dimensional operators, so that $`S`$ obtains an expectation value at an intermediate scale, e.g., $`10^{12}`$ GeV. Neutrino (and other fermion) masses could be generated by higher dimensional operators in the superpotential. For example, the operators (suppressing family indices)

$$W\widehat{H}_2\widehat{L}_L\widehat{\nu }_L^c\left(\frac{\widehat{S}}{}\right)^{P_D}$$
(5)
could lead to small Dirac neutrino masses. In (5), the hats refer to superfields; $`H_2`$, $`L_L`$, $`\nu _L^c`$, and $`S`$ are respectively the up-type Higgs doublet, the lepton doublet, the left-handed CP conjugate of the $`\nu _R`$, and a singlet field; $``$ is the Planck scale, and $`P_D`$ are nonnegative integers. For $`S`$ and $`P_D>0`$, where $`S`$ is the vacuum expectation value of the scalar component of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$, this implies a suppressed Dirac mass. Variants of the model, e.g., not involving a low energy $`U(1)^{}`$ or in which the $`\nu _R`$ is not charged, can also lead naturally to a scenario with significant ordinary-sterile neutrino mixing , as suggested by LSND.

## 6 Primordial Nucleosynthesis

In the purely Dirac case, there are six nearly massless two-component neutrinos, the three active $`\nu _L`$ and their partners $`\nu _R`$. Such light Dirac neutrinos (i.e., with mass less than an eV or so) in the standard model or MSSM are essentially sterile, except for the tiny effects associated with their masses and Higgs couplings, which are much too small to produce them in significant numbers prior to nucleosynthesis or in a supernova. However, the superweak interactions of these states due to their coupling to a heavy $`Z^{}`$ (or a heavy $`W^{}`$ in the $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)`$ extension of the standard model) might be sufficient to create them in large numbers in the early universe . The implications of such interactions were worked out qualitatively by Steigman, Olive, and Schramm . At high temperatures the $`\nu _R`$ would have been produced by the $`Z^{}`$ interactions. However, assuming that the $`Z^{}`$ is heavier than the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ and that the $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing is small, the $`\nu _R`$ decoupled earlier than ordinary neutrinos. As the temperature dropped further, massive particles such as heavy quarks, pions, and muons subsequently annihilated, and the light quarks and gluons were confined at the time of the quark-hadron phase transition, reheating the ordinary neutrinos and other particles in equilibrium, but not the $`\nu _R`$. Thus, when the temperature dropped to a few MeV the amount of extra relativistic energy density associated with the $`\nu _R`$ would be somewhat suppressed. Their contribution is usually parametrized by the number $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ of additional active neutrinos that would yield the same contribution to the energy density. Additional relativistic energy density would increase the expansion rate, leading to a larger prediction for the primordial $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ abundance. The observed amount is still rather uncertain, but typical estimates of the upper limit on $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu `$ are in the range $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu <(0.31)`$ .

Recently, the first complete calculations of this effect were made, for the example of the $`U(1)^{}`$ charges in $`E_6`$ models, for various assumptions concerning the quark-hadron transition and the $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing  101010Earlier estimates, cited in , did not consistently include the effects of all of the particles present at a given temperature on the $`\nu _R`$ interaction rate.. The $`E_6`$ model actually involves two $`U(1)^{}`$ factors, and it was assumed that only one linear combination of the charges survived to low energies. For most of the cases the $`Z^{}`$ mass and mixing constraints from nucleosynthesis are in the multi-TeV range, and are much more stringent than the existing laboratory limits from searches for direct production or from precision electroweak data, and are comparable to the ranges that may ultimately be probed at proposed colliders. They are qualitatively similar to the limits from energy emission from Supernova 1987A , but somewhat more stringent for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu <0.3`$, and have entirely different theoretical and systematic uncertainties.

## 7 Natural Decoupling of the $`\nu _R`$

Both the nucleosynthesis and supernova constraints can be evaded if the $`\nu _R`$ does not couple to the $`Z^{}`$. This can in fact occur naturally in classes of models in which one combination of the two $`U(1)^{}`$ charges is broken at a large scale associated with an $`F`$ and $`D`$-flat direction , leaving a light $`Z^{}`$ which decouples from the $`\nu _R`$111111A large Majorana mass for the $`\nu _R`$ may still be forbidden in the model..

To illustrate this, consider the $`E_6`$ couplings. The two $`U(1)^{}`$ factors are referred to as $`U(1)_\chi `$, associated with $`SO(10)SU(5)\times U(1)_\chi `$, and $`U(1)_\psi `$, corresponding to $`E_6SO(10)\times U(1)_\psi `$. Each family contains two standard model singlet fields, $`\nu _R`$ and an $`SO(10)`$-singlet $`s_L`$. One can also add to the model pairs of $`\nu _R+\nu _R^{}`$ and $`s_L+s_L^{}`$ from $`27+27^{}`$-plets. Then, the $`U(1)^{}`$ $`D`$ terms of the potential are

$`V_\chi +V_\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2\sqrt{10}}}(|\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R|^2|\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R^{}|^2)\right]^2`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{24}}}(|\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R|^2+|\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R^{}|^24|\stackrel{~}{s}_L|^2+4|\stackrel{~}{s}_L^{}|^2)\right]^2,`$
where the tildes represent scalar fields, a sum over each type of scalar is implied, and I have assumed equal gauge couplings for simplicity. The potential is clearly $`D`$-flat for $`|\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R|^2=|\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R^{}|^2|\stackrel{~}{\nu }|^2`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{s}_L|^2=|\stackrel{~}{s}_L^{}|^2|\stackrel{~}{s}|^2`$. I will assume that the potential is also $`F`$-flat along the this direction. The potential along the flat directions is then

$$V(\stackrel{~}{\nu },\stackrel{~}{s})=m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2|\stackrel{~}{\nu }^2|+m_{\stackrel{~}{s}}^2|\stackrel{~}{s}^2|,$$
(7)
in analogy with (4), where $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{s}}^2`$ are respectively the sum of the mass-squares of the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R^{}`$, and of the $`\stackrel{~}{s}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{s}_L^{}`$. In particular, for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{s}}^2>0`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2<0`$ the breaking will occur along the $`D`$-flat direction for $`|\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R|=|\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R^{}|`$ very large, with the potential ultimately stabilized by loop corrections or higher dimensional operators. However, since $`m_{\stackrel{~}{s}}^2>0,`$ $`\stackrel{~}{s}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{s}_L^{}`$ will acquire (usually different) TeV-scale expectation values not associated with the flat direction.

For arbitrary expectation values, the $`Z^{}`$ mass terms are

$$=g^2\left(\frac{5}{2\sqrt{10}}Z_\chi +\frac{1}{\sqrt{24}}Z_\psi \right)^2\left(|\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R|^2+|\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R^{}|^2\right)+g^2\left(\frac{4}{\sqrt{24}}Z_\psi \right)^2\left(|\stackrel{~}{s}_L|^2+|\stackrel{~}{s}_L^{}|^2\right).$$
(8)
For the breaking pattern described above, this will imply that $`Z_2\frac{5}{2\sqrt{10}}Z_\chi +\frac{1}{\sqrt{24}}Z_\psi `$ will acquire a superheavy mass, while the orthogonal combination $`Z_1\frac{1}{\sqrt{24}}Z_\chi +\frac{5}{2\sqrt{10}}Z_\psi `$ will remain at the TeV scale. $`Z_1`$ decouples from $`\nu _R`$ and therefore evades the nucleosynthesis and supernova constraints. One can even generate a small Dirac $`\nu _R`$ mass from higher dimensional operators associated with the $`Z_2`$ scale121212At least one $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R`$ per family should have a positive mass-squared to avoid large lepton-Higgsino mixing.. This mechanism applies to more general $`U(1)^{}\times U(1)^{}`$ models, indicating that small Dirac masses are allowed provided certain conditions on the soft scalar mass squares are satisfied.

## 8 A Comment on Majorana Phases in Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay

It is well known that if the neutrinos are Majorana, then the effective Majorana mass

$$M_{ee}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}U_{ei}^2m_i,$$
(9)
where $`U`$ is the neutrino mixing matrix and $`m_i`$ is the $`i^{th}`$ Majorana mass eigenstate, is observable in neutrinoless double beta decay ($`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$). For Majorana neutrinos, $`U`$ contains two additional CP-violating Majorana phases not observable in oscillation experiments, in addition to the phase analogous to the one in the quark sector . In principle these can be observable in $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ if one knows the masses and mixing angles from other sources.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that a significant measurement can be made with forseeable techniques . To illustrate this, let us assume maximal atmospheric mixing and neglect $`U_{e3}`$ (relaxing these assumptions does not change the conclusion). Then, in a basis for which $`m_1<m_2<m_3`$, one finds

$`M_{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`|c^2m_1+s^2m_2e^{i\varphi }|,(\mathrm{normal}),`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`|c^2m_2+s^2m_3e^{i\varphi }|,(\mathrm{inverted}),`$
for the normal and inverted hierarchies , respectively, where $`c`$ and $`s`$ are the cosine and sine of the Solar mixing angle and $`\varphi `$ is the Majorana phase. Proposed $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ experiments will mainly be sensitive to the inverted hierarchy or to the normal hierarchy in the case that the masses are nearly degenerate and large compared to the splittings. In principle, one could determine $`\varphi `$ from sufficiently precise measurements of $`M_{ee}`$, $`m_i`$, and the Solar mixing angle. However, it is shown in  that even for extremely optimistic assumptions one will not be able to distinguish a nontrivial phase from 0 or $`\pi `$ at better than $`1\sigma `$ (it may be marginally possible to distinguish 0 from $`\pi `$). The biggest problem is that $`M_{ee}`$ is extracted from a nuclear transition rate involving a matrix element that must be taken from theory. Even assuming a breakthrough in reliability to a 50% theoretical uncertainty (from the present factor of 3 ), the resulting $`50`$% error on $`M_{ee}`$ will lead to the discouraging result described above. (This can easily be seen, e.g., by taking a fixed Solar mixing in the LMA region and assuming nearly degenerate masses.)

## Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank the conference organizers for support. Supported in part by Department of Energy grant DOE-EY-76-02-3071.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently there has been much interest in time-dependent backgrounds . One of the examples which has been studied is a null-brane orbifold  of the four-dimensional Minkowski space. In  Sethi and Hashimoto compute the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta ^{ij}`$ for such a background, by following the procedure introduced in  to compute the commutation relations of the space-time coordinates. The string derivation of this is in . It turns out that in this example $`\theta ^{ij}`$ has a linear dependence on the space-time coordinates, i.e. it defines an algebra of the Lie algebra type. It is an interesting example, since it is an algebra with particularly simple properties, for which one of the coordinates is central and the higher commutators of any element vanish. This makes it possible to perform many computations explicitly.

This paper is divided as follows. In section 2 the algebra  is recalled and the corresponding Kontsevich star product , which generalizes the Weyl-Moyal star product when $`\theta ^{ij}`$ is not constant, is calculated by the Weyl quantization procedure . In section 3 an equivalence map  in the sense of deformation quantization of this star product with the Weyl-Moyal star product for a certain algebra with constant $`\theta ^{ij}`$ is constructed. This is possible because for the null-brane orbifold there is a coordinate transformation  relating the two descriptions. Finally, in the last section the Seiberg-Witten map , which expresses a gauge theory defined on a noncommutative space-time in terms of a corresponding commutative gauge theory, is computed for this background to the lowest non-trivial orders in $`\theta ^{ij}`$. It is verified that while there are no corrections due to the time-dependence of $`\theta ^{ij}`$ for the gauge parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to the first order in $`\theta ^{ij}`$, there are to the second order. For the gauge field $`a_i`$ there are time-dependent corrections already to the first non-trivial order in $`\theta ^{ij}`$. In order to obtain these results the cohomological method discussed in  is used.

## 2 The algebra and the star product

In this paper the Seiberg-Witten map for the four-dimensional noncommutative time-dependent background obtained in ,  by T-duality of a null-brane orbifold  is studied.

The algebra $`𝒜`$ formed by the coordinates is generated by $`\{x^+,x^{},x,z\}`$ with relations

$$[x^i,x^j]=i\theta ^{ij}$$
(2.1)
where $`x^i𝒜`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},4`$, i.e. $`x^1=x^+,x^2=x^{},x^3=x,x^4=z`$,

$$\theta ^{xz}=\theta ^{zx}=\stackrel{~}{R}x^+,\theta ^{x^{}z}=\theta ^{zx^{}}=\stackrel{~}{R}x$$
(2.2)
and all the other components of $`\theta ^{ij}`$ vanish. Here $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ is constant and the orbifold identifications are

$`x^+`$ $``$ $`x^+;`$
$`x`$ $``$ $`x+2\pi x^+;`$ (2.3)
$`x^{}`$ $``$ $`x^{}+2\pi x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2\pi )^2x^+;`$
$`z`$ $``$ $`z+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\stackrel{~}{R}}}.`$
The algebra defined by (2.1),(2.2) is of the Lie algebra type, since the commutation relations of the coordinates are linear and the Jacobi identity is satisfied. Moreover, it is nilpotent (thus solvable), in the sense that the third commutator of any four elements of $`𝒜`$ vanishes

$$[x^i,[x^j,[x^k,x^l]]]=0x^i𝒜.$$
(2.4)
A further observation is that $`x^+`$ is in the center of $`𝒜`$. For these reasons it is a particular interesting example, because these properties ensure that many computations can be actually carried out explicitly.

As a first step, the explicit formula for the Kontsevich star product  corresponding to this algebra is calculated, by using the Weyl quantization procedure . The result, which will be derived below in (2.9)-(2.13), is

$`fg`$ $`=`$ $`fexp({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{R}x^+(\underset{x}{\overset{}{}}\underset{z}{\overset{}{}}\underset{z}{\overset{}{}}\underset{x}{\overset{}{}})+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{R}x(\underset{x^{}}{\overset{}{}}\underset{z}{\overset{}{}}\underset{z}{\overset{}{}}\underset{x^{}}{\overset{}{}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\stackrel{~}{R}^2x^+(\underset{x^{}}{\overset{}{}}\underset{z}{\overset{}{}}\underset{z}{\overset{}{}}\underset{z}{\overset{}{}}\underset{z}{\overset{}{}}\underset{x^{}}{\overset{}{}}\underset{x^{}}{\overset{}{}}\underset{z}{\overset{}{}}\underset{z}{\overset{}{}}+\underset{z}{\overset{}{}}\underset{x^{}}{\overset{}{}}\underset{z}{\overset{}{}}))g.`$
In order to compare this result with Kontsevich’s formula explicitly, it can be seen that to the second order in $`\theta ^{ij}`$ (2) reduces to

$`fg`$ $`=`$ $`fg+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{R}x^+\left(_xf_zg_zf_xg\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{R}x\left(_x^{}f_zg_zf_x^{}g\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\stackrel{~}{R}^2(x^+)^2\left(_x^2f_z^2g+_z^2f_x^2g2_x_zf_x_zg\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\stackrel{~}{R}^2x^2\left(_x^{}^2f_z^2g+_z^2f_x^{}^2g2_x^{}_zf_x^{}_zg\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{R}^2x^+x(_x^{}_xf_z^2g+_x_zf_x^{}_zg+_x^{}_zf_x_zg`$
$`_z^2f_x_x^{}g)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\stackrel{~}{R}^2x^+(_x^{}_zf_zg`$
$`_z^2f_x^{}g_x^{}f_z^2g+_zf_x^{}_zg))+\mathrm{}`$
which coincides with Kontsevich’ s expression  to this order.

$`fg`$ $`=`$ $`fg+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta ^{ij}_if_jg`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\theta ^{ij}\theta ^{kl}_i_kf_j_lg{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\theta ^{ij}_j\theta ^{kl}\left(_i_kf_lg_kf_i_lg\right)+\mathrm{}`$
The star product (2) is associative and the $`\theta ^{ij}`$ appearing in (2.2) satisfies the Jacobi identity

$$\theta ^{ij}_j\theta ^{kl}+\theta ^{kj}_j\theta ^{li}+\theta ^{lj}_j\theta ^{ik}=0.$$
(2.8)
In this particular example the star product (2) can be computed by simply applying the Weyl quantization procedure , following the method of . Starting from the Fourier transform of a function $`f(x^i)`$, with $`x^i`$ commutative variables

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(k)=𝑑xe^{ik_jx^j}f(x)$$
(2.9)
the Weyl operator associated to $`f(x^i)`$ is defined as

$$W(f)=𝑑ke^{ik_i\widehat{x}^i}\stackrel{~}{f}(k)$$
(2.10)
where the commutative variable $`x^i`$ is replaced with $`\widehat{x}^i𝒜`$. In this way a particular ordering of the elements $`\widehat{x}^i𝒜`$ is picked, i.e. the most symmetric one. Moreover, if the product of two such operators $`W(f)W(g)`$ is considered

$$W(f)W(g)=𝑑k𝑑pe^{ik_i\widehat{x}^i}e^{ip_j\widehat{x}^j}\stackrel{~}{f}(k)\stackrel{~}{g}(p),$$
(2.11)
then the star product $`fg`$ can be constructed as the function corresponding to $`W(f)W(g)`$, i.e.

$$fg=𝑑k𝑑pe^{i(k_j+p_j+g_j(k,p))x^j}\stackrel{~}{f}(k)\stackrel{~}{g}(p),$$
(2.12)
where the expression of $`g_j(k,p)`$ is obtained through the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula for the product of two exponentials

$$e^Ae^B=e^{(A+B+\frac{1}{2}[A,B]+\frac{1}{12}[AB,[A,B]]+\mathrm{})}$$
(2.13)
applied to $`A=k_i\widehat{x}^i,B=p_j\widehat{x}^j`$.

For the algebra $`𝒜`$ defined in (2.1) and (2.2) the triple commutator of any four elements vanishes (2.4). Therefore in the formula (2.13) the contribution from the ellipses vanishes and the result (2) for the star product is obtained.

## 3 The coordinate transformation and equivalence map

For the example (2.1), (2.2) an equivalence map to a background with constant $`\theta ^{ij}`$ is now constructed. According to ,, the same background described by (2.1),(2.2) can be described also in terms of another algebra generated by the elements $`\{y^+,y^{},\stackrel{~}{y},z\}`$ with commutation relations

$$[y^i,y^j]=i\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{ij}$$
(3.14)
where $`y^1=y^+,y^2=y^{},y^3=\stackrel{~}{y},x^4=z`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{\stackrel{~}{y}z}=\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{z\stackrel{~}{y}}=\stackrel{~}{R}$$
(3.15)
for $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ constant, and the other components of $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{ij}`$ vanish.

The map $`\sigma `$ relating the two algebras is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}x^+\hfill & =& y^+;\hfill \\ x\hfill & =& y^+\left(\stackrel{~}{y}+\stackrel{~}{R}z\right);\hfill \\ x^{}\hfill & =& y^{}+\frac{1}{2}y^+\left(\stackrel{~}{y}+\stackrel{~}{R}z\right)^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.16)
The orbifold identification (2.3) in the new variables becomes

$$\begin{array}{ccc}y^+\hfill & & y^+;\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{y}\hfill & & \stackrel{~}{y}+2\pi ;\hfill \\ y^{}\hfill & & y^{};\hfill \\ z\hfill & & z+\frac{2\pi }{\stackrel{~}{R}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.17)
It can be noticed that the coordinate transformation (3.16) is not linear and that it is singular for $`x^+=y^+=0`$.

According to Kontsevich’s formality theorem , where $`\sigma `$ is well-defined, the star products $``$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ corresponding to $`\theta ^{ij}`$ in (2.2) and $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{ij}`$ in (3.15) respectively are equivalent up to the coordinate transformation $`\sigma `$.

This means that if the coordinate transformation (3.16) is applied to the Weyl-Moyal product

$$f\stackrel{~}{}g=fe^{\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{~}{R}(\stackrel{}{_{\stackrel{~}{y}}}\stackrel{}{_z}\stackrel{}{_z}\stackrel{}{_{\stackrel{~}{y}}})}g$$
(3.18)
associated to $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{ij}`$, then the new star product

$$f^{}g=fg\frac{1}{24}\stackrel{~}{R}^2x^+\left(_x^{}f_z^2g+_z^2f_x^{}g+2_z_x^{}f_zg+2_zf_z_x^{}g\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(3.19)
has to be equivalent to $``$ defined in (2).

Notice that to obtain (3.19) the following relation

$$_{\stackrel{~}{y}}=x^+_x+x_x^{}$$
(3.20)
has been used, which follows from (3.16).

Two star products are equivalent if there exists an equivalence map $`R`$, i.e. a differential operator, such that

$$f^{}g=R^1\left(R(f)R(g)\right).$$
(3.21)
$`R`$ and the star products are expanded in powers of $`\theta `$

$$R(f)=f+R^{(1)}(f)+R^{(2)}(f)+\mathrm{}$$
(3.22)
and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}fg\hfill & =& fg+B^{(1)}(f,g)+B^{(2)}(f,g)+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ f^{}g\hfill & =& fg+B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}(f,g)+B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}(f,g)+\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.23)
Here $`R^{(n)}`$, $`B^{(n)}`$, $`B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(n)}`$ denote the contribution of order $`n`$ in $`\theta ^{ij}`$. Then (3.21) becomes

$$\begin{array}{ccc}B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}(f,g)\hfill & =& B^{(1)}(f,g)+R^{(1)}(f)g+fR^{(1)}(g)R^{(1)}(fg),\hfill \\ & & \\ B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}(f,g)\hfill & =& B^{(2)}(f,g)+R^{(2)}(f)g+fR^{(2)}(g)R^{(2)}(fg)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & R^{(1)}(B^{(1)}(f,g))+R^{(1)}(R^{(1)}(fg))+R^{(1)}(f)R^{(1)}(g)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +B^{(1)}(R^{(1)}(f),g)+B^{(1)}(f,R^{(1)}(g)).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.24)
In this case the equivalence map to the fourth order in $`\theta ^{ij}`$ is found to be

$`R^{(1)}(f)=0,`$ $`R^{(2)}(f)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\stackrel{~}{R}^2x^+_x^{}_z^2f={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\theta ^{zx}_x\theta ^{x^{}z}_x^{}_z^2f,`$
$`R^{(3)}(f)=0,`$ $`R^{(4)}(f)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1152}}\stackrel{~}{R}^4(x^+)^2_x^{}^2_z^4f={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(R^{(2)})^2(f),`$ (3.25)
which suggests that the equivalence map is actually generated by the flow of $`R^{(2)}`$, i.e.

$$Rf=e^{\frac{1}{24}\stackrel{~}{R}^2x^+_x^{}_z^2}f.$$
(3.26)
It can be seen that it is singular for $`x^+=y^+=0`$.

The equivalence of the star product (2) to the Weyl-Moyal product $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{ij}`$ is what guarantees that it is associative and hence that the Jacobi identity (2.8) is satisfied.

## 4 The Seiberg-Witten map

The Seiberg-Witten (SW) map  relating the commutative and noncommutative gauge theories for the star product (2) is now derived. In order to achieve this, the covariant coordinates

$$X^i=x^i+A^i(x^j),i=1,\mathrm{},d$$
(4.27)
are introduced, according to  and . Here $`d`$ is the space-time dimension, in this case $`d=4`$. The name covariant coordinates is justified by the observation that they are required to transform like

$$\delta X^i=i[\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{}{,}X^i]i(\mathrm{\Lambda }X^iX^i\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(4.28)
under an (infinitesimal) noncommutative gauge transformation $`\delta `$ with gauge parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The gauge potential $`A^i`$ in (4.27) is required to transform like

$$\delta A^i=i[\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{}{,}x^i]+i[\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{}{,}A^i].$$
(4.29)
It is a non-trivial result  that for the case of $`\theta ^{ij}`$ in (2.2), which is linear, it is consistent to identify $`i[\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{}{,}x^i]=\theta ^{ij}_j\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in (4.29), because it is possible to write $`[x^i\stackrel{}{,}f]=i\theta ^{ij}_jf`$ for any $`f(x^i)`$, where the Jacobi identity is used to verify the Leibniz rule, and the index of the derivative is raised with $`\theta ^{ij}`$.

The eqns. (4.28) and (4.29) guarantee that for a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i)`$ transforming as $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ the following is true

$$\delta (X^i\mathrm{\Psi })=i\mathrm{\Lambda }(X^i\mathrm{\Psi }).$$
(4.30)
It is necessary to introduce the covariant coordinates through the shift (4.27), because, unlike for a commutative gauge theory, on a noncommutative space $`\delta (x^i\mathrm{\Psi })=ix^i\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Psi }i\mathrm{\Lambda }x^i\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

The gauge parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is required to transform under $`\delta `$ as

$$\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }=i\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(4.31)
The SW map is constructed by considering the noncommutative gauge potential $`A^i=A^i(a_j,^na_j)`$ and the noncommutative gauge parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\lambda ,^n\lambda ,a_i,^na_i)`$ as functions of the commutative gauge potential $`a_i`$, the commutative gauge parameter $`\lambda `$ and their derivatives. The functional dependence is defined by the equations (4.29) and (4.31). Notice that throughout this section the convention is used, that quantities with capital letters such as $`A^i`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ refer to the noncommutative theory, while quantities such as $`a_i`$, $`\lambda `$ with lower case letters refer to the corresponding commutative theory.

In order to solve the equations (4.29) and (4.31), a cohomological method can be used, as it has been discussed in . Even if $`\theta ^{ij}`$ in (2.2) is linear and not constant, in this case this technique still works. Here, the main results of  are briefly recalled.

The gauge parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is promoted to a ghost field and $`\delta `$ to a BRST operator, which satisfies

$$\delta ^2=0,[\delta ,_i]=0,\delta (f_1f_2)=(\delta f_1)f_2+(1)^{deg(f_1)}f_1(\delta f_2),$$
(4.32)
where $`deg(f)`$ gives the ghost number of the expression $`f`$.

The noncommutative gauge parameter and gauge potential can be expanded in powers of $`\theta ^{ij}`$:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda +\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}+\mathrm{},A^i=\theta ^{ij}a_j+A_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(2)}+\mathrm{}`$ (4.33)
In this formalism the index of the lowest order term of the gauge potential is raised with $`\theta ^{ij}`$, so that the first non-trivial order in the expansion of $`A^i`$ is the second.

The equations (4.31) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and (4.29) for $`A^i`$ become

$$\begin{array}{cc}\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(n)}i\{\lambda ,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(n)}\}=M^{(n)},\hfill & \\ \delta A_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(n)}i[\lambda ,A_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(n)}]=U_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(n)},\hfill & \end{array}$$
(4.34)
where $`M^{(n)}`$ and $`U_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(n)}`$ collect all the terms of order $`n`$ which do not contain $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(n)}`$ and $`A_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(n)}`$ respectively. In order to solve (4.34) it is useful to introduce the new operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\{\begin{array}{cc}\delta i\{\lambda ,\}\hfill & \text{on odd quantities,}\hfill \\ \delta i[\lambda ,]\hfill & \text{on even quantities,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.35)
which is nilpotent, obeys the same Super-Leibniz rule as $`\delta `$, and commutes with the covariant derivative

$$D_i=\{\begin{array}{cc}_ii\{a_i,\}\hfill & \text{on odd quantities,}\hfill \\ _ii[a_i,]\hfill & \text{on even quantities.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.36)
With the notation $`b_i_i\lambda `$, it can be seen that $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_i=b_i`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }b_i=0`$. It is not possible to invert the nilpotent operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to solve (4.34), but, following , if an homotopy operator $`K`$ is introduced such that

$$K\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }K=1,$$
(4.37)
then for a quantity $`m`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=0`$ the equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }f=m`$ is solved by $`f=Km+s`$ for any $`s`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }s=0`$.

As in the case of constant $`\theta ^{ij}`$ to construct $`K`$, the first step is to introduce the operator $`L`$, which obeys the Super-Leibniz rule and satisfies

$$Lb_i=a_i,La_i=0,$$
(4.38)
then define $`K=D^1L`$, where $`D^1`$ is a linear operator which when acting on a monomial of total order $`d`$ in $`a`$ and $`b`$ multiplies that monomial by $`1/d`$. Both $`L`$ and $`\delta `$ do not act on $`\theta ^{ij}`$, i.e. $`\delta \theta ^{ij}=0`$ and $`L\theta ^{ij}=0`$.

The nilpotency of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ implies the consistency condition for $`M^{(n)}`$ and $`U^{(n)}`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(n)}=0,\mathrm{\Delta }U_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(n)}=0.$$
(4.39)
There are no corrections to the first order term $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ due to the time-dependence of $`\theta ^{ij}`$, because the Kontsevich star product (2) does not contain terms in $`_i\theta ^{kl}`$. Therefore, to the first order the known expression $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}=\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{kl}\{b_k,a_l\}`$  is recovered.

However, there is a correction to the second order term. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}`$ is split in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{(2)}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}`$ denoting the known terms (see e.g. , , ) which do not depend on derivatives $`_k\theta ^{ij}`$ of $`\theta ^{ij}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{(2)}`$ denoting the correction due to the fact that $`\theta ^{ij}`$ is not constant, then

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{ij}_j\theta ^{kl}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(\{a_i,\{b_k,a_l\}\}+i[D_ia_k,b_l]i[D_ib_k,a_l])`$ (4.40)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}([[a_i,b_k],a_l][[a_i,a_k],b_l])),`$
which in this case becomes

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{R}^2x^+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(\{a_z,\{b_x^{},a_z\}\}+i[D_za_x^{},b_z]i[D_zb_x^{},a_z])`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}([[a_z,b_x^{}],a_z][[a_z,a_x^{}],b_z]){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(\{a_z,\{b_z,a_x^{}\}\}`$
$`+i[D_za_z,b_x^{}]i[D_zb_z,a_x^{}]){\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}([[a_z,b_z],a_x^{}][[a_z,a_z],b_x^{}])).`$
The expression (4.40) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{(2)}`$ is determined by solving the equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{(2)}=M_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{(2)}\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{ij}_j\theta ^{kl}\left(\frac{1}{2}[b_i,\{b_k,a_l\}]+\frac{1}{3}\{iD_ib_k[a_i,b_k],b_l\}\right),$$
(4.42)
since $`M^{(n)}`$ can be also split in a part $`M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(n)}`$ which does not depend on derivatives of the noncommutativity parameter and a correction $`M_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{(n)}`$ due to the fact that $`\theta ^{ij}`$ is not constant and then the two equations $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(n)}=M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(n)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{(n)}=M_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{(n)}`$ can be solved separately. In particular $`M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(n)}`$ satisfies the consistency condition (4.39) $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}=0`$ by itself, therefore $`M_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{(2)}`$ has to satisfy it by itself as well. This is ensured by the Jacobi identity (2.8) for $`\theta ^{ij}`$.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{6}\theta ^{ij}_j\theta ^{kl}(b_ib_kb_l+b_kb_lb_i+b_lb_ib_k)=0.$$
(4.43)
An analogous computation can be done for the gauge potential. Splitting again $`A_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(n)}=A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(n)}+A_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(n)}`$ in a part $`A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(n)}`$ which does not depend on $`\theta `$ and in a part $`A_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(n)}`$ which does, then the result $`A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{ij}\theta ^{kl}\{a_k,_la_j+F_{lj}\}`$  is recovered, with $`F_{lj}`$ the field strength. The lowest order correction due to the fact that $`\theta ^{ij}`$ is time-dependent is found to be

$$A_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{kl}_l\theta ^{ij}\{a_k,a_j\},$$
(4.44)
which in this case means

$$A_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(2)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{R}^2x^+\{a_z,a_z\}\hfill & \text{for }i=x^{},\hfill \\ \frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{R}^2x^+\{a_z,a_x^{}\}\hfill & \text{for }i=z,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.45)
The result (4.44) can be obtained by applying the homotopy operator $`K`$ to $`U_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(2)}`$ and thus solving the equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }A_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(2)}=U_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(2)}\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{ij}_j\theta ^{kl}\{b_k,a_l\}\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{kl}_l\theta ^{ij}\{b_k,a_j\}.$$
(4.46)
Again, the consistency condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(2)}=0`$ is guaranteed by the Jacobi identity for $`\theta ^{ij}`$.

Notice that the expressions (4.40) and (4.44) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{(2)}`$ and $`A_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(2)}`$ are valid for a general non-abelian gauge group, but they reduce to the known expressions given in  in the case of an abelian gauge theory.

For simplicity the correction to the next order of $`A^i`$ due to the fact that $`\theta ^{ij}`$ is not constant is computed here only in the abelian case, even though in principle it would be possible to solve it even in the more general non-abelian case. The result is

$`A_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\theta ^{ij}_j\theta ^{rs}\theta ^{kl}a_ka_r(_la_s)_S+\theta ^{sj}_j\theta ^{ir}\theta ^{kl}a_ka_r(f_{ls}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(_la_s)_S)`$
$`+\theta ^{rj}_j\theta ^{si}\theta ^{kl}a_ra_k(2f_{sl}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(_la_s)_S))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\theta ^{ij}\theta ^{kl}_l\theta ^{rs}a_ka_s\left(5f_{jr}2(_ja_r)_S\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\theta ^{kl}_l\theta ^{rs}_s\theta ^{ij}a_ka_ra_j,`$
where $`(_la_s)_S=\frac{1}{2}(_la_s+_sa_l)`$ is the symmetrized derivative of the gauge potential and $`f_{ls}=_la_s_sa_l`$ is the abelian field strength. The expression (4) can be found by applying K to

$$U_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(3)}=\theta ^{ij}_j\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{kl}\{b_k,_lA_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(1)}\}\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{kl}\{_k\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)},_l(\theta ^{ij}a_j)\}.$$
(4.48)
Again, the consistency condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(3)}=0`$ is verified because of the Jacobi identity for $`\theta ^{ij}`$. Moreover, it is necessary to apply the constraints $`_ib_j=_jb_i`$ and $`_ia_j=\frac{1}{2}f_{ij}+(_ia_j)_S`$ by hand, as explained in , in order to obtain (4).

The results (4.40), (4.44) and (4) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{(2)}`$, $`A_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(2)}`$ and $`A_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{(3)}`$ respectively are valid in the general case of a linear $`\theta ^{ij}`$ which satisfies the Jacobi identity.

## 5 Conclusions

Time-dependent backgrounds have recently attracted much attention in string theory -. Although it can be difficult to interpret singular time-dependent backgrounds in string perturbation theory , here only the scaling limit at the level of the corresponding noncommutative gauge theory is considered.

The results for the SW map in section 4 are a generalization to higher orders in $`\theta ^{ij}`$ of the formula (105) in . For an algebra related to (2.1), (2.2), the corresponding noncommutative gauge theory and its relations to matrix theory are studied in .

The equivalence map in section 3 could be used in principle, where it is not singular, i.e. outside $`x^+=y^+=0`$, to map the results known for the case of constant $`\theta ^{ij}`$ to the case of the algebra (2.2), (2.1).

## Acknowledgments

BLC would like to thank P. Aschieri, L. Dolan, O. Ganor, B. Jurčo, L. Möller, J. Wess, B. Zumino for very useful discussions. BLC was supported in part by US Department of Energy, grant DE-FG 05-85ER-40219/Task A. BLC would like to thank B. Zumino for the invitation to Berkeley and J. Wess for the invitation to Munich.