text:
# Hilbert Schemes of Points on Surfaces

## 0. Introduction

The Hilbert scheme $`S^{[n]}`$ of points on a complex projective algebraic surface $`S`$ is a a parameter variety for finite subschemes of length $`n`$ on $`S`$. It is a nice (crepant) resolution of singularities of the $`n`$-fold symmetric power $`S^{(n)}`$ of $`S`$. If $`S`$ is a K3 surface or an abelian surface, then $`S^{[n]}`$ is a compact, holomorphic symplectic (thus hyperkähler) manifold. Thus $`S^{[n]}`$ is at the same time a basic example of a moduli space and an example of a nice resolution of singularities of a singular variety. There are a number of conjectures and general phenomena, many of which originating from theoretical physics, both about moduli spaces for objects on surfaces and about nice resolutions of singularities. In all of these the Hilbert scheme of points can be viewed as a model case and sometimes as the main motivating example. Hilbert schemes of points on a surface have connections to many topics in mathematics, including moduli spaces of sheaves and vector bundles, Donaldson invariants, Gromov-Witten invariants and enumerative geometry of curves, infinite dimensional Lie algebras and vertex algebras, noncommutative geometry and also theoretical physics.

It is usually best to look at the Hilbert schemes $`S^{[n]}`$ for all $`n`$ at the same time, and to study their invariants in terms of generating functions, because new structures emerge this way. For Euler numbers, Betti numbers and conjecturally for the elliptic genus these generating functions will be modular forms and Jacobi forms. This fits into general conjectures from physics about invariants of moduli spaces. Also the cohomology rings of the $`S^{[n]}`$ for different $`n`$ are closely tied together. The direct sum over $`n`$ of all the cohomologies is a representation for the Heisenberg algebra modeled on the cohomology of $`S`$, and the cohomology rings of the $`S^{[n]}`$ can be described in terms of vertex operators. In the case that the canonical divisor of the surface $`S`$ is trivial, this leads to an elementary description of the cohomology rings of the $`S^{[n]}`$, which coincides with the orbifold cohomology ring of the symmetric power, giving a nontrivial check of a conjecture relating the cohomology ring of a nice resolution of an orbifold to the recently defined orbifold cohomology ring.

The Hilbert schemes $`S^{[n]}`$ are closely related to other moduli spaces of objects on $`S`$, including moduli of vector bundles and moduli of curves e.g. via the Serre correspondence and the Mukai Fourier transform. This leads to applications to the geometry and topology of these moduli spaces, to Donaldson invariants, and also to formulas in the enumerative geometry of curves on surfaces and Gromov-Witten invariants. We want to explain some of these results and connections. We will not attempt to give a complete overview, but rather give a glimpse of some of the more striking results.

## 1. The Hilbert scheme of points

In this article $`S`$ will usually be a smooth projective surface over the complex numbers. We will study the Hilbert scheme $`S^{[n]}=Hilb^n(S)`$ of subschemes of length $`n`$ on $`S`$. The points of $`S^{[n]}`$ correspond to finite subschemes $`WS`$ of length $`n`$, in particular a general point corresponds just to a set of $`n`$ distinct points on $`S`$. $`S^{[n]}`$ is projective and comes with a universal family $`Z_n(S)S^{[n]}\times S`$, consisting of the $`(W,x)`$ with $`xW`$. An important role in applications of $`S^{[n]}`$ is played by the tautological vector bundles $`L^{[n]}:=\pi _{}q^{}(L)`$ of rank $`n`$ on $`S^{[n]}`$. Here $`\pi :Z_n(S)S^{[n]}`$ and $`q:Z_n(S)S`$ are the projections and $`L`$ is a line bundle on $`S`$.

Closely related to $`S^{[n]}`$ is the symmetric power $`S^{(n)}=S^n/G_n`$, the quotient of $`S^n`$ by the action of the symmetric group $`G_n`$. The points of $`S^{(n)}`$ correspond to effective $`0`$-cycles $`n_i[x_i]`$, where the $`x_i`$ are distinct points of $`S`$ and the sum of the $`n_i`$ is $`n`$. The forgetful map

$$\rho :S^{[n]}S^{(n)},W\underset{xS}{}\text{len}(𝒪_{W,x})[x]$$

is a morphism. The symmetric power $`S^{(n)}`$ is singular, as for instance the fix-locus of any transposition in $`G_n`$ has codimension $`2`$. On the other hand by  $`S^{[n]}`$ is smooth and connected of dimension $`2n`$ and $`\rho :S^{[n]}S^{(n)}`$ is a resolution of singularities. In fact this is a particularly nice resolution: If $`Y`$ is a Gorenstein variety, i.e. the dualizing sheaf is a line bundle $`K_Y`$, a resolution $`f:XY`$ of singularities is called crepant if it preserves the canonical divisor, that is $`f^{}K_Y=K_X`$. It is easy to see that $`\rho :S^{[n]}S^{(n)}`$ is crepant. In the special case that $`S`$ is an abelian surface or a K3 surface one can get a better result: A complex manifold $`X`$ is called holomorphic symplectic if there exists an everywhere non-degenerate holomorphic $`2`$-form $`\varphi `$ on $`X`$. If furthermore $`\varphi `$ is unique up to scalar, $`X`$ is called irreducible holomorphic symplectic. A Kähler manifold $`X`$ of real dimension $`4n`$ is called hyperkähler if its holonomy group is $`Sp(n)`$. Compact complex manifolds are holomorphic symplectic if and only of they admit a hyperkähler metric. In  it is shown that for a K3 surface $`S`$ the Hilbert scheme $`S^{[n]}`$ is irreducible holomorphic symplectic. There also, for an abelian surface $`A`$, the generalized Kummer varieties are constructed from $`A^{[n]}`$. They form another series of irreducible holomorphic symplectic manifolds. The only other examples of compact hyperkähler manifolds, known not to be diffeomorphic to one in the above two series are the two isolated examples of resolutions of singular moduli spaces of sheaves on K3 and abelian surfaces in ,.

## 2. Betti number, Euler numbers, elliptic genus

For many questions about the Hilbert schemes $`S^{[n]}`$ one should look at all $`n`$ at the same time. The first instance of this are the Betti numbers and Euler numbers, for which we can find generating functions in terms of modular forms. Let $`:=\left\{\tau 𝐂\right|\mathrm{}(\tau )>0\}`$. A modular form of weight $`k`$ on $`Sl(2,𝐙)`$ is a function $`f:𝐂`$ s.th.

$$f\left(\frac{a\tau +b}{c\tau +b}\right)=(c\tau +d)^kf(\tau ),\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)Sl(2,𝐙).$$

Furthermore, writing $`q=e^{2\pi i\tau }`$, we require that, in the Fourier development $`f(\tau )=_{n𝐙}a_nq^n`$, all the the negative Fourier coefficients vanish. If also $`a_0=0`$, $`f`$ is called a cusp form. The most well-known modular form is the discriminant $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau ):=q_{n>0}(1q^n)^{24},`$ the unique cusp form of weight $`12`$. The Dirichlet eta function is $`\eta =\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/24}`$.

For a manifold $`X`$ we denote by $`p(X,z):=_i(1)^ib_i(X)z^i`$ the Poincaré polynomial and by $`e(X)=p(X,1)`$ the Euler number. The Betti numbers and Euler numbers of the $`S^{[n]}`$ have very nice generating functions :

$$\underset{n0}{}p(S^{[n]},z)t^n=\underset{k1}{}\underset{i=0}{\overset{4}{}}(1z^{2k2+i}t^k)^{(1)^{i+1}b_i(S)}.$$
(2.1)
In particular $`_{n0}e(S^{[n]})q^{ne(S)/24}=\eta (\tau )^{e(S)}.`$

This was first shown in  in the case of the projective plane and of Hirzebruch surfaces using a natural $`𝐂^{}`$ action. The proof in  uses the Weil Conjectures. An important role in this proof as in all subsequent generalizations and refinements is played by the following natural stratification of $`S^{[n]}`$ and $`S^{(n)}`$ parametrized by the set $`P(n)`$ of partitions of $`n`$. For a partition $`\alpha =(n_1,\mathrm{},n_r)P(n)`$, the corresponding locally closed stratum $`S_\alpha ^{(n)}`$ of $`S^{(n)}`$ consists of the set of zero cycles $`n_1[x_1]+\mathrm{}+n_r[x_r]`$ with $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_r`$ distinct points of $`S`$. We put $`S_\alpha ^{[n]}=\rho ^1(S_\alpha ^{(n)})`$. A partition $`\alpha =(n_1,\mathrm{},n_r)P(n)`$ can also be written as $`\alpha =(1^{\alpha _1},\mathrm{},n^{\alpha _n})`$, where $`\alpha _i`$ is the number of occurences of $`i`$ in $`(n_1,\mathrm{},n_r)`$. We put $`|\alpha |=r=\alpha _i`$. Then (2.1) can be reformulated as

$$p(S^{[n]},z)=\underset{\alpha P(n)}{}p(S^{(\alpha _1)}\times \mathrm{}\times S^{(\alpha _n)},z)z^{2(n|\alpha |)}.$$
(2.2)
This result has been refined to Hodge numbers in ,  and this was generalized in  to the Douady space of a complex surface. It has been further refined to determine the motive and the Chow groups  and the element in the Grothendieck group of varieties of $`S^{[n]}`$ .

Partially motivated by (2.1) and using arguments from physics in  a conjectural refinement to the Krichever-Höhn elliptic genus is given. We restrict our attention to the case that $`K_X=0`$ when the elliptic genus is a Jacobi form. For a complex vector bundle $`E`$ on a complex manifold $`X`$ and a variable $`t`$ we put

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(E):=\underset{k0}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^k(E)t^k,S_t(E):=\underset{k0}{}S^k(E)t^k.$$

For the holomorphic Euler characteristic we write $`\chi (X,\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(E)):=\chi (X,\mathrm{\Lambda }^kE)t^k`$ and similarly for $`S_t(E)`$. Then the elliptic genus is defined by

$$\varphi (X,q,y):=\chi (X,\underset{m1}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{y^1q^m}T_X\mathrm{\Lambda }_{yq^{m1}}T_X^{}S_{q^m}(T_XT_X^{})).$$

Writing $`\varphi (S):=_{m0,l}c(m,l)q^my^l`$, the conjecture is

$$\underset{N0}{}\varphi (S^{[n]})p^N=\underset{n>0,m0,l}{}\frac{1}{(1p^nq^my^l)^{c(nm,l)}}.$$

## 3. Infinite dimensional Lie algebras and the cohomology ring

We saw that one gets nice generating functions in $`n`$ for the Betti numbers of the $`S^{[n]}`$. Now we shall see that the direct sum of all the cohomologies of the $`S^{[n]}`$ carries a new structure which governs the ring structures of the Hilbert schemes. We only consider cohomology with rational coefficients and thus write $`H^{}(X)`$ for $`H^{}(X,𝐐)`$. We write $`H:=H^{}(S)`$; for $`n>0`$ let $`𝐇_n:=H^{}(S^{[n]})`$. and $`𝐇:=_{n0}𝐇_n`$. We shall see that $`𝐇`$ is an irreducible module under a Heisenberg algebra. This was conjectured in  and proven in ,. $`𝐇`$ contains a distingished element $`\mathrm{𝟏}𝐇_\mathrm{𝟎}=𝐐`$. We denote by $`_S`$ and $`_{S^{[n]}}`$ the evaluation on the fundamental class of $`S`$ and $`S^{[n]}`$. Define for $`n>0`$ the incidence variety

$$Z_{l,n}:=\left\{(Z,x,W)S^{[l]}\times S\times S^{[l+n]}\right|ZW,\rho (W)\rho (Z)=n[x]\},$$

and use this to define operators

$$p_n:HEnd(𝐇);p_n(\alpha )(y):=pr_3(pr_2^{}(\alpha )pr_1^{}(y)[Z_{l,n}]).$$

Let $`p_n(\alpha ):=(1)^np_n(\alpha )^{}`$, where $`^{}`$ denotes the adjoint with respect to $`_{S^{[n]}}`$, and $`p_0(\alpha ):=0`$. By , the $`p_n(\alpha )`$ fulfill the commutation relations of a Heisenberg algebra:

$$[p_n(\alpha ),p_m(\beta )]=(1)^{n1}n\delta _{n,m}\left(_S\alpha \beta \right)id_𝐇,n,m𝐙,\alpha ,\beta H.$$
(3.1)
We can interpret this as follows. Let $`H=H_+H_{}`$ be the decomposition into even and odd cohomology. Put $`S^{}(H):=_{i0}S^i(H_+)_{i0}\mathrm{\Lambda }^i(H_{}).`$ The Fock space associated to $`H`$ is $`F(H):=S^{}(Ht𝐐[t])`$. Using the above theorems one readily shows that there is an isomorphism of graded vector spaces $`F(H)𝐇`$. With this $`𝐇`$ becomes an irreducible module under the Heisenberg-Clifford algebra.

The ring structure of the $`H^{}(S^{[n]})`$ is connected to the Heisenberg algebra action. Given an action of a Heisenberg algebra, a standard construction gives an action of the corresponding Virasoro algebra. The important fact however, proven in  is that the Virasoro algebra generators have a geometrical interpretation tying them to the ring structure of the cohomology of the $`S^{[n]}`$. Let $`\delta :SS\times S`$ be the diagonal embedding, and let $`\delta _{}:H^{}(S)H^{}(S\times S)`$ be the corresponding pushforward. Let $`p_\nu p_{n\nu }\delta (\alpha ):H^{}(S)End(𝐇)`$ be defined as $`p_\nu p_{n\nu }(\beta \times \gamma ):=p_\nu (\beta )p_{n\nu }(\gamma )`$ applied to $`\delta _{}(\alpha )H\times H`$. For $`n0`$ define $`L_n(\alpha ):=_{\nu 𝐙}p_\nu p_{n\nu }\delta _{}(\alpha ),`$ and $`L_0(\alpha ):=_{\nu >0}p_\nu p_\nu \delta _{}(\alpha ).`$ These operators satisfy the relations of the Virasoro algebra:

$$[L_n(\alpha ),L_m(\beta )]=(nm)L_{n+m}(ab)+\delta _{n,m}\frac{n^3n}{12}\left(_Sc_2(S)ab\right)id_𝐇.$$
(3.2)
Let $`:𝐇𝐇`$ be the operator which on each $`H^{}(S^{[n]})`$ is the multiplication with $`c_1(𝒪^{[n]})`$, where $`𝒪^{[n]}=\pi _{}(Z_n(S))`$ is the tautological vector bundle associated to the trivial line bundle on $`S`$. The tie given in  to the ring structure is:

$$[,p_n(\alpha )]=nL_n(a)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)p_n(K_Sa),n0,\alpha H^{}(S).$$
(3.3)
In , for each $`\alpha H^{}(S)`$, classes $`\alpha ^{[n]}H^{}(S^{[n]})`$ are defined as generatizations of the Chern characters $`ch(F^{[n]})`$ of tautological bundles, which are studied in . The homogeneous components of the $`\alpha ^{[n]}`$ generate the ring $`H^{}(S^{[n]})`$. , relate the multiplication by the $`\alpha ^{[n]}`$ to the higher order commutators with $``$: Let $`\alpha ^{[]}:𝐇𝐇`$ be the operator which on every $`H^{}(S^{[n]})`$ is the multiplication with $`\alpha ^{[n]}`$, then

$$[\alpha ^{[]},p_1(\beta )]=\mathrm{exp}(ad())p_1(\alpha \beta ),$$
(3.4)
where for an operator $`A:𝐇𝐇`$, $`ad()A=[,A]`$.

(3.2),(3.3),(3.4) determine the cohomology rings of the $`S^{[n]}`$. In case $`K_S=0`$ this is used in , to give an elementary description of the cohomology rings $`H^{}(S^{[n]})`$ in terms of the symmetric group, which we will relate below to orbifold cohomology rings.

## 4. Orbifolds and orbifold cohomology

Let $`X`$ be a compact complex manifold with an action of a finite group $`G`$ and assume that for all $`1gG`$ the fixlocus $`X^g`$ has codimension $`2`$. The quotient $`X/G`$ will usually be singular, but the stack quotient $`[X/G]`$ is a smooth orbifold. In physics , the following orbifold Euler characteristic has been introduced

$$e(X,G):=\underset{gh=hgG}{}e(X^{g,h})=\underset{[g]G}{}e(X^g/C(g)).$$

Here the first sum runs over all commuting pairs in $`G`$ and $`X^{g,h}`$ is the set of common fixpoints; the second sum runs over the conjugacy classes $`[g]`$ of elements in $`G`$ and $`C(g)`$ is the centralizer of $`g`$. If $`YX/G`$ is a crepant resolution, then it was expected that $`e(X,G)=e(Y)`$. As the conjugacy classes of the symmetric group $`G_n`$ correspond to the partitions of $`n`$, one can see  using formula (2.2) that this is true for the resolution of $`S^{(n)}`$ by $`S^{[n]}`$, which was an important check for this conjecture.

Orbifold Euler numbers have been refined to orbifold cohomology groups . We again take all cohomology with $`𝐐`$ coefficients. Define a rationally graded $`𝐐`$-vector space

$$H_{orb}^{}([X/G]):=\underset{[g]G}{}H^{}(X^g/C(g)).$$

The grading is defined as follows. Assume for simplicity that all $`X^g`$ are connected. For $`xX^g`$ let $`e^{2\pi ir_1},\mathrm{},e^{2\pi ir_k}`$ be the eigenvalues of $`g`$ on $`T_{X,x}`$. Put $`a(g):=r_i𝐐`$ where $`r_i[0,1)`$. This is independent of $`x`$. For $`\alpha H^i(X^g/C(g))`$ its degree in the $`[g]`$-th summand of $`H_{orb}^{}([X/G])`$ is $`i+2a(g)`$. If $`X/G`$ is Gorenstein, then it is easy to see that $`a(g)𝐙_0`$. For crepant resolutions $`YX/G`$, it was conjectured that $`H_{orb}^{}([X/G])=H^{}(Y)`$ as graded vector spaces. In the case of $`S^{[n]}S^{(n)}`$ this can again be verified from formula (2.2). In  it has been established for all crepant resolutions $`YX/G`$.

Recently orbifold cohomology rings, i.e. a ring structure on the orbifold cohomology have been defined as a special case of quantum cohomology of orbifolds ,,. In  it is conjectured for an orbifold $`X`$ with a hyperkähler resolution $`YX`$, i.e. a crepant resolution such that $`Y`$ is hyperkähler, that the orbifold cohomology ring of $`X`$ is isomorphic to $`H^{}(Y)`$. The most relevant case of such a resolution is $`S^{[n]}S^{(n)}`$ when $`K_S=0`$. This is precisely the case in which  gives an elementary description of the cohomology ring of $`S^{[n]}`$. In , an elementary description of the orbifold cohomology of a quotient $`[X/G]`$ by a finite group is given. We define $`H^{}(X,G):=_{gG}H^{}(X^g)`$. This carries a $`G`$-action by $`h\alpha _g=(h_{}\alpha )_{hgh^1}`$, and, for a suitable grading on $`H^{}(X,G)`$, it follows that the $`G`$ invariant part is just $`H_{orb}^{}([X/G])`$ as a graded vector space. In order to define the ring structure on $`H_{orb}^{}([X/G])`$ one therefore defines a ring structure on $`H^{}(X,G)`$ compatible with the $`G`$-action. In  the cohomology ring $`H^{}(S^{[n]})`$ is also described as the $`G_n`$ invariant part of a ring structure on $`H^{}(S^n,G_n)`$ and one checks that the two ring structures on $`H^{}(S^n,G_n)`$ coincide up to an explicit sign change, thus proving the conjecture of  for $`S^{[n]}`$.

If $`\pi :YX/G`$ is only a crepant resolution but not hyperkähler, then usually $`H_{orb}^{}([X/G])`$ and $`H^{}(Y)`$ are not isomorphic as rings. However in  a precise conjecture is made relating the two: One has to correct $`H_{orb}^{}([X/G])`$ by Gromov-Witten invariants coming from classes of rational curves $`Y`$ contracted by $`\pi `$. In the case of the Hilbert scheme these curve classes are the multiples of a unique class. The conjecture was verified for $`S^{[2]}`$.

## 5. Moduli of vector bundles

We denote by $`M_S^H(r,c_1,c_2)`$ the moduli space of Gieseker $`H`$-semistable coherent sheaves of rank $`r`$ on $`S`$ with Chern classes $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$. Here a sheaf $``$ of rank $`r>0`$ on $`S`$ is called semistable, if $`\chi (𝒢H^n)/r^{}\chi (H^n)/r`$ for all sufficiently large $`n`$ and for all subsheaves $`𝒢`$ of positive rank $`r^{}`$. As $`M_S^H(1,0,c_2)Pic^0(S)\times S^{[c_2]}`$, the Hilbert scheme of points is a special case. We will often restrict our attention to the case of $`r=2`$ and write $`M_S^H(c_1,c_2)`$. The Hilbert schemes of points are related in several ways to the $`M_S^H(c_1,c_2)`$. The most basic tie is the Serre correspondence which says that under mild assumptions rank two vector bundles on $`S`$ can be constructed as extensions of ideal sheaves of finite subschemes by line bundles. Related to this is the dependence of the $`M_S^H(c_1,c_2)`$ on the ample divisor $`H`$ via a system of walls and chambers. This has been studied by a number of authors (e.g. ,,). Assume for simplicity that $`S`$ is simply connected. A class $`\xi H^2(S,𝐙)`$ defines a wall of type $`(c_1,c_2)`$ if $`\xi +c_12H^2(S,𝐙)`$ and $`c_1^24c_2\xi ^2<0`$. The corresponding wall is $`W^\xi =\left\{\alpha H^2(S,𝐑)\right|\alpha \xi =0\}`$. The connected components of the complement of the walls in $`H^2(X,𝐑)`$ are called the chambers of type $`(c_1,c_2)`$. If a sheaf $`M_S^H(c_1,c_2)`$ is unstable with respect to $`L`$, then there is a wall $`W^\xi `$ with $`H\xi <0<L\xi `$ and an extension

$$0_ZA_W\times B0,$$

where $`A,BPic(S)`$ with $`AB=\xi `$ and $`_Z`$, $`_W`$ are the ideal sheaves of zero dimensional schemes on $`S`$. It follows that $`M_S^H(c_1,c_2)`$ depends only on the chamber of $`H`$ and the set theoretic change under wallcrossing is given in terms of Hilbert schemes of points on $`S`$. In the case e.g. of rational surfaces and K3-surfaces, the change can be described as an explicit sequence of blow ups along $`𝐏_k`$ bundles over products $`S^{[n]}\times S^{[m]}`$ followed by blow downs in another direction ,. The change of the Betti and Hodge numbers under wallcrossing can be explicitly determined and this can be used e.g. to determine the Hodge numbers of $`M_S^H(c_1,c_2)`$ for rational surfaces. For suitable choices of $`H`$ one can find the generating functions in terms of modular forms and Jacobi forms .

The appearance of modular forms is in accord with the $`S`$-duality conjectures  from theoretical physics, which predict that under suitable assumptions the generating functions for the the Euler numbers of moduli spaces of sheaves on surfaces should be given by modular forms. One of the motivating examples for this conjecture is the case that $`S`$ is a K3-surface. In this case the conjecture is that, if $`M_S^H(c_1,c_2)`$ is smooth, then it has the same Betti numbers as the Hilbert scheme of points on $`S`$ of the same dimension. Assuming this, the formula (2.1) for the Hilbert schemes of points implies that the generating function for the Euler numbers is a modular form. If $`c_1`$ is primitive this was shown in . The result was shown in general for $`M_S^H(r,c_1,c_2)`$ with $`r>0`$ in ,, by relating the Hilbert scheme and the moduli space via birational correspondences and deformations. One concludes that $`M_S^H(r,c_1,c_2)`$ has the same Betti numbers as the Hilbert scheme of points of the same dimension, as both spaces are holomorphic symplectic  and birational manifolds with trivial canonical class have the same Betti numbers . Similar results are shown in  for abelian surfaces. Other motivating examples for the S-duality conjecture were the case of $`𝐏_2`$  and the blowup formula relating the generating function for the Euler numbers of the moduli spaces of rank 2 sheaves on a surface $`S`$ to that on the blowup of $`S`$ in a point, which has since been established (,, see also ).

The moduli spaces $`M_S^H(c_1,c_2)`$ can be used to compute the Donaldson invariants of $`S`$. In case $`p_g=0`$ these depend on a metric, corresponding to the dependence of $`M_S^H(c_1,c_2)`$ on $`H`$. For rational surfaces one can use the above description of the wallcrossing for the $`M_S^H(c_1,c_2)`$ to determine the change of the Donaldson invariants in terms of Chern numbers of generalizations of the tautological sheaves $`L^{[n]}`$ on products $`S^{[n]}\times S^{[m]}`$ of Hilbert schemes of points ,. The leading terms of these expressions can be explicitly evaluated. The wallcrossing of Donaldson invariants has also been studied in gauge theory (e.g.,). There a conjecture about the structure of the wallcrossing formulas is made. Assuming this conjecture one can determine the generating functions for the wallcrossing in terms of modular forms ,.

## 6. Enumerative geometry of curves

Now we want to see some striking relations between the Hilbert schemes $`S^{[n]}`$ and the enumerative geometry of curves on $`S`$. First let $`S`$ be a K3 surface and $`L`$ a primitive line bundle on $`S`$. Then $`L^2=2g2`$, where the linear system $`|L|`$ has dimension $`g`$ and a smooth curve in $`|L|`$ has geometric genus $`g`$. As a node imposes one linear condition, one expects a finite number of rational curves (i.e. curves of geometric genus $`0`$) in $`|L|`$. Partially based on arguments from physics, a formula is given in  for the number of rational curves in $`|L|`$ and in  this made mathematically precise. Writing $`n_g`$ for the number of rational curves in $`|L|`$ with $`L^2=2g2`$ (counted with suitable multiplicities), the formula is

$$\underset{g0}{}n_gq^g=\frac{q}{\mathrm{\Delta }},$$
(6.1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is again the discriminant. By (2.1) this implies the surprizing fact that $`n_g`$ is just the Euler number of $`S^{[g]}`$. In fact the argument relates the number of curves to $`S^{[g]}`$: Let $`𝒞|L|`$ be the universal curve and let $`𝒥|L|`$ be the corresponding relative compactified Jacobian, whose fibre over the point corresponding to a curve $`C`$ is the compactified Jacobian $`J(C)`$ . One can show that $`e(J(C))=0`$ unless $`g(C)=0`$. It follows that $`e(𝒥)`$ is the sum over the $`e(J(C))`$ for $`C|L|`$ with $`g(C)=0`$. It is not difficult to show that $`S^{[g]}`$ and $`𝒥`$ are birational. $`𝒥`$ is also smooth and hyperkähler as a moduli space of sheaves on a K3 surface . As already used in the section on vector bundles, birational manifolds with trivial canonical bundle have the same Betti numbers . Thus $`𝒥`$ and $`S^{[g]}`$ have the same Euler numbers. This shows (6.1), where the multiplicity of a rational curve $`C`$ is $`e(J(C))`$. By  this multiplicity is the multiplicity of the corresponding moduli space of stable maps, in particular it is always positive. In  a conjectural generalization of (6.1) to arbitrary surfaces $`S`$ is given.

Conjecture 6.1

1. For all $`\delta 0`$, there exists a universal polynomial $`T_\delta (x,y,z,w)`$, such that for all projective surfaces $`S`$ and all sufficiently ample line bundles $`L`$ on $`S`$ the number of $`\delta `$-nodal curves in a general $`\delta `$-dimensional linear subspace of $`|L|`$ is $`T_\delta (\chi (L),\chi (𝒪_S),LK_S,K_S^2)`$.
2. There are universal power series $`B_1,B_2𝐙[[q]]`$ whose coefficients can be explicitely determined, such that

$$\underset{\delta 0}{}T_\delta (\chi (L),\chi (𝒪_S),LK_S,K_S^2)(DG_2)^\delta =\frac{(DG_2/q)^{\chi (L)}B_1^{LK_S}B_2^{K_S^2}}{(\mathrm{\Delta }D^2G_2/q^2)^{\chi (𝒪_S)/2}}.$$

Here $`D=q\frac{d}{dq}`$ and $`G_2=\frac{1}{24}\frac{D\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$.

The expectation that universal polynomials should exist is implicit in , where the $`T_\delta `$ are determined for $`\delta 8`$. In  also another tie of the conjecture to the Hilbert scheme of points is given: conjecturally the numbers $`T_\delta (\chi (L),\chi (𝒪_S)`$,
$`LK_S,K_S^2)`$ are suitable intersection numbers on the Hilbert scheme $`S^{[3\delta ]}`$ of $`3\delta `$ points of $`S`$. If $`S`$ is a K3 surface or an abelian surface, then the conjecture predicts that the generating function can be written in terms of modular forms. In this case a modified version of Conjecture 6.1 was proven for primitive line bundles in  and , replacing the numbers of $`\delta `$-nodal curves with the corresponding modified Gromov-Witten invariants. In  a proof of the conjecture is published.


format: text

text:
# Dynamically Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Masses of Lightest Nonet Scalar Mesons as Composite Higgs Bosons

## I Introduction

The strong interaction between quarks is described by the SU(3) gauge theory, which is known as the chromodynamics (QCD). The asymptotic behavior of strong interaction at high energy has been successfully characterized by perturbative QCD. Though QCD was motivated from the studies of low energy dynamics of hadrons, the low energy dynamics of QCD remains unsolved due to the nonperturbative effects of strong interactions. In general, hadrons are considered to be the bound states formed by the quarks and gluons through the nonperturbative QCD effects. For lightest pseudoscalar mesons, the success of current algebra with PCAC  is mainly because it reflects the (approximate) chiral invariance of the QCD lagrangian. While the (approximate) chiral symmetry $`U(3)_L\times U(3)_R`$ is found to be strongly broken down due to nonperturbative QCD effects. Many efforts have been paid to the issues such as: how the chiral symmetry is dynamically broken down, how the instanton plays the role as it represents a quantum topological solution of nonperturbative QCD, whether the effective meson theory should be realized as a linear $`\sigma `$ model or a non-linear $`\sigma `$ model, whether the lowest lying $`U(3)_V`$ nonet scalar mesons corresponds to the chiral partners of the lowest lying nonet pseudoscalar mesons, whether the isospinor scalar mesons $`K_0^{}(1430)`$  are the lowest lying isospinor scalar mesons or there should exist other lighter isospinor scalar mesons $`\kappa _0`$ that constitute the lowest lying nonet scalar mesons together with the isovector scalar mesons $`a_0(980)`$, the isoscalar scalar meson $`f_0(980)`$ and the singlet scalar meson $`f_0(4001200)`$ (or the $`\sigma `$).

Theoretically, some phenomenological models have been constructed to investigate the scalar sector. In this paper, we shall adopt the new finite regularization method proposed recently in ref. to derive an effective chiral Lagrangian for scalar and pseudoscalar mesons based on the (approximate) chiral symmetry of QCD Lagrangian and the bound state assumption of effective meson fields with including the instanton induced interactions discovered by t’Hooft. For the purpose of the present paper, we then pay attention to study the chiral symmetry breaking mechanism and to predict the masses and mixing for the lightest scalar mesons. The advantages of the new finite regularization method are that it allows us to obtain the effective chiral Lagrangian which preserves gauge and Lorentz as well as translational invariance and meanwhile keeps the physically meaningful finite quadratic term. As a consequence, it leads the resulting effective chiral field theory to have a dynamically spontaneous symmetry breaking mechanism. Specifically, the gap equations are obtained as the conditions of minimal effective potential after spontaneous symmetry breaking. The important point in the new finite regularization method is that there appear two intrinsic mass scales, i.e., the characteristic energy scale (CES) $`M_c`$ and the sliding energy scale (SES) $`\mu _s`$. Here the CES $`M_c`$ is the basic energy scale below which the effective field theory becomes meaningful as the low energy dynamics of nonperturbative QCD. The SES $`\mu _s`$ reflects the energy scale on which the interesting physics processes are concerned. Because of these interesting features in the new finite regularization method, it manifestly distinguishes from either the dimensional regularization which cannot lead to the right gap equations though it preserves gauge and Lorentz invariance, or the naive cutoff regularization which destroys the gauge invariance though it could lead to the required gap equations. It will explicitly be shown that the resulting effective chiral Lagrangian is a nonlinearly realized chiral model, and the (approximate) chiral symmetry $`U(3)_L\times U(3)_R`$ of QCD Lagrangian is broken down through a dynamically spontaneous symmetry breaking mechanism. Here the lightest $`U(3)_V`$ nonet scalar mesons appearing as the chiral partners of the nonet pseudoscalar mesons are the composite Higgs bosons. Of particular, the instanton effect is found to play an important role in the dynamically spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry $`U(3)_L\times U(3)_R`$. As expected, it not only provides a natural explanation why the singlet pseudoscalar meson $`\eta ^{}`$ is much heavier than the octet pseudoscalar mesons, but also leads to a reasonable prediction for the mass spectrum of nonet scalar mesons. Actually, it is the instanton effect that makes the singlet scalar meson (the $`\sigma `$) to be much lighter than the octet scalar mesons, which is in contrast to the nonet pseudoscalar meson sector. In addition, it also results in consistent predictions for the light quark masses and the mixing angles between the singlet and octet neutral scalar and pseudoscalar mesons.

## II Effective Chiral Lagrangian and Dynamically Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking

Let us begin with the QCD Lagrangian with only light quarks

$`_{QCD}=\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu (i_\mu +g_sG_\mu ^aT^a)q\overline{q}Mq{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}trG_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }`$ (1)
where $`q=(u,d,s)`$ denote three light quarks and the summation over color degrees of freedom is understood. $`G_\mu ^a`$ are the gluon fields with SU(3) gauge symmetry and $`g_s`$ is the running coupling constant. $`M`$ is the light quark mass matrix $`M=diag.(m_1,m_2,m_3)diag.(m_u,m_d,m_s)`$. In the limit $`m_i0`$ (i=1,2,3), the Lagrangian has global $`U(3)_L\times U(3)_R`$ symmetry. It is known that the chiral $`U(1)_L\times U(1)_R`$ symmetry is broken down to $`U(1)_V`$ symmetry due to the quantum $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly of QCD, namely the so-called instanton effect. The instanton-induced interactions were found to have the following form

$$^{inst}=\kappa _{inst}e^{i\theta _{inst}}det(\overline{q}_Rq_L)+h.c.$$
(2)
where $`\kappa _{inst}`$ is a constant and contains the factor $`e^{8\pi ^2/g^2}`$. Obviously, this instanton term breaks the chiral symmetry $`U(1)_A`$.

The basic assumption in our present consideration is that at the chiral symmetry breaking scale ($`1`$ GeV) the effective Lagrangian contains not only the quark fields but also the effective meson fields describing bound states of strong interactions of gluons and quarks. After integrating over the gluon field at high energy scales, the effective Lagrangian at low energy scale is expected to have the following general form when keeping only the lowest order nontrivial terms

$`_{eff}(q,\overline{q},\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu i_\mu q+\overline{q}_L\gamma _\mu 𝒜_L^\mu q_L+\overline{q}_R\gamma _\mu 𝒜_R^\mu q_R[\overline{q}_L(\mathrm{\Phi }M)q_R+h.c.]`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`\mu _m^2tr(\mathrm{\Phi }M^{}+M\mathrm{\Phi }^{})\mu _f^2tr\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\mu _{inst}(det\mathrm{\Phi }+h.c.)`$ (4)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}`$ are the effective meson fields which basically correspond to the composite operators $`\overline{q}_{Rj}q_{Li}`$. $`𝒜_L`$ and $`𝒜_R`$ are introduced as the external source fields. The instanton induced interaction $`\kappa _{inst}e^{i\theta _{inst}}det(\overline{q}_Rq_L)`$ has be mimicked by the term $`\mu _{inst}e^{i\theta _{inst}}det\mathrm{\Phi }`$ . It is noticed that without considering the instanton-induced interaction term (or taking $`\kappa _{inst}=0`$), the integral over the effective meson fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ leads to the four fermion interaction term and the resulting effective Lagrangian is then related to the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model. Therefore without the instanton induced interactions, the above Lagrangian can be regarded as the bosonized Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model with the quark mass being given by

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _m^2}{\mu _f^2}}1\right)M`$ (5)
it is clear that when taking $`\mu _m^2=2\mu _f^2`$, we then arrive at, after integrating over the effective meson field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}`$, the well-known four quark interacting Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model with the well defined QCD current quark masses $`M`$. In this sense, the effective meson fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}`$ may be regarded as the auxiliary fields. Namely there is no kinetic term for the effective meson fields in our present considerations. Also the high order terms for the effective meson fields with dimension being equal and larger than four are not included assuming they are small and can be generated in loop diagrams. This indicates that only the lowest order nontrivial fermionic interaction terms are considered after integrating over the gluon field. For our purpose in the present paper, the vector and axial vector mesons are also not considered, only the scalar and pseudoscalar mesons are concerned. As the pseudoscalar mesons are known to be the would-be Goldstone bosons, the effective chiral field theory is naturally to be realized as a nonlinear model. Thus we may express the 18 effective meson fields of the $`3\times 3`$ complex matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ into the following form

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _L(x)\varphi (x)\xi _R^{}(x),U=\xi _L(x)\xi _R^{}(x)=\xi _L^2(x)=e^{i\frac{2\mathrm{\Pi }(x)}{f}}`$ (7)
$`\varphi ^{}(x)=\varphi (x)={\displaystyle \underset{a=0}{\overset{a=9}{}}}\varphi ^a(x)T^a,\mathrm{\Pi }^{}(x)=\mathrm{\Pi }(x)={\displaystyle \underset{a=0}{\overset{a=9}{}}}\mathrm{\Pi }^a(x)T^a`$
where $`T^a`$ ($`a=0,1,\mathrm{},8`$) with $`[T^a,T^b]=if^{abc}T^c`$ and $`2trT^aT^b=\delta _{ab}`$ are the nine generators of $`U(3)`$ group. The fields $`\mathrm{\Pi }^a(x)`$ represent the pseudoscalar mesons and $`\varphi ^a(x)`$ the corresponding scalar mesons. $`f`$ is a constant with mass dimension.

The effective chiral Lagrangian for mesons is then obtained from integrating over the quark fields. The procedure for deriving the effective chiral Lagrangian of mesons can be formally expressed in terms of the generating functionals via the following relations

$$\frac{1}{Z}𝒟G_\mu 𝒟q𝒟\overline{q}e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x_{QCD}}}=\frac{1}{\overline{Z}}𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }𝒟q𝒟\overline{q}e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x_{eff}(q,\overline{q},\mathrm{\Phi })}}=\frac{1}{Z_{eff}}𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x_{eff}(\mathrm{\Phi })}}$$
(8)
By applying the Schwinger’s proper time technique to the determinant of Dirac operator and using the new finite regularization method proposed in ref. for momentum integrals, we arrive at the following effective Lagrangian (a detailed derivation is presented in the appendix)

$`_{eff}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{16\pi ^2}}trT_0[D_\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}D^\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}+D_\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}D^\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}\overline{M}^2)^2(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\overline{M}^2)^2]`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{16\pi ^2}}M_c^2trT_2[(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}\overline{M}^2)+(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\overline{M}^2)]`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`\mu _m^2tr(\mathrm{\Phi }M^{}+M\mathrm{\Phi }^{})\mu _f^2tr\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\mu _{inst}(det\mathrm{\Phi }+h.c.)`$ (11)
with $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\mathrm{\Phi }M`$, and $`\overline{M}=VM=diag.(\overline{m}_1,\overline{m}_2,\overline{m}_3)`$. Here $`\overline{m}_i=v_im_i`$ is regarded as the dynamical quark masses, $`v_i`$ is supposed to be the vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of the scalar fields, i.e., $`<\varphi >=V=diag.(v_1,v_2,v_3)`$ and to be determined from the conditions of minimal effective potential in the effective chiral Lagrangian $`_{eff}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. Here we have only kept the lowest terms needed for our purpose in the present paper. Where the two diagonal matrices $`T_0=diag.(T_0^{(1)},T_0^{(2)},T_0^{(3)})`$ and $`T_2=diag.(T_2^{(1)},T_2^{(2)},T_2^{(3)})`$ arise from the integral over the loop momentum by using the new finite regularization method. They are given by the following form

$`T_0^{(i)}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _i^2}{M_c^2}})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_c^2}{\mu _i^2}}\gamma _w+y_0({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _i^2}{M_c^2}})`$ (12)
$`T_2^{(i)}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _i^2}{M_c^2}})`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _i^2}{M_c^2}}[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_c^2}{\mu _i^2}}\gamma _w+1+y_2({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _i^2}{M_c^2}})]`$ (13)
with

$`y_0(x)={\displaystyle _0^x}𝑑\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1e^\sigma }{\sigma }}`$ (14)
$`y_1(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\left(e^x1+x\right)`$ (15)
$`y_2(x)=y_0(x)y_1(x)`$ (16)
Note that $`M_c`$ is the characteristic energy scale from which the nonperturbative QCD effects start to play an important role and the effective chiral field theory is considered to be valid below the scale $`M_c`$. We have also used the definitions

$$\mu _i^2=\mu _s^2+\overline{m}_i^2,\overline{m}_i=v_im_i$$
(17)
with $`\mu _s^2`$ the sliding energy scale arising from the new finite regularization, it is usually taken to be at the energy scale at which the physical processes take place. As it is easy to see that the equal mass case $`m_u=m_d=m_s`$ must lead to the equal VEVs $`v_1=v_2=v_3`$, one may then write the VEVs in terms of the following general form

$$v_i=v_o+\beta m_i,i=1,2,3\text{or}i=u,d,s$$
(18)
Let us now focus on the effective potential which may be reexpressed as the following general form

$`V_{eff}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`tr\widehat{\mu }_m^2\left(\mathrm{\Phi }M^{}+M\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr\widehat{\mu }_f^2(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr\lambda [(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{})^2+(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})^2]\mu _{inst}(det\mathrm{\Phi }+h.c.)`$ (20)
with $`\widehat{\mu }_f^2`$, $`\widehat{\mu }_m^2`$ and $`\lambda `$ the three diagonal matrices

$`\widehat{\mu }_f^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _f^2{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{8\pi ^2}}\left(M_c^2T_2+\overline{M}^2T_0\right)`$ (21)
$`\widehat{\mu }_m^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _m^2{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{8\pi ^2}}\left(M_c^2T_2+\overline{M}^2T_0\right)`$ (22)
$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{16\pi ^2}}T_0`$ (23)
Taking the nonlinear realization $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=\xi _L(x)\varphi (x)\xi _R^{}(x)`$ with supposing that the minimal of the above effective potential occurs at the point $`<\varphi >=V=diag.(v_1,v_2,v_3)`$, and writing the scalar fields as

$$\varphi (x)=V+\phi (x)$$
(24)
we then obtain three minimal conditions

$`\left(\widehat{\mu }_f^2\right)_iv_i+\left(\widehat{\mu }_m^2\right)_im_i2\lambda _i\overline{m}_i^3+\mu _{inst}\overline{v}^3/v_i=0,i=1,2,3`$ (25)
with $`\overline{v}^3=v_1v_2v_3`$. For convenience of discussions, it is useful to decompose the diagonal matrices $`\mu ^2`$, $`\widehat{\mu }_f^2`$, $`\widehat{\mu }_m^2`$ and $`\lambda `$ into two parts that are independent of and dependent on the current quark masses $`m_i`$ ($`i=u,d,s`$). Practically, it can be done by making an expansion in terms of the current quark masses

$`\mu _i^2=\mu _o^2+2(\beta 1)v_o\stackrel{~}{m}_i,\mu _o^2=\mu _s^2+v_o^2,\stackrel{~}{m}_i=m_i[1+(\beta 1)m_i/(2v_o)]`$ (26)
$`\left(\widehat{\mu }_f^2\right)_i=\overline{\mu }_f^2+2\mu _{fo}\stackrel{~}{m}_i[1+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{}}\alpha _k\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_i}{\mu _o}}\right)^k(\beta 1)^k]`$ (27)
$`\left(\widehat{\mu }_m^2\right)_i=\overline{\mu }_m^2+2\mu _{fo}\stackrel{~}{m}_i[1+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{}}\alpha _k\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_i}{\mu _o}}\right)^k(\beta 1)^k]`$ (28)
$`\lambda _i=\overline{\lambda }\lambda _o{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{}}\beta _k\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_i}{\mu _o}}\right)^k(\beta 1)^k,\lambda _o={\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{16\pi ^2}}`$ (29)
The unknown seven parameters are $`\overline{\mu }_f^2`$, $`\overline{\mu }_m^2`$, $`\mu _{inst}`$, $`v_o`$, $`\beta `$ $`\mu _s`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }`$ in addition to the three current quark masses. Three of them are determined by the three minimal conditions. $`\mu _{inst}`$ is in principle calculable and will actually be fixed by the $`\eta ^{}`$ mass. $`v_o`$ is related to the pion decay constant $`f`$. $`\overline{\lambda }`$ is given by the characteristic energy scale $`M_c`$ at which the effective chiral field theory become meaningful, namely $`M_c`$ is at the same order as the chiral symmetry breaking scale $`M_c4\pi f`$. The sliding energy scale $`\mu _s`$ runs to the scale at the order of dynamically spontaneous symmetry breaking scale $`v_o`$.

Solving the three equations of the minimal conditions with keeping only the nonzero leading terms in the expansion of current quark masses, we then obtain the following three constraints from the minimal conditions

$`v_o(1ϵ_o)(\beta 1)^2/\beta ^2v_{inst}/3`$ (30)
$`2\overline{\lambda }(v_{inst}v_3v_o^2)\overline{\mu }_f^2`$ (31)
$`2\beta \overline{\lambda }v_o^2+6(\beta 1)\overline{\lambda }v_o^2+2\lambda _o(\beta 1)v_o^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{2v_o^2}{\mu _o^2}})\overline{\mu }_m^22\beta \overline{\mu }_f^2`$ (32)
where we have neglected the small quark masses $`m_u`$ and $`m_d`$ and introduced the definitions

$`ϵ_o={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _o}{\overline{\lambda }}}[\left({\displaystyle \frac{2v_o^2}{\mu _o^2}}1\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_o^2}{\mu _o^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2v_o}{\mu _o}}\alpha _1(1r)+r+(\beta 1)\left({\displaystyle \frac{2v_o^2}{\mu _o^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\lambda }}{\lambda _o}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{v_o}}]`$ (33)
$`\mu _{fo}2\lambda _ov_o(\beta 1)(1r)`$ (34)
$`\mu _{inst}2\overline{\lambda }v_{inst}`$ (35)
Here $`r`$ and $`\alpha _1`$ are given by

$`r={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _s^2}{\mu _o^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _o^2}{M_c^2}}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _s^2}{\mu _o^2}}+O({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _o^2}{M_c^2}})]`$ (36)
$`\alpha _1(1r)={\displaystyle \frac{2v_o}{\mu _o}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _s^2}{2\mu _o^2}}+O({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _o^2}{M_c^2}})]`$ (37)
Note that in obtaining eq.(25) one needs to keep terms to the order of $`m_i^2`$. The parameters $`\overline{\mu }_m^2`$ and $`\overline{\mu }_f^2`$ are related to the initial parameters in the effective potential and the characteristic energy scale via the following relations

$`\overline{\mu }_f^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _f^2{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{8\pi ^2}}\left(M_c^2T_2({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _o^2}{M_c^2}})+v_o^2T_0({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _o^2}{M_c^2}})\right)`$ (38)
$`\overline{\mu }_m^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _m^2{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{8\pi ^2}}\left(M_c^2T_2({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _o^2}{M_c^2}})+v_o^2T_0({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _o^2}{M_c^2}})\right)`$ (39)
$`\overline{\lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{16\pi ^2}}T_0({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _o^2}{M_c^2}}),T_0({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _o^2}{M_c^2}})=\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_c^2}{\mu _o^2}}\gamma _w+y_0({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _o^2}{M_c^2}})`$ (40)
From the normalization of the kinetic term for the pseudoscalar mesons, we have the relation

$$\overline{\lambda }v_o^2=f^2/4$$
(41)
Note that when ignoring the instanton effects, i.e., taking $`v_{inst}=0`$, one sees that the minimal conditions lead to the usual gap equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{8\pi ^2\mu _f^2}}[M_c^2\mu _o^2\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_c^2}{\mu _o^2}}\gamma _w+1+y_2({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _o^2}{M_c^2}})\right)]=1`$
However, the anomalous large mass of $`\eta ^{}`$ implies that the instanton effects are important. Therefore the conditions of minimal effective potential must be modified after including the instanton effects . They may be regarded as the generalized gap equations and their effects will be discussed in the next section. So far, we have explicitly shown the mechanism of dynamically spontaneous symmetry breaking.

## III Masses of light quarks and Lightest Nonet Scalar Mesons

To make numerical predictions for the masses of scalar and pseudoscalar mesons, one needs to solve the generalized gap equations. For that one must have the knowledge for the three initial parameters $`\mu _f^2`$, $`\mu _m^2`$ and $`\mu _{inst}`$ appearing in the original effective Lagrangian. In addition, one should also know the intrinsic mass scales $`M_c`$ and $`\mu _s`$. In principle, they all should be calculable from QCD and depend on the QCD running scale $`\mu `$ the basic QCD scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ as well as the light quark masses $`m_u`$, $`m_d`$ and $`m_s`$. Practically, one may choose the parameters $`v_o`$, $`\beta `$, $`M_c`$, $`\mu _s`$ and the light quark masses as input, this is because such a set of parameters are much directly related to the low energy phenomena.

As we have shown in the previous section that to have well defined QCD current quark masses without considering the instanton interaction term, it requires that

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _m^2}{\mu _f^2}}1\right)M=M,\text{i.e.}\mu _m^2=2\mu _f^2`$ (42)
which reduces one parameter.

Also when omitting the instanton interaction term, the auxiliary fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}`$ are found from the effective Lagrangian eq.(3) to be given by the quark fields as follows

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu _f^2}}\overline{q}_{Rj}q_{Li}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _m^2}{\mu _f^2}}M_{ij}`$ (43)
Assuming the quark condensate is almost flavor independent, i.e., $`<\overline{u}u><\overline{d}d><\overline{s}s>`$, we then obtain by combining the above condition $`\mu _m^2=2\mu _f^2`$ the second condition

$`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _m^2}{\mu _f^2}}=2`$ (44)
so that the dynamical quark masses have the simple form

$`\overline{m}_i=v_im_i=v_o+(\beta 1)m_i=v_o+m_i,i=u,d,s`$ (45)
which may also be regarded as a kind of constituent quark masses after dynamically spontaneous symmetry breaking. Where $`v_o`$ is caused by the quark condensate

$`v_o={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu _f^2}}<\overline{q}q>,q=u,d,s`$ (46)
It is supposed that the inclusion of the instanton interaction term do not significantly change the above two conditions. Namely, we take $`\beta \mu _m^2/\mu _f^22`$ as a good approximation to reduce two parameters. This is because the instanton term is found to be much smaller than the quadratic term $`\mu _{inst}/\mu _f0.06`$ (see below).

To determine the remaining parameters, we consider the following constraints. Two constraints arise from the pseudoscalar sector. One is due to the normalization of the kinetic term (eq.(36))

$`T_0v_o^2={\displaystyle \frac{(4\pi f)^2}{4N_c}}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_f^2(340\text{MeV})^2`$ (47)
The other is from the mass matrix for the isoscalar and singlet pseudoscalar mesons $`\eta _8`$ and $`\eta _0`$ (see below), the trace of the mass matrix leads to

$`v_{inst}v_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(m_{\eta _8}^2+m_{\eta _0}^22m_K^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(m_\eta ^2+m_\eta ^{}^22m_K^2)(348\text{MeV})^2`$ (48)
Where we have used $`f94`$ MeV and the experimental data $`m_K496`$ MeV, $`m_\eta 548`$ MeV and $`m_\eta ^{}958`$ MeV.

In the scalar sector, the well measured scalar meson $`a_0(980)`$ will provide a constraint to the VEV $`v_o`$ with $`v_o\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_f=340`$ MeV. This indicates that no large loop corrections arise from the logarithmic term in our present considerations, namely

$`T_0(\mu _o^2/M_c^2)1\text{i.e.}\overline{\lambda }\lambda _o=N_c/(16\pi ^2)`$ (49)
With the above constraints together with the three minimal conditions, the parameters are determined to be

$`v_o\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_f340MeV`$ (50)
$`\mu _m^2=2\mu _f^2(204\text{MeV})^2`$ (51)
$`M_c922MeV,\mu _s333MeV`$ (52)
$`v_{inst}210MeV,\text{or}\mu _{inst}=2\overline{\lambda }v_{inst}8.0MeV`$ (53)
$`<\overline{q}q>=(242MeV)^3,m_s117MeV`$ (54)
Here the resulting quark condensation is consistent with the one from QCD.

We are now in the position to make predictions on the masses and mixing for the scalar mesons, pseudoscalar mesons and/or light quark masses. To be manifest, let us first write down the scalar and pseudoscalar meson matrices

$$\sqrt{2}\phi =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{a_0^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}f_8+\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}f_s& a_0^+& \kappa _0^+\\ a_0^{}& \frac{a_0^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}f_8+\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}f_s& \kappa _0^0\\ \kappa _0^{}& \overline{\kappa }_0^0& \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}f_8+\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}f_s\end{array}\right),$$
(55)
and

$$\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Pi }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\pi ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\eta _8+\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\eta _0& \pi ^+& K^+\\ \pi ^{}& \frac{\pi ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\eta _8+\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\eta _0& K^0\\ K^{}& \overline{K}^0& \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}\eta _8+\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\eta _0\end{array}\right),$$
(56)
Keeping to the leading order of current quark masses, we have

$`m_{\pi ^\pm }^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _P^3}{f^2}}(m_u+m_d)`$ (57)
$`m_{K^\pm }^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _P^3}{f^2}}(m_u+m_s)`$ (58)
$`m_{K^0}^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _P^3}{f^2}}(m_d+m_s)`$ (59)
$`m_{\eta _8}^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _P^3}{f^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(m_u+m_d)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}m_s]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(4m_K^2m_\pi ^2)`$ (60)
$`m_{\eta _8\eta _0}^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _P^3}{f^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}[2m_s(m_u+m_d)]={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)`$ (61)
$`m_{\eta _0}^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _P^3}{f^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(m_u+m_d+m_s)+{\displaystyle \frac{12\overline{v}^3}{f^2}}\mu _{inst}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(2m_K^2+m_\pi ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{24\overline{v}^3}{f^2}}\overline{\lambda }v_{inst}`$ (62)
where $`\mu _P^3`$ is given by

$`\mu _P^3=(\overline{\mu }_m^2+2\overline{\lambda }v_o^2)v_o12\overline{\lambda }v_o^33v_of^2`$ (63)
By taking the numerical value for the relevant parameter $`v_o340`$ MeV and using the experimental data for the pion meson mass $`m_\pi 139`$ MeV and the mass square difference between the neutral and charged kaons $`m_{K^0}^2m_{K^\pm }^2(63\text{MeV})^2`$, we then arrive at the following predictions

$`m_u+m_d2\overline{m}9.5\text{MeV},m_dm_u1.95\text{MeV}`$ (64)
$`m_u3.8\text{MeV},m_d5.7\text{MeV},m_s/m_d20.5`$ (65)
for the up and down quark masses, and

$`m_{K^0}500\text{MeV},m_{K^\pm }496\text{MeV}`$ (66)
$`m_\eta 503\text{MeV},m_\eta ^{}986\text{MeV}`$ (67)
for the pseudoscalar meson masses, as well as

$`\mathrm{tan}2\theta _P=2\sqrt{2}[1{\displaystyle \frac{9v_{inst}v_3}{m_K^2m_{\pi ^2}}}]^1,\theta _P18^o`$ (68)
for the mixing angle $`\theta _P`$ between $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons, which is defined as

$`\eta _8=\mathrm{cos}\theta _P\eta +\mathrm{sin}\theta _P\eta ^{}`$ (69)
$`\eta _0=\mathrm{cos}\theta _P\eta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta _P\eta `$ (70)
The masses and mixing of scalar mesons are given by

$`m_{a_0^\pm }^2m_{a_0^0}^22(2\overline{m}_u+\overline{m}_d)\overline{m}_u+2v_{inst}v_3`$ (71)
$`m_{k_0^\pm }^22(2\overline{m}_u+\overline{m}_s)\overline{m}_u+2v_{inst}v_2`$ (72)
$`m_{k_0^0}^22(2\overline{m}_d+\overline{m}_s)\overline{m}_d+2v_{inst}v_1`$ (73)
$`m_{f_8}^2\overline{m}_u^2+\overline{m}_d^2+4\overline{m}_s^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}v_{inst}(2v_1+2v_2v_3)`$ (74)
$`m_{f_s}^22(\overline{m}_u^2+\overline{m}_d^2+\overline{m}_s^2){\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}v_{inst}(v_1+v_2+v_3)`$ (75)
$`m_{f_sf_8}^2\sqrt{2}(2\overline{m}_s^2\overline{m}_u^2\overline{m}_d^2){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}v_{inst}(2v_3v_1v_2)`$ (76)
$`\mathrm{tan}2\theta _S={\displaystyle \frac{2m_{f_sf_8}^2}{m_{f_s}^2m_{f_8}^2}}`$ (77)
Here the mixing angle $`\theta _S`$ is defined as

$`f_8=\mathrm{cos}\theta _Sf_0+\mathrm{sin}\theta _S\sigma `$ (78)
$`f_s=\mathrm{cos}\theta _S\sigma \mathrm{sin}\theta _Sf_0`$ (79)
where we have ignored the mixing between $`a_0^0`$ and $`f_8`$ ($`f_0`$) as it is proportional to $`v_1v_2m_um_d`$. Inputting the values $`\overline{m}_u\overline{m}_d=v_o+\overline{m}345`$ MeV, $`\overline{m}_s=v_o+m_s457`$ MeV, $`v_{inst}v_3(348MeV)^2`$, $`v_1v_2v_o+2\overline{m}350`$ MeV, $`v_{inst}210`$ MeV, we arrive at the following numerical predictions for the masses and mixing of the scalar mesons

$`m_{a_0}978\text{MeV},m_{a_0}^{exp.}=984.8\pm 1.4\text{MeV}\text{[6]}`$ (80)
$`m_{\kappa _0}970\text{MeV},m_{\kappa _0}^{exp.}=797\pm 19\pm 43\text{MeV}\text{[7]}`$ (81)
$`m_{f_0}1126\text{MeV},m_{f_0}^{epx.}=980\pm 10\text{MeV}\text{[6]}`$ (82)
$`m_\sigma 677\text{MeV},m_\sigma ^{exp.}=(4001200)\text{MeV}\text{[6]}`$ (83)
$`\theta _S18^o`$ (84)
The above predictions are at the leading order approximation in the expansion of current quark masses and also at the tree level in the effective chiral field theory. Now some important features become clear. In contrast to the singlet pseudoscalar meson $`\eta ^{}`$ which is much heavier than the $`\eta `$ meson, the singlet scalar meson $`\sigma `$ is much lighter than $`f_0`$. Also the isospinor scalar meson $`\kappa _0`$ is below 1 GeV and likely lighter than the isovector scalar meson $`a_0`$. This feature has also been observed by many groups. All such features are mainly due to the instanton effects, which can easily be seen from their mass formulae eqs.(61-66). Note that the isoscalar meson mass $`m_{f_0}`$ is somehow larger than the experimental data by about $`15\%`$ at the leading order, it is of interest to investigate the contributions from possible higher order terms.

## IV conclusions

Starting from the effective Lagrangian of chiral quarks with effective meson fields as bosonized auxiliary fields at the chiral symmetry breaking scale, which is assumed to be resulted from integrating out the gluon fields, a nonlinearly realized effective chiral Lagrangian for meson fields has been obtained from integrating over the quark fields by using the new finite regularization method. It has been shown that the resulting effective chiral Lagrangian can lead to a dynamically spontaneous symmetry breaking mechanism. This is because the new finite regularization method keeps the physically meaningful finite quadratic term and meanwhile preserves the symmetry principles of original theory. After the chiral symmetry $`U(3)_L\times U(3)_R`$ is spontaneously broken down, the effective chiral Lagrangian contains, in addition to the three current quark masses $`m_u`$, $`m_d`$ and $`m_s`$, four basic parameters, $`v_o`$, $`\beta `$, $`M_c`$ and $`\mu _s`$. Whereas three of them ($`v_o`$, $`M_c`$ and $`\mu _s`$ ) are determined through the three minimal conditions in terms of the two parameters $`\mu _m^2=2\mu _f^2`$ and $`\mu _{inst}`$ which are in principle calculable from QCD and given in terms of the QCD parameters $`g_s(\mu )`$ (or $`\mu `$) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. The parameter $`\beta `$ is also fixed by the ratio $`\beta =\mu _m^2/\mu _f^2=2`$ based on the fact that the quark condensates are almost flavor independent. It has been seen that the four parameters $`v_o`$, $`\beta `$, $`M_c`$ and $`\mu _s`$ are reduced to two independent parameters and well determined from the low energy dynamics of mesons. Of interest, they lead to consistent predictions for the light quark masses and pseudoscalar meson masses as well as for the lowest nonet scalar meson masses and mixing at the leading order. In particular, the resulting quark condensate is consistent with the QCD prediction. In general, once the basic parameters at the leading terms are determined, all the higher order corrections from momentum and quark mass expansions can be systematically calculated based on the present considerations without involving any additional parameters. This is because all the couplings of higher order corrections in the momentum expansion only depend on the independent parameters $`v_o`$ (or $`\mu _s`$) and $`M_c`$. More general description on the effective chiral quantum field theory of mesons with including possible high order terms and also the vector and axial vector mesons is beyond our present purpose and will be considered elsewhere.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported in part by the key projects of Chinese Academy of Sciences and National Science Foundation of China.

## A  Derivation of the Effective Chiral Lagrangian by New Finite Regularization Method

To obtain the effective chiral Lagrangian for mesons given in the text, we need to integrate over the quark fields (which is equivalent to calculate the Feynman diagrams of quark loops) from the following chiral Lagrangian

$`_{eff}^q`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu i_\mu q+\overline{q}_L\gamma _\mu 𝒜_L^\mu q_L+\overline{q}_R\gamma _\mu 𝒜_R^\mu q_R[\overline{q}_L(x)(\mathrm{\Phi }(x)M)q_R(x)+h.c.]`$ (A1)
The above Lagrangian is invariant under transformations of the global chiral symmetry $`U(3)_L\times U(3)_R`$ in the limit $`m_i0`$ ($`i=u,d,s`$),

$`q_L(x)P_+q(x)g_Lq_L(x),q_R(x)P_{}q(x)g_Rq_R(x);\mathrm{\Phi }(x)g_L\mathrm{\Phi }(x)g_R^{}`$ (A3)
Using the method of path integral, the effective Lagrangian of mesons is evaluated via

$$[d\mathrm{\Phi }]exp\{id^4x^M\}=Z_0^1[d\mathrm{\Phi }][dq][d\overline{q}]exp\{id^4x_{eff}^q\}.$$
(A4)
The functional integral of right hand side is known as the determination of the Dirac operator

$$[dq][d\overline{q}]exp\{id^4x_{eff}^q\}=det(i𝒟).$$
(A5)
To obtain the effective action, it will be useful to go to Euclidean space via the rule $`\gamma _0i\gamma _4`$, $`G_0iG_4`$, $`x_0ix_4`$ and to define the Hermitian operator

$`S_E^M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x_E_E^M}=\mathrm{ln}deti𝒟_E`$ (A6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{ln}deti𝒟_E+\mathrm{ln}det(i𝒟_E)^{}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{ln}deti𝒟_E\mathrm{ln}det(i𝒟_E)^{}]S_{ERe}^M+S_{EIm}^M`$ (A7)
with

$`S_{ERe}^M={\displaystyle d^4x_E_{Re}^M}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}det(i𝒟_E(i𝒟_E)^{})\mathrm{ln}Z_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}det\mathrm{\Delta }_E\mathrm{ln}Z_0`$ (A8)
$`S_{EIm}^M={\displaystyle d^4x_E_{Im}^M}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}det(i𝒟_E/(i𝒟_E)^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}det\mathrm{\Theta }_E`$ (A9)
where the imaginary part $`_{Im}^M`$ appears as a phase which is related to the anomalous terms and will not be discussed in the present paper. The operators in the Euclidean space are given by

$`i𝒟_E=i\gamma \gamma 𝒜_LP_L\gamma 𝒜_RP_R+\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}P_R+\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}P_L`$ (A10)
$`(i𝒟_E)^{}=i\gamma +\gamma 𝒜_RP_L+\gamma 𝒜_LP_R+\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}P_R+\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}P_L`$ (A11)
with $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\mathrm{\Phi }M`$ and $`P_\pm =(1\pm \gamma _5)/2`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ is regarded as a matrix in coordinate space, internal symmetry space and spin space. Noticing the following identity

$`\mathrm{ln}detO=Tr\mathrm{ln}O`$ (A12)
with $`Tr`$ being understood as the trace defined via

$`TrO=tr{\displaystyle d^4x<x|O|y>}|_{x=y}`$ (A13)
Here $`tr`$ is the trace for the internal symmetry space and $`<x|O|y>`$ is the coordinate matrix element defined as

$`<x|O_{ij}|y>=O_{ij}(x)\delta ^4(xy),\delta ^4(xy)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}e^{ik(xy)}`$ (A14)
For the derivative operator, one has in the coordinate space

$`<x|^\mu |y>=\delta ^4(xy)(ik^\mu +_y^\mu )`$ (A15)
With these definitions, the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ in the Euclidean space is given by

$`<x|\mathrm{\Delta }_E|y>=\delta ^4(xy)\mathrm{\Delta }_E^k`$ (A16)
with

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_E^k=k^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_E\mathrm{\Delta }_0+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_E`$ (A17)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=k^2+\overline{M}^2`$ (A18)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_E=\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}\overline{M}^2\right)P_R+\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\overline{M}^2\right)P_Li\gamma D_E\mathrm{\Phi }P_Li\gamma D_E\mathrm{\Phi }^{}P_R`$ (A19)
$`\sigma _{\mu \nu }_{R\mu \nu }P_L\sigma _{\mu \nu }_{L\mu \nu }P_R+(iD_{E\mu })(iD_E^\mu )+2k(iD_E)`$ (A20)
with

$`iD_E\mathrm{\Phi }=i\mathrm{\Phi }+𝒜_L\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }𝒜_R`$ (A21)
$`iD_E=i+𝒜_RP_L+𝒜_LP_R`$ (A22)
Where $`\overline{M}`$ is the supposed vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, i.e., $`<\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}>=\overline{M}=diag.(\overline{m}_u,\overline{m}_d,\overline{m}_s)`$. With this convention, it will be seen that the minimal conditions of the effective potential are completely determined by the lowest order terms up to the dimension four $`\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}\overline{M}^2\right)^2`$ in the effective chiral field theory of mesons. Regarding $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_E`$ as the interaction term and taking

$`Z_0=(det\mathrm{\Delta }_0)^{1/2}`$ (A23)
Thus the effective action in the Euclidean space can be written as

$`S_{ERe}^M={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}det\mathrm{\Delta }_E(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_E}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}}`$ (A24)
Using Schwinger’s proper time technique

$`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle _{\tau _0}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau }{\tau }}e^{\tau \mathrm{\Delta }}\left(\mathrm{ln}\tau _0+\gamma +{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\tau _0\mathrm{\Delta })^n}{nn!}}\right)`$ (A25)
the effective action is found in the coordinate space to be

$`S_{ERe}^M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4x_E\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}tr_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\tau }{\tau }\left(e^{\tau \mathrm{\Delta }_E^k}e^{\tau \mathrm{\Delta }_0}\right)}`$ (A26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4x_E\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}tr_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\tau }{\tau }e^{\tau \mathrm{\Delta }_0}\left(e^{\tau \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_E^k\frac{\tau ^2}{2}[\overline{M}^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_E^k]}1\right)}`$ (A27)
where we have used the identity $`e^Ae^B=e^{A+B+\frac{1}{2}[AB]}`$. Treating $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_E`$ as perturbative interaction and making an expansion, we have

$`S_{ERe}^M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d^4x_E{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}tr{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau }{\tau }}e^{\tau \mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n!}}\tau ^n[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_E^k{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}}[\overline{M}^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_E^k]^n`$ (A28)
For the given order of expansion, the integral over $`\tau `$ can be performed by using the following integral

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau }{\tau }}e^{\tau \mathrm{\Delta }_0}\tau ^n=(n1)!\mathrm{\Delta }_0^n`$ (A29)
For the integral over momentum, which involves quadratically and logarithmic divergence. In order to maintain the gauge invariance and meanwhile keep the quadratic term, the new finite regularization method proposed recently in ref. should be adopted for the momentum integral.

$`I_2={\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}(k^2+\overline{M}^2)^1}I_2^R={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}T_2({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{M_c^2}})`$ (A30)
$`I_0={\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}(k^2+\overline{M}^2)^2}I_0^R={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}T_0({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{M_c^2}})`$ (A31)
with the consistent conditions

$`I_{2\mu \nu }^R={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }I_2^R,I_{0\mu \nu }^R={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_{\mu \nu }I_0^R`$ (A32)
where $`L_2`$ and $`L_0`$ are given in text. The superscript ‘R’ means regularized one.

With these analyzes, the effective chiral Lagrangian can be systematically obtained in the expansion of momentum and current quark masses by transforming back to the Minkowski spacetime. In the text, we only kept those terms needed for our purpose in the present paper.


text:
# 𝑡→𝑏𝑊 in NonCommutative Standard Model

## 1 Introduction

The belief behind the existence of the top quark, even before it was discovered , had its reasons buried deep in the consistency of the Standard Model (SM), whether it was due to requirements of anomaly cancellation or to explain the precision electroweak data. The experimental evidence for the top quark strengthened the three family structure of the SM and opened a whole new world of top-physics. The top quark is the heaviest of all the fundamental particles known having a mass $`174.3\pm 5.1`$ GeV and contributes significantly to radiative processes. Such a large mass leads to a very short life time for the top quark ($`\tau _{top}4\times 10^{25}`$s). This number is roughly one order of magnitude smaller than the typical QCD hadronization time scale ($`30\times 10^{25}`$s). The top quark therefore decays before it can hadronise unlike the other quarks. This feature offers a possibility of looking at a quark and its properties almost free of the QCD confinement. This makes the top quark a wonderful laboratory for QCD studies. To complete the picture consistent with the SM, various properties of the top quark need to be confirmed. For a review on top quark and related issues see  and further references therein.
Within the SM, the top quark decays almost completely into a b quark and a W boson with the branching ratio $`BR(tbW)0.998`$. Like the other particles, the charged interactions of the top quark in the SM are of V-A nature and the strengths for the top quark going into a W boson and a lighter quark are directly proportional to the CKM mixing angles. The top quark, in contrast to any other particle say a b quark, decays into a lighter quark (mostly a b quark) and an on-shell W. This makes the helicity of the emitted W boson an important tool for determining many properties and testing the universal nature of the V-A interactions. In the limit of massless b quark, the W cannot be right handed (or atleast such a helicity state will be highly suppressed). The W helicity can be measured from the angular corelations of its decay products and thus offers a window to look for new physics beyond the SM as well. Due to the smallness of other CKM elements, other top decays fall into the category of rare decays and the branching ratios are very small. Top decays beyond the SM have been extensively studied. For example, the top decay to charged Higgs and the experimental signatures has been discussed in detail in  while the neutral current decay into charm and two vector particles has been considered in . In  the decay into stop and neutralino has been studied while the authors of  consider the technicolour models and discuss related issues.
The top quark properties play an important role in the electroweak physics. The large mass of the top quark makes its role in the electrweak precision data fits much more pronounced than any other quark. Also the spin configuration of the top quark in any process is very sensitive to new physics beyond the SM, particularly any anomalous coupling other than allowed by the SM. The anomalous top quark couplings have been a very important and interesting area of activity. These couplings can be probed directly at the colliders and indirectly via the rare decays of mesons . It is expected that about $`10^8`$ top quark pairs pers year at the LHC will make the detailed study of the top quark couplings possible and with great accuracy. Since the dominant decay channel for the top is decay into a b quark and a W boson, it is not wrong to expect that the Wtb coupling will be measured with high precision. This coupling is proportional to the CKM element $`V_{tb}`$ and enters the expressions for the falvour changing neutral current B-meson decays . Therefore, any anomalous contribution to the coupling should show up in the B-decays and should be measurable even before LHC begins. Using the CLEO and LEP data the top couplings have been constrained  and future experiments are expected to improve these constraints.
In the present note we study the dominant decay mode of the top quark, $`tbW`$ in the context of the NonCommutative Standard Model (NCSM). The simple picture of space-time that we have in our minds is based on the notion of space-time being described by a suitable manifold with the points on that manifold being labelled by a countable number of real coordinates. For most of the practical purposes the space-time acts as a static background on top of which the processes occur. However, it is believed that this naive picture must undergo a drastic change when one probes very small distances. At those energy scales the classical notions of space-time seize to be the correct description of the world and modifications have to be incorporated to yield correct results. There is no clear cut and unique solution to this puzzle and the kind of modifications required but a possible way to approach this problem is to formulate physical theories on noncommutative (NC) space-times. This idea dates back to the work of Snyder  where it was shown that the usual continuum space-time is not the only solution to the assumption that the spectrum of the coordinates describing the space-time is invariant under Lorentz transformations and there exists a Lorentz invariant space-time with an inherent unit of length. In such cases, the notion of a point is not well defined and the usual commutation relations between the coordinates and momenta get an extra piece proportional to momentum value. Therefore, for small enough momenta and energies, they just approach the usual quantum mechanical relations. A very strong motivation to formulate quantum theory on a noncommutative space-time was to render the quantum field theory calculations finite and free of infinities. But the success of the renormalization theory abdoned this approach altogether. The idea has been remotivated because of some string theory results . Apart from being boosted by the string theory arguments, field theories formulated on noncommutative space-times have very interesting features of their own. For a review of noncommutative field theories (NCFTs) see .
In order to describe a noncommutative space-time, the usual commutation property between the coordinates is abandoned and replaced with the following commutator for the hermitian operators $`\widehat{x}^\mu `$

$$[\widehat{x}^\mu ,\widehat{x}^\nu ]=i\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ is a constant, real and antisymmetric matrix and describes the noncommutativity. This constant matrix can also be thought of as some background field relative to which the various space-time directions are distinguished. A priori there is no reason to assume that $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ is a constant matrix but we consider it to be so in our study. Also, most of the studies involving field theories on such spaces have been restricted to constant $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$. The theories on such a space-time clearly violate Lorentz invariance explicitly. Following the Weyl-Moyal correspondence , the ordinary product of two functions is replaced by the Moyal product (sometimes also called star product and denoted by $``$) which takes the form

$`f(x)g(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[exp\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }_{\eta }^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}_{\zeta }^{}{}_{\nu }{}^{}\right)f(x+\eta )g(x+\zeta )\right]_{\eta =\zeta =0}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}[_{\mu _1}_{\mu _2}\mathrm{}._{\mu _n}f(x)]\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu _1\nu _1}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu _2\nu _2}\mathrm{}.\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu _n\nu _n}[_{\nu _1}_{\nu _2}\mathrm{}._{\nu _n}g(x)]`$
Thus the recipe for formulating the noncommutative version of the field theories is to replace all the ordinary products by the Moyal products. As can be seen, such theories are highly non-local and bring with them several new features like UV/IR mixing  and unitarity problems . However, inspite of these there has been considerable activity in this field . The noncommutative version of quantum electrodynamics has been examined in . A method for formulating the non-abelian noncommutative field theories has been discussed in  and using these ideas noncommutative version of the standard model has been proposed . In the noncommutative version, there are several new features and interactions, like triple gauge boson vertices, that appear and some of the related phenomenological aspects of these have been investigated .

## 2 Noncommutative corrections to $`tbW`$

We take as our tarting point the action given in  for the quark sector. We asume here that the fields have been redefined in terms of the physical fields and as far as this work is concerned, we only concentrate on the charged current interactions. The action with the ordinary products replaced by Moyal products looks like

$$S_{chargedcurrent}=\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}d^4x\underset{families}{}\left(\overline{\nu }\mathit{}(1\gamma _5)e+V_{ud}\overline{u}\mathit{}(1\gamma _5)d\right)$$
(3)
where we generically denote the leptons as $`e`$ and their corresponding neutrinos as $`\nu `$ and for the quarks, we use $`u`$ and $`d`$ to denote the up and the down type quarks. $`W`$ is the W-boson field and $`V_{ud}`$ are the relevant CKM elements. The fields are expanded in powers of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and here we do not concern ourselves here about the terms that have more than one gauge field coupling to fermions. The fermion fields when expanded to $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }^2)`$ have the following structure

$$\psi =\left(1\frac{1}{2}g\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }A_\mu _\nu \frac{i}{8}g\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Theta }^{\rho \sigma }_\mu A_\rho _\nu _\sigma \right)\psi _0+𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }^3)$$
(4)
where $`\psi _0`$ refers to the usual fermionic field, $`A`$ is the associated gauge field and $`g`$ is the gauge coupling. Plugging this expression in the action, we get the matrix element for the process $`t(p_t)b(p_b)+W(p_W)`$

$``$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}\right)\overline{b}(p_b)[\gamma ^\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \beta }\mathit{}_tp_{W}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}+\mathrm{\Theta }^{\beta \alpha }\mathit{}_Wp_{t}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \alpha }\gamma ^\beta p_{W}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}p_{t}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{})`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}(\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \beta }\gamma ^\alpha +\mathrm{\Theta }^{\beta \alpha }\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \alpha }\gamma ^\beta )\mathrm{\Theta }_{\rho \sigma }p_{W}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}p_{t}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}p_{W}^{}{}_{}{}^{\rho }p_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }](1\gamma _5)t(p_t)ϵ^{}_\beta (p_W)`$
The charged current contribution due to noncommutativity in our case is same as that obtained by Iltan  in context of W decay into a lepton and anti-neutrino modulo an overall sign factor arising due to difference in the convention for momentum flow. The noncommutative correction to the matrix element explicitly reads (after some algebra)

$`_{NC}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}\right)ϵ_\beta ^{}[\overline{b}(p_b)\gamma ^\beta (1\gamma _5)t(p_t)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \alpha }p_{W}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}p_{t}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\rho \sigma }p_{W}^{}{}_{\rho }{}^{}p_{t}^{}{}_{\sigma }{}^{})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{2}}\overline{b}(p_b)(1+\gamma _5)t(p_t)\mathrm{\Theta }^{\beta \lambda }p_{b}^{}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{2}}\overline{b}(p_b)(1\gamma _5)t(p_t)\mathrm{\Theta }^{\beta \delta }p_{t}^{}{}_{\delta }{}^{}]`$
Using the expression for the matrix element above, the decay rate can be easily evaluated. The decay rate, including the noncommutative effects, can be expressed in the following form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Total}=\frac{|V_{tb}|^2}{16\pi p_t^0}\left(\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}m_W}\right)^2\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}(1,\frac{m_W^2}{m_t^2},\frac{m_b^2}{m_t^2})[SM+NC_1+NC_2]$$
(7)
where

$$SM=2[m_W^2(m_t^2+m_b^2m_W^2)+(m_t^2m_b^2m_W^2)(m_t^2m_b^2+m_W^2)]$$
(8)
$`NC_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\beta ^\alpha \mathrm{\Theta }^{\beta \sigma }p_{t}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}p_{t}^{}{}_{\sigma }{}^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{12m_t^2}}\right)[2m_b^8+2m_t^83m_t^6m_W^2+3m_t^4m_W^4+m_t^2m_W^6`$
$``$ $`3m_W^85m_b^6(m_t^2m_W^2)+m_b^4(6m_t^47m_t^2m_W^219m_W^4)`$
$`+`$ $`m_b^2(5m_t^6+5m_t^4m_W^2+3m_t^2m_W^4+15m_W^6)]`$
$$NC_2=\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Theta }^{\beta \alpha }\left(\frac{m_W^2}{24}\right)\left[(5m_b^2+m_t^2m_W^2)[m_b^4+(m_t^2m_W^2)^22m_b^2(m_t^2+m_W^2)]\right]$$
(10)
It is worthwhile to point out that the term linear in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ that would arise due to the interference between the SM and the noncommutative contributions does not show up in the decay rate. This is not hard to see because the phase space integrals would yield terms proportional to the metric tensor or the top momentum and such terms would identically vanish because of the antisymmetry of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$.111 This is typical of a particle decaying and is not expected in a scattering process where the linear term will in general be present and give the leading contribution. Thus, the decay rate simply splits into pure SM and NC contributions. It is well known that QCD corrections lower the tree level decay rate by roughly $`10\%`$. From the above expressions we see that the contribution $`NC_2`$ has a negative sign and it is interesting to see the effects of noncommutativity on the decay rate. We consider three cases: (a) when $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{0i}=0`$, (b) when $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}=0`$ and (c) both $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{0i}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}`$ non-zero. Noncommutativity in the time direction is expected to lead to non-unitary behaviour of the theory but it has been pointed out by Liao and Sibold  that careful handling of time ordered products and the time derivatives arising due to Moyal/star product avoids any such problem. We thus retain the piece with noncummutativity in the time direction as well. We define the following:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{0i}=\theta _{ts}^i\theta _{ss}^i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ijk}\mathrm{\Theta }^{jk}$$
(11)
Also for the sake of simplicity we assume that $`|\theta _{ts}^i|=|\theta _{ss}^i|`$ and denote it by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NC}^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NC}`$ (in the units of GeV) is the characteristic scale of noncummutative interactions.
In Fig.1, we plot the decay rate as a function of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NC}`$ for all the three cases. Only for the case when the noncommutativity in the time direction is put to zero, we get a lower rate when the noncommutative effects are included. But this effect is seen only for low values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NC}`$ and as it is increased the rates in all the three cases approach the SM value. The ratio of the decay rate for a longitudinally polarized W (with polarization vector $`ϵ_L^\mu p_W^\mu /m_W`$) to the unpolarized decay rate has been measured by the CDF collaboration  and it comes out to be

$$F_0=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(tbW_L)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{Total}(tbW)}=0.91\pm 0.37\pm 0.13$$
(12)
while the SM value is $`F_0^{SM}=0.701`$. It is straight forward algebra to get the noncommutative correction to the polarized rate

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{NC}^{long}=\frac{|V_{tb}|^2}{16\pi p_t^0}\left(\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}m_W}\right)^2\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}(1,\frac{m_W^2}{m_t^2},\frac{m_b^2}{m_t^2})\mathrm{\Delta }_{long}$$
(13)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{long}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}[m_b^4+(m_t^2m_W^2)^22m_b^2(m_t^2+m_W^2)]`$
$`[2m_b^4+2m_t^2(m_t^2m_W^2)m_b^2(m_t^2+2m_W^2)]|\mathrm{\Theta }^{0i}|^2`$
One finds that the polarized rate contains no terms proportional to $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}`$ i.e. the polarized rate only depends on $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{0i}`$. Therefore in teh absence of space-time noncommutativity, there are no noncommutative corrections to the longitudinal polarized rate and the sole contribution comes from the SM. Thus the quantity $`F_0`$ stands a good chance to determine the kind of noncommutativity that is present in the theory. In Fig.2 we plot $`F_0`$ against $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NC}`$ and find that for lower values of the noncommutativity scale, there is a significant deviation from the SM result for the case of zero time like noncommutativity or when both are present. But as before, with the increase in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NC}`$, all the curves approach the SM value. We can try to get some lower bound on the noncommutative scale by imposing the condition Eq.(12). If that is done, we get a bound $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NC}𝒪(100GeV)`$ for space-space noncommutativity while no physically meaningful values are obtained in any of the other two cases. Infact, one gets imaginary values for the noncommutativity scale. This may be an indication that a more careful and thorough treatment is required at the level of the action itself and it is hoped that such a treatment should bypass any such troubles.
The transverse plus rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ is also of considerable interest because simple helicity arguments lead to the conclusion that at the tree level this rate vanishes for vanishing $`m_b`$. Therefore, a non-vanishing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ at the Born amplitude level can arise from $`m_b0`$ effects or can arise because of higher order corrections beyond the Born amplitude. Also, such an effect can be an artifact of departure from the V-A current structure. From the matrix element Eq.(12) it is clear that there is a departure from the V-A structure of the weak current and this fact is expected to show up in corrections to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$. We evaluate the noncommutative corrections to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$. The total rate is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_+=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^{SM}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^{NC}$$
(15)
where the SM expression is well known and the second term is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^{NC}=\frac{|V_{tb}|^2}{16\pi p_t^0}\left(\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}\right)^2\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}(1,\frac{m_W^2}{m_t^2},\frac{m_b^2}{m_t^2})\mathrm{\Delta }_+$$
(16)
where the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }+`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^4}{24}}(m_t^2+m_b^2m_W^2){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{0i}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i0}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^4}{48}}(m_t^2+m_b^2m_W^2){\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{a\lambda }\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda ^a`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2m_t^2}{4}}(m_t^2+m_b^2m_W^2){\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{2}{}}}|\mathrm{\Theta }^{a0}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2m_t^4}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{2}{}}}|\mathrm{\Theta }^{a0}|^2`$
From this expression it is clear that even in the limit of vanishing $`m_b`$, the Born level noncommutative corrections to the SM transverse plus rate are non-zero. Quite clearly, this stands out as another test of possible existence of any noncommutativity. Also note that this rate picks out terms having noncommutativity in selected space directions as well (the terms with index $`a`$). This fact can thus be used to distinguish between any inhomogeniety in the noncommutativity parameter. However for the present analysis, we have assumed equal and constant values along all the directions but in principle a more general analysis can be carried out using these expressions. The CDF measurement for the quantity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_+}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=0.11\pm 0.15$$

For the sake of illustration we consider the case of only space-space noncommutativity. Imposing the experimental results, we get a central value for the noncommutativity scale as $`50GeV`$. It is considered safe to say that if the top decay reveals a deviation fromthe SM predictions at $`1\%`$ level, then the origin of such deviation can be attributed to some non-SM physics. For the noncommutativity scale $`𝒪(100)`$ GeV, the estimated value for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is approximately (slightly less than) $`0.01`$ which satisfies the $`1\%`$ criterion and therefore should be probed in future measurements. However, for higher values of the scale, the noncommutative corrections get smaller and smaller.
Consider the radiative decay of the top quark, namely, $`tbW\gamma `$. The branching ratio for this decay channel (for a photon of energy ¿ 10 GeV) is $`3.5\times 10^3`$. The noncommutative corrections to this process come in the form of modification of the SM vertices plus a completely new vertex where the radiated photon is attached to the tbW vertex. For the sake of illustration we consider this piece of the total amplitude. The relevant interaction Lagrangian can be written in the following form:

$`_{tbWA}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eg}{2\sqrt{2}}}\overline{b}(p_b)[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\alpha +\mathrm{\Theta }^{\nu \alpha }\gamma ^\mu )({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}(_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu )W_\alpha `$
$``$ $`(A_\mu W_\nu A_\nu W_\mu )_\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(_\mu W_\nu _\nu W_\mu )A_\alpha )](1\gamma _5)t(p_t)`$
The contribution of this piece alone for the bounds obtained above fits the experimental values and as expected, for higher scales the noncommutative contribution diminishes and the SM piece surfaces to be the sole contributor.
The obtained bound is a very low bound and should be directly verifiable at the collider experiments. This value is of the same order ($`141GeV)`$ as obtained for the noncommutative QED (NCQED) for the process $`e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma `$ at LEP by the OPAL collaboration . There is no reason that the NCQED and NCSM bounds be very similar but one can expect them to be roughly of the same order. However, it is known that the collider bounds that one gets in case of NCQED are much lower than the bounds obtained from Lamb shift measurements (Chaichian etal. ). Also, the siderial variation effects on atomic clocks give very strong limits . Thus, we expect that more data and bounds from other sources should supplement such priliminary results and give a better picture. Some more hints can be obtained by looking at the charged lepton (arising from the W decay) energy and angular spectrum. This sector contains information about the top polarization as well which implies more independent data to confirm the theoretical results. However, in this case it becomes even more complicated because even the W-decay element will pick up additional noncommutative corrections and the whole picture gets very messy. Also, if one wants to use the results obtained directly in a compleet analysis i.e. consider top production at a collider and then its decay etc, then these results have to be suitably convoluted with the SM expressions for other sub-processes to have a rough estimate of the noncommutative corrections. A complete treatment would require a detailed analysis of noncommutative corrections for each sub-process and a careful convolution to extract the leading terms. Therefore, presently it appears that there is a very narrow window to probe noncommutative effects by directly looking at the decay of the top quark as the SM contribution blinds the extra effect completely for almost all the region of the parameter space.

## 3 Conclusions

In conclusion, the noncommutative effects seem to be completely hidden under the shadow of the SM results for most part of the parameter space and its only in a very small range, for very low values of the noncommutativity scale that there are any significant deviations from the SM values, both for the unpolarized rate and $`F_0`$ and transverse plus rate. The suppression due to the noncommutativity scale is rather large ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$) to be easily overcome in this case. Thus it may seem that there is not much hope in determining possible noncommutative effects directly from the top quark decay. However, there is still hope as angular asymmetries and corelations between the W decay products, say a lepton and an anti-neutrino, may still be able to reveal even the feeble presence of any terms not dictated by SM. Therefore, a detailed analysis of the top production process followed by cascade decay studies can possibly probe such effects. Moreover, the tbW vertex now contains terms that essentially give rise to right handed weak currents and it should be possible to detect the presence of such terms either in hadronic scattering reactions (possibly at LHC) or indirectly through their contribution to rare meson decays where we expect even the terms linear in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ to contribute and give the dominant effect. Also, from a theoretical point of view, more careful treatment at the level of action is required so as to avoid possible problems like encountering physically meaningless bounds.