text:
# Finite-Temperature Mott Transition in the Two-Dimensional Hubbard Model

## Abstract

Mott transitions are studied in the two-dimensional Hubbard model by a non-perturbative theory of correlator projection that systematically includes spatial correlations into the dynamical mean-field theory. A nonzero second-neighbor transfer yields a first-order Mott transition at finite temperatures ending at a critical point.

Keywords: Mott transition; Hubbard model

The Mott transition has been one of the fundamental issues in strongly correlated electrons . In spite of substantial progress , its full understanding in low dimensions remains open.

Here, we propose a non-perturbative theoretical framework of correlator projection method (CPM) . The CPM combines the operator projection method  with the dynamical mean-field approximation (DMFA) by restoring spatial correlations along the coarse-graining concept in the energy-momentum space with increasing the order of projection. It does not suffer from a cluster-size problem. Then, we obtain the Mott transition phase diagram of the two-dimensional (2D) Hubbard model in the parameter space of the Coulomb repulsion $`U`$, the second-neighbor transfer $`t^{}`$, the temperature $`T`$ (scaled by the nearest-neighbor transfer $`t`$) and the filling $`n`$. A first-order Mott tansition surface with a critical end curve appears at half filling. Doping into the Mott insulator yields a diverging compressibility and/or a tendency to phase separation.

We consider the 2D Hubbard model. The formalism of CPM  is as follows: The operator projection leads to series of Dyson equations,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n1}(\omega ,𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`G_{n1}(\omega ,𝐤)\epsilon _\text{k}^{(n,n1)}`$ (1)
$`G_{n1}(\omega ,𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`1/[\omega \epsilon _\text{k}^{(n,n)}\mathrm{\Sigma }_n(\omega ,𝐤)]`$ (2)
with $`n=1`$, $`2,\mathrm{}`$. $`G_0=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ is the electron Green’s function and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ is the self-energy part with $`\epsilon _\text{k}^{(1,0)}=1`$. Other coefficients up to the second order $`n=2`$ are given by the Hartree-Fock dispersion $`\epsilon _\text{k}^{(1,1)}=t_\text{k}\mu Un/2`$, a source of Hubbard band splitting $`\epsilon _\text{k}^{(2,1)}=U^2M`$ with $`M=n(2n)/4`$, and $`\epsilon _\text{k}^{(2,2)}=\stackrel{~}{t}_\text{k}\mu U(1n/2)\epsilon _{\mathrm{cor}}/M`$. Here, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential determined from the filling $`n`$. $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{cor}}=_{\text{x}^{},s}t_{\text{x},\text{x}^{}}(1/2n_{\text{x},s})(c_{\text{x},s}^{}c_{\text{x}^{},s}+h.c.)/2`$ is a local energy shift due to a correlated hopping process with $`n_{\text{x},s}=c_{\text{x},s}^{}c_{\text{x},s}`$ where $`c_{\text{x},s}`$ and $`c_{\text{x},s}^{}`$ are the electron creation and annihilation operators at a site $`𝐱`$ with a spin $`s`$, respectively. $`t_\text{k}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_\text{k}`$ are the Fourier transforms of the transfer $`t_{\text{x},\text{x}^{}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_{\text{x},\text{x}^{}}=t_{\text{x},\text{x}^{}}(n_\text{x}n_\text{x}^{}/4+\stackrel{}{S}_\text{x}\stackrel{}{S}_\text{x}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{x}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{x}^{})/M`$, respectively, where $`n_\text{x}`$, $`\stackrel{}{S}_\text{x}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{x}`$ represent the charge, spin and local-pair operators, respectively. $`\stackrel{~}{t}_\text{k}`$ introduces $`𝐤`$ dependences of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(\omega ,𝐤)`$ mainly through the superexchange process and produces antiferromagnetic precursors. Here, we determine it from Ref. .

To reproduce a Mott insulator in particle-hole asymmetric cases, the local dynamics of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(\omega ,𝐤)`$ must be obtained in a sufficiently correct manner. Then, instead of decoupling approximations , we adopt the following generalized DMFA: (i) We calculate a local normalized self-energy part $`G_{1,\mathrm{loc}}(\omega )=\frac{1}{N}_\text{k}G_1(\omega ,𝐤)`$ from an arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2,\mathrm{loc}}(\omega )`$ by replacing $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(\omega ,𝐤)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2,\mathrm{loc}}(\omega )`$ in Eq. (2), (ii) calculate the Weiss self-energy part $`𝒮_1(\omega )=\epsilon ^{(2,1)}/[G_{1,\mathrm{loc}}^1(\omega )+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2,\mathrm{loc}}(\omega )]`$, and (iii) obtain the Weiss Green’s function $`𝒢_0(\omega ,𝐤)=1/[\omega \epsilon _\text{k}^{(1,1)}𝒮_1(\omega )]`$. (iv) Within the iterative perturbation scheme, we calculate a new $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2,\mathrm{loc}}(\omega )`$ as a Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2,\mathrm{loc}}(\tau )=\frac{1}{N^3}_{\text{k},\text{k}^{},\text{q}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{k},\text{k}^{},\text{q}}𝒢_0(\tau ,\text{k}+\text{q})𝒢_0(\tau ,\text{k}^{}\text{q})𝒢_0(\tau ,\text{k}^{})`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{k},\text{k}^{},\text{q}}=4[t_\text{k}^{}t_{\text{k}^{}\text{q}}t_{\text{k}+\text{q}}+\stackrel{~}{t}_\text{k}+4\epsilon _{\mathrm{cor}}/(n(2n))]^2/(n(2n))`$. This loop continues to (i) until convergence is reached.

This second-order CPM reproduces a Mott insulator at low $`T`$’s for $`t^{}=0`$ at half filling and its single-particle spectra and momentum distributions show a remarkable similarity to numerical results . As we introduce $`t^{}0`$ with $`U`$ and $`n=1`$ being fixed, the system undergoes a first-order Mott metal-insulator transition (MIT) at a low $`T`$ accompanied by a discontinuity in the double occupancy $`n_{}n_{}`$. In the space of $`(U,t^{},T)`$, this first-order MIT boundary forms a surface . Within the surface with $`U`$ being fixed, the jump in $`n_{}n_{}`$ decreases with increasing $`T`$ and disappears above a critical temperature $`T_{\mathrm{cr}}`$; the first-order surface ends at a critical curve at $`T>0`$. Then, without any spontaneous symmetry breaking as in two dimensions at $`T>0`$, the Mott transition shows a similarity to a liquid-gas phase transition, as in Refs. . The MIT boundary at $`T0`$ agrees with numerical results .

Doping carriers into Mott insulators yields a metallic state characterized by an enhanced charge compressibility $`\kappa =n/\mu `$. The present results of $`\mu \delta `$ curves near half filling are shown in Fig. 1 with $`\delta =1n`$. The slope $`\mu /n`$ represents $`1/\kappa `$. Then, from high $`T`$’s, $`\kappa `$ increases with decreasing $`T`$ and shows a divergence towards the filling-controll MIT at low $`T`$’s. Even an instability to a phase separation appears as emergence of $`\kappa <0`$ at lower $`T`$’s. However, the issue if the phase separation is an artifact of the present approximation requires a further intensive study.

In summary, using the CPM that systematically includes spatial correlations into the DMFA, the MIT phase diagram of the 2D Hubbard model has been clarified in the $`(U,|t^{}|,T)`$ space with a first-order MIT surface with a $`T>0`$ critical end curve for $`t^{}0`$ at half filling as well as a diverging charge compressibility and/or a tendency to a phase separation.


format: text

text:
# SU(N) fundamental and adjoint confining strings

## 1 Introduction

One of the most powerful methods, aimed at the description of confinement in QCD, is the method of Abelian projections  (see ref.  for the latest developments and ref.  for reviews). Among various ways to model the grand canonical ensemble of Abelian-projected monopoles, the most natural one is to treat them as the Coulomb plasma, analogous to the one of compact QED  (see ref.  for a review). The string description of the latter in terms of the Kalb-Ramond field, the so-called theory of confining strings, has been proposed for the 3D-case in ref.  and then generalized to the 4D-case in ref. . It should however been mentioned that the ideas to describe confinement in terms of the Kalb-Ramond field were put forward almost 30 years ago . These ideas have been elaborated further on in ref. , where the connection between magnetic condensation and the Kalb-Ramond formulation of confinement has been pointed out. Moreover, in ref.  a non-Abelian generalization of the Kalb-Ramond field has been proposed and used in an attempt to construct a string representation of the Wilson loop on the lattice.

A problem remained since the time of the paper  is the generalization of the theory of confining strings to an arbitrary number of colors. Some progress in this direction has been achieved in refs. . In particular, in ref. , it has been shown that at large-$`N`$ the high-temperature behavior of the free energy of confining strings matches that of QCD. A related problem is the investigation of the string representation of the 3D Georgi-Glashow model. This model is different from compact QED due to the presence of the charged W-bosons and due to the Higgs-mediated interaction of monopoles which becomes relevant when the Higgs boson is not infinitely heavy. In this way, the influence of W-bosons to the deconfining phase transition has been analysed in the confining-string language in ref. . String representation of the BPS-limit  (where the mass of the Higgs boson is much smaller than the mass of the W-boson) of the $`SU(3)`$-version of the 3D Georgi-Glashow model has been found in ref. . In ref. , a representation of the $`SU(N)`$-version of this model in terms of monopole densities has been derived, and the potential of these densities has been discussed.

The aim of the present paper is to derive and investigate the theory of confining strings, which would describe the string content of the $`SU(N)`$-generalization of 3D compact QED, and to generalize it further to the 4D-case with the $`\theta `$-term. The paper is organized as follows. Sections 2 and 3 are devoted to the 3D-case. In Section 2, we shall find the string tension of the fundamental Wilson loop defined at a flat contour (henceforce called for shortness “flat Wilson loop”). This will be done by the method based on the solution of the system of the saddle-point equations for the dual-photon and the magnetic field. \[When the magnetic field is eliminated from these equations, the resulting equation for the dual-photon field is analogous to the one derived in the usual compact QED in ref. .\] In Section 3, we shall develop the theory of confining strings based on the Kalb-Ramond field. Using for concreteness the case of fundamental representation, we shall present in Subsection 3.1 two various methods, by means of which such a theory can be derived. Both of them illustrate how the Kalb-Ramond field unifies the monopole and the free-photonic contributions to the Wilson loop. The string tension derivable in the weak-field limit of this theory (which is nothing else, but the limit of low monopole densities) is parametrically the same as the one obtained in Section 2 for the flat loop. However, the advantage of the formalism based on the Kalb-Ramond field is that it enables one not only to fix the proportionality coefficient at the string tension, but also to derive the coupling constants of the higher-derivative string terms. In Subsection 3.2, the case of the adjoint Wilson loop will be considered, and the respective theory of confining strings will be constructed in the large-$`N`$ limit. Section 4 will be devoted to the generalization of the obtained $`SU(N)`$-theory of confining strings to the 4D-case with the (field-theoretical) $`\theta `$-term. As it has been found in refs.  for the usual compact QED, this term leads to the appearance of the string $`\theta `$-term. The latter, being proportional to the number of self-intersections of the world sheet, might help in the solution of the problem of crumpling  111This is simply due to the mutual cancellations of contributions to the string partition function, which originate from any two highly crumpled surfaces, whose numbers of self-intersections differ from each other by one.. It will be demonstrated that this indeed happens at (generally) two values of the $`\theta `$-parameter, which are accessible when the electric coupling constant is sufficiently large.

In Summary, the main results of the paper will be discussed.

## 2 String tension of the flat Wilson loop in the fundamental representation

Since the string tension is generated by monopoles, in this Section we shall omit photons. The partition function of the grand canonical ensemble of monopoles in the Euclidean space-time reads

$$𝒵_{\mathrm{mon}}=\underset{𝒩=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\zeta ^𝒩}{𝒩!}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{g_m^2}{2}d^3xd^3y\stackrel{}{\rho }^𝒩(\stackrel{}{x})D_0(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})\stackrel{}{\rho }^𝒩(\stackrel{}{y})\right]_{\mathrm{mon}},$$
(1)
where the monopole density is defined as $`\stackrel{}{\rho }^𝒩(\stackrel{}{x})=\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}\stackrel{}{q}_{i_k}\delta (\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{z}_k)`$ at $`𝒩1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\rho }^{𝒩=0}(\stackrel{}{x})=0`$. In these equations, $`g_m`$ is the magnetic coupling constant of dimensionality $`[\mathrm{mass}]^{1/2}`$, $`gg_m=4\pi `$, $`\zeta \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{const}/g^2}`$ is the monopole fugacity of dimensionality $`[\mathrm{mass}]^3`$, $`D_0(\stackrel{}{x})=1/(4\pi |\stackrel{}{x}|)`$ is the 3D Coulomb propagator, and it has been taken into account that the monopole charges are distributed along the $`(N1)`$-dimensional root vectors $`\stackrel{}{q}_i`$’s of the group $`SU(N)`$ . Furthermore, the average is defined as follows:

$$𝒪_{\mathrm{mon}}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{𝒩}{}}d^3z_n\underset{i_n=\pm 1,\mathrm{},\pm \frac{N(N1)}{2}}{}𝒪.$$
(2)
Upon the explicit summation, the partition function (1) can be represented in the sine-Gordon–type form

$$𝒵_{\mathrm{mon}}=𝒟\stackrel{}{\chi }\mathrm{exp}\left[d^3x\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mu \stackrel{}{\chi }\right)^22\zeta \underset{i=1}{\overset{N(N1)/2}{}}\mathrm{cos}\left(g_m\stackrel{}{q}_i\stackrel{}{\chi }\right)\right)\right],$$
(3)
where $`\stackrel{}{\chi }`$ is the dual-photon field. By virtue of the formula  $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{N(N1)/2}{}}q_i^\alpha q_i^\beta =\frac{N}{2}\delta ^{\alpha \beta }`$, $`\alpha ,\beta =1,\mathrm{},N1`$, the following value of the Debye mass of the dual photon has been obtained : $`m_D=g_m\sqrt{N\zeta }`$.

One can further introduce the monopole field-strength tensor $`\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }^𝒩`$ violating the Bianchi identity as $`\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }_\mu \stackrel{}{F}_{\nu \lambda }^𝒩=g_m\stackrel{}{\rho }^𝒩`$. Since it was argued to omit photons throughout this Section, we obtain for $`\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }^𝒩`$ the following expression:

$$\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }^𝒩\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)=g_m\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }_\lambda d^3yD_0\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)\stackrel{}{\rho }^𝒩\left(\stackrel{}{y}\right).$$
(4)
Then, by virtue of the Stokes’ theorem and the formula

$$\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\stackrel{}{𝒪}\stackrel{}{H}\right)=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\stackrel{}{𝒪}\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\right),$$

where $`\stackrel{}{𝒪}`$ is an arbitrary $`(N1)`$-component vector, $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ is the vector of diagonal generators and $`\stackrel{}{\mu }_a`$’s are the weight vectors of the group $`SU(N)`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},N`$, we obtain the following expression for the Wilson loop defined at the $`𝒩`$-monopole configuration:

$$W(C)_{\mathrm{mon}}^𝒩=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ig}{2}\stackrel{}{H}d^3x\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }^𝒩\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }\right)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}W_a^𝒩.$$
(5)
Here,

$$W_a^𝒩\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ig}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu }_ad^3x\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }^𝒩\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }\right)$$
(6)
and

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)=\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)}{}𝑑\sigma _{\mu \nu }\left(\stackrel{}{x}\left(\xi \right)\right)\delta \left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}(\xi )\right)$$

is the vorticity tensor current defined at a certain surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)`$ bounded by the contour $`C`$ and parametrized by the vector $`\stackrel{}{x}(\xi )`$ with $`\xi =(\xi ^1,\xi ^2)`$ standing for the 2D coordinate. A straightforward calculation with the use of eq. (4) yields

$$W_a^𝒩=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\stackrel{}{\mu }_ad^3x\stackrel{}{\rho }^𝒩\eta \right),$$
(7)
where

$$\eta (\stackrel{}{x};C)=\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)}{}𝑑\sigma _\mu \left(\stackrel{}{x}(\xi )\right)_\mu \frac{1}{\left|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}(\xi )\right|}$$

is the solid angle under which the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)`$ is seen by an observer located at the point $`\stackrel{}{x}`$, $`d\sigma _\mu =\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }d\sigma _{\nu \lambda }`$. (Note that owing to the Gauss’ law, $`\eta 4\pi `$ for a closed surface, i.e., when $`C`$ is shrunk to a point.) The ratio of two $`W_a^𝒩`$’s defined at different surfaces, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$, bounded by the contour $`C`$, reads

$$\frac{W_a^𝒩\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\right)}{W_a^𝒩\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\right)}=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2}{}𝑑\sigma _\mu \left(\stackrel{}{x}(\xi )\right)d^3x\stackrel{}{\rho }^𝒩\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)_\mu \frac{1}{\left|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}(\xi )\right|}\right)=$$

$$=\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\stackrel{}{q}_{i_k}\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2}{}𝑑\sigma _\mu \left(\stackrel{}{x}(\xi )\right)_\mu ^{\stackrel{}{x}(\xi )}\frac{1}{\left|\stackrel{}{z}_k\stackrel{}{x}(\xi )\right|}\right).$$
(8)
Due to the Gauss’ law, the last integral in this equation is equal either to $`4\pi `$ or to $`0`$, depending on whether the point $`\stackrel{}{z}_k`$ lies inside or outside the volume bounded by the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$. Since the product $`\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\stackrel{}{q}_{i_k}`$ is equal either to $`\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ or to $`0`$, we conclude that $`\frac{W_a^𝒩\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\right)}{W_a^𝒩\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\right)}=1`$. This fact proves the independence of $`W_a^𝒩`$ of the choice of the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the definition (6). Clearly, this is the consequence of the quantization condition $`gg_m=4\pi `$ employed in the derivation of eq. (7).

A representation of the partition function (1), alternative to eq. (3) and more appropriate for the investigation of the Wilson loop, is the one in terms of the dynamical monopole densities . It can be obtained by multiplying eq. (1) by the following unity:

$$𝒟\stackrel{}{\rho }\delta \left(\stackrel{}{\rho }\stackrel{}{\rho }^𝒩\right)=𝒟\stackrel{}{\rho }𝒟\stackrel{}{\chi }\mathrm{exp}\left[ig_md^3x\stackrel{}{\chi }\left(\stackrel{}{\rho }\stackrel{}{\rho }^𝒩\right)\right],$$

so that the field $`\stackrel{}{\chi }`$ plays the role of the Lagrange multiplier. We obtain for the partition function:

$$𝒵_{\mathrm{mon}}=𝒟\stackrel{}{\rho }𝒟\stackrel{}{\chi }\mathrm{exp}[\frac{g_m^2}{2}d^3xd^3y\stackrel{}{\rho }(\stackrel{}{x})D_0(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})\stackrel{}{\rho }(\stackrel{}{y})+ig_md^3x\stackrel{}{\chi }\stackrel{}{\rho }]\times $$

$$\times \underset{𝒩=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\zeta ^𝒩}{𝒩!}\mathrm{exp}(ig_md^3x\stackrel{}{\chi }\stackrel{}{\rho }^𝒩)_{\mathrm{mon}},$$
(9)
where the last sum is equal to

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[2\zeta d^3x\underset{i=1}{\overset{N(N1)/2}{}}\mathrm{cos}\left(g_m\stackrel{}{q}_i\stackrel{}{\chi }\right)\right].$$
(10)
Accordingly, eq. (7) becomes replaced by

$$W_a^𝒩W_a=\frac{1}{𝒵_{\mathrm{mon}}}𝒟\stackrel{}{\rho }𝒟\stackrel{}{\chi }\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{g_m^2}{2}d^3xd^3y\stackrel{}{\rho }(\stackrel{}{x})D_0(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})\stackrel{}{\rho }(\stackrel{}{y})+$$

$$+d^3x[ig_m\stackrel{}{\chi }\stackrel{}{\rho }+2\zeta \underset{i=1}{\overset{N(N1)/2}{}}\mathrm{cos}\left(g_m\stackrel{}{q}_i\stackrel{}{\chi }\right)+i\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\stackrel{}{\rho }\eta ]\},$$

and the full expression for the monopole contribution to the Wilson loop \[instead of eq. (5)\] reads $`W(C)_{\mathrm{mon}}=\frac{1}{N}\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}W_a`$.

Let us next introduce the magnetic field according to the formulae

$$_\mu \stackrel{}{B}_\mu =\stackrel{}{\rho },\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu \stackrel{}{B}_\lambda =0.$$

This yields

$$W_a=\frac{1}{𝒵_{\mathrm{mon}}}𝒟\stackrel{}{B}_\mu \delta \left(\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu \stackrel{}{B}_\lambda \right)\times $$

$$\times 𝒟\stackrel{}{\chi }\mathrm{exp}\{d^3x[\frac{g_m^2}{2}\stackrel{}{B}_\mu ^2+ig_m\stackrel{}{\chi }_\mu \stackrel{}{B}_\mu +2\zeta \underset{i=1}{\overset{N(N1)/2}{}}\mathrm{cos}\left(g_m\stackrel{}{q}_i\stackrel{}{\chi }\right)]+4\pi i\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)}{}d\sigma _\mu \stackrel{}{B}_\mu \},$$
(11)
where, as it has been discussed, the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)`$ is arbitrary. The magnetic and the dual-photon fields can be integrated out of eq. (11) by solving the respective saddle-point equations. From now on in this Section, we shall consider the contour $`C`$ located in the $`(x,y)`$-plane. This naturally leads to the following Ansätze for the fields to be inserted into the saddle-point equations: $`\stackrel{}{B}_\mu =\delta _{\mu 3}\stackrel{}{B}(z)`$, $`\stackrel{}{\chi }=\stackrel{}{\chi }(z)`$. For the points $`(x,y)`$ lying inside the contour $`C`$, these equations then read:

$$ig_m\stackrel{}{\chi }^{}+g_m^2\stackrel{}{B}4\pi i\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\delta (z)=0,$$
(12)
$$i\stackrel{}{B}^{}2\zeta \underset{i=1}{\overset{N(N1)/2}{}}\stackrel{}{q}_i\mathrm{sin}\left(g_m\stackrel{}{q}_i\stackrel{}{\chi }\right)=0,$$
(13)
where $`{}_{}{}^{}d/dz`$. \[Note that differentiating eq. (12) and substituting the result into eq. (13), we obtain the equation

$$\stackrel{}{\chi }^{\prime \prime }2g_m\zeta \underset{i=1}{\overset{N(N1)/2}{}}\stackrel{}{q}_i\mathrm{sin}\left(g_m\stackrel{}{q}_i\stackrel{}{\chi }\right)=g\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\delta ^{}(z),$$

which is the $`SU(N)`$-generalization of the respective saddle-point equation obtained in ref. .\] These equations can be solved by adopting one extra Ansatz for the saddle-points of the fields, $`\stackrel{}{B}(z)=\stackrel{}{\mu }_aB(z)`$, $`\stackrel{}{\chi }(z)=\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\chi (z)`$, that due to the formula

$$\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\stackrel{}{\mu }_b=\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta _{ab}\frac{1}{N}\right)$$
(14)
makes $`W_a`$ $`a`$-independent. Let us next multiply eq. (13) by $`\stackrel{}{\mu }_a`$, taking into account that for any $`a`$, $`(N1)`$ positive roots yield the scalar product with $`\stackrel{}{\mu }_a`$ equal to $`1/2`$, while the others are orthogonal to $`\stackrel{}{\mu }_a`$. Equations (12), (13) then go over to

$$2i\psi ^{}+g_m^2B=4\pi i\delta (z),B^{}+2i\zeta N\mathrm{sin}\psi =0,$$
(15)
where $`\psi g_m\chi /2`$. One can straightforwardly check that the solution to this system of equations has the following form:

$$B(z)=i\frac{8m_D}{g_m^2}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{m_D|z|}}{1+\mathrm{e}^{2m_D|z|}},\psi (z)=4\mathrm{sgn}z\mathrm{arctan}\left(\mathrm{e}^{m_D|z|}\right).$$
(16)
Taking the value $`B(0)`$ for the evaluation of the Wilson loop, we obtain for the string tension:

$$\sigma =4\pi \frac{N1}{2N}\frac{4m_D}{g_m^2}=\frac{8\pi }{g_m}\frac{N1}{\sqrt{N}}\sqrt{\zeta }.$$
(17)
This result demonstrates explicitly the nonanalytic behavior of $`\sigma `$ with $`g`$, but does not yield the correct overall numerical factor. That is because $`B(z)`$, necessary for this calculation, is defined ambiguously. The ambiguity originates from the exponentially large thickness of the string: $`|z|<𝒪\left(m_D^1\right)`$. It is therefore unclear what value of $`B(z)`$ we should take: either $`B(0)`$, as it was done, or the one averaged over some range of $`z`$. It turns out that in the weak-field (low-density) limit, the problem can be solved for an arbitrarily-shaped surface, by using the representation in terms of the Kalb-Ramond field, which will be described in the next Section.

## 3 SU(N) confining strings

### 3.1 Fundamental representation

One of the ways to introduce the Kalb-Ramond field is to do it first for the description of the dual photon, by considering this field as the field-strength tensor corresponding to the field $`\stackrel{}{B}_\mu `$, namely $`\stackrel{}{B}_\mu =\frac{1}{2g_m}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }\stackrel{}{h}_{\nu \lambda }`$. The Wilson loop (11) then takes the form 222Note the following correspondence between the Coulomb interaction of monopole densities and the actions of the magnetic- and Kalb-Ramond fields:
$$\frac{1}{4}d^3x\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }^2=\frac{g_m^2}{2}d^3x\stackrel{}{B}_\mu ^2=\frac{g_m^2}{2}d^3xd^3y\stackrel{}{\rho }(\stackrel{}{x})D_0(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})\stackrel{}{\rho }(\stackrel{}{y}).$$

$$W_a=\frac{1}{𝒵_{\mathrm{mon}}}𝒟\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\delta \left(_\mu \stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\right)𝒟\stackrel{}{\chi }\mathrm{exp}\{d^3x[\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }^2+$$

$$+\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{}{\chi }\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }_\mu \stackrel{}{h}_{\nu \lambda }+2\zeta \underset{i=1}{\overset{N(N1)/2}{}}\mathrm{cos}\left(g_m\stackrel{}{q}_i\stackrel{}{\chi }\right)]+\frac{ig}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)}{}d\sigma _{\mu \nu }\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\}.$$
(18)
The field $`\stackrel{}{\chi }`$ can be further integrated out by solving the saddle-point equation of the form (13), where $`\stackrel{}{B}^{}`$ is replaced by $`\frac{1}{2g_m}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }_\mu \stackrel{}{h}_{\nu \lambda }`$ (and $`\stackrel{}{\chi }`$ depends on all three coordinates). Using the Ansatz $`\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{}{\mu }_ah_{\mu \nu }`$, we arrive at the following substitution in eq. (18):

$$d^3x\left[\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{}{\chi }\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }_\mu \stackrel{}{h}_{\nu \lambda }+2\zeta \underset{i=1}{\overset{N(N1)/2}{}}\mathrm{cos}\left(g_m\stackrel{}{q}_i\stackrel{}{\chi }\right)\right]$$

$$V\left[\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\right]2(N1)\zeta d^3x\left[H_a\mathrm{arcsinh}H_a\sqrt{1+H_a^2}\right].$$
(19)
Here,

$$H_a\frac{1}{2g_m\zeta (N1)}\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }_\mu \stackrel{}{h}_{\nu \lambda },$$
(20)
and $`V\left[\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\right]`$ is the multivalued potential of the Kalb-Ramond field (or of monopole densities). Similarly to the case of compact QED , it is the summation over branches of this potential, which yields the summation over world sheets $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)`$ in eq. (18).

Another way to discuss the connection of the Kalb-Ramond field with the string world sheets is based on the semi-classical analysis of the saddle-point equations analogous to eqs. (15):

$$2i_\mu \psi +\frac{g_m}{2}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }h_{\nu \lambda }=4\pi i\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ,$$
(21)
$$\frac{1}{2g_m}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }_\mu h_{\nu \lambda }+2i\zeta N\mathrm{sin}\psi =0.$$
(22)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu \frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\nu \lambda }`$, and the field $`\psi `$, by means of which the correspondence between the Kalb-Ramond field and the stationary surface is established, is defined by the relation $`\stackrel{}{\chi }=\frac{2}{g_m}\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\psi `$. In this approach, based on the (auxiliary) field $`\psi `$, the summation over branches of the potential $`V\left[\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\right]`$ is equivalent to the following procedure. One should restrict oneself to the domain $`|\psi |\pi `$ and solve eqs. (21), (22) with the conditions

$$\underset{|\stackrel{}{x}|\mathrm{}}{lim}\psi (\stackrel{}{x})=0,$$
(23)
$$\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\left\{\psi \left[\stackrel{}{x}(\xi )+\epsilon \stackrel{}{n}(\xi )\right]\psi \left[\stackrel{}{x}(\xi )\epsilon \stackrel{}{n}(\xi )\right]\right\}=2\pi ,$$
(24)
where $`\stackrel{}{n}(\xi )`$ is the normal vector to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at an arbitrary point $`\stackrel{}{x}(\xi )`$. After that, one should get rid of the so-appearing $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-dependence of $`W_a`$ by extremizing the latter with respect to $`\stackrel{}{x}(\xi )`$. Owing to the formula

$$\delta 𝑑\sigma _{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }\left[\stackrel{}{x}(\xi )\right]=𝑑\sigma _{\mu \nu }H_{\mu \nu \lambda }\left[\stackrel{}{x}(\xi )\right]\delta x_\lambda (\xi ),$$

such an extremization is equivalent to the definition of the extremal surface through the equation $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }\left[\stackrel{}{x}(\xi )\right]=0`$. By virtue of eqs. (22), (24), $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ indeed vanishes on both sides of the stationary surface. The reason for that is the following distinguished property of the extremal surface: $`\psi `$ is equal to $`\pi `$ on one of its sides and to $`\pi `$ on the other, whereas for any other surface, $`|\psi |`$ is smaller than $`\pi `$ on one side and larger than $`\pi `$ on the other side. Therefore, according to eq. (22), at both sides of the extremal surface, $`\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }_\mu h_{\nu \lambda }=0`$. This is equivalent to the equation $`\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }H_{\mu \nu \lambda }=0`$ and hence (upon the multiplication of both sides by $`\epsilon _{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}}`$) to $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }=0`$. \[In particular, for a flat contour the extremal surface is the flat surface inside this contour. This can explicitly be seen from the solutions (16) of eqs. (15). Namely, at any $`z`$ such that $`|z|m_D^1`$, $`\psi (z)\pi \mathrm{sgn}z`$, $`B^{}(z)0`$, where both equalities hold with the exponential accuracy. The equation $`B^{}(z)0`$ is equivalent to the condition of vanishing of $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ at both sides of the flat surface.\]

According to the Hodge decomposition theorem, the general form of $`\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$ is $`\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \stackrel{}{A}_\nu _\nu \stackrel{}{A}_\mu +\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }_\lambda \stackrel{}{\varphi }`$. The constraint $`_\mu \stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }=0`$, imposed in eq. (18), is equivalent to setting $`\stackrel{}{A}_\mu `$ equal zero. From now on, we shall promote $`\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$ to include also the fields of free photons, $`\stackrel{}{A}_\mu `$, by abolishing this constraint. Let us further go into the weak-field limit, $`|H_a|1`$. Using the Cauchy inequality, we have

$$\left|H_a\right|\frac{\left|\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\right|\left|\stackrel{}{\rho }\right|}{\zeta (N1)}=\frac{|\stackrel{}{\rho }|}{\zeta \sqrt{2N(N1)}},$$
(25)
so that the weak-field limit is equivalent to the following low-density approximation: $`|\stackrel{}{\rho }|\zeta \sqrt{2N(N1)}`$. To understand in what sense this inequality implies the low-density approximation, note that the mean monopole density stemming from eq. (3) reads:

$$\left|\stackrel{}{\rho }\right|_{\mathrm{mean}}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}𝒵_{\mathrm{mon}}}{𝒱\mathrm{ln}\zeta }\zeta N(N1),$$
(26)
where $`𝒱`$ is the three-volume occupied by the system. Therefore, at large-$`N`$, the low-density approximation implies that $`|\stackrel{}{\rho }|`$ should be of the order $`N`$ times smaller than its mean value.

In the weak-field limit, we now have the following expression for the total Wilson loop, where the constraint $`_\mu \stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }=0`$ is removed:

$$W(C,\mathrm{\Sigma })_{\mathrm{weak}\mathrm{field}}^{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{1}{𝒵^{\mathrm{tot}}}𝒟\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{exp}\left\{d^3x\left[\frac{1}{12m_D^2}\stackrel{}{H}_{\mu \nu \lambda }^2+\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }^2\frac{ig}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }\right]\right\}.$$
(27)
Here, $`𝒵^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is given by the same integral over $`\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$-field, but with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$ set to zero, and $`\stackrel{}{H}_{\mu \nu \lambda }=_\mu \stackrel{}{h}_{\nu \lambda }+_\lambda \stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }+_\nu \stackrel{}{h}_{\lambda \mu }`$ is the Kalb-Ramond field-strength tensor. \[The apparent $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-dependence of the r.h.s. of eq. (27) is due to the fact that in course of the $`\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$-expansion of $`V\left[\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\right]`$, only one branch of this potential has been taken into account. As it was discussed above, the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-dependence disappears upon the summation over all the branches.\] Owing to the Hodge decomposition theorem for $`\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$, eq. (27) is obviously factorized as $`W(C,\mathrm{\Sigma })_{\mathrm{weak}\mathrm{field}}^{\mathrm{tot}}=W_aW_a^{\mathrm{phot}}`$, where the free photonic contribution to the Wilson loop reads

$$W_a^{\mathrm{phot}}=\mathrm{exp}\left[g^2\frac{N1}{4N}\underset{C}{}𝑑x_\mu \underset{C}{}𝑑x_\mu ^{}D_0\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}\right)\right].$$
(28)
Doing the integration over $`\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$ in eq. (27), we obtain

$$W(C,\mathrm{\Sigma })_{\mathrm{weak}\mathrm{field}}^{\mathrm{tot}}=\mathrm{exp}\{g^2\frac{N1}{4N}[\underset{C}{}dx_\mu \underset{C}{}dx_\mu ^{}D_{m_D}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{})+$$

$$+\frac{m_D^2}{2}\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)}{}d\sigma _{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{x}(\xi ))\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)}{}d\sigma _{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{x}(\xi ^{}))D_{m_D}(\stackrel{}{x}(\xi )\stackrel{}{x}(\xi ^{}))]\},$$
(29)
where $`D_{m_D}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)=\mathrm{e}^{m_D|\stackrel{}{x}|}/(4\pi |\stackrel{}{x}|)`$ is the 3D Yukawa propagator. Note that the free photonic contribution is completely canceled out of this expression, i.e., it is only the dual photon (of the mass $`m_D`$) which mediates the $`C\times C`$\- and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$-interactions.

One can further expand the nonlocal string effective action

$$S_{\mathrm{str}}=(gm_D)^2\frac{N1}{8N}\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)}{}𝑑\sigma _{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{x}(\xi ))\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)}{}𝑑\sigma _{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{x}(\xi ^{}))D_{m_D}\left(\stackrel{}{x}(\xi )\stackrel{}{x}(\xi ^{})\right)$$
(30)
in powers of the derivatives with respect to the world-sheet coordinates $`\xi ^a`$’s. Note that the actual parameter of this expansion is $`1/(m_DR)^2`$, where $`R\sqrt{\mathrm{Area}(\mathrm{\Sigma })}`$ is the size of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (see the discussion below). The resulting quasi-local action reads (cf. refs. ):

$$S_{\mathrm{str}}=\sigma d^2\xi \sqrt{𝗀}+\alpha ^1d^2\xi \sqrt{𝗀}𝗀^{ab}(_at_{\mu \nu })(_bt_{\mu \nu })+\kappa d^2\xi \sqrt{𝗀}+𝒪\left(\frac{\sigma }{m_D^4R^2}\right).$$
(31)
Here, $`_a/\xi ^a`$, and the following quantities characterize $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$: $`𝗀_{ab}(\xi )=(_ax_\mu (\xi ))(_bx_\mu (\xi ))`$ is the induced-metric tensor, $`𝗀=det𝗀^{ab}`$, $`t_{\mu \nu }(\xi )=\epsilon ^{ab}(_ax_\mu (\xi ))(_bx_\nu (\xi ))/\sqrt{𝗀}`$ is the extrinsic-curvature tensor, $`=\left(^a_a\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{𝗀}\right)/\sqrt{𝗀}`$ is the (conformal-gauge expression for the) scalar (or intrinsic) curvature.

The third term on the r.h.s. of eq. (31) is known to be a full derivative, and therefore it does not actually contribute to the string effective action, while the second term describes the so-called rigidity of the string . The reason for the notation $`\alpha ^1`$, introduced in ref. , is that, as it has been shown in that paper, it is $`\alpha `$, which is asymptotically free. This asymptotic freedom then indicates that the rigidity term can only be IR relevant, provided the respective $`\beta `$-function has a zero in the IR region. However, since the time of the paper , such a zero has not been found. This fact makes unclear a possible relevance of the rigidity term to the solution of the old-standing problem of crumpling of large world sheets in the Euclidean space-time and necessitates to seek other possible solutions of this problem. One of these, based on the string $`\theta `$-term, has been proposed already in ref. . A possible derivation of such a term, within the model under discussion, will be presented in Section 4.

The string coupling constants in eq. (31) read

$$\sigma =2\pi ^2\frac{N1}{\sqrt{N}}\frac{\sqrt{\zeta }}{g_m},$$
(32)
$$\alpha ^1=3\kappa /2=\frac{\pi ^2(N1)}{4g_m^3N^{3/2}\sqrt{\zeta }}.$$
(33)
In the weak-field (or low-density) approximation, we can therefore fix the proportionality factor $`2\pi ^2`$ at $`\sigma `$, that is close to the factor $`8\pi `$ of eq. (17) which, however, could have not been fixed within the method of Section 2. Another important fact is that (in the weak-field approximation) the string tension and higher string coupling constants are the same for all large enough surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)`$. \[The words “large enough” here mean the validity of the inequality $`m_DR1`$, i.e., the string length $`R`$ should significantly exceed the exponentially large string thickness $`m_D^1`$. Indeed, the general $`n`$-th term of the derivative (or curvature) expansion of $`S_{\mathrm{str}}`$ is of the order of $`\sigma m_D^2R^4(m_DR)^{2n}`$.\] It is, however, worth noting that some of the terms in the expansion (31) vanish at the surface of the minimal area corresponding to a given contour $`C`$ (e.g., at the flat surface, in the case considered in Section 2). This concerns, for instance, the rigidity term 333 Indeed, one can prove the equality $`𝗀^{ab}(_at_{\mu \nu })(_bt_{\mu \nu })=(D^aD_ax_\mu )(D^bD_bx_\mu )`$, where $`D_aD_bx_\mu =_a_bx_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^c_cx_\mu `$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^c`$ is the Christoffel symbol corresponding to the metric $`𝗀^{ab}`$. On the other hand, the surface of the minimal area is defined by the equation $`D^aD_ax_\mu (\xi )=0`$ together with the respective boundary condition at the contour $`C`$..

Let us finally demonstrate how to introduce the Kalb-Ramond field in the way alternative to its definition via the $`\stackrel{}{B}_\mu `$-field and incorporating automatically the free-photonic contribution to the Wilson loop. It is based on the direct application of eqs. (1) and (7), that yields

$$W_a=\underset{𝒩=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\zeta ^𝒩}{𝒩!}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{g_m^2}{2}d^3xd^3y\stackrel{}{\rho }^𝒩(\stackrel{}{x})D_0(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})\stackrel{}{\rho }^𝒩(\stackrel{}{y})+i\stackrel{}{\mu }_ad^3x\stackrel{}{\rho }^𝒩\eta \right]_{\mathrm{mon}}=$$

$$=\frac{1}{𝒵_{\mathrm{mon}}}𝒟\stackrel{}{\phi }\mathrm{exp}\left\{d^3x\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mu \stackrel{}{\phi }\frac{\stackrel{}{\mu }_a}{g_m}_\mu \eta \right)^22\zeta \underset{i=1}{\overset{N(N1)/2}{}}\mathrm{cos}\left(g_m\stackrel{}{q}_i\stackrel{}{\phi }\right)\right]\right\},$$
(34)
where $`\stackrel{}{\phi }=\stackrel{}{\chi }+\frac{\stackrel{}{\mu }_a}{g_m}\eta `$. One can further use the following formula which shows explicitly how the Kalb-Ramond field unifies the monopole and the free-photonic contributions to the Wilson loop:

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}d^3x\left(_\mu \stackrel{}{\phi }\frac{\stackrel{}{\mu }_a}{g_m}_\mu \eta \right)^2g^2\frac{N1}{4N}\underset{C}{}𝑑x_\mu \underset{C}{}𝑑x_\mu ^{}D_0(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{})\right]=$$

$$=𝒟\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{exp}\left[d^3x\left(\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }^2+\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{}{\phi }\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }_\mu \stackrel{}{h}_{\nu \lambda }\frac{ig}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }\right)\right].$$
(35)
In fact, one can prove that both sides of this formula are equal to 444 Obviously, in the noncompact case, when monopoles are disregarded and $`\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \stackrel{}{A}_\nu _\nu \stackrel{}{A}_\mu `$, the r.h.s. of eq. (35) yields the free-photonic contribution to the Wilson loop, eq. (28).

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}d^3x\left(_\mu \stackrel{}{\phi }+g\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu \right)^2\right].$$

Inserting further eq. (35) into eq. (34), we obtain

$$W_a=\frac{1}{𝒵^{\mathrm{tot}}}𝒟\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }𝒟\stackrel{}{\phi }\mathrm{exp}[d^3x(\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }^2+$$

$$+\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{}{\phi }\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }_\mu \stackrel{}{h}_{\nu \lambda }2\zeta \underset{i=1}{\overset{N(N1)/2}{}}\mathrm{cos}\left(g_m\stackrel{}{q}_i\stackrel{}{\phi }\right)\frac{ig}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu })].$$

Denoting $`\stackrel{}{\chi }\stackrel{}{\phi }`$, we arrive back to eq. (18) with the constraint $`_\mu \stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }=0`$ abolished, as it should be.

### 3.2 Adjoint representation

Let us now extend the ideas of the previous Subsection to the case of the Wilson loop in the adjoint representation. The charges of quarks in this representation are distributed along the roots, so that in the formulae for the Wilson loop, eqs. (6) and (7), $`\stackrel{}{\mu }_a`$ should be replaced by $`\stackrel{}{q}_i`$. Noting that any root is a difference of two weights, we shall henceforth in this Section label roots by two indices running from $`1`$ to $`N`$, e.g., $`\stackrel{}{q}_{ab}=\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\stackrel{}{\mu }_b`$ 555In particular, this makes explicit the number of positive roots, $`\frac{N^2N}{2}`$.. Equation (14) then leads to the following formula:

$$\stackrel{}{q}_{ab}\stackrel{}{q}_{cd}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta _{ac}+\delta _{bd}\delta _{ad}\delta _{bc}\right),$$
(36)
according to which the product $`\stackrel{}{q}_{ab}\stackrel{}{q}_{cd}`$ may take the values $`0,\pm \frac{1}{2},\pm 1`$. Owing to this fact, the ratio (8) is again equal to 1, i.e., for adjoint quarks, whose charge obeys the quantization condition $`gg_m=4\pi `$, the Wilson loop is as surface independent, as it is for fundamental quarks.

The adjoint-case version of eq. (18) (with the constraint $`_\mu \stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }=0`$ abolished) has the form:

$$W_{ab}=\frac{1}{𝒵^{\mathrm{tot}}}𝒟\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }𝒟\stackrel{}{\chi }\mathrm{exp}\{d^3x[\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }^2+$$

$$+\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{}{\chi }\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }_\mu \stackrel{}{h}_{\nu \lambda }+\zeta \underset{c,d=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{cos}\left(g_m\stackrel{}{q}_{cd}\stackrel{}{\chi }\right)]+\frac{ig}{2}\stackrel{}{q}_{ab}\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)}{}d\sigma _{\mu \nu }\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\}.$$
(37)
The saddle-point equation, emerging from the above formula in the course of integration over $`\stackrel{}{\chi }`$,

$$\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{}{\chi }\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }_\mu \stackrel{}{h}_{\nu \lambda }=g_m\zeta \underset{c,d=1}{\overset{N}{}}\stackrel{}{q}_{cd}\mathrm{sin}\left(g_m\stackrel{}{q}_{cd}\stackrel{}{\chi }\right),$$
(38)
is to be solved in a way similar to the one of the previous Subsection, namely by using the Ansatz $`\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{}{q}_{ab}h_{\mu \nu }`$, $`\stackrel{}{\chi }=\stackrel{}{q}_{ab}\chi `$. Multiplying both sides of eq. (38) by $`\stackrel{}{q}_{ab}`$, we obtain:

$$\frac{i}{2g_m\zeta }\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }_\mu h_{\nu \lambda }=\underset{c,d=1}{\overset{N}{}}\stackrel{}{q}_{ab}\stackrel{}{q}_{cd}\mathrm{sin}\left(g_m\stackrel{}{q}_{ab}\stackrel{}{q}_{cd}\chi \right).$$
(39)
Let us now compute the sum on the r.h.s. of this equation by virtue of eq. (36). To this end, imagine ourselves the antisymmetric $`N\times N`$-matrix of roots $`\stackrel{}{q}_{cd}`$’s. Obviously, for a fixed root $`\stackrel{}{q}_{ab}`$, there is one root $`\stackrel{}{q}_{cd}`$ (equal to $`\stackrel{}{q}_{ab}`$) and a negative symmetric to it, whose scalar products with $`\stackrel{}{q}_{ab}`$ are equal to $`1`$ and $`1`$. Our aim is to calculate the number $`n`$ of roots, whose scalar product with $`\stackrel{}{q}_{ab}`$ is equal to $`\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ 666For all other $`N^2N2n`$ roots, the scalar product vanishes, and so does the r.h.s. of eq. (39).. According to eq. (36), these roots belong either to the rows $`c=a`$, $`c=b`$, or to the columns $`d=a`$, $`d=b`$, which in total contain $`4N4`$ elements. Among these, two are diagonal and other two are those, which yield the scalar product $`\pm 1`$. The remaining $`n=4(N2)`$ roots are precisely that, which yield the scalar product $`\pm \frac{1}{2}`$, so that this product equals $`\frac{1}{2}`$ for $`2(N2)`$ of them and $`\frac{1}{2}`$ for the other $`2(N2)`$. The sum on the r.h.s. of eq. (39) thus takes the form

$$\mathrm{sin}(2\psi )\mathrm{sin}(2\psi )+2(N2)\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}\psi \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}(\psi )\right]=2\left[\mathrm{sin}(2\psi )+(N2)\mathrm{sin}\psi \right],$$

where the field $`\psi `$ has been defined after eq. (15). Let us now adopt the limit $`N1`$, in which eq. (39) takes the form $`\mathrm{sin}\psi =iH_{ab}`$, where \[cf. eq. (20)\]

$$H_{ab}\frac{1}{4Ng_m\zeta }\stackrel{}{q}_{ab}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }_\mu \stackrel{}{h}_{\nu \lambda }.$$

The analogue of the potential (19) in the same limit then reads

$$V\left[\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\right]=4N\zeta d^3x\left[H_{ab}\mathrm{arcsinh}H_{ab}\sqrt{1+H_{ab}^2}\right].$$

The string representation of the adjoint Wilson loop in the large-$`N`$ limit is therefore given by eq. (37) with the substitution

$$d^3x\left[\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{}{\chi }\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }_\mu \stackrel{}{h}_{\nu \lambda }+\zeta \underset{c,d=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{cos}\left(g_m\stackrel{}{q}_{cd}\stackrel{}{\chi }\right)\right]V\left[\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\right].$$

We are finally interested in the adjoint-case counterparts of eqs. (32), (33), one can obtain in the weak-field limit $`\left|H_{ab}\right|1`$ 777Note that, using the formula $`H_{ab}=\frac{1}{2N\zeta }\stackrel{}{q}_{ab}\stackrel{}{\rho }`$ and the Cauchy inequality, one gets the following analogue of eq. (25): $`\left|H_{ab}\right|\frac{\left|\stackrel{}{\rho }\right|}{2N\zeta }`$. This clearly leads to the same definition of the weak-field limit in terms of the low-density approximation, as in the fundamental case. Namely, the weak-field limit corresponds to densities $`\left|\stackrel{}{\rho }\right|`$, which are of the order $`N`$ times smaller than the mean one (26).. In this limit, the formula (27) recovers itself, with the substitution $`\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\stackrel{}{q}_{ab}`$. As a consequence, the ratios of adjoint-case values of string couplings $`\sigma `$, $`\alpha ^1`$, and $`\kappa `$ to the respective fundamental-case values, eqs. (32) and (33), is equal to $`\frac{2N}{N1}2`$. In particular, for the string tensions this ratio coincides with the known leading large-$`N`$ QCD-result (see e.g. ref. ).

## 4 Generalization to the 4D-case with the $`\theta `$-term

In this Section, we shall consider the 4D-case and introduce the field-theoretical $`\theta `$-term 888In the case when the ensemble of Abelian-projected monopoles is modeled by the magnetically-charged dual Higgs field, the effects, produced by this term to the respective string effective action, have been studied in ref. .. As it has been first found for compact QED in refs. , by means of the derivative expansion of the resulting nonlocal string effective action, this term generates the string $`\theta `$-term. Being proportional to the number of self-intersections of the world sheet, the latter might be important for the solution of the problem of crumpling of large world sheets . In this Section, we shall perform the respective analysis for the general $`SU(N)`$-case under study, both in the fundamental and in the adjoint representations. It is worth noting that in the lattice 4D compact QED, confinement holds only at strong coupling. On the opposite, the continuum counterpart  (of the $`SU(N)`$-version) of this model, we are going to explore, possesses confinement at arbitrary values of coupling. However, we shall see that the solution to the problem of crumpling due to the $`\theta `$-term can only be possible in the strong-coupling regime, implied in a certain sense. Note also that the continuum sine-Gordon theory of the dual-photon field possesses an UV cutoff, which appears in course of the path-integral average over the shapes of monopole loops. However, the $`\theta `$-parameter is dimensionless, and consequently its values, at which one may expect the disappearance of crumpling, will be cutoff-independent.

The full partition function, including the $`\theta `$-term and the average over free photons, reads \[cf. eq. (1)\]

$$𝒵=𝒟\stackrel{}{A}_\mu \mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{4}{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }^2}}\underset{𝒩=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\zeta ^𝒩}{𝒩!}\mathrm{exp}\left\{𝒮[\stackrel{}{j}_\mu ^𝒩,\stackrel{}{A}_\mu ]\right\}_{\mathrm{mon}},$$
(40)
where

$$𝒮[\stackrel{}{j}_\mu ^𝒩,\stackrel{}{A}_\mu ]=\frac{1}{2}d^4xd^4y\stackrel{}{j}_\mu ^𝒩(x)D_0(xy)\stackrel{}{j}_\mu ^𝒩(y)+\frac{i\theta g^2}{8\pi ^2}d^4x\stackrel{}{A}_\mu \stackrel{}{j}_\mu ^𝒩,$$
(41)
and $`\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \stackrel{}{A}_\nu _\nu \stackrel{}{A}_\mu `$. For $`𝒩=0`$, the monopole current $`j_\mu ^𝒩`$ is equal to zero, whereas for $`𝒩1`$, it is defined as $`\stackrel{}{j}_\mu ^𝒩=g_m\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}\stackrel{}{q}_{i_k}𝑑z_\mu ^k(\tau )\delta \left(xx^k(\tau )\right)`$. The couplings $`g`$ and $`g_m`$ are now dimensionless and obey the same condition $`gg_m=4\pi `$ as in the 3D-case. We have also parametrized the trajectory of the $`k`$-th monopole by the vector $`x_\mu ^k(\tau )=y_\mu ^k+z_\mu ^k(\tau )`$, where $`y_\mu ^k=\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑\tau x_\mu ^k(\tau )`$ is the position of the trajectory, whereas the vector $`z_\mu ^k(\tau )`$ describes its shape, both of which should be averaged over. The fugacity of a single-monopole loop, $`\zeta `$, entering eq. (40), has the dimensionality $`[\mathrm{mass}]^4`$, $`\zeta \mathrm{e}^{S_{\mathrm{mon}}}`$, where the action of a single $`k`$-th loop, obeying the estimate $`S_{\mathrm{mon}}\frac{1}{g^2}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑\tau \sqrt{\left(\dot{z}^k\right)^2}`$, is assumed to be of the same order of magnitude for all loops. Finally, in eq. (40), $`D_0(x)=1/(4\pi ^2x^2)`$ is the 4D Coulomb propagator, and the average over monopole loops is defined similarly to eq. (2) as follows:

$$𝒪_{\mathrm{mon}}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{𝒩}{}}d^4y_n\underset{i_n=\pm 1,\mathrm{},\pm \frac{N(N1)}{2}}{}𝒪_{z_n(\tau )}.$$

The particular form of the path-integral average over the shapes of the loops, $`z_n(\tau )`$’s, here is immaterial for the final (UV-cutoff dependent) expression for the partition function (see e.g. ref.  for a similar situation in the plasma of closed dual strings in the Abelian-Higgs–type models). The only thing which matters is the normalization $`1_{z_n(\tau )}=1`$, that will be implied henceforth. The analogue of the partition function (9)-(10) then reads

$$𝒵_{\mathrm{mon}}\left[\stackrel{}{A}_\mu \right]=𝒟\stackrel{}{j}_\mu \mathrm{exp}\{𝒮[\stackrel{}{j}_\mu ,\stackrel{}{A}_\mu ]\}\times $$

$$\times 𝒟\stackrel{}{\chi }_\mu \mathrm{exp}\{d^4x[2\zeta \underset{i=1}{\overset{N(N1)/2}{}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_i\left|\stackrel{}{\chi }_\mu \right|}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)+i\stackrel{}{\chi }_\mu \stackrel{}{j}_\mu ]\},$$
(42)
with the action $`𝒮`$ given by eq. (41), while the full partition function is

$$𝒵=𝒟\stackrel{}{A}_\mu \mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{4}{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }^2}}𝒵_{\mathrm{mon}}\left[\stackrel{}{A}_\mu \right].$$

In eq. (42),

$$\left|\stackrel{}{\chi }_\mu \right|(\sqrt{\chi _\mu ^1\chi _\mu ^1},\mathrm{},\sqrt{\chi _\mu ^{N1}\chi _\mu ^{N1}}),$$
(43)
and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\left|y^k\right|/\left(z^k\right)^2\left|z^k\right|^1`$ is the UV cutoff. Clearly, unlike the 3D-case without the $`\theta `$-term, the $`\stackrel{}{A}_\mu `$-field is now coupled to $`\stackrel{}{j}_\mu `$, making $`𝒵_{\mathrm{mon}}`$ $`\stackrel{}{A}_\mu `$-dependent. This eventually leads to the change of the mass of the dual photon $`\stackrel{}{\chi }_\mu `$, as well as to the appearance of the string $`\theta `$-term.

Let us address the fundamental case first. After the saddle-point integration over $`\stackrel{}{\chi }_\mu `$, the analogue of eqs. (18)-(19) takes the form

$$W_a=\frac{1}{𝒵_{\mathrm{mon}}}𝒟\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{exp}\left\{S\left[\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\right]+\frac{ig}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)}{}𝑑\sigma _{\mu \nu }\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\right\},$$
(44)
where the constraint $`_\mu \stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }=0`$ was already abolished. Here, the Kalb-Ramond action reads

$$S\left[\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\right]=d^4x\left(\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }^2\frac{i\theta g^2}{32\pi ^2}\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{h}}_{\mu \nu }\right)+V\left[\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\right].$$
(45)
The potential $`V`$ here is given by eq. (19) with the symbol $`d^3x`$ replaced by $`d^4x`$, and

$$H_a=\frac{g\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\zeta (N1)}\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\left|_\mu \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{h}}_{\mu \nu }\right|.$$

In these formulae, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }𝒪_{\lambda \rho }`$, and the absolute value is defined in the same way as in eq. (43), i.e., again with respect to the Lorentz indices only. Note that the form, which the $`\theta `$-term has been transformed to, is quite natural, since the respective initial expression of eq. (41) can be rewritten modulo full derivatives as

$$\frac{i\theta g^2}{8\pi ^2}d^4x\stackrel{}{A}_\mu \stackrel{}{j}_\mu ^𝒩=\frac{i\theta g^2}{32\pi ^2}d^4x\left(\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }^𝒩\right)\left(\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{F}}_{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{F}}_{\mu \nu }^𝒩\right),$$

where \[cf. eq. (4)\]

$$\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }^𝒩(x)=\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }_\lambda d^4yD_0(xy)\stackrel{}{j}_\rho ^𝒩(y),_\mu \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{F}}_{\mu \nu }^𝒩=\stackrel{}{j}_\nu ^𝒩.$$

Next, the mass of the Kalb-Ramond field, equal to the Debye mass of the dual photon, which follows from the action (45), reads $`m_D=\frac{g\eta }{4\pi }\sqrt{\left(\frac{4\pi }{g^2}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\theta }{2\pi }\right)^2}`$, where $`\eta \sqrt{N\zeta }/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In the extreme strong-coupling limit, $`g\mathrm{}`$, this expression demonstrates an important difference of the case $`\theta =0`$ from the case $`\theta 0`$. Namely, since $`\eta (g)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{const}/g^2}1`$, $`m_D0`$ at $`\theta =0`$, whereas $`m_D\mathrm{}`$ at $`\theta 0`$. In another words, in the extreme strong-coupling limit, the correlation length of the vacuum, equal to $`1/m_D`$, goes large (small) at $`\theta =0`$ ($`\theta 0`$).

In the weak-field limit, $`\left|H_a\right|1`$, eq. (44) yields \[cf. eq. (27)\]:

$$W(C,\mathrm{\Sigma })_{\mathrm{weak}\mathrm{field}}^{\mathrm{tot}}=$$

$$=\frac{1}{𝒵^{\mathrm{tot}}}𝒟\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{exp}\left\{d^4x\left[\frac{g^2}{12\eta ^2}\stackrel{}{H}_{\mu \nu \lambda }^2+\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }^2\frac{i\theta g^2}{32\pi ^2}\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{h}}_{\mu \nu }\frac{ig}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu }_a\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }\right]\right\},$$

where again $`𝒵^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is the same integral over $`\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$, but with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$ set to zero. Integrating over $`\stackrel{}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$, we then obtain:

$$W(C,\mathrm{\Sigma })_{\mathrm{weak}\mathrm{field}}^{\mathrm{tot}}=\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{N1}{4N}[g^2\underset{C}{}dx_\mu \underset{C}{}dx_\mu ^{}D_{m_D}(xx^{})+$$

$$+\frac{\eta ^2}{2}d^4xd^4x^{}D_{m_D}(xx^{})(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }(x)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }(x^{})+\frac{i\theta g^2}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }(x)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mu \nu }(x^{}))]\},$$
(46)
where $`D_{m_D}(x)m_DK_1\left(m_D|x|\right)/(4\pi ^2|x|)`$ is the 4D Yukawa propagator with $`K_1`$ denoting the modified Bessel function. \[Note that at $`\theta =0`$, eq. (46) takes the form of eq. (29).\] Further curvature expansion of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mu \nu }`$ interaction \[analogous to the expansion of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$ interaction in the action (30)\] yields the string $`\theta `$-term equal to $`ic_{\mathrm{fund}}\nu `$. Here, $`\nu \frac{1}{2\pi }d^2\xi \sqrt{𝗀}𝗀^{ab}(_at_{\mu \nu })(_b\stackrel{~}{t}_{\mu \nu })`$ is the number of self-intersections of the world sheet, and the coupling constant $`c`$ reads

$$c_{\mathrm{fund}}=\frac{(N1)\theta }{8N\left[\left(\frac{4\pi }{g^2}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\theta }{2\pi }\right)^2\right]}.$$
(47)
As it was already discussed, $`c_{\mathrm{fund}}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-independent, since (similarly to the rigidity coupling constant $`\alpha `$) it is dimensionless. We therefore see that at

$$\theta _\pm ^{\mathrm{fund}}=\frac{\pi }{2}\left[\frac{N1}{2N}\pm \sqrt{\left(\frac{N1}{2N}\right)^2\left(\frac{16\pi }{g^2}\right)^2}\right],$$
(48)
$`c_{\mathrm{fund}}`$ becomes equal to $`\pi `$, and self-intersections are weighted in the string partition function with the factor $`(1)^\nu `$, that might cure the problem of crumpling. This is only possible at $`gg^{\mathrm{fund}}4\sqrt{\frac{2\pi N}{N1}}`$ 999Clearly, at $`g=g^{\mathrm{fund}}`$, $`\theta _+^{\mathrm{fund}}=\theta _{}^{\mathrm{fund}}=\pi \frac{N1}{4N}`$., that parallels the strong-coupling regime, which should hold in the lattice version of the model (cf. the discussion in the beginning of this Section). In the extreme strong-coupling limit, understood in the sense $`gg^{\mathrm{fund}}`$, only one critical value, $`\theta _+^{\mathrm{fund}}`$, survives, $`\theta _+^{\mathrm{fund}}\pi \frac{N1}{2N}`$, whereas $`\theta _{}^{\mathrm{fund}}0`$, i.e., $`\theta _{}^{\mathrm{fund}}`$ becomes a spurious solution, since $`c_{\mathrm{fund}}|_{\theta =0}=0`$.

With the use of the results of Subsection 3.2, the adjoint-case large-$`N`$ counterpart of eq. (48) can readily be found. Indeed, eq. (47) in that case becomes replaced by

$$c_{\mathrm{adj}}=\frac{\theta }{4\left[\left(\frac{4\pi }{g^2}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\theta }{2\pi }\right)^2\right]},$$

so that $`c_{\mathrm{adj}}`$ is equal to $`\pi `$ at

$$\theta _\pm ^{\mathrm{adj}}=\frac{\pi }{2}\left[1\pm \sqrt{1\left(\frac{16\pi }{g^2}\right)^2}\right].$$

Note that the respective lower bound for the critical value of $`g`$, $`g_{N1}^{\mathrm{adj}}=4\sqrt{\pi }`$ 101010As in the previous footnote, at the particular value of $`g`$, $`g=g_{N1}^{\mathrm{adj}}`$, $`\theta _+^{\mathrm{adj}}=\theta _{}^{\mathrm{adj}}=\frac{\pi }{2}`$., is only slightly different from the value $`g_{N1}^{\mathrm{fund}}=4\sqrt{2\pi }`$. Similarly to the fundamental case, at $`gg_{N1}^{\mathrm{adj}}`$, $`\theta _{}^{\mathrm{adj}}`$ becomes a spurious solution, whereas $`\theta _+^{\mathrm{adj}}\pi `$. We note in conclusion that at $`N1`$ and in the strong-coupling limit, understood in the sense $`gg_{N1}^{\mathrm{fund}}`$, the critical fundamental- and adjoint-case values of $`\theta `$, at which the problem of crumpling might be solved, are given by the following simple formula: $`\theta _+^{\mathrm{fund}}=\frac{1}{2}\theta _+^{\mathrm{adj}}=\frac{\pi }{2}`$.

## 5 Summary

The present paper has been devoted to the theories of confining strings, which describe the string representations of fundamental and adjoint Wilson loops in the $`SU(N)`$-analogues of 3D and 4D compact QED. In the 3D-case, we have first found the string tension of the flat Wilson loop in the fundamental representation. This has been done by the evaluation of the mean magnetic field inside the contour of the loop, using the saddle-point analysis. The obtained result contains an ambiguity in the overall constant factor, that is due to the large thickness of the confining string, which makes the definition of the mean magnetic field ambiguous.

We have then developed, in the 3D-case, the $`SU(N)`$-theory of confining strings for a Wilson loop, which belongs either to the fundamental, or to the adjoint representation. In the former case and in the weak-field limit of this theory (corresponding to the limit of low monopole densities), it becomes possible to fix the above-mentioned factor in the string tension. Moreover, by virtue of the obtained theory one can also find the coupling constants of the terms in the expansion of the nonlocal string effective action, which are higher in the derivatives than the Nambu-Goto term. Some of these terms, e.g. the so-called rigidity term, vanish at the flat surface and therefore cannot be obtained upon the evaluation of the mean magnetic field inside the flat contour. Furthermore, the theory of confining strings has been introduced in two various ways. One of these is to consider the Kalb-Ramond field as the field-strength tensor corresponding to the magnetic field produced by monopoles. Free photons can further be included by abolishing a certain constraint imposed on the Kalb-Ramond field. In the other approach, the Kalb-Ramond field appears (with the use of the definition of the Wilson loop in the monopole plasma) directly as the field unifying the monopole and free-photonic contributions to the Wilson loop.

In the case when the Wilson loop belongs to the adjoint representation, the saddle-point equation, one needs to solve for a derivation of the confining-string theory, has a simple solution in the large-$`N`$ limit. In this limit, the ratio of string couplings to the respective fundamental-case values is equal to 2. (In particular, for string tensions, this factor is the same as the one known in large-$`N`$ QCD.) Note also that the above-mentioned results can be readily generalized to the case of 3D Georgi-Glashow model with not-infinitely-heavy Higgs field, along with the lines of ref. .

We have further considered the 4D-case with the field-theoretical $`\theta `$-term included. The latter generates the string $`\theta `$-term which, at sufficiently strong coupling, might help in the solution of the problem of crumpling of large world sheets. The respective (generally two, but at the particular value of the electric coupling, – one) values of the $`\theta `$-parameter, at which this happens, have been found in both the fundamental case and in the large-$`N`$ adjoint case. In the extreme strong-coupling limit, one of these values becomes spurious, whereas the other one takes a very simple form.

###### Acknowledgments.

The author is grateful for useful and encouraging discussions to Drs. M.C. Diamantini and L. Del Debbio and to Profs. A. Di Giacomo, D. Ebert, I.I. Kogan, F. Lenz, Yu.M. Makeenko, M. Shifman, Yu.A. Simonov, and A. Wipf. He is also grateful to the whole staff of the Physics Department of the University of Pisa for cordial hospitality. The work has been supported by INFN and partially by the INTAS grant Open Call 2000, Project No. 110.