text:
# Calculation of Second Topological Moment ⟨𝑚²⟩ of Two Entangled Polymers

## I The Problem

Consider two polymers $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ which statistically can be linked with each other any number of times $`m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. The situation is illustrated in Fig. 1 for $`m=2`$.

We would like to find the probability distribution of the linking numbers $`m`$ as a function of the lengths of $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$. As a first contribution to solving this problem we calculate, in this note, the second moment of this distribution, $`m^2`$. The self-entanglements are ignored.

The solution of this two-polymer problem may be considered as an approximation to a more interesting physical problem in which a particular polymer is linked to any number $`N`$ of polymers, which are effectively replaced by a single long “effective” polymer .

Let $`G_m(𝐱_1,𝐱_2;L_1,L_2)`$ be the configurational probability to find the polymer $`P_1`$ of length $`L_1`$ with fixed coinciding end points at $`𝐱_1`$ and the polymer $`P_2`$ of length $`L_2`$ with fixed coinciding end points at $`𝐱_2`$, entangled with a Gaussian linking number $`m`$.

The second moment $`m^2`$ is defined by the ratio of integrals

$`m^2={\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐱_1d^3𝐱_2_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑mm^2G_m(𝐱_1,𝐱_2;L_1,L_2)}{d^3𝐱_1d^3𝐱_2_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑mG_m(𝐱_1,𝐱_2;L_1,L_2)}}`$ (1)
performed for either of the two probabilities. The integrations in $`d^3𝐱_1d^3𝐱_2`$ covers all positions of the end points. The denominator plays the role of a partition function of the system:

$`Z{\displaystyle d^3𝐱_1d^3𝐱_2_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑mG_m(𝐱_1,𝐱_2;L_1,L_2)}`$ (2)
Due to the translational invariance of the system, the probabilities depend only on the differences between the end point coordinates:

$`G_m(𝐱_1,𝐱_2;L_1,L_2)=G_m(𝐱_1𝐱_2;L_1,L_2)`$ (3)
Thus, after the shift of variables, the spatial double integrals in (1) can be rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle d^3𝐱_1d^3𝐱_2G_m(𝐱_1𝐱_2;L_1,L_2)}`$ (4)
$`=V{\displaystyle d^3𝐱G_m(𝐱;L_1,L_2)},`$ (5)
where $`V`$ denotes the total volume of the system.

## II Polymer Field Theory for Probabilities

The linking number for the two polymers is given by the Gauss integral

$`I_G(P_1,P_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _{P_1}}{\displaystyle _{P_2}}[d𝐱_1\times d𝐱_2]{\displaystyle \frac{𝐱_1𝐱_2}{|𝐱_1𝐱_2|^3}}.`$ (6)
It takes the values $`m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$. With the help of two vector potentials $`𝐀_1`$ and $`𝐀_2`$, the phase factor $`e^{im\lambda }`$ can be obtained as a result of a local gauge theory of the Chern-Simons type:

$`e^{im\lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟A_1^\mu 𝒟A_2^\mu }`$ (7)
$`\times `$ $`e^{𝒜_{\mathrm{CS}}\kappa _{P_1}𝑑𝐱_1𝐀_1\lambda _{P_2}𝑑𝐱_2𝐀_2},`$ (8)
where $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CS}}`$ is the action

$`𝒜_{\mathrm{CS}}=i\kappa {\displaystyle d^3𝐱\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho }A_1^\mu _\nu A_2^\rho },`$ (9)
Indeed, the correlation functions $`D_{ij}^{\mu \nu }(𝐱,𝐱^{})`$ of the gauge fields are

$`A_1^\mu (𝐱)A_1^\nu (𝐱^{})`$ $`=`$ $`0,A_2^\mu (𝐱)A_2^\nu (𝐱^{})=0,`$ (10)
$`A_1^\mu (𝐱)A_2^\nu (𝐱^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}e^{i𝐩(𝐱𝐱^{})}\frac{iϵ_{\mu \lambda \nu }k^\lambda }{𝐤^2}}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}ϵ_{\mu \lambda \nu }_\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|}}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}ϵ_{\mu \nu \kappa }{\displaystyle \frac{(xx^{})^\lambda }{|𝐱𝐱^{}|^3}},`$ (13)
such that the functional integral on the right-hand side of (8) produces directly the phase factor $`e^{iI_G(P_1,P_2)\lambda }`$ with the eigenvalue $`e^{im\lambda }`$.

We can select configurations with a certain linking number $`m`$ from all configurations by forming the integral $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda e^{im\lambda }`$ over this quantity.

The most efficient way of describing the statistical fluctuations of the polymers $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ is by two complex polymer fields $`\psi _1^{a_1}(𝐱_1)`$ and $`\psi _2^{a_2}(𝐱_2)`$ with $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ replica $`(a_1=1,\mathrm{},n_1,a_2=1,\mathrm{},n_2)`$. At the end we shall take $`n_1,n_20`$ to ensure that these fields describe only one polymer each . For these fields we define an auxiliary probability $`G_\lambda (\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1,\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2;\stackrel{}{z})`$ to find the polymer $`P_1`$ with open ends at $`𝐱_1,𝐱_1^{}`$ and the polymer $`P_2`$ with open ends at $`𝐱_2,𝐱_2^{}`$. The double vectors $`\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1(𝐱_1,𝐱_1^{})`$ and $`\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2(𝐱_2,𝐱_2^{})`$ collect initial and final endpoints of the two polymers $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$. The auxiliary probability $`G_\lambda (\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1,\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2;\stackrel{}{z})`$ is given by a functional integral

$`G_\lambda (\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1,\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2;\stackrel{}{z})=\underset{n_1,n_20}{lim}{\displaystyle 𝒟(\mathrm{fields})}`$ (14)
$`\times \psi _1^{a_i}(𝐱_1)\psi _1^{a_1}(𝐱_1^{})\psi _2^{a_2}(𝐱_2)\psi _2^{a_2}(𝐱_2^{})e^𝒜`$ (15)
where $`𝒟(\text{fields})`$ indicates the measure of functional integration, and $`𝒜`$ the action governing the fluctuations. It consists of kinetic terms for the fields, a quartic interaction of the fields to account for the fact that two monomers of the polymers cannot occupy the same point, the so-called excluded-volume effect, and a Chern-Simons field to describe the linking number $`m`$. Neglecting at first the excluded-volume effect and focusing attention on the linking problem only, the action reads

$$𝒜=𝒜_{\mathrm{CS}}+𝒜_{\mathrm{pol}},$$
(16)
with a polymer field action

$`𝒜_{\mathrm{pol}}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle d^3𝐱\left[|\overline{𝐃}^i\mathrm{\Psi }_i|^2+m_i^2|\mathrm{\Psi }_i|^2\right]}.`$ (17)
in which we have omitted a gauge fixing term, which enforces the Lorentz gauge. They are coupled to the polymer fields by the covariant derivatives

$`𝐃^i=\mathbf{}+i\gamma _i𝐀^i,`$ (18)
with the coupling constants $`\gamma _{1,2}`$ given by

$`\gamma _1=\kappa \gamma _2=\lambda .`$ (19)
The square masses of the polymer fields contain the chemical potentials $`z_{1,2}`$ of the polymers:

$`m_i^2=2Mz_i.`$ (20)
They are conjugate variables to the length parameters $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$, respectively. The symbols $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ collect the replica of the two polymer fields

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i=(\psi _i^1,\mathrm{},\psi _i^{n_i}),\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}=(\psi _i^1,\mathrm{},\psi _i^{n_i}),`$ (21)
and their absolute squares contain the sums over the replica

$`|𝐃^i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i|^2={\displaystyle \underset{a_i=1}{\overset{n_i}{}}}|𝐃^i\psi _i^{a_i}|^2,|\mathrm{\Psi }_i|^2={\displaystyle \underset{a_i=1}{\overset{n_i}{}}}|\psi _i^{a_i}|^2.`$ (22)
Having specified the fields, we can now write down the measure of functional integration in Eq. (15):

$`𝒟(\text{fields})={\displaystyle 𝒟A_1^\mu 𝒟A_2^\mu 𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }_1𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }_2𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{}}.`$ (23)
By Eq. (8), the parameter $`\lambda `$ is conjugate to the linking number $`m`$. We can therefore calculate the desired probability $`G_m(\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1,\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2;L_1,L_2)`$ from the auxiliary one $`G_\lambda (\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1,\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2;\stackrel{}{z})`$ by the following Laplace integrals $`\stackrel{}{z}=(z_1,z_1)`$:

$`G_m(\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1,\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2;L_1,L_2)=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐱_1^{}𝐱_1}{𝐱_2^{}𝐱_2}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{ci\mathrm{}}^{c+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_2}{2\pi i}}e^{(z_1L_1+z_2L_2)}`$ (24)
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}d\lambda e^{im\lambda }G_\lambda (\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1,\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2;\stackrel{}{z}).`$ (25)
## III Calculating the Partition Function

Let us use the polymer field theory to calculate the partition function (2). By Eq. (25), it is given by the integral over the auxiliary probabilities

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3𝐱_1d^3𝐱_2\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐱_1^{}𝐱_1}{𝐱_2^{}𝐱_2}}{lim}_{ci\mathrm{}}^{c+\mathrm{}}\frac{dz_1}{2\pi i}\frac{dz_2}{2\pi i}e^{(z_1L_1+z_2L_2)}}`$ (27)
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dm{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\lambda e^{im\lambda }G_\lambda (\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1,\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2;\stackrel{}{z}).`$
The integration over $`dm`$ is trivial and gives $`2\pi \delta (\lambda )`$, enforcing $`\lambda =0`$, so that

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3𝐱_1d^3𝐱_2\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐱_1𝐱_1}{𝐱_2^{}𝐱_2}}{lim}_{ci\mathrm{}}^{c+i\mathrm{}}\frac{dz_1dz_2}{2\pi i}e^{(z_1L_1+z_2L_2)}}`$ (29)
$`\times G_{\lambda =0}(\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1,\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2;\stackrel{}{z})`$
To compute $`G_{\lambda =0}(\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1,\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2;\stackrel{}{z})`$ we observe that the action $`𝒜`$ in Eq. (16) is quadratic in $`\lambda `$. Let us expand $`𝒜`$ as

$`𝒜=𝒜_0+\lambda 𝒜_1+\lambda ^2𝒜_2`$ (30)
where

$`𝒜_0`$ $``$ $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CS}}`$ (31)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3𝐱\left[|𝐃_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2+|\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2|^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_i|^2\right]},`$ (32)
a linear coefficient

$`𝒜_1{\displaystyle d^3𝐱𝐣_2(𝐱)𝐀_2(𝐱)}`$ (33)
with a “current” of the second polymer field

$`𝐣_2(𝐱)=i\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{}(𝐱)\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2(𝐱),`$ (34)
and a quadratic coefficient

$`𝒜_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^3𝐱𝐀_2^2|\mathrm{\Psi }_2(𝐱)|^2}.`$ (35)
With these definitions we can rewrite (30) as

$`G_{\lambda =0}(\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1,\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2;\stackrel{}{z})={\displaystyle 𝒟(\mathrm{fields})e^{𝒜_0}}`$ (36)
$`\times \psi _1^{a_1}(𝐱_1)\psi _1^{a_1}(𝐱_1^{})\psi _2^{a_2}(𝐱_2)\psi _2^{a_2}(𝐱^{})`$ (37)
From Eq. (32) it is clear that $`G_{\lambda =0}(\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1,\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2;\stackrel{}{z})`$ is the product of the configurational probabilites of two free polymers.

Note that the fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2,\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{}`$ are free, whereas the fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}`$ are apparently not free because of the couplings with the Chern-Simons fields through the covariant derivative $`𝐃^1`$. This is, however, an illusion: the fields $`A_\mu ^i`$ have a vanishing diagonal propagators $`A_\mu ^iA_\nu ^i=0`$. integrating out $`A_2^\mu `$ in (37), we find the flatness condition:

$$\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu A_\mu ^i=0.$$
(38)
On a flat space with vanishing boundary conditions at infinity this implies $`A_1^\mu =0`$. As a consequence, the functional integral (37) factorizes

$`G_{\lambda =0}(\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1,\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2;\stackrel{}{z})=G_0(𝐱_1𝐱_1^{};z_1)G_0(𝐱_2𝐱_2^{};z_2),`$ (39)
where $`G_0(𝐱_i𝐱_i^{};z_i)`$ are the free correlation functions of the polymer fields:

$`G_0(𝐱_i𝐱_i^{};z_i)=\psi _i^{a_i}(𝐱_i)\psi _i^{a_i}(𝐱_i^{}).`$ (40)
In momentum space, the correlation functions are

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{a_i}(𝐤_i)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_i^{a_i}(𝐤_i^{})=\delta ^{(3)}\left(𝐤_i+𝐤_i^{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝐤_i^2+m_i^2}}`$ (41)
such that

$`G_0(𝐱_i𝐱_i^{};z_i)={\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}e^{i𝐤𝐱}\frac{1}{𝐤_i^2+m_i^2}},`$ (42)
and

$`G_0(𝐱_i𝐱_i^{};L_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{ci\mathrm{}}^{c+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_i}{2\pi i}}e^{z_iL_i}G_0(𝐱_i𝐱_i^{};z_i)`$ (44)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}M}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{2\pi }}\right)^{3/2}L_i^{3/2}e^{M(𝐱_i𝐱_i^{})/2L_i}.`$
Thus we obtain for (29):

$`Z=2\pi {\displaystyle d^3𝐱_1d^3𝐱_2}`$ (46)
$`\times \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐱_1^{}𝐱_1}{𝐱_2^{}𝐱_2}}{lim}G_0(𝐱_1𝐱_1^{};L_1)G_0(𝐱_2𝐱_2^{};L_2)`$
The integrals at coinciding end points can easily be performed, and we find

$`Z={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi MV^2}{(8\pi )^3}}(L_1L_2)^{3/2}`$ (47)
It is important to realize that in Eq. (27), the limits of coinciding end points $`𝐱_i^{}𝐱_i`$ and the inverse Laplace transformations do not commute unless a proper renormalization scheme is chosen to eliminate the divergences caused by the insertion of the composite operators $`|\psi (r)|^2`$. This can be seen for a single polymer $`P`$. If we were to commuting the limit of coinciding end points with the Laplace transform, we would obtain

$`{\displaystyle _{ci\mathrm{}}^{c+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{2\pi }}e^{zL}\underset{𝐱^{}𝐱}{lim}G_0(𝐱𝐱^{};z)`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{ci\mathrm{}}^{c+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{2\pi i}}e^{zL}G_0(\mathrm{𝟎},z),`$ (49)
where

$`G_0(\mathrm{𝟎};z)=|\psi (𝐱)|^2.`$ (50)
This expectation value, however, is linearly divergent:

$`|\psi (𝐱_a)|^2={\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{k^2+m^2}}\mathrm{}`$ (51)
## IV Calculation of Numerator in Second Moment

Let us now turn to the numerator in Eq. (1):

$`N{\displaystyle d^2𝐱_1d^3𝐱_2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑mm^2G_m(𝐱_1,𝐱_2;L_1,L_2)}.`$ (52)
We set up a functional integral for $`N`$ in terms of the auxiliary probability $`G_{\lambda =0}(\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1,\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2;\stackrel{}{z})`$ analogous to Eq. (27):

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3𝐱_1d^3r_2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑mm^2\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐱_1^{}𝐱}{𝐱^{}𝐱_2}}{lim}_{ci\mathrm{}}^{c_\tau i\mathrm{}}\frac{dz_i}{2\pi i}\frac{dz_2}{2\pi i}}`$ (54)
$`e^{(z_1L_1+z_2L_2)}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\lambda e^{im\lambda }G_\lambda (\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1,\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2;\stackrel{}{z}).`$
The integration in $`dm`$ is easily performed after noting that

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑mm^2e^{im\lambda }G_\lambda (\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1,\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2;\stackrel{}{z})`$ (56)
$`={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑m\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\lambda ^2}}e^{im\lambda }\right)G_\lambda (\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1,\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2;\stackrel{}{z}).`$
After a double integration by parts in $`\lambda `$, and an integration in $`m`$, we obtain

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3𝐱_1d^3𝐱_2\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐱_1^{}𝐱_1}{𝐱_2^{}𝐱_2}}{lim}(1)_{ci\mathrm{}}^{c+i\mathrm{}}\frac{dz_1}{2\pi i}\frac{dz_2}{2\pi i}e^{(z_1L_1+z_2L_2)}}`$ (58)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\lambda \delta (\lambda )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\lambda ^2}}G_\lambda (\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1,\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2;\stackrel{}{z})\right]`$
Performing the now trivial integration in $`d\lambda `$ yields

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3𝐱_1d^3𝐱_2\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐱_1^{}𝐱_1}{𝐱_2^{}𝐱_2}}{lim}(1)_{ci\mathrm{}}^{c+i\mathrm{}}\frac{dz_1}{2\pi i}\frac{dz_2}{2\pi i}e^{(z_1L_1+z_2L_2)}}`$ (60)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\lambda ^2}}G_\lambda (\stackrel{}{𝐱}_1,\stackrel{}{𝐱}_2;\stackrel{}{z})\right]_{\lambda =0}`$
To compute the term in brackets, we use again Eq. (30) and Eqs. (32) –(68), and find

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3𝐱_1d^3𝐱_2\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n_10}{n_20}}{lim}_{ci\mathrm{}}^{c+i\mathrm{}}\frac{dz_1}{2\pi i}\frac{dz_2}{2\pi i}e^{(z_1L_1+z_2L_2)}}`$ (63)
$`\times {\displaystyle }𝒟(\text{fields})\mathrm{exp}(𝒜_0)|\psi _1^{a_1}(𝐱_1)|^2|\psi _2^{a_2}(𝐱_2)|^2`$
$`\times \left[\left({\displaystyle d^3𝐱𝐀_2\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3𝐱𝐀_2^2|\mathrm{\Psi }_2|^2}\right].`$
In this equation we have taken the limits of coinciding endpoint inside the Laplace integral over $`z_1,z_2`$. This will be justified later on the grounds that the potentially dangerous Feynman diagrams containing the insertions of operations like $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i|^2`$ vanish in the limit $`n_1,n_20`$.

In order to calculate (63), we decompose the action into a free part

$`𝒜_0^0`$ $``$ $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CS}}`$ (64)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3𝐱\left[|𝐃^1\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2+|\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2|^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}2|\mathrm{\Psi }_i|^2\right]},`$ (65)
and interacting parts

$`𝒜_1^0{\displaystyle d^3𝐱𝐣_1(𝐱)𝐀_1(𝐱)}`$ (66)
with a “current” of the first polymer field

$`𝐣_1(𝐱)i\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}(𝐱)\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Psi }_1(𝐱),`$ (67)
and

$`𝒜_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^3𝐱𝐀_1^2|\mathrm{\Psi }_1(𝐱)|^2}.`$ (68)
Expanding the exponential

$$e^{𝒜_0}=e^{𝒜_0^0+𝒜_0^1+𝒜_0^2}=e^{𝒜_0}\left[1𝒜_0^1+\frac{(𝒜_0^1)^2}{2}𝒜_0^2+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(69)
and keeping only the relevant terms, the functional integral (63) can be rewritten as a purely Gaussian expectation value

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa ^2{\displaystyle d^3𝐱_1d^3𝐱_2\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n_10}{n_20}}{lim}_{ci\mathrm{}}^{c+i\mathrm{}}\frac{dz_1}{2\pi i}\frac{dz_2}{2\pi i}e^{(z_1L_1+z_2L_2)}}`$ (70)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟(\text{fields})\mathrm{exp}(𝒜_0^0)|\psi _1^{a_1}(𝐱_1)|^2|\psi _2^{a_2}(𝐱_2)|^2}`$ (71)
$`\times `$ $`\left[\left({\displaystyle d^3𝐱𝐀_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Psi }_1}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3𝐱𝐀_1^2|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2}\right]`$ (72)
$`\times `$ $`\left[\left({\displaystyle d^3𝐱𝐀_2\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3𝐱𝐀_2^2|\mathrm{\Psi }_2|^2}\right]`$ (73)
Only four diagrams shown in Fig. (2) contribute in Eq. (73).

Note that the initially asymmetric treatment of polymers $`P_1`$ und $`P_2`$ in the action (16) has led to a completely symmetric expression for the second moment.

Only the first diagram in Fig. 2 is divergent due to the divergence of the loop formed by two vector correlation functions. This infinity may be absorbed in the four-$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ interaction accounting for the excluded volume effect which we do not consider at the moment. No divergence arises from the insertiona of the composite fields $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i(𝐱_i)|^2`$. In this respect, the disconnected diagrams shown in Fig. 3 are potentally dangerous.

But these vanish in the limit of zero replica indices $`n_1,n_20`$.

## V Calculation of first Feynman diagrams in Fig. LABEL:@fff

From Eq. (73) one has to evaluate the following integral

$`N_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{4}}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n_10}{n_20}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{ci\mathrm{}}^{c+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_2}{2\pi i}}e^{(z_1L_1+z_2L_2)}`$ (76)
$`{\displaystyle d^3x_1d^3x_2d^3x_1^{}d^3x_2^{}}`$
$`|\psi _1^{a_1}(𝐱_1)|^2|\psi _2^{a_2}(𝐱_2)|^2\left(|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2𝐀_1^2\right)_{𝐱_1^{}}\left(|\mathrm{\Psi }_2|^2𝐀_2^2\right)_{𝐱_2^{}}.`$
There is an ultraviolet-divergent contribution which should be properly regularized. The system has, of course, a microscopic scale, which is the size of the momomers. This, however, is not the appropriate short-distance scale to be uses here. The model treats the polymers as random chains. However, the momomers of a polymer in the laboratory are usually not freely movable, so that polymers have a certain stiffness. This gives rise to a certain persistence length $`\xi _0`$ over which a polymer is stiff. This length scale is increased to $`\xi >\xi _0`$ by the excluded-volume effects. This is the length scale which should be used as a proper physical short-distance cutoff. We may impose this cutoff by imagining the model as being defined on a simple cubic lattice of spacing $`\xi `$. This would, of course, make analytical calculations quite difficult. Still, as we shall see, it is possible to estimate the dependence of the integral $`N_1`$ and the others in the physically relevant limit in which the lengths of the polymers are much larger than the persistence length $`\xi `$.

An alternative and simpler regularization is based on cutting off all ultraviolet-divergent continuum integrals at distances smaller than $`\xi `$.

After such a regularization, the calculation of $`N_1`$ is rather straightforward. Replacing the expectation values by the Wick contractions corresponding to the first diagram in Fig. 2, and performing the integrals as shown in the Appendix, we obtain

$`N_1={\displaystyle \frac{V}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{(8\pi )^6}}(L_1L_2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (77)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑s\left[(1s)s\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3xe^{M𝐱^2/2s(1s)}}`$ (78)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t\left[(1t)t\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3ye^{M𝐲^2/2t(1t)}d^3x_1^{\prime \prime }\frac{1}{|𝐱_1^{\prime \prime }|^4}}.`$ (79)
The variables $`𝐱`$ and $`𝐲`$ have been rescaled with respect to the original ones in order to extract the behavior of $`N_1`$ in $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$. As a consequence, the lattices where $`𝐱`$ and $`𝐲`$ are defined have now spacings $`\xi /\sqrt{L_1}`$ and $`\xi /\sqrt{L_2}`$ respectively.

The $`𝐱,𝐲`$ integrals may be explicitly computed in the physical limit $`L_1,L_2>>\xi `$, in which the above spacings become small. Moreover, it is possible to approximate the integral in $`𝐱_1^{\prime \prime }`$ with an integral over a continuous variable $`\rho `$ and a cutoff in the ultraviolet region:

$`{\displaystyle d^3x_1^{\prime \prime }\frac{1}{|𝐱_1^{\prime \prime }|^4}}`$ $``$ $`4\pi ^2{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{\rho ^2}}.`$ (80)
After these approximations, we finally obtain

$`N_1={\displaystyle \frac{V\pi ^{1/2}}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^1}{(8\pi )^3}}(L_1L_2)^{1/2}\xi ^1.`$ (81)
## VI Calculation of Second an Third Feynman Diagrams in Fig. LABEL:@fff

Here we have to calculate

$`N_2=\kappa ^2\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n_10}{n_20}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{ci\mathrm{}}^{c+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_2}{2\pi i}}e^{(z_1L_1+z_2L_2)}`$ (82)
$`\times {\displaystyle }d^3x_1d^3x_2{\displaystyle }d^3x_1^{}d^3x_1^{\prime \prime }d^3x_2^{}`$ (83)
$`\times |\psi _1^{a_1}(𝐱_1)|^2|\psi _2^{a_2}(𝐱_2)|^2(𝐀_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Psi }_1)_{𝐱_1^{}}`$ (84)
$`\times (𝐀_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Psi }_1)_{𝐱_1^{\prime \prime }}(𝐀_2^2|\mathrm{\Psi }_2|^2)_{𝐱_2^{}}`$ (85)
The above amplitude has no ultraviolet divergence, so that no regularization is required. The Wick contractions pictured in the second Feynman diagrams of Fig. 2 lead to the integral

$`N_2=2VL_2^{1/2}L_1^1{\displaystyle \frac{M}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}C(t,t^{})`$ (86)
where $`C(t,t^{})`$ is a function independent of $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$:

$`C(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[(1t)t^{}(tt^{})\right]^{3/2}`$ (90)
$`\times {\displaystyle }d^3xd^3yd^3ze^{M(𝐲𝐱)^2/2(1t)}`$
$`\times \left(_𝐲^\nu e^{M𝐲^2/2t^{}}\right)\left(_𝐱^\mu e^{M𝐱^2/2(tt^{})}\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\left[\delta _{\mu \nu }𝐳(𝐳+𝐱)\left(z+x\right)_\mu z_\nu \right]}{|𝐳|^3|𝐳+𝐱|^3}}.`$
As in the previous section, the variables $`𝐱,𝐲,𝐳`$ have been rescaled with respect to the original ones in order to extract the behavior in $`L_1`$.

If the polymer lengths are much larger than the persistence length one can ignore the fact that the monomers have a finite size and it is possible to compute $`C(t,t^{})`$ analytically, leading to

$`N_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{VL_2^{1/2}L_1^1}{4^3(2\pi )^6}}M^{1/2}\sqrt{2}K,`$ (91)
where $`K`$ is the constant

$`K`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}B({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B({\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ (93)
$`B({\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}B({\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})={\displaystyle \frac{19\pi }{384}}0.154,`$
and $`B(a,b)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+b)`$ is the Beta function. For large $`L_1\mathrm{}`$, this diagram gives a negligible contribution with respect to $`N_1`$.

The third diagram in Fig. 2 give the same as the second, except that $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are interchanged.

$$N_3=N_2|_{L_1L_2}.$$
(94)
## VII Calculation of Fourth Feynman Diagram in Fig. LABEL:@fff

Here we have the integral

$`N_4`$ $`=`$ $`4\kappa ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n_10}{n_20}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{ci\mathrm{}}^{c+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_2}{2\pi i}}e^{(z_1L_1+z_2L_2)}`$ (98)
$`\times {\displaystyle }d^3x_1d^3x_2{\displaystyle }d^3x_1^{}d^3x_2^{}d^3x_1^{\prime \prime }d^3x_2^{\prime \prime }`$
$`\times |\psi _1^{a_1}(𝐱_1)|^2|\psi _2(𝐱_2^{a_2})|^2(𝐀_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Psi }_1)_{𝐱_1^{}}(𝐀_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Psi }_1)_{𝐱_1^{\prime \prime }}`$
$`\times (𝐀_2\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2)_{𝐱_2^{}}(𝐀_2\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2)_{𝐱_2^{\prime \prime }}.`$
which has no ultraviolet divergence. After some effort we find

$`N_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^3V}{(2\pi )^{11}}}(L_1L_2)^{1/2}`$ (99)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^1}ds{\displaystyle _0^s}ds^{}{\displaystyle _0^1}dt{\displaystyle _0^t}dt^{}C(s,s^{},t,t^{}),`$ (100)
where

$`C(s,s^{};t,t^{})=\left[(1s)s^{}(ss^{})\right]^{3/2}\left[(1t)t^{}(tt^{})\right]^{3/2}`$ (101)
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}[ϵ_{\mu \lambda \alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{p^\alpha }{𝐩^2}}ϵ_{\nu \rho \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{p^\beta }{𝐩^2}}+ϵ_{\mu \rho \alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{p^\alpha }{𝐩^2}}ϵ_{\nu \lambda \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{p^\beta }{𝐩^2}}]`$ (102)
$`\times [{\displaystyle }d^3x^{}d^3y^{}e^{i\sqrt{L_1}𝐩(𝐱^{}𝐲^{})}e^{M𝐱^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/2(1s)}`$ (103)
$`\times \left(_𝐲^{}^\nu e^{M𝐲^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/2t^{}}\right)\left(_𝐱^{}^\mu e^{M(𝐱𝐲)^2/2(ss^{})}\right)]`$ (104)
$`\times [{\displaystyle }d^3u^{}d^3v^{}e^{i\sqrt{L_2}𝐩(𝐮^{}𝐯^{})}e^{M𝐯^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/2(1t)}`$ (105)
$`\times \left(_𝐮^{}^\rho e^{M𝐮^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/2t^{}}\right)\left(_𝐯^{}^\lambda e^{M(𝐮^{}𝐯^{})^2/2(tt^{})}\right)]`$ (106)
and $`𝐱^{},𝐲^{}`$ are scaled variables. To take into account the finite persitence length, they should be defined on a lattice with spacing $`\xi /\sqrt{L_1}`$. Similarly, $`𝐮^{},𝐯^{}`$ should be considered on a lattice with spacing $`\xi /\sqrt{L_2}`$. Without performing the space integrations $`d^3𝐱^{}d^3𝐲^{}d^3𝐮^{}d^3𝐯^{}`$, the behavior of $`N_4`$ as a function of the polymer lengths can be easily estimated in the following limits:

1. $`L_11;L_1L_2`$

$`N_4L_1^1`$ (107)
2. $`L_21;L_2L_1`$

$`N_4L_2^1`$ (108)
3. $`L_1,L_21,L_2/L_1=\alpha =\text{finite}`$

$`N_4L_1^{3/2}`$ (109)
Moreover, if the lengths of the polymers are considerably larger than the persistence length, the function $`C(s,s^{},t,t^{})`$ can be computed in a closed form:

$`N_4`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{32}{\sqrt{2}}}(L_1L_2)^{1/2}M^{1/2}V`$ (110)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑s{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t(1s)(1t)(st)^{1/2}`$ (111)
$`\times `$ $`\left[L_1t(1s)+L_2(1t)s\right]^{1/2}.`$ (112)
It is simple to check that this expression has exactly the above behaviors.

## VIII Final Result

Collecting all contributions we obtain the result for the second topological moment:

$`m^2={\displaystyle \frac{N_1+N_2+N_3+N_4}{Z}},`$ (113)
with $`N_1,N_2,N_3,N_4,Z`$ given by Eqs. (47), (81), (91), (94), and (112).

In all formulas, we have assumed that the volume $`V`$ of the system is much larger than the size of the volume occupied by a single polymer, i.e., $`VL_1^3`$

To discuss the physical content of the result (113), we assume $`P_2`$ to be a long effective polymer representing all polymers in a uniform solution. We introduce the polymer concentration $`\rho `$ as the average mass density of the polymers per unit volume:

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{M}{V}}`$ (114)
where $`M`$ is the total mass of the polymers

$`M={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_p}{}}}m_a{\displaystyle \frac{L_k}{a}}.`$ (115)
Here $`m_a`$ is the mass of a single monomer of length $`a`$, $`L_k`$ is the length of polymer $`P_k`$, and $`N_p`$ is the total number of polymers. Thus $`L_k/a`$ is the number of monomers in the polymer $`P_k`$. The polymer $`P_1`$ is singled out as any of the polymers $`P_k`$, say $`P_{\overline{k}}`$, of length $`L_1=L_{\overline{k}}`$. The remaining ones are replaced by a long effective polymer $`P_2`$ of length $`L_2=\sigma _{k\overline{k}}L_k`$. From the above relations we may also write

$`L_2{\displaystyle \frac{aV\rho }{m_a}}`$ (116)
In this way, the length of the effective molecule $`P_2`$ is expressed in terms of physical parameters, the concentration of polymers, the monomer length, and the mass and volume of the system. Inserting (116) into (113), with $`N_1,N_2,N_3,N_4,Z`$ given by Eqs. (47), (81), (91), (94), and (112). and keeping only the leading terms for $`V1`$, we find for the second topological moment $`m^2`$ the approximation

$`m^2{\displaystyle \frac{N_1+N_2}{Z}},`$ (117)
and this has the approximate form

$`m^2={\displaystyle \frac{a\rho }{m_a}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^1L_i}{16\pi ^{1/2}M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{K\sqrt{2}L_1^{1/2}}{(2\pi )^4M^{3/2}}}\right],`$ (118)
with $`K`$ of (93).

## IX Summary

We have set up a topological field theory to describe two fluctuating polymers $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$, and calculated the second topological moment for the linking number $`m`$ between $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$. The result is used to calculate the second moment for a single polymer with respect to all others in a solution of many polymers.

In forthcoming work we shall calculate the effect of the excluded volume.

## X Appendix

In this appendix we present the computations of the amplitudes $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_4`$. We shall need the following simple tensor formulas involving two completely antisymmetric tensors $`\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho }`$:

$`\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho }\epsilon ^{\mu \alpha \beta }=\delta _\nu ^\alpha \delta _\rho ^\beta \delta _\nu ^\beta \delta _\rho ^\alpha `$ (119)
$`\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho }\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \beta }=2\delta _\rho ^\beta .`$ (120)
The Feynman diagrams shown in Fig. 2) corresponds to a product of four correlation functions $`G_0`$ of Eq. (51), which have to be integrated over space and Laplace transformed. For the latter we make use of the convolution property of the integral over two Laplace transforms $`\stackrel{~}{f}(z)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}(z)`$ of the functions $`f,g`$:

$`{\displaystyle _{ci\mathrm{}}^{c+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{2ni}}e^{zL}\stackrel{~}{f}(z)\stackrel{~}{g}(z)={\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑sf(s)g(LS)`$ (121)
All spatial integrals are Gaussian of the form

$`{\displaystyle d^3xe^{a𝐱+2b𝐱𝐲}}=(2n)^{3/2}a^{3/2}e^{b^2y^2/a},a>0.`$ (122)
We are now ready to evaluate $`N_1`$ in Eq. (76). Taking the limit of vanishing replica indices we find with the help of Eqs. (119)-(121):

$`N_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x_1},d^3x_2{\displaystyle _0^{L_1}}𝑑s{\displaystyle _0^{L_2}}𝑑t{\displaystyle d^3x_1^{}d^3x_2^{}}`$ (123)
$`\times `$ $`G_0(𝐱_1𝐱_1^{};s)G_0(𝐱_1^{}𝐱_1;L_1S)`$ (124)
$`\times `$ $`G_0(𝐱_2𝐱_2^{};t)G_0(𝐱_2^{}𝐱_2;L_2t){\displaystyle \frac{l}{|𝐱_1^{}𝐱_2^{}|s}}.`$ (125)
Performing the changes of variables

$`s^{}={\displaystyle \frac{s}{L_1}}t^{}={\displaystyle \frac{t}{L_2}}𝐱={\displaystyle \frac{𝐱_1𝐱_1^{}}{\sqrt{4}}}𝐲={\displaystyle \frac{𝐱_2𝐱_2^{}}{(\sqrt{L_2})}}`$ (126)
and setting $`𝐱_1^{\prime \prime }𝐱_1^{}𝐱_2^{}`$, we easily derive (78).

For small $`\xi /\sqrt{L_1}`$ and $`\xi /\sqrt{L_2}`$, we d use the approximation (80), the space integrals can be done the formula (122). After some calculation one finds the final result of Eq. (108).

The amplitude $`N_2`$ calculated quite similarly. Contracting the fields in Eq. (85), and keeping only the contributions which do not vanish in the limit of zero replica indices, we arrive at

$`N_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x_1d^3x_2d^3x_1^{}d^3x_1^{\prime \prime }d^3x_2^{}}`$ (127)
$`\times `$ $`[{\displaystyle _0^{L_1}}ds{\displaystyle _0^S}ds^{}G_0(𝐱_1^{}𝐱_1;L_1s)`$ (128)
$`\times `$ $`_{x_1^{\prime \prime }}^\nu G_0(𝐱_1𝐱_1^{\prime \prime };s^{})_{x_1^{}}^\mu G_0(𝐱_1^{\prime \prime }𝐱_1^{};ss^{})]`$ (129)
$`\times `$ $`D_{\mu \lambda }(𝐱_1^{}𝐱_2)D_{\nu \lambda }(𝐱_1^{\prime \prime }𝐱_2^{})`$ (130)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle _0^{L_2}}𝑑tG_0(𝐱_2𝐱_2^{};L_2t)G_0(𝐱_2^{}𝐱_2;t)\right].`$ (131)
where $`D_{\mu \nu }(𝐱,𝐱^{})`$ are the correlation functions (11)–(13) of the vector potentials. Setting $`𝐱_2\sqrt{L_2}𝐮+𝐱_2^{}`$ and supposing that $`\xi /\sqrt{L_2}`$ is small, the integral over $`𝐮`$ can be easily evaluated with the help of the Gaussian integral (122). After the substitutions $`𝐱_1^{\prime \prime }=\sqrt{L_1}𝐲+𝐱_1`$ $`𝐱_1^{}=\sqrt{L_1}(𝐲𝐱)+𝐱_1`$, $`𝐱_2^{}=\sqrt{L_1}(𝐲𝐱𝐳)+𝐱_1`$ and a rescaling of the variables $`s,s^{}`$ by a factor $`L_1^1`$, we derive Eq. (86) with (90).

For small $`\xi /\sqrt{L_1},\frac{3}{\sqrt{L_2}}`$, the spatial integrals are easily evaluated leading to:

$`N_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}VL_2^{1/2}L_1^1M^{1/2}}{(4n)^6}}`$ (133)
$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}t^{}(1t)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{tt^{}}{1t+t^{}}}}`$
After the change of variable $`t^{}t^{\prime \prime }=tt^{}`$, the double integral is reduced to a sum of integrals the type

$`c(n,m)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt^m{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}t^{}{}_{}{}^{n}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{t^{}}{1t^{}}}},m,n=\mathrm{integers}.`$ (134)
These can be simplified by replacing $`t^m`$ by $`dt^{m+1}/dt(m+1)`$, and doing the integrals by parts. In this way, we end up with a linear combination of integrals of the form:

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{t^{\mu +\frac{1}{2}}}{\sqrt{1t}}}=B(\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}).`$ (135)
The calculations of $`N_3`$ and $`N_4`$ are very similar, and may be omitted here.


format: text

text:
# Evidence of quantum criticality in the doped Haldane system Y2BaNiO5

\[

## Abstract

Experimental bulk susceptibility $`\chi (T)`$ and magnetization $`M(H,T)`$ of the S=1 Haldane chain system doped with nonmagnetic impurities, Y2BaNi1-xZnxO5 ($`x0.08`$), are analyzed. A numerical calculation for the low-energy spectrum of non-interacting open segments describes very well experimental data above 4 K. Below 4 K, we observe power-law behaviors, $`\chi (T)`$$``$ $`T`$ and $`M(H,T)`$ $`T`$1-α$`f`$α$`(H/T)`$, with $`\alpha `$ $`(<1)`$ depending on the doping concentration $`x`$. This observation suggests the appearance of a gapless quantum phase due to a broad distribution of effective couplings between the dilution-induced moments.

\] The past two decades have seen a resurgence of interest devoted to macroscopic quantum phenomena in Heisenberg antiferromagnets (HAF). A current issue in this field concerns the interplay between quantum spin fluctuations and quenched (i.e., time-independent) disorder in one dimension (1D) . A simple nontrivial model to address this issue is the 1D-HAF with spins $`S=1`$, which has a Haldane gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }0.4J`$ and a short correlation length $`\xi 6`$ in its spin-liquid ground state ($`J`$ is the nearest-neighbor exchange parameter) . In this system, the disorder in the form of site depletion leads to interesting quantum phenomena due to the creation of two effective $`S=1`$/2 spins on the opposite edges of a segment, near the vacancies . The inclusion of weak magnetic bonds across the spin-vacancies induces bond disorder and causes departure from simple finite-size behaviors. In this case, some recent theoretical works, for the $`S=1`$ chain with variable nonmagnetic doping, found a quantum (zero-temperature) phase transition from the Haldane phase to a 1D random-singlet (RS) phase in which effective spins are coupled into singlets over all length scales . On the experimental side, however, this problem has been very little explored from the point of view of quantum criticality. While it is known that some $`S=1`$ diluted compounds can sustain paramagnetism down to low temperature, most of the existing experimental studies aimed to confirm the existence of $`S=1/2`$ end-chain states or to reveal the internal structure of these end states . A noticeable exception is the recent observation of a 3D long-range order (LRO) caused by nonmagnetic doping in PbNi2V2O8 . This Haldane system shows, however, substantial interchain interactions, so it is almost critical towards the formation of a LRO in the absence of intentional disorder.

In this work, we examine the effects of nonmagnetic doping on the bulk magnetic responses in the $`S=1`$ quasi-1D-HAF Y2BaNiO5. We chose this well characterized system because of the rather high value of its main energy scale, $`J`$$``$280 K, and the very small value of the interchain coupling, $`|J_{}/J|<10^3`$ . Furthermore, it has a simple orthorhombic crystal structure  and a small single-ion anisotropy ($`D/J`$$``$-0.04, $`E/J`$$``$-0.01) . A weak nonmagnetic doping in Y2BaNiO5, which is realized by substituting Zn2+ or Mg2+ ions for the $`S=1`$ Ni2+ ions, yields new magnetic states below the Haldane gap ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$``$100 K) with no sign of LRO down to very low temperature . Recently, the low-temperature specific heat of Y2BaNi1-xZnxO5 ($`x=0.04`$) and the ESR spectra of a series of Mg-doped compounds have been quantitatively explained by an effective model which describes the low-energy spectrum of non-interacting open $`S=1`$ chains . These results and the recent NMR experiments in Ref. 8 are strong indications of the existence of $`S=1/2`$ end-chain states. In the present work, we analyze new susceptibility and magnetization data for Y2BaNi1-xZnxO5 with 0.04$``$x$``$0.08. Above 4 K, the simple model of non-interacting segments used in Refs.  describes the data very well. However, at very low temperature we observe a new regime with divergent power law behavior, which is similar to that observed in some doped semiconductors . Our results support the existence of a zero-temperature gapless phase due to randomness in the effective bond distribution that is reinforced by the interchain interactions. The low-energy effective model for this phase resembles a 2D or 3D RS state.

Figure 1 shows the linear susceptibilities, $`\chi (T)`$, measured with a commercial SQUID magnetometer for a series of polycrystalline samples of Y2BaNi1-xZnxO5 ($`x=0`$, 0.04, 0.06 and 0.08) that were prepared through standard solid-state reactions . The results obtained for the nominally pure sample compare well with those in the published literature . At low temperatures, $`\chi (T)`$ is well fitted by the sum of a $`T`$-independent term $`\chi `$0, a Curie law and a thermally activated term with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$``$100 K (see Fig.1). The sum of the activated part and the constant $`\chi _010^4`$ cm3/mol is negligible below 15 K. The low-temperature susceptibility (below 10-15 K) for $`x=0`$ is mainly due to the Curie contribution that corresponds to 1.4 percent of free $`S=1/2`$ spins per formula unit. This Curie behavior can be interpreted as coming from natural crystal defects and a weak excess oxygen. The main effect of the intentional nonmagnetic dilution is to increase drastically the low-temperature upturn in $`\chi (T)`$, as is evident from Fig. 1. This indicates the existence of paramagnetic moments whose amount is related to the doping concentration. The behavior of $`\chi (T)`$ is however qualitatively the same, regardless of the level of dilution. The data for the doped compounds were first analyzed with a modified Curie-Weiss law, $`\chi (T)=\chi _0+C/(T\theta )`$, between 1.9 and 15 K. A small phenomenological $`\theta `$$``$-0.6 K was required to describe the data. The dependence of the Curie constant $`C`$ as a function of the Zn doping is shown in the inset of Fig. 1. At low doping, the observed $`C`$ value is that for two $`S=1/2`$ spins per nonmagnetic impurity. At high $`x`$, however, the Curie constant should be that for one half of a spin-1 per Zn since a short segment with an odd (even) number of spins behaves as a $`S=1`$ ($`S=0`$) ’molecular’ entity at low temperature and the number of odd chains is half the total number of chains. This tendency seems to be observed (see Fig. 1). We have also measured the magnetization, $`M(H,T)`$, for applied field up to 5 T. For all samples, $`M(H,T)`$-$`\chi `$0$`H`$ shows a non-Brillouin behavior and is smaller than twice the Brillouin function for one $`S=1/2`$ spin per Zn.

To go further in our analysis, we have compared the experimental data with a theoretical model based on the picture of non-interacting segments, as described hereafter. The energy spectrum of finite segments described by the $`S=1`$ Heisenberg Hamiltonian is characterized by four low-energy states, a singlet and a triplet . It corresponds to the existence of a coupling between the two $`S=1/2`$ edge spins, which may be AF or ferromagnetic (F). The energy difference among these levels decreases exponentially with the length of the chain $`N`$, as $`(1)^Ne^{N/\xi }`$, and already for chains of a few lattice sites, these four states are separated from the rest of the spectrum by an energy of the order of the Haldane gap . Therefore at temperature $`T`$ and magnetic energies $`\mu _BH`$ much lower than the Haldane gap, the magnetic and thermal properties of a system composed of segments of several lengths are completely described by the energy of these four states and the matrix elements of the magnetization operator in this reduced subspace. We have calculated these quantities using the Density Matrix Renormalization Group (DMRG) method. The resulting Hamiltonian which describes the low-energy properties of a segment including the triplet $`|1,S_z`$ and the singlet state $`|0`$ is:

$`H_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`E_0(N)+(J\alpha (N)+D\beta (N))|00|+D\gamma (N)S_z^2`$ (2)
$`+E\gamma (N)(S_x^2S_y^2)\mu _B{\displaystyle \underset{\nu \alpha }{}}H^\alpha g^{\alpha \nu }S_t^\nu ,`$
where $`E_0(N),\alpha (N)`$, $`\beta (N)`$and $`\gamma (N)`$ are functions of the chain length $`N`$ (determined from the DMRG data). The validity of the last term has been verified explicitly by calculating the matrix elements of $`S_t^+`$, and $`S_t^{}`$ for all chains. The magnetic moment operator is -$`_HH_{eff}`$, and to compare with experiments in polycrystalline samples, we have averaged its expectation value over all possible orientations of the crystal. Also, a distribution of chain segments corresponding to a random distribution of defects was assumed . Figure 2 shows the comparison between the measured $`\chi (T)T`$ products for $`T<12`$ K and the numerical solution. The adjustable parameters in the calculations were the doping $`x`$ and $`\chi `$0. All the other parameters were held fixed at the values deduced from previous works : $`J=280`$ K, $`D/J=0.039`$, $`E/J=0.013`$, $`g_x=g_y=2.17`$ and $`g_z=2.20`$. The fitted values of $`x`$ ($`x=0.041`$, 0.060 and 0.074) are close to the nominal concentrations, and the fitted $`\chi `$0 remains in the expected range ($`\chi _0=1.0\times 10^4`$ to $`1.9\times 10^4`$ cm3/Ba-mol). Taking into account that uncertainties in the above parameters might affect the theoretical curve, the success of the anisotropic model of non-interacting segments to explain the data above 4 K is remarkable. Note that for the cases with nominal concentration of Zn $`x=0.06`$ and $`x=0.08`$, a decrease of the order of 5% or less in the actual $`x`$ used, would improve considerably the fitting above 5 K, but increase the differences between theory and experiment in the low-temperature part. Instead, because of the different rate of change of both curves, it is not possible to obtain a good fit for $`T<4`$ K by small changes of $`x`$ or other parameters. A good agreement between the experimental magnetization ($`M(H,T)`$-$`\chi `$0$`H`$) and the numerical data above 4 K (not shown) is also achieved using the parameters required to describe the susceptibility data. This noticeable agreement confirms the existence of the $`S=1/2`$ end-chain excitations. Note that an accurate description of the experimental data needs to consider both, a random distribution of defects  and the effect of the single-ion anisotropy , which is stronger for shorter segments.

However, below 4 K, the experimental data deviates from the predictions of the above described model. This is seen in Fig. 2 for the susceptibility. It is also observed for our magnetization data $`M(H,T)`$-$`\chi `$0$`H`$. In previous studies of specific heat and electron spin resonance, while excellent agreement was obtained above 4 K, a discrepancy was also found below this temperature and interpreted as the onset of interchain interactions not taken into account in this model . An analysis of the susceptibility shows that, in the vicinity of 4 K, there is a crossover to a sub-Curie power law regime, $`[\chi (T)\chi _0]T^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =0.83`$, 0.79 and 0.76 for $`x=0.04`$, 0.06 and 0.08, respectively (see Fig. 3). The susceptibility data for the Mg-doped compound Y2BaNi0.959Mg0.041O5 in Ref.  also obey a power-law form with $`\alpha =0.73`$ (see Fig. 3). This behavior, which cannot be reproduced by the model of non-interacting segments, is reminiscent of some random exchange Heisenberg systems for which the AF couplings between nearest-neighbor $`S=1/2`$ spins are random in their magnitude, such as insulating phosphorous-doped silicon (Si:P) . Bhatt and Lee have proposed a theoretical method to explain the properties of Si:P . Within this approach, the spin pairs with the strongest AF bonds freeze into inert singlets, leaving behind a new ensemble of active spins with a renormalized distribution of exchange, and the quantum fluctuations drive the whole system into a ground state consisting of random local singlets (RS phase). The behavior of the susceptibility, $`\chi (T)`$$``$$`T`$ with $`\alpha <1`$, follows from a divergent power-law distribution of the renormalized exchange, $`P(J)`$$``$$`J`$. A scaling of the magnetization has been also predicted and experimentally observed , $`M(H,T)/T^{1\alpha }=f_\alpha (H/T)`$. A similar scaling is, in fact, very well obeyed by our data below (but not above) 4 K using the $`\alpha `$ exponents determined from the susceptibility. Fig. 3 shows a plot of $`(M(H,T)\chi _0H)/T^{1\alpha }`$ versus $`H/T`$ for each of the three samples studied. All the data for each sample, for different magnetic fields and temperatures, lie on a single scaling curve, which is however different from the expression of $`f_\alpha (H/T)`$ calculated on the basis of the Bhatt and Lee’s solution for Si:P . This is illustrated in Fig. 3 for Y2BaNi0.94Zn0.06O5.

These power law behaviors show that the picture of the ideal 1D anisotropic Heisenberg non-interacting chain breaks down below 4 K, and that additional interactions play a role. From simple arguments based on perturbation theory, one expects that the dominant inter-chain interaction is a coupling $`J`$b between $`S=1`$ spins lying in nearest-neighbor chains along the $`b`$ direction, perpendicular to the chain axis $`a`$. A calculation using the cell perturbation method gives $`J`$b$``$0.2 K . This interaction should be at least an order of magnitude larger than that between two spins on the same atomic chain, with a Zn atom in between. As discussed in more detail in Ref.  $`J`$b induces an effective interaction $`J^{}`$ between $`S=1/2`$ end-states of neighboring chains along the $`b`$ direction, the magnitude and sign of which depends on the detailed position of the defects. The maximum absolute value of $`J^{}`$ is of the order of $`10J_b`$ and it should decay exponentially with the distance along the chain between the defects. Since the interaction between $`S=1/2`$ defects lying in different $`ab`$ planes is expected to be at least an order of magnitude smaller, the physics in the range 0.1 K$`<T<`$4 K seems to correspond to a 2D array of $`S=1/2`$ spins, with random F and AF interactions coming from exponentially decaying intra- and interchain couplings.

In agreement with this, the spin glass behavior observed below 3 K in Ca doped systems Y2-yCayBaNiO5 indicates a dimensionality higher than one in the system at low temperature . For a 2D or 3D $`S=1/2`$ model with random AF interactions, Bhatt and Lee obtained a power law behavior with $`\alpha `$ $`(<1)`$ depending on the doping concentration . This result is consistent with our observations but, as mentioned above, we obtain a different scaling function for the magnetization. This might be due to the presence of effective F coupling in Y2BaNi1-xZnxO5. Our results can also be compared to a recent theoretical work in which the spin-1 chain with an AF coupling across nonmagnetic impurities is mapped onto a bond disordered spin-1/2 chain . Within this 1D approach, the Haldane state is found to be stable to weak dilution. For sufficiently strong randomness, however, the system flows towards a 1D RS phase with diverging correlation length. In this gapless phase, the form of the low energy asymptotic behavior of $`\chi (T)`$ is independent of the level of the disorder, $`\chi (T)1/(T\mathrm{ln}^2T)`$. In the Haldane phase, there is a Griffiths gapless region where $`\chi (T)`$ varies as $`T`$ with $`\alpha `$ $`(<1)`$ which is dependent of the details of the randomness. It is unclear however whether a similar physics should be valid or not when interchain coupling is turned on . Furthermore, the form of the asymptotic behavior of $`\chi (T)`$ is not known for a 2D or 3D RS phase . If there were no interchain coupling $`J`$, the low-energy model for Y2BaNi1-xZnxO5 with $`0.04x0.08`$ would be the 1D RS phase depicted in Ref.  since the bond across a Zn is expected to be much weaker than the average coupling between the $`S=1/2`$ edges within a segment . From our observations, it is tempting to say that the $`H/T`$ variable in the scaling of $`M(H,T)`$ indicates a $`T_c=0`$ critical point and that Y2BaNi1-xZnxO5 has a quantum critical ground state even for the smallest doping $`x=0.04`$. From the theoretical point of view, the detailed explanation of the observed power-law behaviors remains open.

Interestingly, a similar singular behavior has been disclosed for two $`S=1`$ 1D-HAF compounds, namely AgVP2S6 and NENP, on nominally pure samples . A broad distribution of couplings between the dilution-induced moments and quantum fluctuations drives Y2BaNi1-xZnxO5, and perhaps other real systems as well, towards a novel ground state which resembles a random valence bond state. This is in contrast with the LRO observed in PbNi2V2O8 . Therefore there is no universal behavior under nonmagnetic doping in real $`S=1`$ 1D-HAF substances. Details of the topology of the magnetic interaction lattice are probably crucial in determining the way the Haldane phase is destabilized by the quenched disorder.

K.H. and C.D.B. are supported by CONICET, Argentina. A.A.A. is partially supported by CONICET. C.P. is partially supported by the ’Institut Universitaire de France’. C.P. thanks H. Mutka for helpful discussions and continued support. K. H. is grateful to the Physics Department of the University of Buenos Aires for the hospitality during this work. This work was supported by PICT 03-00121-02153 of ANPCyT and PIP 4952/96 of CONICET.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Superfield representations  of super-Poincaré and superconformal algebras have been proved to be useful tools since the early development of supersymmetry for several reasons.

They provide the natural framework to formulate supersymmetric field theories in a “covariant fashion” and allow one, in many cases, to achieve a simple understanding of the softening of “quantum divergences”. This milder quantum behaviour of supersymmetric field theories is at the basis of the so-called “non-renormalization theorems” which are one of the striking features of supersymmetric quantum theories . In modern language, which applies to generic supersymmetric theories, these non-renormalization theorems are due to the fact that supersymmetric field theories have some “field representations” that are short, namely, the component field of highest dimension (which is not a total derivative) lies at a lower $`\theta `$ level than what is naively expected from a generic superfield.

Examples of such “short” superfields already appear in $`N=1`$ 4d supersymmetry and they are called “chiral” . In the case of superconformal algebras chiral primaries have a “ring structure” under multiplication and their conformal dimension is quantized in terms of the R $`U(1)`$ charge.

In $`N`$-extended supersymmetry in $`d=4`$ as well as in other dimensions one needs to generalize the notion of “chiral superfields”. The point is that the shortening is often due to an interplay between the conformal dimension and the (non-Abelian) R-symmetry quantum numbers. The latter, in $`d=3`$ and 6 are related to the Dynkin labels of the $`SO(N)`$ and $`USp(2N)`$ groups while in $`d=4`$ for $`N2`$, to the Dynkin labels of $`SU(N)`$.

Extended superspaces, enlarged with coordinates on $`G/H`$ where $`G`$ is the R-symmetry of the superconformal algebra and $`H`$ is a maximal subgroup (with rank of $`H`$ = rank of $`G`$) are called harmonic superspaces . They provide the suitable framework in which the notion of chirality is generalized to Grassmann analyticity . For these “short” superfields the superconformal algebra is realized in a subspace of the full superspace which contains a reduced number of the original anticommuting Grassmann variables.

In the spirit of the AdS/CFT correspondence  where boundary “conformal operators” of $`CFT_d`$ are mapped onto “bulk states” in $`AdS_{d+1}`$, multiplet shortening translates into a BPS condition on massive (and massless) particle states in anti-de Sitter space (see, for instance, ).

Superconformal algebras in $`d`$ dimensions appear as vacuum symmetries of string or M-theory compactified on $`AdS_{d+1}`$. Massive BPS saturated UIR’s of these algebras should therefore be relevant to classify solitons preserving different fractions of supersymmetry, as it happens in the corresponding flat space limit.

The general analysis of multiplet shortening is related to the so-called “unitary bounds” of UIR’s of superconformal algebras. For the $`d=4`$ case the latter was obtained in the 80’s in Ref.  for $`N=1`$ and in Ref.  for arbitrary $`N`$. The relation with the multiplet shortening and the $`AdS_5/CFT_4`$ correspondence was recently spelled out in .

The superfield analysis in $`CFT_d`$ is “dual” to the “state” analysis  on $`AdS_{d+1}`$ since the same superalgebra acts on these representation spaces. However, the superfield approach is more powerful not only because it allows one to treat quantum field theories but because it leads to a simpler classification of “massive representations” in the language of composite operators. The different BPS conditions in $`AdS_d`$ are rephrased to the different Grassmann analytic operators (generalizations of “chiral operators”) which exist in extended harmonic superspace.

The full classification of all BPS conditions was carried out for $`d=4,6`$ superconformal algebras in Refs.  and it is extended to the $`d=3`$ $`N=8`$ superconformal algebra in the present paper. The appropriate superconformal algebra is in this case $`OSp(8/4,)`$ which is a different non-compact form of the superalgebra which occurs in the $`(2,0)`$ theory in $`d=6`$. The latter is related to M-theory on $`AdS_7\times S^4`$. The former is appropriate to the $`AdS_4\times S_7`$ compactification of M-theory and some of its representations, both massless and massive, have been widely considered in the literature (see, e.g., ).

The purpose of this paper is to extend the harmonic superspace analysis to the $`d=3`$ $`N=8`$ case in order to obtain all BPS states which may occur in $`AdS_4`$. These are the $`AdS`$ analogues of the 1/2, 1/4 and 1/8 BPS states of Poincaré supersymmetry which occur in the classification of extremal black holes in supergravity theories . Therefore BPS states in $`AdS_4`$ correspond, in particular, to anti-de Sitter black holes of $`N=8`$ gauged $`SO(8)`$ supergravity .

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we carry out a general analysis of the short highest weight UIR’s of $`OSp(8/4,)`$. To this end we consider $`OSp(8/4,)`$ as the $`N=8`$ 3d superconformal algebra and study the conditions on the HWS’s which are annihilated by all the $`S`$ (conformal supersymmetry) generators and by a fraction (1/2, 3/8, 1/4 or 1/8) of the $`Q`$ (Poincaré supersymmetry) ones. As a result we find that the Lorentz spin of these HWS’s must vanish and that their conformal dimension should be related to their $`SO(8)`$ Dynkin labels. Such HWS’s generate series of representations exhibiting 1/2, 3/8, 1/4 and 1/8 BPS shortening. The simplest multiplets of maximal shortening (1/2 BPS) are the two distinct “supersingletons”. In Section 3 and 4 we realize the $`N=8`$ supersingletons first as constrained superfields in ordinary superspace and then as Grassmann analytic superfields in harmonic superspace. The latter have the advantage that their analyticity properties are preserved by multiplication. This allows us, in Section 5, to construct all composite operators obtained by multiplying supersingleton superfields and undergoing different shortenings corresponding to different BPS states in the $`AdS_4`$ bulk interpretation. We show that by tensoring only one type of supersingletons we can only construct 1/2, 1/4 and 1/8 BPS states, but by mixing the two types we can reproduce the complete classification of short multiplets from Section 2. In this way we also give an indirect proof that all the representations found in Section 2 are indeed unitary.

## 2 Short highest weight UIR’s of $`OSp(8/4,)`$

In this section we shall derive the general conditions on the highest weight state (HWS) of a short representation of $`OSp(8/4,)`$.

The superalgebra $`OSp(8/4,)`$ is the $`N=8`$ superconformal algebra in three dimensions (only the part of the algebra relevant to our argument is shown):

$`\{Q_\alpha ^i,Q_\beta ^j\}=2\delta ^{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu P_\mu ,\{S_\alpha ^i,S_\beta ^j\}=2\delta ^{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu K_\mu ,`$ (1)
$`\{Q_\alpha ^i,S_\beta ^j\}=\delta ^{ij}M_{\alpha \beta }+2ϵ_{\alpha \beta }(T^{ij}+\delta ^{ij}D),`$ (2)
$`[D,Q_\alpha ^i]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}Q_\alpha ^i,[D,S_\alpha ^i]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}S_\alpha ^i,`$ (3)
$`[M_{\alpha \beta },Q_\gamma ^i]=i(ϵ_{\gamma \alpha }Q_\beta ^i+ϵ_{\gamma \beta }Q_\alpha ^i),[M_{\alpha \beta },S_\gamma ^i]=i(ϵ_{\gamma \alpha }S_\beta ^i+ϵ_{\gamma \beta }S_\alpha ^i),`$ (4)
$`[T^{ij},Q_\alpha ^k]=i(\delta ^{ki}Q_\alpha ^j\delta ^{kj}Q_\alpha ^i),[T^{ij},S_\alpha ^k]=i(\delta ^{ki}S_\alpha ^j\delta ^{kj}S_\alpha ^i),`$ (5)
$`[T^{ij},T^{kl}]=i(\delta ^{ik}T^{jl}+\delta ^{jl}T^{ik}\delta ^{jk}T^{il}\delta ^{il}T^{jk}).`$ (6)
Here we find the following generators: $`Q_\alpha ^i`$ of $`N=8`$ Poincaré supersymmetry carrying a 3d spinor Lorentz index $`\alpha =1,2`$ and an $`SO(8)`$ vector 111$`SO(8)`$ has three 8-dimensional representations, $`8_v`$, $`8_s`$ and $`8_c`$. Since these three representations are related by $`SO(8)`$ triality, the choice which one to ascribe to the supersymmetry generators is purely conventional. In order to be consistent with the other $`N`$-extended 3d supersymmetries where the odd generators always belong to the vector representation, we prefer to put an $`8_v`$ index $`i`$ on the supercharges. index $`i=1,\mathrm{},8`$; $`S_\alpha ^i`$ of conformal supersymmetry; $`P_\mu `$, $`\mu =0,1,2`$, of translations; $`K_\mu `$ of conformal boosts; $`M_{\alpha \beta }=M_{\beta \alpha }`$ of the 3d Lorentz group $`SO(2,1)SL(2,)`$; $`D`$ of dilations; $`T^{ij}=T^{ji}`$ of $`SO(8)`$.

The definition of a short representation we adopt requires that its HWS is annihilated by part of the Poincaré supersymmetry generators $`Q_\alpha ^i`$. Since the latter are irreducible under the Lorentz and R symmetries, the only way to achieve shortening is to break one of them. Postponing the possibility of dealing with the Lorentz group for a future investigation, here we choose to break $`SO(8)`$ down to $`[SO(2)]^4[U(1)]^4`$ and decompose the $`SO(8)`$ vector $`Q_\alpha ^i`$ into eight independent projections carrying different $`U(1)`$ charges. The first two such projections are:

$$Q_\alpha ^{\pm \pm }=\frac{1}{2}(Q_\alpha ^1\pm Q_\alpha ^2)$$
(7)
and the corresponding charge generator is $`H_1=2iT^{12}`$, so that

$$[H_1,Q_\alpha ^{\pm \pm }]=\pm 2iQ_\alpha ^{\pm \pm }.$$
(8)
Note the unusual units of charge, which are spinorial rather than vectorial. Let us write down one of the projections of eq. (2) which will be needed in what follows:

$$\{Q_\alpha ^{++},S_\beta ^{}\}=\frac{1}{2}M_{\alpha \beta }+ϵ_{\alpha \beta }(D\frac{1}{2}H_1).$$
(9)
Similarly, we introduce the second charge

$$Q_\alpha ^{(\pm \pm )}=\frac{1}{2}(Q_\alpha ^3\pm Q_\alpha ^4)$$
(10)
with generator $`H_2=2iT^{34}`$, so that

$$[H_2,Q_\alpha ^{(\pm \pm )}]=\pm 2iQ_\alpha ^{(\pm \pm )}$$
(11)
and

$$\{Q_\alpha ^{(++)},S_\beta ^{()}\}=\frac{1}{2}M_{\alpha \beta }+ϵ_{\alpha \beta }(D\frac{1}{2}H_2).$$
(12)
The third and fourth charges will be introduced in a different way. The components $`\underset{¯}{i}=5,6,7,8`$ of the $`8_v`$ of $`SO(8)`$ form an $`SO(4)`$ vector. Since $`SO(4)SU(2)\times SU(2)`$, we can rewrite it in spinor notation with the help of the Pauli matrices, e.g., $`Q^{\underset{¯}{i}}Q^{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{a}^{}}=Q^{\underset{¯}{i}}(\sigma ^{\underset{¯}{i}})^{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{a}^{}}`$. Doing this in eq. (2) we obtain

$$\{Q_\alpha ^{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{a}^{}},S_\beta ^{\underset{¯}{b}\underset{¯}{b}^{}}\}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{b}}ϵ^{\underset{¯}{a}^{}\underset{¯}{b}^{}}M_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }(t^{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{b}}ϵ^{\underset{¯}{a}^{}\underset{¯}{b}^{}}+ϵ^{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{b}}t^{\underset{¯}{a}^{}\underset{¯}{b}^{}}2ϵ^{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{b}}ϵ^{\underset{¯}{a}^{}\underset{¯}{b}^{}}D)$$
(13)
where the $`SU(2)`$ generators $`t`$ commute with the supersymmetry ones as follows:

$$[t^{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{b}},Q^{\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{c}^{}}]=i(ϵ^{\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{a}}Q^{\underset{¯}{b}\underset{¯}{c}^{}}+ϵ^{\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{b}}Q^{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{c}^{}}),[t^{\underset{¯}{a}^{}\underset{¯}{b}^{}},Q^{\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{c}^{}}]=i(ϵ^{\underset{¯}{c}^{}\underset{¯}{a}^{}}Q^{\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{b}^{}}+ϵ^{\underset{¯}{c}^{}\underset{¯}{b}^{}}Q^{\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{a}^{}}).$$
(14)
In this notation the two remaining charges are given by

$$H_3=t^{\underset{¯}{1}\underset{¯}{2}},H_4=t^{\underset{¯}{1}^{}\underset{¯}{2}^{}},$$
(15)
and by denoting $`\underset{¯}{1}[+],\underset{¯}{2}[]`$ and $`\underset{¯}{1}^{}\{+\},\underset{¯}{2}^{}\{\}`$, we find

$$[H_3,Q^{[\pm ]\{\pm \}}]=[H_4,Q^{[\pm ]\{\pm \}}]=\pm iQ^{[\pm ]\{\pm \}}.$$
(16)
The two relevant projections of eq. (2) now are

$$\{Q_\alpha ^{[+]\{+\}},S_\beta ^{[]\{\}}\}=\frac{1}{2}M_{\alpha \beta }+ϵ_{\alpha \beta }(D\frac{1}{2}H_3\frac{1}{2}H_4),$$
(17)
$$\{Q_\alpha ^{[+]\{\}},S_\beta ^{[]\{+\}}\}=\frac{1}{2}M_{\alpha \beta }ϵ_{\alpha \beta }(D\frac{1}{2}H_3+\frac{1}{2}H_4).$$
(18)
Besides the four $`SO(2)`$ charges, the algebra of $`SO(8)`$ contains $`284=24`$ generators which can be arranged into 12 “step-up” operators (positive roots):

$$\{𝒯\}_+=\{\begin{array}{c}T^{++(++)},T^{++()},T^{++[\pm ]\{\pm \}};\hfill \\ T^{(++)[\pm ]\{\pm \}};\hfill \\ T^{[++]}T^{[+]\{+\}[+]\{\}},T^{\{++\}}T^{[+]\{+\}[]\{+\}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
and their complex conjugates (negative roots). Among them only 4 (= rank of $`SO(8)`$) are independent (simple roots), namely, $`T^{[++]},T^{\{++\}},T^{++()},T^{(++)[]\{\}}`$.

Above we have given the decomposition of two of the basic representations of $`SO(8)`$ under the particular embedding of $`[SO(2)]^4`$ that we are using here. These are the $`8_v`$ (the supersymmetry generators $`Q^i`$) and the adjoint $`28`$ (the $`SO(8)`$ generators $`T^{ij}`$). For future reference we also give the decomposition of the two spinor representations, $`8_s`$ ($`\varphi ^a`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},8`$) and $`8_c`$ ($`\psi ^{\dot{a}}`$, $`\dot{a}=1,\mathrm{},8`$):

$`\varphi ^a`$ $``$ $`\varphi ^{+(+)[\pm ]},\varphi ^{()[\pm ]},\varphi ^{+()\{\pm \}},\varphi ^{(+)\{\pm \}}`$ (20)
$`\sigma ^{\dot{a}}`$ $``$ $`\sigma ^{+(+)\{\pm \}},\sigma ^{()\{\pm \}},\sigma ^{+()[\pm ]},\sigma ^{(+)[\pm ]}`$ (21)
This has been obtained by successive reductions: $`SO(8)SO(2)\times SO(6)U(1)\times SU(4)[SO(2)]^2\times SO(4)[U(1)]^2\times SU(2)\times SU(2)[SO(2)]^4[U(1)]^4`$.

Now we turn to the discussion of the representations of $`OSp(8/4,)`$. Let us denote a generic (quasi primary) superconformal field of the $`OSp(8/4,)`$ algebra by the quantum numbers of its HWS:

$$𝒟(\mathrm{},J;d_1,d_2,d_3,d_4)$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the conformal dimension, $`J`$ is the Lorentz spin and $`d_1,d_2,d_3,d_4`$ are the Dynkin labels (see, e.g., ) of the $`SO(8)`$ R symmetry. In fact, in our scheme the natural labels are the four charges $`q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4`$ (the eigenvalues of $`H_1,\mathrm{},H_4`$). So, we can alternatively denote the HWS $`|\mathrm{},J,q_i`$. The Dynkin labels $`[d_1,d_2,d_3,d_4]`$ are related to the $`U(1)`$ charges $`(q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4)`$ as follows:

$$d_1=\frac{1}{2}(q_1q_2),d_2=\frac{1}{2}(q_2q_3q_4),d_3=q_3,d_4=q_4.$$
(23)
The above relations can be most easily derived 222We are grateful to L. Castellani for suggesting this to us. by comparing the Dynkin labels and the charges of the HWS of the following four irreps: $`8_v:[1,0,0,0](2,0,0,0)`$, $`28:[0,1,0,0](2,2,0,0)`$, $`8_s:[0,0,1,0](1,1,1,0)`$, $`8_c:[0,0,0,1](1,1,0,1)`$. Note that (23) implies restrictions on the allowed values of the charges of a HWS:

$$q_1q_2=2n0,q_2q_3q_4=2k0,q_30,q_40.$$
(24)
A general HWS is defined by a subset of generators of the algebra which annihilate it. These include all the conformal supersymmetry generators:

$$S_\alpha ^i|\mathrm{},J,q_i=0$$
(25)
(and, consequently, the boosts $`K_\mu `$) as well as the $`SO(8)`$ “step-up” operators (19):

$$\{𝒯\}_+|\mathrm{},J,q_i=0.$$
(26)
The second condition defines $`|\mathrm{},J,q_i`$ as the HWS of a UIR of $`SO(8)`$. A similar condition ensures irreducibility under the Lorentz group. Further, $`|\mathrm{},J,q_i`$ should be an eigenstate of the generators $`D,M^2,H_i`$ fixing its dimension $`\mathrm{}`$, spin $`J`$ and charges $`q_i`$.

Now, what makes a multiplet “short” is the additional requirement that part of the supersymmetry charges $`Q_\alpha ^i`$ also annihilate the HWS. When choosing this subset of $`Q`$’s we have to make sure that it is compatible with the rest of the conditions and with the algebra (1)-(6). First of all, these $`Q`$’s must anticommute among themselves, otherwise the first of eqs. (1) will yield restrictions on the momentum $`P_\mu `$. Secondly, eq. (26) implies that they must form a closed algebra (a Cauchy-Riemann structure) with all the $`SO(8)`$ step-up operators $`\{𝒯\}_+`$. It is easy to see that such a subset can at most involve four supercharges. In the AdS language such multiplets are called 1/2 BPS ($`4=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}8}`$ generators annihilate the HWS). There exist two possible choices:

type I 1/2 BPS: $`Q^{++}|\mathrm{},J,q_i=Q^{(++)}|\mathrm{},J,q_i=Q^{[+]\{+\}}|\mathrm{},J,q_i=`$ (27)
$`Q^{[+]\{\}}|\mathrm{},J,q_i=0`$
or

type II 1/2 BPS: $`Q^{++}|\mathrm{},J,q_i=Q^{(++)}|\mathrm{},J,q_i=Q^{[+]\{+\}}|\mathrm{},J,q_i=`$ (28)
$`Q^{[]\{+\}}|\mathrm{},J,q_i=0.`$
Finally, conditions (27) or (28) should be consistent with (25). Using the projections (9), (12), (17) and (18) of eq. (2), we obtain the following constraint on the charges, conformal weight and spin of the HWS 333Such relations have been known from the very beginning of supersymmetry, see .:

$$\text{type I 1/2 BPS:}q_1=q_2=q_3=2\mathrm{},q_4=0,J=0;$$
(29)
$$\text{type II 1/2 BPS:}q_1=q_2=q_4=2\mathrm{},q_3=0,J=0,$$
(30)
where $`2\mathrm{}m`$ is a non-negative integer. Computing the Dynkin labels from (23), we can say that the 1/2 BPS multiplets above correspond to

$$\text{type I 1/2 BPS:}𝒟(m/2,0;0,0,m,0);$$
(31)
$$\text{type II 1/2 BPS:}𝒟(m/2,0;0,0,0,m).$$
(32)
Besides the 1/2 BPS conditions there exist weaker shortening conditions. Thus, we can require that a subset of only three supercharges annihilate the HWS. Once again, the choice must be consistent with condition (26), and this gives only one possibility:

$$\text{3/8 BPS:}Q^{++}|\mathrm{},J,q_i=Q^{(++)}|\mathrm{},J,q_i=Q^{[+]\{+\}}|\mathrm{},J,q_i=0.$$
(33)
This is a 3/8 BPS multiplet in the AdS language. This time the condition on the weight, spin and charges is

$$q_1=q_2=q_3+q_4=2\mathrm{},J=0.$$
(34)
Denoting $`q_3=m`$, $`q_4=n`$ where $`m,n`$ are non-negative integers and computing the Dynkin labels, we find that this type of multiplet corresponds to

$$\text{3/8 BPS:}𝒟(1/2(m+n),0;0,0,m,n).$$
(35)
The next step will be to take a subset of two supercharges compatible with (26), which is

$$\text{1/4 BPS:}Q^{++}|\mathrm{},J,q_i=Q^{(++)}|\mathrm{},J,q_i=0.$$
(36)
This is a 1/4 BPS multiplet in the AdS language. This time the condition is

$$q_1=q_2=2\mathrm{},J=0,$$
(37)
$`q_3`$ and $`q_4`$ being only restricted by (24). Denoting $`q_1=q_2=m+n+2k`$, $`q_3=m`$, $`q_4=n`$ where $`m,n,k`$ are non-negative integers, we find that this type of multiplet corresponds to

$$\text{1/4 BPS:}𝒟(1/2(m+n)+k,0;0,k,m,n).$$
(38)
Finally, the weakest shortening condition is obtained by retaining only one supercharge (the HWS among the eight projections of $`Q^i`$):

$$\text{1/8 BPS:}Q^{++}|\mathrm{},J,q_i=0.$$
(39)
This is a 1/8 BPS multiplet in the AdS language. The condition in this case is

$$q_1=2\mathrm{},J=0,$$
(40)
$`q_2,q_3`$ and $`q_4`$ satisfying (24). Denoting $`q_1=m+n+2k+2l`$, $`q_2=m+n+2k`$, $`q_3=m`$, $`q_4=n`$ where $`m,n,k,l`$ are non-negative integers, we find

$$\text{1/8 BPS:}𝒟(1/2(m+n)+k+l,0;l,k,m,n).$$
(41)
This concludes our abstract analysis of the possible short representations of $`OSp(8/4,)`$. Note that we are not directly addressing the question of whether these representations are unitary or not. However, in the rest of the paper we shall show that all of them can be realized by tensoring two elementary building blocks, the so-called supersingleton representations. Since the latter are known to be UIR’s of $`OSp(8/4,)`$, this also answers the above question affirmatively.

## 3 Supersingletons

Let us consider the simplest $`OSp(8/4,)`$ representations of the type (31) or (32). They are obtained by setting $`m=1`$, so they correspond to $`𝒟(1/2,0;0,0,1,0)`$ or $`𝒟(1/2,0;0,0,0,1)`$. Such representations are called “supersingletons” . Each of them is just a collection of 8 Dirac supermultiplets  made up of “Di” and “Rac” singletons . We observe that in the framework of the AdS/CFT correspondence  the supersingleton describes the microscopic degrees of freedom of an M-2 brane with the scalars being the coordinates transverse to the brane which are then in the $`8_v`$ of $`SO(8)`$. The existence of two distinct types of $`N=8`$ 3d supersingletons has first been noted in Ref. .

Our task now will be to realize the supersingleton in $`N=8`$ 3d superspace. Consider first type I. Noting that the HWS in the multiplet $`𝒟(1/2,0;0,0,1,0)`$ has spin 0 and the Dynkin labels of the $`8_s`$ of $`SO(8)`$, we take a scalar superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a(x^\mu ,\theta _i^\alpha )`$ carrying an external $`8_s`$ index $`a`$.

The superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ is a reducible representation of $`N=8`$ Poincaré supersymmetry. This can be seen from the fact that the first fermion field in its decomposition,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_a(x^\mu ,\theta _i^\alpha )=\varphi _a(x)+\theta _i^\alpha \psi _{\alpha ia}(x)+\mathrm{},$$
(42)
is reducible under $`SO(8)`$: $`\psi _{\alpha ia}8_v8_s=8_c56_s`$. The way to achieve irreducibility is to impose a constraint  on the superfield which removes the $`56_s`$ part of $`\psi _{\alpha ia}`$:

$$\text{type I:}D_\alpha ^i\mathrm{\Phi }_a=\frac{1}{8}\gamma _{a\dot{b}}^i\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\dot{b}c}^jD_\alpha ^j\mathrm{\Phi }_c.$$
(43)
Here $`D_\alpha ^i`$ are the covariant spinor derivatives satisfying the supersymmetry algebra

$$\{D_\alpha ^i,D_\beta ^j\}=2i\delta ^{ij}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu )_{\alpha \beta }_\mu .$$
(44)
The $`SO(8)`$ gamma matrices $`\gamma _{a\dot{b}}^i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\dot{a}b}^i=(\gamma ^{iT})_{\dot{a}b}`$ satisfy the Clifford algebra relations

$$\gamma _{a\dot{b}}^i\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\dot{b}c}^j+\gamma _{a\dot{b}}^j\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\dot{b}c}^i=2\delta ^{ij}\delta _{ac},\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\dot{a}b}^i\gamma _{b\dot{c}}^j+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\dot{a}b}^j\gamma _{b\dot{c}}^i=2\delta ^{ij}\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{c}}.$$
(45)
Using (44) one can show that the constraint (43) eliminates all the components of the superfield but two:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_a(x^\mu ,\theta _i^\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _a(x)+\theta _i^\alpha (\gamma _i)_{a\dot{b}}\psi _{\alpha \dot{b}}(x)`$ (46)
$`+\theta _i^\alpha \theta _j^\beta (\gamma _{ij})_{ab}i_{\alpha \beta }\varphi _b`$
$`+\theta _i^\alpha \theta _i^\beta \theta _k^\gamma (\gamma _{ijk})_{a\dot{b}}i_{(\alpha \beta }\psi _{\gamma )\dot{b}}`$
$`+\theta _i^\alpha \theta _i^\beta \theta _k^\gamma \theta _l^\delta (\gamma _{ijkl})_{ab}_{(\alpha \beta }_{\gamma \delta )}\varphi _b`$
where $`_{\alpha \beta }=_{\beta \alpha }=(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu )_{\alpha \beta }_\mu `$ and $`\gamma _{ij\mathrm{}}`$ are the antisymmetrized products of the $`SO(8)`$ gamma matrices. In addition, the constraint (43) puts these fields on shell:

$$\mathrm{}\varphi _a=0,^{\alpha \beta }\psi _{\beta \dot{a}}=0.$$
(47)
Thus, the content of the constrained superfield is a massless multiplet of Poincaré supersymmetry consisting of a scalar in the $`8_s`$ and a spinor in the $`8_c`$ UIR’s of $`SO(8)`$. 444Superfield representations of other $`OSp(N/4)`$ have been considered in the literature .

Note that the field equations (47) can be obtained from a supersymmetric action . Consequently, the physical fields $`\varphi _a`$ and $`\psi _{\alpha \dot{a}}`$ have canonical dimensions $`1/2`$ and $`1`$, respectively. This implies that the superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ has dimension $`1/2`$, in accord with the abstract representation $`𝒟(1/2,0;0,0,1,0)`$.

Finally, the alternative supersingleton representation of type II can be realized in terms of a superfield $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\dot{a}}`$ carrying an $`8_c`$ external index and satisfying the constraint

$$\text{type II:}D_\alpha ^i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\dot{a}}=\frac{1}{8}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\dot{a}b}^i\gamma _{b\dot{c}}^jD_\alpha ^j\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\dot{c}}.$$
(48)
It describes a massless multiplet consisting of a scalar $`\sigma _{\dot{a}}(x)`$ and a spinor $`\chi _{\alpha a}(x)`$ in the $`8_c`$ and $`8_s`$, correspondingly.

The problem we want to address now is how to tensor supersingletons. Doing it directly in terms of constrained superfields is quite difficult. Our alternative approach consists in first rewriting the constraints (43) or (48) as analyticity conditions in harmonic superspace, after which the tensor multiplication becomes straightforward.

## 4 The supersingletons as harmonic analytic superfields

The harmonic space suitable for our purposes is given by the coset 555A formulation of the above multiplet in harmonic superspace has been proposed in Ref.  (see also  and  for a general discussion of three-dimensional harmonic superspaces). The harmonic coset used in  is $`Spin(8)/U(4)`$. Although the supersingleton itself does indeed live on this smaller coset, the residual symmetry $`U(4)`$ will turn out too big when we start tensoring different realizations of the supersingleton. For this reason we prefer from the very beginning to use the coset (49) with a minimal residual symmetry (see also  for a discussion of this point).

$$\frac{SO(8)}{[SO(2)]^4}\frac{Spin(8)}{[U(1)]^4}.$$
(49)
This is a $`284=24`$-dimensional compact manifold. Instead of trying to introduce explicit coordinates on it, the harmonic method  prescribes to use the entire matrices of the fundamental representation of the group to parametrize the coset. The complication in the case of $`SO(8)`$ is that one has three inequivalent fundamental representations, $`8_s,8_c,8_v`$. The solution to this problem has been found in Ref. . One introduces three sets of harmonic variables:

$$u_a^A,w_{\dot{a}}^{\dot{A}},v_i^I$$
(50)
where $`A`$, $`\dot{A}`$ and $`I`$ denote the decompositions of an $`8_s`$, $`8_c`$ and $`8_v`$ index, correspondingly, into sets of four $`U(1)`$ charges, according to the coset denominator $`[U(1)]^4`$ (see Section 2 for details). Each of the $`8\times 8`$ real matrices (50) is a matrix of the corresponding representation of $`SO(8)Spin(8)`$. This implies that all of them are orthogonal matrices (this is a peculiarity of $`SO(8)`$ due to triality):

$$u_a^Au_a^B=\delta ^{AB},w_{\dot{a}}^{\dot{A}}w_{\dot{a}}^{\dot{B}}=\delta ^{\dot{A}\dot{B}},v_i^Iv_i^J=\delta ^{IJ}$$
(51)
(and similarly with small and capital indices interchanged). These matrices supply three copies of the group space (i.e., three sets of 28 real variables each), and we only need one to parametrize the coset (49). The condition which identifies the three sets of harmonic variables is

$$u_a^A(\gamma ^I)_{A\dot{A}}w_{\dot{a}}^{\dot{A}}=v_i^I(\gamma ^i)_{a\dot{a}}.$$
(52)
This relation just expresses the transformation properties of the gamma matrices under $`SO(8)`$. The reader can convince him(her)self that the conditions (51), (52) leave just one set of 28 independent parameters by taking the infinitesimal form of the above matrices. Note that eq. (52) can be viewed as the expression of the vector harmonics in terms of the two types of spinor ones. Therefore we shall choose $`u,w`$ as our harmonic variables. 666Although each of the three sets of harmonic variables depends on the same 28 parameters, we need at least two sets to be able to reproduce all possible representations of $`SO(8)`$.

The idea of the harmonic description of the coset (49) is to consider harmonic functions defined as functions of the above sets of variables modulo transformations of $`[U(1)]^4`$. In other words, a harmonic function always carries a set of four $`U(1)`$ charges. These functions are then given by their “harmonic expansions” in terms of all the products of harmonic variables having the same charges. Take, for instance, the function

$`\varphi ^{+(+)[+]}(u,w)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _au_a^{+(+)[+]}`$ (53)
$`+\varphi _{abc}u_a^{+(+)[+]}u_b^{+(+)[+]}u_c^{()[]}`$
$`+\varphi _{a\dot{b}\dot{c}}u_a^{+(+)[+]}w_{\dot{b}}^{+(+)\{+\}}w_{\dot{c}}^{()\{\}}+\mathrm{}.`$
Although the harmonic function only transforms under $`[U(1)]^4`$, the coefficients in its expansion are representations of $`SO(8)Spin(8)`$. Thus, a harmonic function is a collection of an infinite set of irreps of $`SO(8)`$.

In order to make the harmonic functions irreducible we have to impose differential constraints on them. To this end we introduce harmonic derivatives (the covariant derivatives on the coset (49)):

$$D^{IJ}=u_a^A(\gamma ^{IJ})^{AB}\frac{}{u_a^B}+w_{\dot{a}}^{\dot{A}}(\gamma ^{IJ})^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}\frac{}{w_{\dot{a}}^{\dot{B}}}+v_i^{[I}\frac{}{v_i^{J]}}.$$
(54)
They respect the algebraic relations (51), (52) among the harmonic variables. Moreover, these derivatives form the algebra of $`SO(8)`$ realized on the $`[U(1)]^4`$ projected indices $`A,\dot{A},I`$ of the harmonics. Four of them just count the four $`U(1)`$ charges, i.e. the harmonic functions are their eigenfunctions:

$$H_nf^{(q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4)}(u,w)=q_nf^{(q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4)}(u,w),n=1,2,3,4.$$
(55)
The remaining 24 ones are the true covariant derivatives on the coset. In our complex $`[U(1)]^4`$ notation these are

$$\{𝒟\}_+=\{\begin{array}{c}D^{++(++)},D^{++()},D^{++[\pm ]\{\pm \}};\hfill \\ D^{(++)[\pm ]\{\pm \}};\hfill \\ D^{[++]}D^{[+]\{+\}[+]\{\}},D^{\{++\}}D^{[+]\{+\}[]\{+\}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(56)
and their complex conjugates. It is clear that the 12 derivatives (56) correspond to the step-up operators of $`SO(8)`$, see (19). Therefore we can make a harmonic function irreducible by demanding that all of the derivatives (56) annihilate it. In other words, this differential condition reduces the harmonic function to a polynomial corresponding to a highest weight of an $`SO(8)`$ irrep. For example, the constraint

$$\{𝒟\}_+\varphi ^{+(+)[+]}(u,w)=0\varphi ^{+(+)[+]}(u,w)=\varphi _au_a^{+(+)[+]},$$
(57)
reduces the function (53) to a $`8_s`$. This can easily be generalized to any function of the type (55) satisfying the constraint

$$\{𝒟\}_+f^{(q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4)}(u,w)=0.$$
(58)
This is the defining condition of the HWS of a UIR of $`SO(8)`$ given by the Dynkin labels from eq. (23). The function satisfying (58) is thus reduced to a polynomial of the harmonic variables:

$`f^{(q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4)}(u,w)=f^{(2d_1+2d_2+d_3+d_4,2d_2+d_3+d_4,d_3,d_4)}(u,w)=`$ (59)
$`f_{a\mathrm{}b\mathrm{}c\mathrm{}\dot{d}\mathrm{}}(u_a^{+(+)[+]})^{d_2+d_3}(u_b^{+(+)[]})^{d_2}(u_c^{+()\{\}})^{d_1}(w_{\dot{d}}^{+(+)\{+\}})^{d_1+d_4}.`$
Concluding the discussion of the harmonic coset (49) we can say that if one introduces complex coordinates on it, the conditions (58) take the form of (covariant) analyticity conditions. For this reason we can call eqs. (58) “harmonic analyticity” conditions.

The purpose of introducing harmonic variables is to be able to project the supersingleton defining constraint (43) (or (48)) in an $`SO(8)`$ covariant way. This means to convert the indices $`i`$ and $`a`$ into $`U(1)`$ charges with the help of the corresponding harmonics: $`D_\alpha ^iD_\alpha ^I=v_i^ID_\alpha ^i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a\mathrm{\Phi }^A=u_a^A\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$. Then, using the relation (52) it is easy to show that, e.g., the projection $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]}`$ satisfies the following constraints:

$$D^{++}\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]}=D^{(++)}\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]}=D^{[+]\{\pm \}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]}=0.$$
(60)
We see that half of the spinor derivatives annihilate the superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]}`$. This is the superspace realization of the 1/2 BPS shortening condition (27). Since these spinor derivatives anticommute among themselves (as follows from (44) after the appropriate projections), there exists a basis in superspace where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]}`$ becomes just a function of half of the odd variables as well as of the harmonic variables:

$$\text{type I:}\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]}=\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]}(x_A,\theta ^{++},\theta ^{(++)},\theta ^{[+]\{\pm \}},u,w)$$
(61)
where

$$x_{A\alpha \beta }=x_{\alpha \beta }+i\theta _{(\alpha }^{++}\theta _{\beta )}^{}+i\theta _{(\alpha }^{(++)}\theta _{\beta )}^{()}+i\theta _{(\alpha }^{[+]\{+\}}\theta _{\beta )}^{[]\{\}}+i\theta _{(\alpha }^{[+]\{\}}\theta _{\beta )}^{[]\{+\}}.$$
(62)
We can say that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]}`$ is a “Grassmann analytic” or a “short” superfield.

So far eqs. (60) have been derived as a corollary of the defining constraint (43). In order to make the latter equivalent to the former we have to eliminate the harmonic dependence in the superfield (61). This is done by imposing another set of constraints, namely, the harmonic analyticity conditions (58):

$$\{𝒟\}_+\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]}(x,\theta ^{++},\theta ^{(++)},\theta ^{[+]\{\pm \}},u,w)=0.$$
(63)
Note that these new constraints are compatible with (60) since the two sets of derivatives form a closed algebra (a Cauchy-Riemann structure in the terminology of Ref. ). It should be stressed that eq. (63) now has implications other than just restricting the harmonic dependence. The reason is that in the superspace basis (62) where Grassmann analyticity becomes manifest some of the harmonic derivatives from the set $`\{𝒟\}_+`$ acquire torsion terms, e.g., $`D^{++(++)}=_{u,w}^{++(++)}+i\theta ^{++}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \theta ^{(++)}_\mu `$, $`D^{++[+]\{\pm \}}=_{u,w}^{++[+]\{\pm \}}+i\theta ^{++}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \theta ^{[+]\{\pm \}}_\mu `$, etc. This yields space-time derivative constraints on the components of the superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]}`$. All this amounts to $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]}`$ becoming “ultrashort”:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]}`$ $`=`$ $`u_a^{+(+)[+]}\varphi _a(x)`$ (64)
$`+(\theta ^{[+]\{\}\alpha }w_{\dot{a}}^{+(+)\{+\}}\theta ^{[+]\{+\}\alpha }w_{\dot{a}}^{+(+)\{\}}`$
$`\theta ^{++\alpha }w_{\dot{a}}^{(+)[+]}\theta ^{(++)\alpha }w_{\dot{a}}^{+()[+]})\psi _{\dot{a}\alpha }(x)`$
$`+\text{ derivative terms}`$
where the fields are massless. In this way we recover the content (46), (47) of the ordinary constrained superfield describing the supersingleton multiplet.

It is instructive to comment on the structure of the two terms in eq. (64). The first one is the component at level 0 in the $`\theta `$ expansion. It is a harmonic function of the type (57), i.e. a harmonic-projected $`8_s`$. The situation at level 1 is more complicated. Originally, one finds a collection of spinor fields with a variety of charges. In order to find out which one among them is the HWS of an $`SO(8)`$ representation, we have to look at the accompanying $`\theta `$’s. It is easy to see that $`\theta ^{[+]\{\}}`$ can serve as a starting point for obtaining the rest by successive applications of the harmonic derivatives $`\{𝒟\}_+`$ (the step-up operators of $`SO(8)`$):

$$\theta ^{[+]\{\}}\stackrel{D^{\{++\}}}{}\theta ^{[+]\{+\}}\stackrel{D^{(++)[]\{\}}}{}\theta ^{(++)}\stackrel{D^{++()}}{}\theta ^{++}.$$
(65)
At the same time, $`\theta ^{[+]\{\}}`$ cannot be obtained from any other of the projections available in the Grassmann analytic superspace. As a consequence, the harmonic analyticity condition (63) mixes up the corresponding spinor fields (coefficients at level 1 in the $`\theta `$ expansion), with the exception of the one in the term $`\theta ^{[+]\{\}\alpha }\psi _\alpha ^{+(+)\{+\}}(x,u,w)`$. The latter must satisfy the condition $`\{𝒟\}_+\psi _\alpha ^{+(+)\{+\}}=0`$. This means that we are dealing with the HWS of the representation $`(1,1,0,1)[0,0,0,1]`$, i.e. with a $`8_c`$. The remaining level 1 coefficients are related to this HWS by harmonic equations like, e.g., $`D^{\{++\}}\psi _\alpha ^{+(+)\{\}}=\psi _\alpha ^{+(+)\{+\}}`$, etc. In other words, they correspond to different projections (“lower weights”) of this $`8_c`$.

The same argument explains why there are no new fields beyond level 1. Indeed, among all the level 2 $`\theta `$ structures we find two which cannot be obtained by acting with the step-up operators on any other structure:

$$\theta ^{[+]\{\}\alpha }\theta _\alpha ^{[+]\{\}}A^{(1,1,1,2)},\theta ^{[+]\{\}\alpha }\theta ^{[+]\{+\}\beta }B_{(\alpha \beta )}^{(1,1,1,0)}$$
(66)
corresponding to a scalar and a vector fields. Now, harmonic analyticity again implies that these fields should be highest weights of $`SO(8)`$ irreps, but their charges do not satisfy the restrictions (24). The conclusion is that there are no such independent fields in the expansion of the analytic superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]}`$ (more precisely, $`A^{(1,1,1,2)}=0`$ and $`B_{(\alpha \beta )}^{(1,1,1,0)}=i_{\alpha \beta }\varphi _au_a^{+(+)[]}`$; such terms are denoted as “derivative terms” in (64)).

In conclusion we note that the alternative form of the supersingleton (48) is described by the superfield

$$\text{type II:}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+(+)\{+\}}(\theta ^{++},\theta ^{(++)},\theta ^{[\pm ]\{+\}})$$
(67)
satisfying the same harmonic constraints (63) but depending on a different set of four odd variables. Also, the charges and Dynkin labels of the first component are those of an $`8_c`$ instead of $`8_s`$. This is the superspace realization of the 1/2 BPS shortening condition (28).

## 5 Short multiplets as supersingleton “composite operators”

In the preceding section, with the help of the harmonic variables, we have been able to equivalently rewrite the supersingleton as an ultrashort superfield satisfying both conditions of Grassmann (eq. (60) or eq. (67)) and harmonic (eq. (63)) analyticity. The main advantage of this new analytic form of the supersingleton is the possibility to tensor copies of it in a straightforward way and thus to obtain series of short composite multiplets. As we shall show in this section, this procedure allows us to realize all the abstract short $`OSp(8/4,)`$ multiplets of Section 2.

We observe that in the AdS/CFT correspondence the supersingleton multiplet describing the dynamics of many M-2 branes is endowed with an internal symmetry index and composite operators are further restricted to be singlets under the invariance group .

The simplest example of a tensor product is obtained by taking $`p`$ identical copies of type I supersingletons, $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]})^p`$. Clearly, it satisfies the same constraints of Grassmann and harmonic analyticity. However, the latter is not as strong as before. The reason is that the external charges of the superfield have changed, and the consequences of harmonic analyticity strongly depend on the charges, as the argument at the end of the preceding section has shown. So, for generic $`p4`$ the $`\theta `$ expansion goes up to the maximal level 8:

$`(\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]})^p`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^{[0,0,p,0]}`$ (68)
$`+`$ $`\theta ^{[+]\{\}\alpha }\psi _\alpha ^{[0,0,p1,1]}+\mathrm{}`$
$`+`$ $`(\theta ^{[+]\{\}})^2A^{[0,0,p2,2]}+\mathrm{}`$
$`+`$ $`\theta ^{[+]\{\}\alpha }\theta ^{[+]\{+\}\beta }B_{(\alpha \beta )}^{[0,1,p2,0]}+\mathrm{}`$
$`+`$ $`(\theta ^{[+]\{\}})^2\theta ^{[+]\{+\}\alpha }\chi _\alpha ^{[0,1,p3,1]}+\mathrm{}`$
$`+`$ $`\theta ^{[+]\{\}\alpha }\theta ^{[+]\{+\}\beta }\theta ^{(++)\gamma }\rho _{(\alpha \beta \gamma )}^{[1,0,p2,0]}+\mathrm{}`$
$`+`$ $`(\theta ^{[+]\{\}})^2(\theta ^{[+]\{+\}})^2C^{[0,2,p4,0]}+\mathrm{}`$
$`+`$ $`(\theta ^{[+]\{\}})^2\theta ^{[+]\{+\}\alpha }\theta ^{(++)\beta }D_{(\alpha \beta )}^{[1,0,p3,1]}+\mathrm{}`$
$`+`$ $`\theta ^{[+]\{\}\alpha }\theta ^{[+]\{+\}\beta }\theta ^{(++)\gamma }\theta ^{++\delta }E_{(\alpha \beta \gamma \delta )}^{[0,0,p2,0]}+\mathrm{}`$
$`+`$ $`(\theta ^{[+]\{\}})^2(\theta ^{[+]\{+\}})^2\theta ^{(++)\alpha }\sigma _\alpha ^{[1,1,p4,0]}+\mathrm{}`$
$`+`$ $`(\theta ^{[+]\{\}})^2\theta ^{[+]\{+\}\alpha }\theta ^{(++)\beta }\theta ^{++\gamma }\omega _{(\alpha \beta \gamma )}^{[0,0,p3,1]}+\mathrm{}`$
$`+`$ $`(\theta ^{[+]\{\}})^2(\theta ^{[+]\{+\}})^2(\theta ^{(++)})^2F^{[2,0,p4,0]}+\mathrm{}`$
$`+`$ $`(\theta ^{[+]\{\}})^2(\theta ^{[+]\{+\}})^2\theta ^{(++)\alpha }\theta ^{++\beta }G_{(\alpha \beta )}^{[0,1,p4,0]}+\mathrm{}`$
$`+`$ $`(\theta ^{[+]\{\}})^2(\theta ^{[+]\{+\}})^2(\theta ^{(++)})^2\theta ^{++\alpha }\tau _\alpha ^{[1,0,p4,0]}+\mathrm{}`$
$`+`$ $`(\theta ^{[+]\{\}})^2(\theta ^{[+]\{+\}})^2(\theta ^{(++)})^2(\theta ^{++})^2H^{[0,0,p4,0]}+\mathrm{}`$
$`+`$ derivative terms
Here we have shown only the leading term at each level and of each Lorentz structure. This is the term whose coefficient is the HWS of an $`SO(8)`$ irrep. The other terms of the same type contain different harmonic projections of the same component field. Further, instead of the charges we have directly indicated the corresponding Dynkin labels of each component field. Note that the level in the expansion also determines the conformal dimension of the components (given the fact that the dimension of the first component is $`p/2`$ and that of a $`\theta `$ is $`1/2`$).

We see that $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]})^p`$ is a short superfield (it depends on half of the odd variables) of the type (31), but not an ultrashort one, unlike the supersingleton itself (the case $`p=1`$). Still, for $`p=2,3`$ certain terms in the expansion (68) are absent if conditions (24) are not satisfied. In addition, for $`p=2`$ one finds conservation conditions for the fields of spins 2, 3/2 and 1, $`^{\alpha \beta }E_{(\alpha \beta \gamma \delta )}^{[0,0,0,0]}=^{\alpha \beta }\rho _{(\alpha \beta \gamma )}^{[1,0,0,0]}=^{\alpha \beta }B_{(\alpha \beta )}^{[0,1,0,0]}=0`$. This is most easily seen for the top spin 2 which is the only $`SO(8)`$ singlet in the expansion and hence its divergence cannot be matched by any other component.

The expansion (68) reproduces (up to triality) the content of the short multiplets of $`OSp(8/4,)`$ found in Refs. , .

Further short multiplets can be obtained by tensoring different analytic superfields describing the type I supersingleton. The point is that in Section 4 we chose a particular projection of the defining constraint (43) which lead to the analytic superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]}`$. In fact, we could have done this in a variety of ways, each time obtaining superfields depending on different halves of the total number of odd variables. If we decide to always leave out the lowest weight $`\theta ^{}`$ in the $`8_v`$ formed by the $`\theta `$’s, we can have four (as many as the rank of $`SO(8)`$) distinct but equivalent analytic descriptions of the type I supersingleton:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]}(\theta ^{++},\theta ^{(++)},\theta ^{[+]\{+\}},\theta ^{[+]\{\}}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[]}(\theta ^{++},\theta ^{(++)},\theta ^{[]\{+\}},\theta ^{[]\{\}}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{+()\{+\}}(\theta ^{++},\theta ^{()},\theta ^{[+]\{+\}},\theta ^{[]\{+\}}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{+()\{\}}(\theta ^{++},\theta ^{()},\theta ^{[+]\{\}},\theta ^{[]\{\}}).`$ (69)
Then we can tensor them in the following way:

$`(\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]})^{p+q+r+s}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[]})^{q+r+s}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{+()\{+\}})^{r+s}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{+()\{\}})^s`$
$`=\varphi ^{[r+2s,q,p,r]}+\mathrm{}`$
$`+\theta _{\alpha _1}^{[+]\{\}}\theta _{\alpha _2}^{[+]\{+\}}\theta _{\alpha _3}^{(++)}\theta _{\alpha _4}^{++}A^{[r+2s,q,p2,r](\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _4)}+\mathrm{}`$ (70)
$`+\theta _{\alpha _1}^{[+]\{\}}\theta _{\alpha _2}^{[+]\{+\}}\theta _{\alpha _3}^{(++)}\theta _{\alpha _4}^{++}\theta _{\alpha _5}^{[]\{+\}}\theta _{\alpha _6}^{[]\{\}}B^{[r+2s,q1,p,r](\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _6)}+\mathrm{}`$
$`+\theta _{\alpha _1}^{[+]\{\}}\theta _{\alpha _2}^{[+]\{+\}}\theta _{\alpha _3}^{(++)}\theta _{\alpha _4}^{++}\theta _{\alpha _5}^{[]\{+\}}\theta _{\alpha _6}^{[]\{\}}\theta _{\alpha _7}^{()}\chi ^{[r+2s1,q,p,r](\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _7)}+\mathrm{}`$
Here we have shown the first component which belongs to the $`SO(8)`$ UIR $`[r+2s,q,p,r]`$ and has conformal dimension $`\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{2}(p+2q+3r+4s)`$ (this follows from the fact that the basic supersingleton has dimension $`1/2`$). In (70) one can also see the top spin of each particular series: $`J_{top}=2`$ if $`q=r=s=0`$, $`J_{top}=3`$ if $`r=s=0`$ or $`J_{top}=7/2`$ if either $`r0`$ or $`s0`$. The dimension of the top spin is $`\mathrm{}[J_{top}]=\frac{1}{2}(p+2q+3r+4s)+J_{top}`$ (since each $`\theta `$ carries dimension $`1/2`$). Note the absence of a series with top spin $`J=5/2`$: the reason is that the tensor product of the different realizations (69) of the type I supersingleton can depend on 4, 6 or 7 $`\theta `$’s but not on 5.

The above result can be summarized as follows. By considering composite operators made out of type I supersingletons we have constructed the following series of $`OSp(8/4,)`$ UIR’s exhibiting $`1/8`$, $`1/4`$ or $`1/2`$ BPS shortening:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\text{ BPS:}`$ $`𝒟(d_1+d_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d_3+d_4),0;d_1,d_2,d_3,d_4),d_1d_4=2s0;`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\text{ BPS:}`$ $`𝒟(d_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d_3,0;0,d_2,d_3,0);`$ (71)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{ BPS:}`$ $`𝒟({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d_3,0;0,0,d_3,0).`$
We see that tensoring only one type of supersingletons cannot reproduce the general result of Section 2 for all possible short multiplets. Most notably, in (71) there is no 3/8 series. The latter can be obtained by mixing the two types of supersingletons:

$$[\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]}(\theta ^{++},\theta ^{(++)},\theta ^{[+]\{\pm \}})]^{p+q}[\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+(+)\{+\}}(\theta ^{++},\theta ^{(++)},\theta ^{[\pm ]\{+\}})]^q,$$
(72)
or the same with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ exchanged. Counting the charges and the dimension, we find exact matching with the series (35). Further, mixing two realizations of type I and one of type II supersingletons, we can construct the 1/4 series

$$[\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[+]}]^{m+k}[\mathrm{\Phi }^{+(+)[]}]^k[\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+(+)\{+\}}]^n$$
(73)
which corresponds to (38). Finally, the full 1/8 series (41) (i.e., without the restriction $`d_1d_4=2s`$ in (71)) can be obtained in a variety of ways.

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper we have analyzed all short highest weight UIR’s of the $`OSp(8/4,)`$ superalgebra whose HWS’s are annihilated by part of the super-Poincaré odd generators. In the field theory language, highest weight reps correspond to conformal quasi primary superfields. Short reps correspond to superfields which do not depend on some of the odd coordinates, a concept generalizing the notion of chiral superfields of $`N=1`$ 4d field theories. The number of distinct possibilities have been shown to correspond to different BPS conditions on the HWS. When the algebra is interpreted on the $`AdS_4`$ bulk, for which the 3d superconformal field theory corresponds to the boundary M-2 brane dynamics, these states appear as BPS massive excitations, such as K-K states or AdS black holes, of M-theory on $`AdS_4\times S^7`$. Since in M-theory there is only one type of supersingleton related to the M-2 brane transverse coordinates , according to our analysis massive states cannot be 3/8 BPS saturated, exactly as it happens in M-theory on $`M^4\times T^7`$. Indeed, the missing solution was also noticed in Ref.  by studying $`AdS_4`$ black holes in gauged $`N=8`$ supergravity. Curiously, in the ungauged theory, which is in some sense the flat limit of the former, the 3/8 BPS states are forbidden  by the underlying $`E_{7(7)}`$ symmetry of $`N=8`$ supergravity .

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank F. Delduc, M. Günaydin, L. Castellani, A. Sciarrino and P. Sorba for enlightening discussions. E.S. is grateful to the TH Division of CERN for its kind hospitality. The work of S.F. has been supported in part by the European Commission TMR programme ERBFMRX-CT96-0045 (Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, INFN) and by DOE grant DE-FG03-91ER40662, Task C.