text:
# Topological defects: fossils of an anisotropic era?

## I Introduction

It is well know that the ‘Hot Big Bang’ model , despite its numerous successes, is plagued by a number of ‘initial conditions’ problems, of which the horizon, flatness and unwanted relic ones are the best known. The standard way to solve them is to invoke an epoch of cosmological inflation , a relatively brief period of exponential (or quasi-exponential) cosmological expansion. The way inflation solves these problems is, loosely speaking, by erasing all traces of earlier epochs and re-setting the universe to a rather simple state. Indeed, inflation is so efficient in this task that a number of people have wondered if one can ever hope to probe the physics of a pre-inflationary epoch.

There are, however, a small number of possible pre-inflationary relics. For example, the recent work by Turok and collaborators  shows that curvature can, in some sense, survive inflation. Another class of inflationary survivors are topological defects , formed at phase transitions either before or during inflation ). It is known (see, e.g. ) that one needs about 20 e-foldings of inflation***The exact number is of course model-dependent. to solve the monopole problem. One can reverse the argument and say that monopoles can survive about 20 e-foldings of inflation. The inflationary epoch itself will obviously push the monopoles outside the horizon, but the subsequent evolution of the universe tends to make them come back inside, so if the inflationary epoch is not too long they can still have important cosmological consequences.

Cosmic strings are even more successful, being able to survive about 50 e-foldings. The reason for this difference is that their non-trivial dynamics  makes them come back inside the horizon faster than one might naively have expected. The above two numbers are typical, but there are specific models where defects can survive even longer. One example is that of open inflation scenarios . In this case the universe undergoes two different inflationary epochs—roughly speaking, a period of ‘old inflation’ followed by one of ‘new inflation’. As pointed out by Vilenkin , one can expect that defects will form between the two inflationary epochs. In this case, a collaboration  including the present authors has recently shown that not only will cosmic strings survive the entire second inflationary epoch, regardless of how long it lastsNote that in these models the duration of the second inflationary epoch is fixed by the present value of the density of the universe ., but they will in fact be back inside the horizon by the time of equal matter and radiation densities. In such models, monopoles can survive up to about 30 e-foldings.

Now, given that defects seem to be so successful surviving inflation, and that one expects them to be frozen out while they are outside the horizon, one can think of a further interesting possibility. For the best-studied case of cosmic strings, it is well known that the scaling properties of the network depend on the background cosmology . Moreover, in some cases (typically when their evolution is friction-dominated) they can retain a ‘memory’ of the initial conditions, or the general properties of the cosmology in which they find themselves at early times, for quite a large number of orders of magnitude in time . It is therefore conceivable that if such an imprint of an early cosmological epoch is retained by a defect network which manages to survive inflation, we might still be able to observe it today.

We believe that this is a general feature of defect models, and a number of non-trivial pieces of information about the very early universe can probably be preserved in this way. In the present paper we will restrict ourselves to a simple example. We will discuss the possibility of a domain wall network retaining information about an early anisotropic phase of the universe. There are very strong constraints  on the mass of domain walls formed after inflation, due to the fact that their density decays more slowly than the radiation and matter densities. However, these can be evaded by walls forming before or during inflation. In a subsequent paper, we will discuss the more interesting, but also more complicated, case of cosmic strings.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In section II we briefly describe our background (Bianchi I) cosmology and the basic evolutionary properties of the domain walls. In particular, we focus on the approach to isotropy during inflation, which is discussed through both analytic arguments and numerical simulations. We emphasise that these simulations do not include the defects. However, they serve an important purpose, as they are used in the subsequent discussion to show that the timescale needed for isotropization is compatible with the ‘survival’ on anisotropic defect networks.

We provide a description of our numerical simulations of domain wall evolution in section III. These are analogous to those of Press, Ryden & Spergel , and the interested reader is referred to this paper for a more detailed discussion of some relevant numerical issues. Here defect networks are evolved in an isotropic, matter-dominated (ie, post-inflationary universe), and their main purpose is to show that isotropic and anisotropic networks will evolve in different ways, so two such networks can in principle be observationally distinguished as they re-enter the horizon. Our main results are presented and discussed in section IV, and finally we present our conclusions and discuss future work in section V.

Throughout this paper we will use fundamental units in which $`c=1`$.

## II Evolution equations for domain walls

We consider the evolution of a network of domain walls in a k=0 anisotropic universe of Bianchi type I with line element :

$$ds^2=dt^2X^2(t)dx^2Y^2(t)dy^2Z^2(t)dz^2$$
(1)
where $`X(t)`$,$`Y(t)`$ and $`Z(t)`$ are the cosmological expansion factors in the $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`z`$ directions respectively, and $`t`$ is the physical time. The dynamics of a scalar filed $`\varphi `$ is determined by the Lagrangian density,

$$=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left(\frac{1}{2}\varphi _{,\alpha }\varphi ^{,\alpha }+V(\varphi )\right),$$
(2)
where we will take $`V(\varphi )`$ to be the generic $`\varphi ^4`$ potential with two degenerate minima given by

$$V(\varphi )=V_0\left(\frac{\varphi ^2}{\varphi _0^2}1\right)^2.$$
(3)
This obviously admits domain wall solutions . By varying the action

$$S=𝑑td^3x\sqrt{g},$$
(4)
with respect to $`\varphi `$ we obtain the field equation of motion:

$$\frac{^2\varphi }{t^2}+\theta \frac{\varphi }{t}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\varphi =\frac{V}{\varphi }.$$
(5)
where

$$_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{1}{X^2}\frac{^2}{x^2}+\frac{1}{Y^2}\frac{^2}{y^2}+\frac{1}{Z^2}\frac{^2}{z^2},$$
(6)
with $`\theta (t)=\dot{W}/W`$ and $`W(t)=XYZ`$. The dynamics of the universe is described by the Einstein field equations. Here we shall seek perfect fluid solutions. The time component of the Einstein equation then becomes

$$\dot{\theta }+A^2+B^2+C^2=\frac{1}{2}k(\rho +3p),$$
(7)
while the spatial components give

$$\dot{A}+\theta A=\dot{B}+\theta B=\dot{C}+\theta C=\frac{1}{2}k(\rho p),$$
(8)
with $`A=\dot{X}/X`$, $`B=\dot{Y}/Y`$ and $`C=\dot{Z}/Z`$, $`\theta =A+B+C`$ and $`k=8\pi G/c^2`$ and $`i=1,2,3`$. It is straightforward to combine equations (7,8) to obtain:

$$AB+BC+CA=k\rho .$$
(9)
In the following discussion we will make the simplification that $`X(t)=Z(t)`$ (and therefore $`A=C`$) and consider the dynamics of the universe during an inflationary phase with $`\rho =p=const`$. In this case $`H^2k\rho /3=const`$ and the Einstein field equations (7,8,9) imply:

$$\dot{A}+\frac{3}{2}(A^2H^2)=0,$$
(10)
while $`B`$ can be found from the suggestive relation

$$\frac{B}{A}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{3H^2}{A^2}1\right).$$
(11)
Equation (10) has two solutions, depending on the initial conditions. If $`A_i<H`$, then $`A`$ is the smaller of the two dimensions and the shape of spatial hyper-surfaces is similar to that of a rugby ball. Then the solution is

$$\frac{A}{H}=\mathrm{tanh}\left[\frac{3}{2}H(tt_i)+\mathrm{tanh}^1\left(\frac{A_i}{H}\right)\right],$$
(12)
with $`A_i=A(t_i)`$. On the other hand, if $`A_i>H`$, then $`A`$ is the larger of the dimensions and the shape of spatial hyper-surfaces is similar to that of a pumpkin. Then the solution is

$$\frac{A}{H}=\mathrm{coth}\left[\frac{3}{2}H(tt_i)+\mathrm{coth}^1\left(\frac{A_i}{H}\right)\right].$$
(13)
Note that in both cases the ratio $`A/H`$ tends to unity exponentially fast, and hence the same happens with the ratio $`B/A`$. In other words, inflation tends to make the universe more isotropic, as expected. An easy way to see this is to consider the ratio of the two different dimensions, $`D=B/A`$, and to study its evolution equation. One easily finds

$$\dot{D}=\sqrt{6}H\left(D+\frac{1}{2}\right)^{1/2}(1D),$$
(14)
which has an obvious attractor at $`D=1`$.

Note that even though we have so far assumed (for simplicity) that $`p=\rho `$, the same analysis can be carried out for an inflating universe with $`p=(\gamma 1)\rho `$ with $`\gamma 0`$ by numerically solving the conservation equation

$$\dot{\rho }+\theta (\rho +p)=0,$$
(15)
together with equations (8) and (9). Indeed, the more general case will be relevant for what follows.

In figure 1 we plot the evolution of the asymmetry parameter $`E=Y(t)/X(t)`$, according to eqns. (7) and (8), for several values of $`\alpha _i=\mathrm{log}_{10}(D_i)`$ assuming $`\gamma =0`$ and $`\gamma =2/3`$ (note that $`\gamma =2/3`$ is the maximum value of $`\gamma `$ which violates the strong energy condition). Note that we do not include the defect network in the simulation. (We assume that the network at the initial time $`t_i`$ is statistically isotropic.) We take $`X(t_i)=Y(t_i)`$. We can see that depending on the initial degree of anisotropy, specified by $`\alpha _i`$, the value of $`E`$ can grow to be very large, especially if $`\alpha _i`$ is large. Moreover, although for $`\gamma =0`$, the value of $`E`$ becomes approximately constant in one Hubble time that does not happen so rapidly for inflating universes with larger $`\gamma `$. This removes the necessity of producing the domain walls right at the onset of the inflationary era.

What about the evolution of the domain walls? Based on rather general grounds, we expect it to have a number of similarities with the much better studied case of cosmic strings . In particular, one can define a ‘characteristic length-scale’, which we shall denote by $`L`$, that can be roughly interpreted as a typical curvature radius or a correlation length of the wall network. It is also a length-scale that measures the total energy of the domain wall network per unit volume, since we can define

$$\rho \frac{\sigma }{L},$$
(16)
where $`\sigma `$ is the domain wall energy per unit area. Note that in a more rigorous treatment that allowed for the expected build-up of small-scale ‘wiggles’ on the walls (in analogy with what happens for the case of cosmic strings ) each of these three length scales would be different. However, for our present purposes it is adequate to suppose that they are all similar.

Then we can expect to find two different evolution regimes. While the network is non-relativistic, we expect it to be conformally stretched by the cosmological expansion, and hence

$$La,\rho _wa^1.$$
(17)
In this case there is essentially no dynamics. An extreme example of this regime happens during inflation We can see from eqn. (5) that due to the very rapid expansion which occurs in the inflationary regime the time derivatives of the field $`\varphi `$ rapidly approach zero so that the network of domain walls will simply be frozen in comoving coordinates.

On the other hand, once the network becomes relativistic, one expects it to evolve in a linear scaling regime where

$$Lt,\rho _wt^1.$$
(18)
This is the case of ‘maximal’ dynamics, in the sense that the network is evolving (in particular, losing energy by wall collisions and re-connections) as fast as allowed by causality. We note that previous work of Press, Ryder and Spergel  suggests that there may be logarithmic corrections to this linear regime.

## III Numerical simulations

At late times (after the inflationary epoch) the universe is homogeneous and isotropic with $`A=B=C`$ with the average dynamics of the universe being specified by the evolution of the scale-factor $`a(t)`$. We now consider the evolution of isotropic and anisotropic defect networks in this background. In particular, we are interested in determining how the networks evolve as they re-enter the horizon, since if one finds differences in the dynamics of the two cases then this should translate into observational tests that will allow us to discriminate between then and hence probe pre-inflationary physics.

It is useful for numerical purposes to re-write equation (5) as a function of the conformal time $`\eta `$ defined by $`d\eta =dt/a`$. In this case equation (5) becomes

$$\frac{^2\varphi }{\eta ^2}+2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\varphi }{\eta }^2\varphi =a^2\frac{V}{\varphi }.$$
(19)
with

$$^2=\frac{^2}{x^2}+\frac{^2}{y^2}+\frac{^2}{z^2}.$$
(20)
When making numerical simulations of the evolution of domain wall networks (or indeed other defects) it is also often convenient to modify the equation of motion for the scalar field $`\varphi `$ in such a way that the comoving thickness of the walls is fixed in comoving coordinates. This is known as the PRS algorithm , and it is generally believed not to significantly affect the large-scale dynamics of domain walls.

We note, however, that recent high-resolution simulations  have revealed that the accuracy of this algorithm is not as good as has been claimed. This effect is expected to increase with increasing dynamic range. In particular, the PRS algorithm artificially prevents the build-up of small-scale features on the domain walls (or, for that matter, any other defect). This turns out to be crucial for a quantitatively accurate description of their evolution, and hence for a reliable analysis of their observational consequences. For our purposes in the present work, however, the PRS algorithm is enough as an approximation to the true wall dynamics. In a subsequent, more detailed publication we shall compare results obtained using this algorithm with those from the true wall dynamics.

Having clarified this point, we will modify the evolution equation for the scalar field $`\varphi `$ in the isotropic phase according to the PRS prescription:

$$\frac{^2\varphi }{\eta ^2}+\beta _1\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\varphi }{\eta }^2\varphi =a^{\beta _2}\frac{V}{\varphi }.$$
(21)
where $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$ are constants. We choose $`\beta _2=0`$ in order for the walls to have constant comoving thickness and $`\beta _1=3`$ by requiring that the momentum conservation law for how a wall slows down in an expanding universe is maintained .

We perform two-dimensional simulations of domain wall evolution for which $`^2\varphi /z^2=0`$. These have the advantage of allowing a larger dynamic range and better resolution than tree-dimensional simulations.

We solve equation (21) numerically assuming a matter-dominated Einstein-de-Sitter cosmology with $`a\eta ^2`$. We used a standard difference scheme second-order accurate in space and time and periodic boundary conditions (see  for a more detailed description of the algorithm and other related numerical issues).

The initial properties of the network of domain walls depend strongly on the details of the phase transition which originated them. It is conceivable that the initial network is already formed asymmetric with the walls being elongated along preferred directions. However, this is beyond the scope of the present paper. For our present purposes, we can ignore this possibility and assume that the initial domain wall network is statistically isotropic. This assumption will not modify the conclusions of the paper—if anything, any ab initio anisotropies would only enhance the effects we are describing.

Hence, we assume the initial value of $`\varphi `$ to be a random variable between $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\varphi _0`$ and the initial value of $`\dot{\varphi }`$ to be equal to zero everywhere. We normalise the numerical simulations so that $`\varphi _0=1`$. We set the conformal time at the start of the simulation and the comoving spacing between the mesh points to be respectively $`\eta _i=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=1`$.

The wall thickness, defined by

$$\omega _0=\frac{\pi \varphi _0}{\sqrt{2V_0}}$$
(22)
is set to be equal to $`5`$. The kinetic energy of the field $`\varphi `$ is calculated by

$$E_{kin}=\frac{1}{8\pi }\underset{i,j}{}\dot{\varphi }_{i,j}.$$
(23)
On the other hand, the rest energy of the walls is calculated by multiplying the comoving area of the walls, A, by the energy density per comoving area, which can be written as

$$\sigma =\frac{2\gamma _wV_0\omega _0}{3\pi ^2}.$$
(24)
with $`\gamma _w=(1v_w^2)^{1/2}`$, and $`v_w`$ is the value of the physical velocity of the domain walls. Finally the total area of the walls is defined as the area of the surfaces on which $`\varphi =0`$ and is computed using the method described in ref. .

## IV Results and discussion

As pointed out above, it will be of fundamental importance to study the dynamics of the wall network at late times, as the Hubble length becomes larger than the typical size of the major axis of a domain wall. A crucial issue will be the timescale required for the wall network to switch from the non-relativistic regime to the relativistic one. For our present purposes, the main difference between these two regimes is that a friction-dominated network can remain anisotropic if it froze out that way, whereas a relativistic network will rapidly become isotropic and erase any imprints from the earlier anisotropic phase. In our simulations we ignore the possibility that the network can be friction dominated due to particle scattering  when the domain walls come back inside the horizon—again, this would only enhance the effects we are describing.

We consider three simulations with different initial conditions. In the first one (case I) we evolve the initial network generated in the manner specified in the previous section from the conformal time $`\eta _i=1`$. In the second one (case II) the initial conditions at the time $`\eta _i=1`$ were specified by the network configuration of the previous simulation at the conformal time $`\eta _{}=20`$, with the velocities reset to zero. Physically, this corresponds to starting with the network outside the horizon. Finally, the case III is similar to the second one but with the initial network of case II stretched in the $`y`$ direction by a factor of $`E=2`$ (see fig. 2), and corresponds to the anisotropic case. We have performed $`1024^2`$ simulations for each of the three cases, plus an additional $`2048^2`$ run of case I, in order to test for possible box effects.

For each run we plot (see fig. 3) the ratios $`A/V`$ and $`A\eta /V`$ (note that $`A`$ and $`V`$ are the comoving area and volume, respectively), as well as the ratio of the kinetic and rest energies, as in Press, Ryden and Spergel . These are plotted from the beginning of the simulation until the time when the horizon becomes one half (for the $`1024^2`$ runs) or one quarter (for the $`2048^2`$ run) of the box size. In addition to these (which we plot mainly for the purposes of comparison with previous work ) we plot a ‘scaling coefficient’ which will be our main analysis tool. We will define it by analogy with the cosmic string case , as follows. Assume that

$$\eta \frac{A}{V}\eta ^\lambda ;$$
(25)
then what we plot is the ‘instantaneous’ or ‘effective’ value of $`\lambda `$ as a function of conformal time. For a given $`\lambda `$, the physical network correlation $`L`$ length will be evolving as

$$Lt^{1\lambda /3},\frac{L}{a}\eta ^{1\lambda }.$$
(26)
Note that $`\lambda `$ can, in general, be a time-dependent quantity. However, for the two scaling regimes discussed above, we expect it to be a constant, namely

$$\lambda _{nr}=1$$
(27)
in the non-relativistic limit where the network is being conformally stretched, and

$$\lambda _r=0$$
(28)
in the linear scaling regime.

From these it is trivial to deduce the behaviour of $`A/V`$ and $`A\eta /V`$ in both scaling regime. One expects

$$\eta \frac{A}{V}\eta \frac{A}{V}const.$$
(29)
in the non-relativistc regime and

$$\eta \frac{A}{V}const\frac{A}{V}\eta ^1$$
(30)
in the linear scaling regime. Similarly, the ratio $`E_k/E_{rest}`$ should be a constant in the linear scaling regime (with its numerical value providing a measure of the characteristic network scaling speed), and it should approach zero in the non-relativistic limit.

Firstly, we note that the two case I runs produce very similar results: significant differences can only be seen at late times. This is an indication that the resolution we are using is adequate for our present purposes. As expected, the network in case I becomes relativistic very quickly, while those of cases II and III start in the extreme non-relativistic regime and only evolve away from it fairly slowly, after they re-enter the horizon.

More importantly, there are two non-trivial observations to be made. Firstly, we confirm that there is a correction to the linear scaling regime. We find

$$\lambda _{sc}0.12,$$
(31)
which corresponds to to evolve in a linear scaling regime where

$$Lt^{0.96},\rho _wt^{0.96},$$
(32)
in agreement with the previous result by Press, Ryden and Spergel . This means that the network is not straightening out as fast as allowed by causality. Secondly, the rates at which the networks in cases II and III approach the relativistic regime are different. One might expect this on physical grounds: if the network is stretched in one direction, then there are in fact different ‘network correlation lengths’ for each direction, and interactions between the domain walls will tend to occur faster along the directions with smaller correlation lengths, and more slowly in the others.

Another way of saying this is that the network will only start evolving towards the relativistic regime when its larger axis has re-entered the horizon. Note that this mechanism also tends to make the domain wall network more isotropic. So one can naively say that the approach to the linear scaling regime takes longer in an anisotropic universe because the dynamics of the walls must accomplish two tasks (make the wall network relativistic and isotropic) rather than just one.

## V Conclusion

In this paper we have discussed a simple example of what we believe to be a rather generic feature of topological defect models, namely that they can easily retain information about the properties of the very early universe. This information is encoded in the scaling (ie, ‘macroscopic’) and statistical (ie, ‘microscopic’) properties of the defect networks. This is even more relevant given the fact that defects can survive significant amounts of inflation. Hence, they can provide a unique probe of the pre-inflationary universe. The two crucial scales in the problem are the defect mass scale and the epoch when the defects come back inside the horizon.

Specifically, we have discussed the role of domain walls. We have highlighted the existence of two scaling regimes for the domain wall network, in agreement with previous work . Furthermore, we have shown that an anisotropic network re-entering the horizon will take longer to approach scaling than an isotropic one. Hence, if the very early universe had an anisotropic phase which was erased by an inflationary epoch, and if domain walls are present, then the walls can retain an imprint of the earlier phase, and this can have important observational consequences, eg for structure formation scenarios.

As is well known, there are quite strong constraints  on the mass of domain walls formed after inflation. These are basically due to the fact that their density will decay more slowly than the radiation and matter densities. However, essentially all of these can be evaded (or at least significantly relaxed) by walls forming before or during inflation (and also by walls evolving in a friction-dominated regime). Having said this, how could these anisotropies be detected? The most naive answer would be through their imprint on CMB, but this is only true if their energy density is not too low, and such models are constrained in a variety of other ways (not only from the cosmology side, but also from the high-energy physics side). The case of ‘light’ walls is therefore more interesting: note that just like in the case of ‘light strings’ , these are expected to be friction-dominated throughout most of the cosmic history. Here the observational detection of the effects we have described becomes somewhat non-trivial. The best way of doing it should be through observations of numbers of objects as a function of redshift in different directions (assuming that one has a reliable understanding of other possible evolutionary effects). Two specific examples would be large-scale velocity flows  and gravitational lensing statistics of extragalactic surveys .

Finally, there is also an important implication of our work if at least one of the minima of the scalar field potential has a non-zero energy density, which is an anisotropic non-zero vacuum density. In a subsequent, more detailed publication, we shall discuss this scenario in more detail, as well as the analogous one for cosmic strings.

To conclude, we have shown that the importance of topological defects as a probe of cosmological physics goes well beyond structure formation. Even if defects turn out to be unimportant for structure formation they can still (if detected) provide us with extremely valuable information about the physical conditions of the very early universe.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Paulo Carvalho for enlightening discussions. C.M. is funded by JNICT (Portugal) under ‘Programa PRAXIS XXI’ (grant no. PRAXIS XXI/BPD/11769/97).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

An important set of classically integrable field theories in 1+1 dimensions is provided by non-linear sigma-models with target manifold a symmetric space $`G/H`$. These have been studied for many years, particularly in connection with a one-parameter ‘dual symmetry’ which allows the construction of both local and non-local conserved quantities. Little is known about the local charges arising from this approach, however, with comparatively few examples which can be written in closed form. A comprehensive discussion, with many references, can be found in . Examples of more recent work involving various models based on symmetric spaces are .

Principal chiral models (PCMs) can be regarded as special cases of symmetric space models (SSMs), with target manifold a Lie group $`G`$. In , it was shown that other well-known local conservation laws in the PCMs, apparently different from those arising from dual symmetry, exhibit striking and hitherto unexpected properties. In particular, it was possible to construct mutually-commuting sets of charges with a characteristic pattern of spins given by the exponents of each classical group $`G`$ modulo its Coxeter number. The same pattern of spins arises in affine Toda field theories, and proves central to understanding a number of their most important properties .

In this note we will show that results similar to those of  can be obtained for any sigma-model based on a symmetric space $`G/H`$ with $`G`$ a classical group. Specifically, we will consider local conserved currents which can be written in a simple, closed form, and which lead to commuting sets of charges whose spins are related to the underlying symmetric space data. We begin by formulating the field theory and the relevant conservation laws.

Let $`g(x^\mu )`$ be a field on two-dimensional Minkowski space taking values in some compact Lie group $`G`$, with Lie algebra $`𝐠`$. Let $`HG`$ be some subgroup and $`𝐡𝐠`$ the corresponding Lie subalgebra. To formulate the sigma-model with target space $`G/H`$, we introduce a gauge field $`A_\mu `$ in $`𝐡`$ and define a covariant derivative

$$D_\mu g=_\mu ggA_\mu $$
(1.1)
with the property that

$$ggh,A_\mu h^1A_\mu h+h^1_\mu hD_\mu g(D_\mu g)h$$
(1.2)
for any function $`h(x^\mu )`$. It is also useful to introduce the $`𝐠`$-valued currents

$$j_\mu =g^1_\mu g,J_\mu =g^1D_\mu g=j_\mu A_\mu .$$
(1.3)
The latter current is covariant under gauge transformations, with

$$J_\mu h^1J_\mu h.$$
(1.4)
The $`G/H`$ sigma-model is defined by the lagrangian

$$=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}(J^\mu J_\mu )=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}(g^1D^\mu gg^1D_\mu g)$$
(1.5)
which has a global $`G`$ symmetry (acting from the left on $`g`$) and the local $`H`$ symmetry discussed above. The equation of motion for the field $`g`$ is

$$D_\mu J^\mu =_\mu J^\mu +[A_\mu ,J^\mu ]=0.$$
(1.6)
By combining this with the identity $`_\mu j_\nu _\nu j_\mu +[j_\mu ,j_\nu ]=0`$ we obtain

$$2_{}J_++2[A_{},J_+]=[J_+,J_{}]+F_+$$
(1.7)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu +[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$, and we have made use of light-cone coordinates, $`V_\pm =V_0\pm V_1`$. The equations of motion for the $`A_\mu `$ fields are

$$J_\mu =0\mathrm{on}𝐡.$$
(1.8)
Everything we have said so far applies to an arbitrary homogeneous space $`G/H`$. The special nature of symmetric spaces emerges when we look for conserved quantities. It is helpful to recall what happens for the PCM based on $`G`$, which can be obtained by specializing the analysis above to the case in which $`H`$ is trivial, setting $`A_\mu =0`$, and hence $`J_\mu =j_\mu `$. The equation of motion then becomes $`_{}j_+=\frac{1}{2}[j_+,j_{}]`$ which implies conservation equations such as $`_{}\mathrm{Tr}(j_+^m)=0`$. For a general, non-trivial gauge group $`H`$, the additional term $`F_+`$ in (1.7) prevents one from carrying out a similar construction in any obvious way. But for $`G/H`$ a symmetric space there is an orthogonal decomposition of the Lie algebra, and a compatible $`𝐙_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ grading of the Lie bracket,

$$𝐠=𝐡+𝐤:[𝐡,𝐡]𝐡,[𝐡,𝐤]𝐤,[𝐤,𝐤]𝐡.$$
(1.9)
Since the $`A_\mu `$ equations of motion force $`J_\mu `$ to take values in $`𝐤`$, this grading then implies that the left- and right-hand sides of (1.7) must vanish separately:

$$_{}J_+=[A_{},J_+]\mathrm{in}𝐤,[J_+,J_{}]=F_+\mathrm{in}𝐡.$$
(1.10)
The first of these conditions allows the construction of conservation laws very similar to those of the PCM, e.g. $`_{}\mathrm{Tr}(J_+^m)=0`$. A conserved current of this type can be written down using any symmetric invariant tensor, and we now discuss the possibilities.

## 2 Currents and invariants on $`G/H`$

Let us introduce a basis of anti-hermitian generators $`\{t^a\}`$ for $`𝐠`$, obeying $`[t^a,t^b]=f^{abc}t^c`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}(t^at^b)=\delta ^{ab}`$. Since $`𝐠`$ is compact, we need not distinguish upper and lower Lie algebra indices, and the structure constants $`f^{abc}`$ are real and totally antisymmetric. We can assume our basis is chosen so that it splits $`a(\widehat{\alpha },\alpha )`$, with the subsets $`\{t^{\widehat{\alpha }}\}`$ and $`\{t^\alpha \}`$ providing bases for $`𝐡`$ and $`𝐤`$ respectively in the decomposition in (1.9). The currents of the $`G/H`$ SSM model can now be written $`j_\mu ^a`$, while the non-trivial components of the gauge fields are $`A_\mu ^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$. The symmetric space condition, or $`𝐙_2`$ grading, means that the non-vanishing structure constants are $`f_{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }\widehat{\gamma }}`$, and $`f_{\widehat{\alpha }\beta \gamma }`$, up to permutations of indices.

Consider some totally symmetric tensor $`d_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m}^{(m)}`$ of degree $`m`$ on $`𝐠`$ (we use ‘degree’ rather than ‘rank’ to avoid confusion with the rank of the algebra; we shall not always indicate the degree explicitly). By virtue of its symmetry, this tensor is completely determined by the associated function $`d(X)d_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m}X^{a_1}\mathrm{}X^{a_m}`$ where $`X=X^at^a`$ is an arbitrary element of the Lie algebra. If $`\tau `$ is any map from $`𝐠`$ to itself, then we define a new tensor $`\tau (d)`$ by $`\tau (d)(X)=d(\tau (X))`$. We shall call $`d`$ a $`G`$-invariant tensor, or simply an invariant tensor on $`𝐠`$, if $`d=\tau (d)`$ whenever $`\tau `$ is an inner automorphism of $`𝐠`$, so that $`\tau (X)=gXg^1`$ for some $`g`$ in $`G`$. This is equivalent to the condition

$$d_{c(a_1\mathrm{}a_{m1}}^{(m)}f_{a)bc}^{}=0.$$

Similar definitions apply in an obvious way to subgroups of $`G`$ acting on subspaces of $`𝐠`$.

A conserved charge of spin $`s`$ in the PCM based on $`G`$ can be constructed from each symmetric invariant tensor $`d_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_sa_{s+1}}^{(s+1)}`$ . A related conservation law in the $`G/H`$ SSM arises by restricting such a tensor to $`𝐤`$, thus considering just the components $`d_{\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _s\alpha _{s+1}}^{(s+1)}`$. The invariance condition written above means that the restricted tensor obeys

$$d_{\gamma (\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _s}^{(s+1)}f_{\alpha )\widehat{\beta }\gamma }=0.$$
(2.1)
It is easy to check directly that this implies

$$_{}(d_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{s+1}}J_+^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}J_+^{\alpha _{s+1}})=0$$
(2.2)
on using the equation of motion in (1.10). From this current we obtain a conserved charge of spin $`s`$ in the usual way:

$$q_s=𝑑xd_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{s+1}}J_+^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}J_+^{\alpha _{s+1}}.$$
(2.3)
Similar conserved charges can be constructed from $`J_{}^\alpha `$; their properties are directly analogous and we will not discuss them further.

It is important to check that the tensor $`d^{(s+1)}`$ does not vanish when restricted to $`𝐤`$ in order to have a non-trivial conserved quantity in the SSM. We shall return to this point in section 6. It is also clear that (2.1) and (2.2) rely only on the fact that the tensor is $`H`$-invariant on $`𝐤`$. It is not obvious, a priori, that any such tensor should arise as the restriction of some $`G`$-invariant tensor on $`𝐠`$, but this emerges from the analysis below. These and other matters can be understood in terms of the special role played by primitive invariants.

For each Lie algebra $`𝐠`$ there are exactly $`\mathrm{rank}(G)`$ primitive symmetric invariants, with the property that all others can be written as polynomial functions of them (see e.g. ). This happens essentially because any element in $`𝐠`$ is conjugate to some element in a fixed Cartan subalgebra (CSA), and so any invariant tensor is determined by its values on the $`\mathrm{rank}(G)`$ independent basis elements of this CSA. The degrees of the primitive invariant tensors for each classical group $`G`$ are given in the table, in terms of the exponents, $`s`$.

One convenient choice for the primitive invariants consists of symmetric traces, with $`d(X)=\mathrm{Tr}(X^m)`$ (of the appropriate degrees), together with the Pfaffian invariant $`d(X)=\mathrm{Pf}(X)ϵ_{i_1j_1\mathrm{}i_nj_n}X_{i_1j_1}\mathrm{}X_{i_nj_n}`$ for the special case of $`SO(2n)`$. Other choices are possible, and will be important later. However, any choices of the primitive invariants differ only by terms which are products of polynomials of lower degrees.

We need to determine how these facts generalize from a group $`G`$ to a symmetric space $`G/H`$. One can define a CSA for $`G/H`$ as a maximal set of mutually commuting generators in $`𝐤`$, and $`\mathrm{rank}(G/H)`$ is then the number of elements in such a set. It can also be shown that any element of $`𝐤`$ is conjugate, by an element of $`H`$, to a member of some chosen CSA . This means that, just as for groups, any invariant is determined by its values on the CSA, and there are precisely $`\mathrm{rank}(G/H)`$ primitive invariants, in terms of which all others can be expressed.

The degrees of the primitive invariants for each symmetric space $`G/H`$ with $`G`$ classical are given by the data in the table. Each primitive $`H`$-invariant tensor is obtained by restricting a primitive $`G`$-invariant tensor on $`𝐠`$ to the subspace $`𝐤`$. Other invariants which are primitive on $`𝐠`$ may vanish when restricted to $`𝐤`$, or else fail to be primitive on $`𝐤`$ in some more complicated fashion. For our purposes we may take the values $`s`$ given in the table as a definition of the exponents of $`G/H`$. The Pfaffian in $`SO(2n)`$ appears as something of a special case, lying outside the regular sequence formed by the other invariants. Because of this, we have chosen to separate the values of $`s`$ corresponding to the Pfaffian, or its restriction, by a semi-colon.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}G/H\text{symmetric space}& \text{rank}(G/H)& s:d^{(s+1)}\text{primitive}& h\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ SU(n)& n1& 1,2,\mathrm{},n1& n\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ SO(2n+1)& n& 1,3,\mathrm{},2n1& 2n\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ SO(2n)& n& 1,3,\mathrm{},2n3;n1& 2n2\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ Sp(2n)& n& 1,3,\mathrm{},2n1& 2n\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ SU(p+q)/S(U(p)\times U(q))(pq)& p& 1,3,\mathrm{},2p1& 2p\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ SO(p+q)/SO(p)\times SO(q)(p<q)& p& 1,3,\mathrm{},2p1& 2p\\ & & & \\ SO(2n)/SO(n)\times SO(n)& n& 1,3,\mathrm{},2n3;n1& 2n2\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ Sp(2p+2q)/Sp(2p)\times Sp(2q)(pq)& p& 1,3,\mathrm{},2p1& 2p\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ SU(n)/SO(n)& n1& 1,2,\mathrm{},n1& n\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ Sp(2n)/U(n)& n& 1,3,\mathrm{},2n1& 2n\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ SO(2n)/U(n)& [n/2]& 1,3,\mathrm{},2[n/2]1& 2[n/2]\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ SU(2n)/Sp(2n)& n1& 1,2,\mathrm{},n1& n\\ & & & \\ & & & \end{array}$$

We obtained the results in the table by making use of convenient canonical forms for the CSA generators in $`G/H`$. In view of the remarks above, it is the set of eigenvalues of the CSA generators, and how they behave under $`H`$, which determines the allowed invariants, and which of them are primitive. By comparing with the well-known data for classical groups, it is not difficult to arrive at the results for symmetric spaces. The method is best illustrated by some examples, but a fuller explanation of this sort requires some additional technical preparation, and so we consign these details to a separate section below. Our main task—understanding the conserved charges in the $`G/H`$ sigma-model—will then be resumed in section 4.

## 3 Some details and examples

Recall that the CSA of each classical Lie algebra can be parameterized by a set of real ‘eigenvalues’ $`\lambda _i`$ as follows

$`su(n):`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(i\lambda _1,\mathrm{},i\lambda _n)\mathrm{with}\lambda _1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _n=0`$
$`so(2n):`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& \lambda _1\\ \lambda _1& 0\end{array}\right],\mathrm{},\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& \lambda _n\\ \lambda _n& 0\end{array}\right])`$
$`so(2n+1):`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& \lambda _1\\ \lambda _1& 0\end{array}\right],\mathrm{},\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& \lambda _n\\ \lambda _n& 0\end{array}\right],\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$
$`sp(2n):`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(i\lambda _1,\mathrm{},i\lambda _n,i\lambda _1,\mathrm{},i\lambda _n)`$
where we have used an obvious block notation for the orthogonal algebras. The function $`d(X)`$ defined by a symmetric invariant tensor $`d`$ on $`𝐠`$ is some polynomial in the eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$. This polynomial must be totally symmetric, because in all cases a member of the CSA of $`𝐠`$ can be conjugated by specific elements of $`G`$ so as to permute the eigenvalues in any desired way. (To show this it actually suffices to use the simple result $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ 0& b\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}b& 0\\ 0& a\end{array}\right)`$ in appropriate block forms.)

Now, for $`𝐠=su(n)`$ there are invariant tensors corresponding to all symmetric polynomials in the eigenvalues, except for $`\lambda _1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _n=0`$. The symmetrized traces mentioned earlier clearly give rise to the power sums $`_i\lambda _i^m`$, and a basis of primitive invariants corresponds to the finite subset with $`m=s+1`$ and $`s`$ an exponent. On the other hand, for $`so(2n+1)`$ and $`sp(2n)`$, only polynomials in even powers of $`\lambda _i`$ are allowed, since the sign of any eigenvalue can be reversed by conjugating with a suitable element of $`G`$. For example, conjugating a CSA element of $`𝐠=so(2n+1)`$ with $`\mathrm{diag}(1,1,0,\mathrm{},0,1)`$ (which certainly belongs of $`G=SO(2n+1)`$) changes the sign of $`\lambda _1`$. For $`𝐠=so(2n)`$ it is also possible to reverse the signs of eigenvalues, but only in pairs. For instance, we can conjugate by $`\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ which reverses the signs of $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$, but we cannot conjugate by any element of $`G=SO(2n)`$ and change the sign of just one eigenvalue. In addition to the even symmetric powers, these symmetry properties allow precisely one more independent invariant, which is the Pfaffian, proportional to $`\lambda _1\mathrm{}\lambda _n`$.

In this manner the allowed invariants and primitive invariants for each Lie algebra are characterized as certain totally symmetric polynomials in the CSA eigenvalues. Moreover, we can distinguish three classes of polynomials, depending on their additional symmetry properties: A-type, like $`su(n)`$—no additional symmetries; B/C-type, like $`so(2n+1)`$ or $`sp(2n)`$—invariant under reversal of sign of each eigenvalue separately; D-type, like $`so(2n)`$—invariant under reversal of signs of pairs of eigenvalues.333 These symmetry operations on the CSA eigenvalues are usually presented as actions of the Weyl group.

The results for each symmetric space $`G/H`$ can now be found by the following steps. First, find a convenient parameterization of $`𝐤`$ and its CSA, as in e.g. ; $`H`$-invariant tensors on $`𝐤`$ are polynomials in the ‘eigenvalues’ of the CSA generators. Next, examine the action (via conjugation) of specific elements of $`H`$ on these eigenvalues, and so determine that the polynomials have symmetry type A, B/C, or D using the terminology introduced above. Finally, check that all primitive invariants of this type indeed arise as restrictions of $`G`$-invariant tensors on $`𝐠`$, e.g. by considering traces or symmetric powers. We now sketch how this works for some examples; the remaining cases in the table can be handled similarly.

The Grassmannians $`SO(p+q)/SO(p)\times SO(q)`$ and $`SU(p+q)/S(U(p)\times U(q))`$ are conveniently treated together. For either family the subgroup $`HG`$ has the block structure $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}P& 0\\ 0& Q\end{array}\right)`$ and $`𝐤`$ consists of matrices $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& X\\ X^{}& 0\end{array}\right)`$ where $`P`$ is $`(p\times p)`$, $`Q`$ is $`(q\times q)`$, and $`X`$ is $`(p\times q)`$ with real or complex entries. For both the real and complex families, the CSA can be parameterized by

$$X=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}\lambda _1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \lambda _2& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \lambda _p& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right)$$

with real ‘eigenvalues’ $`\lambda _i`$ (we assume $`pq`$). Notice that the effect on $`𝐤`$ of conjugating by a general element of $`H`$ is $`XPXQ^1`$. One can readily choose $`P`$ and $`Q`$ so as to permute the CSA eigenvalues in any desired way.

When $`p<q`$, it also easy to find elements of $`H`$ which change the sign of any given eigenvalue, just as in the previous discussion of $`so(2n+1)`$. This implies that the invariant polynomials are of B/C-type. They arise as restrictions of symmetric traces on $`𝐠`$, and in fact they can be written $`\mathrm{Tr}(XX^{}\mathrm{}XX^{})`$, which is manifestly invariant under $`H`$. When $`p=q`$, a new feature arises for the real Grassmannians: just as for the Lie algebra $`so(2p)`$, it is now only possible to change the signs of eigenvalues in pairs, so the pattern of invariants is type D. An additional primitive invariant on $`𝐤`$ arises as the restriction of the Pfaffian on $`𝐠=so(2p)`$, and it can be written $`ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_p}ϵ_{j_1\mathrm{}j_p}X_{i_1j_1}\mathrm{}X_{i_pj_p}`$. Note that under the action of $`H`$ this expression changes by a factor $`\mathrm{det}(P)\mathrm{det}(Q^1)`$ which is indeed unity for these examples. For the complex Grassmannians, however, the invariants are still of type B/C, even when $`p=q`$. This is because there are elements in $`H`$ such as $`P=Q^1=\mathrm{diag}(i,1,\mathrm{},1)`$ which change the sign of a single eigenvalue, in this case $`\lambda _1`$. Consistent with this, such elements have $`\mathrm{det}(P)\mathrm{det}(Q^1)1`$.

The next example is $`G/H=SU(n)/SO(n)`$. The subspace $`𝐡`$ consists of real, antisymmetric matrices, while $`𝐤`$ consists of imaginary, symmetric, traceless matrices, and its natural CSA coincides with the standard choice for $`su(n)`$. Invariance under $`H=SO(n)`$ means precisely that the eigenvalues can be permuted in any desired way. The set of invariants is of type A, the same as those for $`𝐠=su(n)`$, and they clearly descend from these by restriction to $`𝐤`$.

Finally, consider $`G/H=SU(2n)/Sp(2n)`$. We can choose the subspaces $`𝐡`$ and $`𝐤`$ to consist of matrices with the block forms $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ B^{}& A^{}\end{array}\right)`$ and $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}C& D\\ D^{}& C^{}\end{array}\right)`$ respectively, where $`A`$ lives in $`u(n)`$, $`B`$ is complex and symmetric, $`C`$ lives in $`su(n)`$, and $`D`$ is complex and antisymmetric. The CSA elements are $`X=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Y& 0\\ 0& Y\end{array}\right)`$ where $`Y`$ is any generator in the standard CSA of $`su(n)`$. The set of primitive invariants is once again A-type, matching those of $`su(n)`$. Unlike in the previous example, however, they arise here as restrictions of tensors on $`𝐠=su(2n)`$.

## 4 Poisson brackets of currents and charges

Returning now to our treatment of the $`G/H`$ sigma-model, we are interested in the classical Poisson brackets (PBs) of the currents $`j_\mu ^a`$ and $`J_\mu ^a`$. A convenient way to calculate these directly, without first finding PBs for the underlying fields $`g`$, is to use the approach of , which is easily adapted to the present situation. We take $`j_1^a`$ as an independent canonical coordinate and view $`j_0^a`$ as a non-local function of it by means of the identity $`_0j_1_1j_0+[j_0,j_1]=0`$, which implies

$$j_0=𝒟^1(_0j_1)\mathrm{where}𝒟X_1X+[j_1,X].$$
(4.1)
(We must assume appropriate boundary conditions on the fields, to allow the definition and manipulation of inverse differential operators.) In addition, the field $`A_1^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ can be eliminated from the lagrangian immediately by its equation of motion, $`J_1^{\widehat{\alpha }}=j_1^{\widehat{\alpha }}A_1^{\widehat{\alpha }}=0`$. On making these replacements, the lagrangian becomes

$$=\frac{1}{2}(𝒟^1_0j_1A_0)^a(𝒟^1_0j_1A_0)^a\frac{1}{2}j_1^\alpha j_1^\alpha .$$
(4.2)
The momentum conjugate to $`j_1^a`$ is

$$\pi ^a=(𝒟^2_0j_1𝒟^1A_0)^a$$
(4.3)
and we impose canonical, equal-time PBs

$$\{j_1^a(x),\pi ^b(y)\}=\delta ^{ab}\delta (xy).$$
(4.4)
The resulting Hamiltonian density is

$$=\frac{1}{2}J_0^aJ_0^a+A_0^{\widehat{\alpha }}J_0^{\widehat{\alpha }}+\frac{1}{2}j_1^\alpha j_1^\alpha $$
(4.5)
where

$$J_0^a=𝒟\pi ^a.$$
(4.6)
The remaining, time-like component of the gauge field $`A_0^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ acts as a Lagrange multiplier, imposing the constraint

$$J_0^{\widehat{\alpha }}0.$$
(4.7)
(We have taken a well-known short-cut by applying Dirac’s procedure  without introducing momenta conjugate to the gauge fields, which play the role of Lagrange multipliers.)

To summarize: the independent canonical variables are $`j_1^a`$ and $`\pi ^a`$, obeying (4.4). In terms of these, $`j_0^a`$ is defined by (4.1); $`J_1^{\widehat{\alpha }}=0`$; $`J_1^\alpha =j_1^\alpha `$; and $`J_0^a`$ is defined by (4.6). The system is governed by the Hamiltonian density in (4.5), together with the constraint (4.7). From (4.4) it is straightforward to calculate the equal time PBs

$`\{J_0^a(x),J_0^b(y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`f^{abc}J_0^c(x)\delta (xy)`$
$`\{J_0^a(x),j_1^b(y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`f^{abc}j_1^c(x)\delta (xy)+\delta ^{ab}\delta ^{}(xy)`$ (4.8)
$`\{j_1^a(x),j_1^b(y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
which are the objects of central importance for us. The first of these implies that the constraints (4.7) are first-class, corresponding to the original $`H`$ gauge invariance. (They are analogous to the Gauss Law constraint arising in canonical treatments of electromagnetism.) It is also a simple consequence of (4.8) that the constraints weakly commute with the Hamiltonian, so they are preserved in time, and the canonical formulation has therefore been completed in a consistent fashion.

Let us now consider the canonical brackets of two conserved charges of type (2.3). We need not concern ourselves with gauge fixing the remaining constraints (4.7), because each current (2.2) commutes with them (each current is invariant under $`H`$-gauge transformations) and so the Dirac bracket of two conserved charges, obtained after imposing some gauge choice, is always identical to their Poisson bracket

$$\{q_s,q_r\}=\{𝑑xd_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{s+1}}^{(s+1)}J_+^{\alpha _1}(x)\mathrm{}J_+^{\alpha _{s+1}}(x),𝑑yd_{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _{r+1}}^{(r+1)}J_+^{\beta _1}(y)\mathrm{}J_+^{\beta _{r+1}}(y)\}$$

which can be calculated from (4.8). The terms in (4.8) containing $`\delta (xy)`$ do not contribute, by invariance of the $`d`$-tensors (the arguments are exactly similar to those given in  for the PCM). The terms involving $`\delta ^{}(xy)`$, on the other hand, result in an integrand proportional to

$$d_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _s\gamma }^{(s+1)}d_{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _r\gamma }^{(r+1)}J_+^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}J_+^{\alpha _s}J_+^{\beta _1}\mathrm{}J_+^{\beta _{r1}}_1J_+^{\beta _r}.$$

The charges $`q_s`$ and $`q_r`$ will commute if and only if this integrand is a total derivative, which is true if and only if

$$d_{(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _s}^{(s+1)}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }d_{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _{r1})\beta _r}^{(r+1)}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }=d_{(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _s}^{(s+1)}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }d_{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _r)}^{(r+1)}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }.$$
(4.9)
It was shown in  (see also eqn. (2.39) of ) that there exist tensors $`k^{(s+1)}`$ for each classical Lie group $`G`$ with the property that

$$k_{(a_1\mathrm{}a_s}^{(s+1)}{}_{}{}^{c}k_{b_1\mathrm{}b_{r1})b_r}^{(r+1)}{}_{}{}^{c}=k_{(a_1\mathrm{}a_s}^{(s+1)}{}_{}{}^{c}k_{b_1\mathrm{}b_r)}^{(r+1)}{}_{}{}^{c}.$$
(4.10)
This is exactly what is required to ensure commuting charges in the PCM based on $`G`$, and these tensors exist whenever $`s`$ is an exponent of $`G`$ modulo $`h`$. An obvious possibility is to choose the same tensors $`k^{(s+1)}`$ for $`G/H`$ as for $`G`$. We can certainly restrict the free indices in (4.10) from $`𝐠`$ to the subspace $`𝐤`$, but it is not clear that we can restrict the repeated index from $`c`$ in (4.10) to $`\gamma `$, so as to arrive at (4.9). Such a restriction is allowed in all cases of interest, however, by virtue of the property

$$d_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _s\alpha _{s+1}}^{(s+1)}0d_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _s\widehat{\gamma }}^{(s+1)}=0.$$
(4.11)
We shall prove in the next section that this holds for any invariant tensor on a classical symmetric space.

## 5 More properties of invariant tensors on $`G/H`$

Let us return to the definition of $`G/H`$ via a $`𝐙_2`$ grading of $`𝐠`$. An equivalent statement is that there is a Lie algebra automorphism $`\sigma `$ of $`𝐠`$ with $`\sigma ^2=1`$. The subspaces $`𝐡`$ and $`𝐤`$ are the eigenspaces of $`\sigma `$ with eigenvalues $`+1`$ and $`1`$ respectively.

An invariant tensor $`d^{(m)}`$ on $`𝐠`$ is not necessarily invariant under $`\sigma `$ (unless $`\sigma `$ is an inner automorphism of $`𝐠`$), but let us assume for the moment that $`\sigma (d)=d`$. Since elements of $`𝐤`$ change sign under $`\sigma `$, it follows that if the degree $`m`$ is odd, then $`d^{(m)}`$ must vanish when restricted to $`𝐤`$. If $`m`$ is even, $`d^{(m)}`$ need not vanish on $`𝐤`$, but then it must satisfy $`d_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{m1}\widehat{\gamma }}^{(m)}=0`$, since $`m1`$ is odd.

Now suppose that $`d`$ is not invariant under $`\sigma `$. It turns out that in all such cases, $`d`$ is instead invariant under the map $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(X)\sigma (X)`$, as we shall see below. The map $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ is not an automorphism of $`𝐠`$, and it has eigenspaces $`𝐡`$ and $`𝐤`$ with the reversed eigenvalues $`1`$ and $`+1`$ respectively. Requiring that $`d^{(m)}`$ be invariant under $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ and that it be non-zero on $`𝐤`$ does not result in any restriction on the degree $`m`$. However, since $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ reverses the sign of each element in $`𝐡`$, invariance of $`d`$ under this map does imply that $`d_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{m1}\widehat{\gamma }}^{(m)}=0`$, as required.

We conclude that (4.11) holds for every tensor $`d`$ obeying either $`\sigma (d)=d`$, or $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(d)=d`$. To check that this exhausts all possibilities, we can consider the simple explicit forms for $`\sigma `$ that are available for each of the classical symmetric spaces .

For the three families of Grassmannian symmetric spaces as well as for $`SO(2n)/U(n)`$ and $`Sp(2n)/U(n)`$, we can take $`\sigma `$ to be a map on $`𝐠`$ of the form

$$\sigma (X)=MXM^1,$$

for some matrix $`M`$. (Once again, this is not necessarily an inner automorphism, because $`M`$ may not belong to $`G`$.) Clearly this implies $`\sigma (d)=d`$ whenever $`d`$ is a symmetrized trace. The only primitive invariant not of this type is the (restriction of) the Pfaffian for $`SO(2n)/SO(n)\times SO(n)`$. In this case $`\sigma (d)=(detM)d=(1)^nd`$, since $`M`$ is diagonal with $`n`$ pairs of eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$. When $`n`$ is even, $`\sigma (d)=d`$, but when $`n`$ is odd, the degree of $`d`$ is also odd, and then $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(d)=d`$, as claimed.444 These remarks are consistent with the patterns of invariants given in earlier sections: some cosets always have $`\sigma (d)=d`$, and their invariants were already found to have even degrees.

Finally we consider the families $`SU(n)/SO(n)`$ and $`SU(2n)/Sp(2n)`$ for which the automorphism of $`𝐠`$ can be written in the form

$$\sigma (X)=MX^{}M^1\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(X)=MX^TM^1,$$

since $`X`$ is anti-hermitian. For the first family $`M`$ is the identity, while for the second it is some standard symplectic structure. In either case it is clear that $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(d)=d`$ whenever $`d`$ is a symmetrized trace, and it follows that the same is true for any tensor $`d`$.

## 6 The classical spectrum of commuting charges

Our results concerning commuting charges in the $`G/H`$ SSM can now be summarized as follows. From each invariant tensor $`k^{(s+1)}`$ on $`𝐠`$ we obtain a conserved current in the $`G/H`$ model by restricting the tensor to $`𝐤`$, leading to a conserved charge of spin $`s`$. These conserved charges always commute with one another, by virtue of the arguments given in sections 4 and 5 above. The final issue we must settle is precisely which tensors $`k^{(s+1)}`$ are non-zero when restricted to $`𝐤`$, so as to give non-trivial conserved charges for the $`G/H`$ SSM.

Let us first recall what happens for a group $`G`$ . The tensors $`k^{(s+1)}`$ provide a set of primitive invariants when $`s`$ runs over the exponents of $`G`$. These primitive invariants have $`s<h`$, the Coxeter number of $`G`$. For larger values of $`s`$, the tensors $`k^{(s+1)}`$ are not primitive, but they are still non-zero (yielding non-trivial commuting charges) precisely when $`s`$ is equal to an exponent of $`G`$ modulo $`h`$.

We have discussed in detail in sections 3 and 4 the patterns of invariants for each $`G/H`$, and how these are obtained from invariants on $`G`$. We can certainly choose our primitive tensors on $`G/H`$ from amongst the $`k^{(s+1)}`$ required for commuting charges. We have already defined the corresponding values of $`s`$ to be the exponents of the symmetric space $`G/H`$. Similarly, we now define an integer $`h`$ for each $`G/H`$, with values specified in the table; this will play the role of the Coxeter number.555The discussion in section 3 effectively associates a Weyl group to each symmetric space, and our definition of $`h`$ coincides with the standard one for such groups .

With these definitions, our final result can be stated very simply: $`k^{(s+1)}`$ is non-zero on $`𝐤`$ only when $`s`$ is equal to an exponent of $`G/H`$ modulo $`h`$. Thus, just as for groups, there are commuting charges associated with primitive invariants and hence exponents $`s<h`$, and also with non-primitive, but non-vanishing invariants for values of $`s>h`$ which repeat in families modulo $`h`$.

In some cases this result is automatic, because the values of $`s`$ run over all the positive odd integers, which trivially repeat modulo an even value of $`h`$. In other instances the pattern of spins is more involved, but the result for $`G/H`$ still follows directly from the corresponding statement for the group $`G`$. However, there is one family, namely $`SU(2n)/Sp(2n)`$, which requires special care. For these spaces we have defined $`h=n`$, and so the validity of our result depends, in particular, upon the fact that the tensors $`k^{(pn+1)}`$ should vanish when restricted to $`𝐤`$ for any integer $`p`$. When $`p`$ is even we know that this tensor actually vanishes on $`𝐠`$, but when $`p`$ is odd it is non-zero on $`𝐠`$ and it is not immediately clear why it should vanish on $`𝐤`$.

To understand how this comes about we need to look more closely at the definition of the $`k`$-tensors for the algebras $`su(n)`$, and to make clear which algebra we are talking about we shall write $`k_{su(n)}^{(m)}`$. Although these objects depend upon the value of $`n`$, they do so in a rather simple way, as revealed by the formula :

$$k_{su(n)}^{(m)}(X)=𝒜^{(m)}(\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{Tr}(X^m),\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{Tr}(X^{m1}),\mathrm{},\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{Tr}(X^2)).$$

The polynomials $`𝒜^{(m)}`$ are in fact characterized by the property $`k_{su(n)}^{(n+1)}=0`$, and it can be shown that this implies $`k_{su(n)}^{(pn+1)}=0`$ for any integer $`p`$ .

The coset $`SU(2n)/Sp(2n)`$ was one of the examples discussed earlier in section 4. The CSA can be chosen to consist of matrices of the form $`X=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Y& 0\\ 0& Y\end{array}\right)`$ where $`Y`$ is diagonal, traceless, and pure-imaginary, and hence belongs to the CSA of $`su(n)`$. Now clearly

$`k_{su(2n)}^{(m)}(X)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜^{(m)}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n}}\mathrm{Tr}(X^m),{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n}}\mathrm{Tr}(X^{m1}),\mathrm{},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n}}\mathrm{Tr}(X^2))`$
$`=`$ $`𝒜^{(m)}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\mathrm{Tr}(Y^m),{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\mathrm{Tr}(Y^{m1}),\mathrm{},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\mathrm{Tr}(Y^2))`$
$`=`$ $`k_{su(n)}^{(m)}(Y).`$
The last expression vanishes when $`m=pn+1`$ for any integer $`p`$, as mentioned above. Since any invariant tensor is determined by its values on a CSA, we conclude that $`k_{su(2n)}^{(pn+1)}`$ indeed vanishes when restricted to $`𝐤`$, as claimed.

## 7 Comments

The results of this paper reinforce the elegant mathematical structure underlying the classical integrability of sigma-models on symmetric spaces. It would be interesting to investigate whether the charges we have constructed might be related to those arising in , whose properties are rather more mysterious. There are also a number of other directions for future work. Although we have considered only classical groups, we expect similar results to hold for the exceptional groups and their symmetric spaces. At the quantum level, integrability is believed to depend upon $`H`$ being simple, and for these cases exact S-matrices have been proposed . It would be interesting to examine whether quantum-mechanical survival of our charges is consistent with these proposals, in light of the treatment of affine Toda theories in . Finally, one could extend the results of  to supersymmetric $`G/H`$ models, with the added incentive that these are believed to be quantum-integrable for any symmetric space .

Acknowledgments. We thank Jose Azcárraga and Tony Sudbery for helpful discussions. JME is supported by NSF grant PHY98-02484 and by a PPARC Advanced Fellowship. AJM thanks the 1851 Royal Commission for a Research Fellowship. This work was also supported in part by PPARC under the SPG grant PPA/G/S/1998/00613.