text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Dirac operators which satisfy the Ginsparg-Wilson (GW) relation

$$\gamma ^5D^1+D^1\gamma ^5=\gamma ^52R,$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is a local operator trivial in Dirac space, define lattice regularized theories whose chiral properties are the same as those of the corresponding formal continuum theories . The relation in eq. (1) implies an exact chiral symmetry on the lattice . Together with the earlier results on domain wall  and overlap  fermions, the recent developments provide a rather satisfactory understanding of global chiral symmetry on the lattice. There is significant progress on chiral gauge theories also .

Two types of solutions to the GW relation are known: the fixed-point (FP) Dirac operators of different renormalization group transformations  and the Dirac operators obtained by using Neuberger’s construction . In the latter case one might even start with the simplest nearest-neighbour Wilson operator. It is probable, however that starting with a Dirac operator which satisfies the GW relation approximately will reduce the numerical problems with the square root in Neuberger’s construction and will more than pay back the additional overhead222Starting with the Wilson operator the end result after Neuberger’s construction is local but very broad and has strong cut-off effects . This gives additional (and related) reasons to start with an operator with better properties.. In this case and, of course, in any parametrization of the FP operator one faces the problem of constructing a Dirac matrix with different fermion offsets, gauge paths and a sufficiently rich structure in Dirac space in such a way that the basic symmetries (gauge symmetry, $`\gamma _5`$ hermiticity, charge conjugation, hypercubic rotations and reflections) are satisfied.

This problem was addressed in $`d=2`$ in a recent paper by Gattringer and Hip . Considering gauge paths with length up to 2 and all 4 matrices of the $`d=2`$ Clifford algebra they discussed and solved the symmetry conditions. The parameters were fixed then by optimizing for the GW relation. This program has been extended to $`d=4`$ in a follow-up paper by Gattringer . The first step, i.e. writing down an Ansatz for a generalized Dirac operator which satisfies the basic symmetries, is however independent of the method used to fix the parameters.

In this paper we discuss this kinematic problem in $`d=4`$. For any fermion offset and for any of the 16 elements of the Clifford algebra we describe the steps to find combinations of gauge paths which satisfy all the basic symmetries. We construct explicitly paths for all the elements of the Clifford algebra in the offsets of the hypercube. We show also how to factorize the sum of paths (i.e. writing it as a product of sums) in such a way that the computational problem is manageable even if the number of paths is large.

We attempted to organize this paper in a way which makes it possible to use the results without the need of repeating the straightforward but lengthy algebra involved. Care was taken to introduce notations and to fix the conventions. We explain with examples how to use the tables and the listed combinations of gauge field products in order to build up the matrix elements of the Dirac operator.

In case the reader wants to consider offsets and paths which do not enter our list, we offer an easy-to-use Maple code dirac.maple which is included with this paper in the hep-lat archive. The user should specify a Clifford algebra element and a gauge path, and the output will help to construct the corresponding contribution to the Dirac matrix.

Let us add a few remarks at this point:
1) There are many ways to fix the parameters of the Ansatz. As opposed to production runs this problem should be treated only once. It is useful to invest effort here, since the choice will influence strongly the quality of the results in simulations. We plan to optimize the parameters to the FP action.
2) There are compelling reasons to use the elements of the Clifford algebra beyond $`1`$ and $`\gamma ^\mu `$ in the Dirac operator. For an operator D satisfying the GW relation in eq. (1), $`\mathrm{Tr}(\gamma ^5RD)`$ is the topological charge density , i.e the $`\gamma ^5`$ part of $`D`$ is obviously important. Similarly, a $`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$ term is already required by the leading Symanzik condition.
3) If the parametrization is good, the GW relation is approximately satisfied, the operator under the square root in Neuberger’s construction is close to 1. An expansion is expected to converge very fast in this case.
4) The basic numerical operation in production runs is $`D\eta `$, where $`D`$ is the parameterized Dirac matrix and $`\eta `$ is a vector. The matrix elements of $`D`$ should be precalculated before the iteration starts. Using all the Clifford algebra elements and arbitrary gauge paths, the computational cost per offset of the operation $`D\eta `$ is a factor of $`4`$ higher than that of the Wilson action. Keeping the points of the hypercube without the outmost corners (65 offsets), say, the cost per iteration is increased by a factor of $`4\times 65/830`$ relative to Wilson Dirac operator.

## 2 Symmetries of the Dirac operator

We define the basis of the Clifford algebra as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1,\gamma _\mu ,i\sigma _{\mu \nu },\gamma _5,\gamma _\mu \gamma _5`$. We use the notation S,V,T,P and A for the scalar, vector, tensor, pseudoscalar and axial-vector elements of the Clifford algebra, respectively. Notice that the tensor (T) and axial-vector (A) basis elements of the Clifford algebra are anti-hermitian. It will later be useful to list the basis elements of the Clifford algebra by a single index, as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A`$, $`A=1,\mathrm{},16`$. We choose the ordering

$$1,\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3,\gamma _4,i\sigma _{12},i\sigma _{13},i\sigma _{14},i\sigma _{23},i\sigma _{24},i\sigma _{34},\gamma _5,\gamma _1\gamma _5,\gamma _2\gamma _5,\gamma _3\gamma _5,\gamma _4\gamma _5.$$
(2)
Under charge conjugation, the Dirac matrices transform as

$$𝒞\gamma _\mu ^T𝒞^1=\gamma _\mu .$$
(3)
Having chosen the T and A basis elements of the Clifford algebra to be anti-hermitian, all the basis elements have the property that

$$𝒞\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\gamma _5𝒞^1=\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(4)
We define a sign $`ϵ_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by the relation

$$\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\gamma _5=ϵ_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma },$$
(5)
which gives $`ϵ_\mathrm{S}=ϵ_\mathrm{P}=ϵ_\mathrm{A}=1`$ and $`ϵ_\mathrm{V}=ϵ_\mathrm{T}=1`$.

Under reflection of the coordinate axis $`\eta `$, the basis elements of the Clifford algebra are transformed as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=𝒫_\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }𝒫_\eta ^1`$, where $`𝒫_\eta =\gamma _\eta \gamma _5`$. (When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is written in terms of Dirac matrices $`\gamma _\mu `$ this amounts simply to reversing the sign of $`\gamma _\eta `$.) The group of reflections has $`2^4=16`$ elements. Under a permutation $`(1,2,3,4)(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ of the coordinate axes the basis elements of the Clifford algebra transform by replacing $`\mu p_\mu `$ and accordingly $`\gamma _5ϵ_{p_1p_2p_3p_4}\gamma _5`$.

The matrix elements of the Dirac operator $`D`$ we denote as

$$D(n,n^{};U)_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{aa^{}}$$
(6)
where $`n`$, $`a`$ and $`\alpha `$ refer to the coordinate, colour and Dirac indices, respectively. From now on, we suppress the colour and Dirac indices. The gauge configuration $`U`$ appearing in $`D`$ is not necessarily the original one entering the gauge action – it could be a smeared configuration. Provided the smearing has appropriate symmetry properties (as all conventional smearing schemes do) the constructions in this paper remain valid, without any extra modifications.

The Dirac operator should satisfy the following symmetry requirements:

gauge symmetry
Under the gauge transformation $`U_\mu (n)U_\mu (n)^g=g(n)U_\mu (n)g(n+\widehat{\mu })^{}`$, where $`g(n)\mathrm{SU}(N)`$ we have

$$D(n,n^{};U)D(n,n^{};U^g)=g(n)D(n,n^{};U)g(n^{})^{}.$$
(7)
translation invariance
Translation symmetry requires that $`D(n,n+r)`$ depends on $`n`$ only through the $`n`$-dependence of the gauge fields. There is no explicit $`n`$-dependence beyond that. In particular, the coefficients in front of the different paths which enter $`D`$ do not depend on $`n`$.

hermiticity

$$D(n,n^{};U)=\gamma ^5D(n^{},n,U)^{}\gamma ^5,$$
(8)
where $``$ is hermitian conjugation in colour and Dirac space.

charge conjugation

$$D(n,n^{};U)=𝒞D(n^{},n;U^{})^T𝒞^1,$$
(9)
where $`T`$ is the transpose operation in colour and Dirac space.

It will be useful to combine eqs. (8,9) to obtain

$$D(n,n^{};U)=𝒞\gamma ^5D(n,n^{};U^{})^{}\gamma ^5𝒞^1.$$
(10)
reflection of the coordinate axis $`\eta `$

$$D(n,n^{};U)=𝒫_\eta ^1D(\stackrel{~}{n},\stackrel{~}{n}^{};U^{𝒫_\eta })𝒫_\eta ,$$
(11)
where $`𝒫_\eta =\gamma ^\eta \gamma ^5`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{n}_\nu =n_\nu `$ if $`\nu \eta `$, while $`\stackrel{~}{n}_\eta =n_\eta `$. The reflected gauge field $`U^{𝒫_\eta }`$ is defined as

$`U_\eta ^{𝒫_\eta }(m)`$ $`=`$ $`U_\eta (\stackrel{~}{m}\widehat{\eta })^{},`$ (12)
$`U_\nu ^{𝒫_\eta }(m)`$ $`=`$ $`U_\nu (\stackrel{~}{m}),\nu \eta .`$
permutation of the coordinate axes
These are defined in a straightforward way, by permuting the Lorentz indices appearing in $`D`$. Note that rotations by $`90^{}`$ on a hypercubic lattice can be replaced by reflections and permutations of the coordinate axes.

## 3 Constructing a matrix $`D`$ which satisfies the symmetries

To describe a general Dirac operator in compact notations, it is convenient to introduce the operator $`\widehat{U}_\mu `$ of the parallel transport for direction $`\mu `$

$$\left(\widehat{U}_\mu \right)_{nn^{}}=U_\mu (n)\delta _{n+\widehat{\mu },n^{}},$$
(13)
and analogously for the opposite direction

$$\left(\widehat{U}_\mu \right)_{nn^{}}=U_\mu (n\widehat{\mu })^{}\delta _{n\widehat{\mu },n^{}}.$$
(14)
Obviously $`\left(\widehat{U}_\mu \right)^{}=\widehat{U}_\mu `$. (Note that in terms of these operators the forward and backward covariant derivatives are: $`_\mu =\widehat{U}_\mu 1`$, $`_\mu ^{}=1\widehat{U}_\mu ^{}`$, and $`_\mu ^{}_\mu =\widehat{U}_\mu +\widehat{U}_\mu ^{}2`$.) The Wilson-Dirac operator at bare mass equal to zero reads:

$$D_\mathrm{W}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu }{}\gamma _\mu \left(\widehat{U}_\mu \widehat{U}_\mu ^{}\right)+\frac{1}{2}r\underset{\mu }{}\left(2\widehat{U}_\mu \widehat{U}_\mu ^{}\right).$$
(15)
It is also useful to introduce the operator $`\widehat{U}(l)`$ of the parallel transport along some path $`l=[l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_k]`$ where $`l_i=\pm 1,\mathrm{},\pm 4`$, by

$$\widehat{U}(l)=\widehat{U}_{l_1}\widehat{U}_{l_2}\mathrm{}\widehat{U}_{l_k}.$$
(16)
In terms of gauge links this is

$$\left(\widehat{U}(l)\right)_{nn^{}}=\left(U_{l_1}(n)U_{l_2}(n+\widehat{l}_1)\mathrm{}\right)\delta _{n+r_l,n^{}},$$
(17)
where $`r_l=\widehat{l}_1+\mathrm{}+\widehat{l}_k`$ is the offset corresponding to the path $`l`$. Note that $`\widehat{U}(l)^{}=\widehat{U}(\overline{l})`$ where $`\overline{l}=[l_k,\mathrm{},l_1]`$ is the inverse path. In particular, one has

$$\left(\widehat{U}([2,1,2])\right)_{nn^{}}=U_2(n)U_1(n+\widehat{2})U_2(n+\widehat{1})^{}\delta _{n+\widehat{1},n^{}}$$
(18)
for the corresponding staple.

As another example, the Sheikholeslami-Wohlert (or clover) term  introduced to cancel the O($`a`$) artifacts is given (up to a constant factor) by

$$\begin{array}{c}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }(\widehat{U}([\mu ,\nu ,\mu ,\nu ])+\widehat{U}([\nu ,\mu ,\nu ,\mu ])+\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{U}([\mu ,\nu ,\mu ,\nu ])+\widehat{U}([\nu ,\mu ,\nu ,\mu ])\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.).\end{array}$$
(19)
We consider a general form of the Dirac operator

$$D=\underset{A}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_A\underset{l}{}c_l^A\widehat{U}(l).$$
(20)
The Dirac indices are carried by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A=1,\gamma _\mu ,\mathrm{}`$, the coordinate and colour indices by the operators $`\widehat{U}(l)`$. The Dirac operator is determined by the set of paths $`l`$ the sum runs over, and the coefficients $`c_l^A`$.

In the case of $`D_\mathrm{W}`$, for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$ one has $`l=[1],[1],\mathrm{},[4]`$ and $`l=[]`$ (the empty path corresponding to $`\widehat{U}([])=1`$), while for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _\mu `$: $`l=[\mu ]`$ and $`[\mu ]`$. In the clover term, eq. (19) for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=i\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$: $`l=[\mu ,\nu ,\mu ,\nu ],\mathrm{}`$ (altogether $`6\times 4=24`$ plaquette products). As these well known examples indicate, the coefficients $`c_l^A`$ for related paths differ only in relative signs, which are fixed by symmetry requirements.

Our aim is to give for all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s and offsets $`r`$ on the hypercube a set of paths and to determine the relative sign for paths related to each other by symmetry transformations. We give the general rules for arbitrary offsets and paths as well.

Eqs. (4,10) imply that the coefficients $`c_l^A`$ in eq. (20) are real. Further, from hermiticity in this language it follows that the path $`l`$ and the opposite path $`\overline{l}`$ (or equivalently, $`\widehat{U}(l)`$ and $`\widehat{U}(l)^{}`$) should enter in the combination

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\widehat{U}(l)+ϵ_\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{U}(l)^{}\right),$$
(21)
where the sign $`ϵ_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is defined by $`\gamma ^5\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\gamma ^5=ϵ_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, eq. (5).

The symmetry transformations formulated in terms of matrix elements in the previous section can be translated to the formalism used here. The reflections and permutations act on operators $`\widehat{U}(l)`$ in a straightforward way. Under a reflection of the axis $`\eta `$ one has $`\widehat{U}(l)\widehat{U}(l^{})`$ where $`l_i^{}=l_i`$ if $`|l_i|=\eta `$ and unchanged otherwise. Under a permutation $`(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ a component with $`l_i=\pm \mu `$ is replaced by $`l_i=\pm p_\mu `$, as expected. The number of combined symmetry transformations is $`16\times 24=384`$. We denote the action of a transformation $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},384`$ by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\alpha )}`$, $`\widehat{U}(l)\widehat{U}(l^{(\alpha )})`$. Acting on the expression in eq. (21) by all 384 elements of the symmetry group and adding the resulting operators together, the sum will satisfy the required symmetry conditions for a Dirac operator.

Let us introduce the notation

$$\widehat{d}(\mathrm{\Gamma },l)=\frac{1}{𝒩}\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\alpha )}\left(\widehat{U}(l^{(\alpha )})+ϵ_\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{U}(l^{(\alpha )})^{}\right).$$
(22)
A general Dirac operator will be a linear combination of such terms. The normalization factor $`𝒩`$ will be defined below. The total number of terms in eq. (22) is $`2\times 384=768`$. Typically, however, the number of different terms which survive after the summation is much smaller. It can happen that for a choice of starting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`l`$ the sum in eq. (22) is zero. In this case the given path does not contribute to the Dirac structure $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

To fix the convention for the overall sign we single out a definite term in the sum of eq. (22) and take its sign to be $`+1`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, $`l_0`$ the corresponding quantities of this reference term, and by $`r_0=r(l_0)`$ the offset of $`l_0`$. This term is specified by narrowing down the set $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\alpha )},l^{(\alpha )}\}`$ to a single member as follows:

* Given an offset $`r=r(l)=(r_1,r_2,r_3,r_4)`$ the reflections and permutations create all offsets $`(\pm r_{p_1},\pm r_{p_2},\pm r_{p_3},\pm r_{p_4})`$ where $`(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ is an arbitrary permutation. We choose for the reference offset $`r_0`$ the one from the set $`\{r(l^{(\alpha )})\}`$ which satisfies the relations $`r_{01}r_{02}r_{03}r_{04}0`$.
* If several $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ matrices are generated to this offset then choose as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ the one which comes first in the natural order, eq. (2).
* Consider all the paths $`\{l^{(\alpha )}\}`$ having offset $`r_0`$ and associated with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, i.e. $`r(l^{(\alpha )})=r_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\alpha )}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. To single out one path $`l_0`$ from this set, we associate to a path $`l=[l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_k]`$ a decimal code $`d_1d_2\mathrm{}d_k`$ with digits $`d_i=l_i`$ if $`l_i>0`$ and $`d_i=9+l_i`$ for $`l_i<0`$. The path with the smallest code will be the reference path $`l_0`$. (In other words we take the first in lexical order defined by the ordering $`1,2,3,4,4,3,2,1`$.)

Of course, one can take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, $`l_0`$ as the starting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`l`$, and we shall refer to the expression in eq. (22) as $`\widehat{d}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,l_0)`$ to indicate that it is associated to a class rather than to a specific $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },l)`$.

We turn now to the normalization of $`\widehat{d}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,l_0)`$. In general, there will be $`K`$ different paths in the set $`\{l^{(\alpha )}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\alpha )}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,r(l^{(\alpha )})=r_0\}`$, i.e. corresponding to the same offset $`r_0`$ and Dirac structure $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. The normalization is fixed by requiring that the coefficient of the reference term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\widehat{U}(l_0)`$ is $`+1/K`$.

Consider a simple example explicitly. Let $`r_0=(1,0,0,0)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=i\sigma _{12}`$ and $`l_0=[2,1,2]`$. The starting term, eq. (21) is $`i\sigma _{12}(\widehat{U}([2,1,2])\widehat{U}([2,1,2]))`$. Applying all the 16 different reflections gives

$$8i\sigma _{12}\left(\widehat{U}([2,1,2])\widehat{U}([2,1,2])\widehat{U}([2,1,2])+\widehat{U}([2,1,2])\right).$$
(23)
Applying all the permutations on this expression results in:

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{d}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,l_0)=\frac{1}{𝒩}\{16i\sigma _{12}(\widehat{U}([2,1,2])\widehat{U}([2,1,2]))+\hfill \\ \hfill 16i\sigma _{13}\left(\widehat{U}([3,1,3])\widehat{U}([3,1,3])\right)+\\ \hfill 16i\sigma _{14}(\widehat{U}([4,1,4])\widehat{U}([4,1,4]))+\mathrm{}\},\end{array}$$
(24)
where only the terms with the offset $`r=r_0`$ are written out explicitly. Their total number is 96. The whole generated set has 8 different offsets giving altogether 768 terms. Notice the form of the contribution in eq. (24). There is a common factor (16 in this case) multiplying all the different operators. Only the tensor elements of the Clifford algebra enter, since we started with a tensor element. Beyond the common factor the path products have a coefficient $`\pm 1`$. These features are general. The number of different paths with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=i\sigma _{12}`$ and $`r_0=(1,0,0,0)`$ is K=2: the paths $`[2,1,2]`$ and $`[2,1,2]`$). The normalization factor in this case is $`𝒩=16\times 2=32`$, so that one has $`\widehat{d}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,l_0)=\frac{1}{2}i\sigma _{12}\left(\widehat{U}([2,1,2])\widehat{U}([2,1,2])\right)+\mathrm{}`$.

A general Dirac operator is constructed as

$$D=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,l_0}{}f(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,l_0)\widehat{d}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,l_0).$$
(25)
The coefficients $`f(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,l_0)`$ are real constants or gauge invariant functions of the gauge fields, respecting locality, and invariance under the symmetry transformations. These are the free, adjustable parameters of the Dirac operator.

## 4 Tables for offsets on the hypercube

Choosing offsets and paths to be included in the Dirac operator is a matter of intuition. It is also influenced by considerations on CPU time and memory requirements. In Tables 1-5 we give examples of reference paths $`l_0`$ for offsets on the hypercube and general Dirac structure. The first 3 columns give $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, $`l_0`$ and the number of paths $`K`$ as defined in the previous section. The 4th column gives those Clifford basis elements which are generated in eq. (22) to the offset $`r_0`$.

It is also of interest how the given Dirac operator behaves for smooth gauge fields, i.e. to obtain the leading terms in the naive continuum limit. The expression in eq. (22) generated by given $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`l_0`$ contributes in this limit to one of the expressions (of type S,V,T,P,A) below

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\overline{c}_\mathrm{S}+c_\mathrm{S}^2\right);c_\mathrm{V}\gamma _\mu _\mu ;c_\mathrm{T}\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu };\hfill \\ \hfill c_\mathrm{P}\frac{1}{4}\gamma _5ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma };c_\mathrm{A}i\gamma _\mu \gamma _5ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }_\nu F_{\rho \sigma }.\end{array}$$
(26)
Here $`_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative in the continuum. The coefficients $`c_X(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,l_0)`$, which determine the continuum behaviour of the Dirac operator, are presented in the last column of Tables 1-5. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=1`$ the first and second entries correspond to $`\overline{c}_\mathrm{S}`$ and $`c_\mathrm{S}`$, respectively. We list their meaning below.

Introduce the notation

$$C_X=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,l_0}{}f(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,l_0)c_X(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,l_0).$$
(27)
The bare mass $`m_0`$ is given by

$$\overline{C}_\mathrm{S}=m_0.$$
(28)
The normalization condition on the $`D\gamma _\mu _\mu `$ term in $`D`$ gives

$$C_\mathrm{V}=1.$$
(29)
The O($`a`$) tree level Symanzik condition reads

$$C_\mathrm{S}+C_\mathrm{T}=0.$$
(30)
The coefficient $`c_\mathrm{P}`$ is interesting if the parametrization attempts to describe (approximately) a GW fermion. In this case it is related to the topological charge density $`q(n)=\mathrm{Tr}(\gamma _5DR)_{nn}`$,

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,l_0}{}f(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,l_0)c_\mathrm{P}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,l_0)R^{\mathrm{free}}(r_0)=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}.$$
(31)
(If $`f(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,l_0)`$ is not a constant, then its continuum limit is understood here.) Of course, in the expressions above $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ should be of the corresponding type (S,T,…). The quantity $`R^{\mathrm{free}}(r_0)`$ is given by $`R(n,n+r_0;U=1)`$ of the GW relation eq.(1).

## 5 The list of factorized contributions

As the tables 1-5 show the number of paths, in particularly for the offset $`r_0=(0,0,0,0)`$, is large. It is important to calculate the path products efficiently. An obvious method is to factorize the paths, i.e. to write the sum of a large number of paths as a product of sums over shorter paths. We shall try to factorize in such a way that these shorter paths are mainly plaquette, or staple products.

Define the plaquette products (i.e. the operators of parallel transport along a plaquette) in the following way:

$$P_{l_1,l_2}=\widehat{U}([l_1,l_2,l_1,l_2]),$$
(32)
where $`l_i=\pm 1,\mathrm{},\pm 4`$. Their hermitian conjugate is given by $`(P_{l_1,l_2})^{}=P_{l_2,l_1}`$. Reflections and permutations act on them in an obvious way.

We also define the staple products as

$$S_{l_1,l_2}=\widehat{U}([l_1,l_2,l_1]).$$
(33)
We have $`(S_{l_1,l_2})^{}=S_{l_1,l_2}`$.

To describe the shortest path to an offset we introduce the notation

$`V_{l_1}=\widehat{U}([l_1]),`$
$`V_{l_1,l_2}=\widehat{U}([l_1,l_2]),`$
$`V_{l_1,l_2,l_3}=\widehat{U}([l_1,l_2,l_3]),`$ (34)
$`V_{l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4}=\widehat{U}([l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4]).`$
Introduce the following linear combinations transforming in a simple way under reflections:

$`P_{\mu \nu }^{(++)}=P_{\mu ,\nu }+P_{\mu ,\nu }+P_{\mu ,\nu }+P_{\mu ,\nu },`$
$`P_{\mu \nu }^{(+)}=P_{\mu ,\nu }P_{\mu ,\nu }+P_{\mu ,\nu }P_{\mu ,\nu },`$ (35)
$`P_{\mu \nu }^{(+)}=P_{\mu ,\nu }+P_{\mu ,\nu }P_{\mu ,\nu }P_{\mu ,\nu },`$
$`P_{\mu \nu }^{()}=P_{\mu ,\nu }P_{\mu ,\nu }P_{\mu ,\nu }+P_{\mu ,\nu }.`$
The signs in the superscript denote the parity for reflections of the $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$ axes, respectively. Hermitian conjugation acts as interchanging both upper and lower indices, permutations simply by $`\mu p_\mu `$, $`\nu p_\nu `$.

It is also useful to denote combinations which are symmetric/antisymmetric with respect to interchanging the axes:

$`P_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{sym})}=P_{\mu ,\nu }^{(++)}+P_{\nu ,\mu }^{(++)}=P_{\mu ,\nu }^{(++)}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (36)
$`P_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{as})}=P_{\mu ,\nu }^{()}P_{\nu ,\mu }^{()}=P_{\mu ,\nu }^{()}\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..`$
For the staples we write

$`S_\mu ^{(\nu +)}=S_{\nu ,\mu }+S_{\nu ,\mu },`$
$`S_\mu ^{(\nu )}=S_{\nu ,\mu }S_{\nu ,\mu },`$ (37)
$`S_\mu ^{(\nu +)}=S_{\nu ,\mu }+S_{\nu ,\mu },`$
$`S_\mu ^{(\nu )}=S_{\nu ,\mu }S_{\nu ,\mu }.`$
The subscript $`\pm \mu `$ denotes the direction of the staple, the superscript specifies the plane $`\mu \nu `$ and the parity in $`\nu `$.

For a line of length 2 we have

$`V_{\mu \nu }^{(++)}=V_{\mu ,\nu }+V_{\mu ,\nu }+V_{\mu ,\nu }+V_{\mu ,\nu },`$
$`V_{\mu \nu }^{(+)}=V_{\mu ,\nu }V_{\mu ,\nu }+V_{\mu ,\nu }V_{\mu ,\nu },`$ (38)
$`V_{\mu \nu }^{(+)}=V_{\mu ,\nu }+V_{\mu ,\nu }V_{\mu ,\nu }V_{\mu ,\nu },`$
$`V_{\mu \nu }^{()}=V_{\mu ,\nu }V_{\mu ,\nu }V_{\mu ,\nu }+V_{\mu ,\nu },`$
and analogously for longer lines. In analogy to eq. (36) we introduce the completely (anti)symmetric combinations $`V_{\mu \nu \mathrm{}}^{(\mathrm{sym})}`$, $`V_{\mu \nu \mathrm{}}^{(\mathrm{as})}`$ for the line products.

Define also the bent rectangle,

$$B_{l_1,l_2,l_3}=\widehat{U}([l_1,l_2,l_3,l_2,l_1,l_3]),$$
(39)
and $`B_{\nu \rho \sigma }^{()}`$ which is odd in all its arguments (as a sum of 8 terms, defined analogously to $`P_{\mu \nu }^{()}`$). Similarly, we introduce the “4d plaquette”

$$Q_{l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4}=\widehat{U}([l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4,l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4]),$$
(40)
and the odd combination $`Q_{l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4}^{()}`$.

To simplify the expressions below, we require that all the directions entering $`P_{l_1,l_2}`$, $`S_{l_1,l_2}`$, $`V_{l_1,l_2,\mathrm{}}`$, etc. are different, i.e. they are taken to be zero if e.g. $`|l_1|=|l_2|`$.

Below we list $`\widehat{d}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,l_0)`$ for different choices of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`l_0`$. The notation $`^{}`$ indicates that all indices in the corresponding sum are taken to be different.

### 5.1 The offset $`r_0=(0,0,0,0)`$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=1`$, $`l_0=[]`$

$$1.$$
(41)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=1`$, $`l_0=[1,2,1,2]`$

$$\frac{1}{48}\underset{\mu <\nu }{}P_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{sym})}.$$
(42)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _1`$, $`l_0=[1,2,1,2]`$

$$\frac{1}{24}\underset{\mu \nu }{}^{}\gamma _\mu \left(P_{\mu \nu }^{(+)}\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(43)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=i\sigma _{12}`$, $`l_0=[1,2,1,2]`$

$$\frac{1}{8}\underset{\mu <\nu }{}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }P_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{as})}.$$
(44)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _5`$, $`l_0=[1,2,1,2,3,4,3,4]`$

$$\frac{1}{384}\gamma _5\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}\frac{1}{4}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }P_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{as})}P_{\rho \sigma }^{(\mathrm{as})}.$$
(45)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _5`$, $`l_0=[1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4]`$

$$\frac{1}{384}\gamma _5\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }Q_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{()}.$$
(46)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _1\gamma _5`$, $`l_0=[1,2,1,2,3,4,3,4]`$

$$\frac{1}{192}\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left(P_{\mu \nu }^{(+)}P_{\rho \sigma }^{(\mathrm{as})}+\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(47)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _1\gamma _5`$, $`l_0=[2,1,2,1,3,4,3,4]`$

$$\frac{1}{192}\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left(P_{\nu \mu }^{(+)}P_{\rho \sigma }^{(\mathrm{as})}+\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(48)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _1\gamma _5`$, $`l_0=[2,3,4,3,2,4]`$

$$\frac{1}{96}\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left(B_{\nu \rho \sigma }^{()}+\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(49)
### 5.2 The offset $`r_0=(1,0,0,0)`$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=1`$, $`l_0=[1]`$

$$\underset{\mu }{}\left(V_\mu +V_\mu \right).$$
(50)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=1`$, $`l_0=[2,1,2]`$

$$\frac{1}{6}\underset{\mu \nu }{}^{}\left(S_\mu ^{(\nu ,+)}+S_\mu ^{(\nu ,+)}\right).$$
(51)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _1`$, $`l_0=[1]`$

$$\underset{\mu }{}\gamma _\mu \left(V_\mu V_\mu \right).$$
(52)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _1`$, $`l_0=[2,1,2]`$

$$\frac{1}{6}\underset{\mu \nu }{}^{}\gamma _\mu \left(S_\mu ^{(\nu ,+)}S_\mu ^{(\nu ,+)}\right).$$
(53)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _2`$, $`l_0=[1,2,3,2,3]`$

$$\frac{1}{16}\underset{\mu \nu \rho }{}^{}\gamma _\nu (V_\mu P_{\nu \rho }^{(+)}P_{\rho \nu }^{(+)}V_\mu \mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.).$$
(54)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=i\sigma _{12}`$, $`l_0=[2,1,2]`$

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu \nu }{}^{}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\left(S_\mu ^{(\nu ,)}S_\nu ^{(\mu ,)}\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(55)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=i\sigma _{23}`$, $`l_0=[1,2,3,2,3]`$

$$\frac{1}{16}\underset{\mu \nu \rho }{}^{}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\left(V_\rho P_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{as})}+P_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{as})}V_\rho \text{h.c.}\right).$$
(56)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _5`$, $`l_0=[2,1,2,3,4,3,4]`$

$$\frac{1}{96}\gamma _5\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left(S_\mu ^{(\nu ,)}P_{\rho \sigma }^{(\mathrm{as})}+P_{\rho \sigma }^{(\mathrm{as})}S_\mu ^{(\nu ,)}+\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(57)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _1\gamma _5`$, $`l_0=[2,1,2,3,4,3,4]`$

$$\frac{1}{96}\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left(S_\mu ^{(\nu ,)}P_{\rho \sigma }^{(\mathrm{as})}P_{\rho \sigma }^{(\mathrm{as})}S_\mu ^{(\nu ,)}+\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(58)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _2\gamma _5`$, $`l_0=[1,3,4,3,4]`$

$$\frac{1}{16}\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}\gamma _\nu \gamma _5\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left(V_\mu P_{\rho \sigma }^{(\mathrm{as})}+P_{\rho \sigma }^{(\mathrm{as})}V_\mu +\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(59)
### 5.3 The offset $`r_0=(1,1,0,0)`$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=1`$, $`l_0=[1,2]`$

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu <\nu }{}V_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{sym})}.$$
(60)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _1`$, $`l_0=[1,2]`$

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu \nu }{}^{}\gamma _\mu \left(V_{\mu \nu }^{(+)}\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(61)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _3`$, $`l_0=[1,3,2,3]`$

$$\frac{1}{8}\underset{\mu \nu \rho }{}^{}\gamma _\rho \left(V_\mu S_\nu ^{(\rho ,)}+V_\mu S_\nu ^{(\rho ,)}S_\mu ^{(\rho ,)}V_\nu S_\mu ^{(\rho ,)}V_\nu \text{h.c.}\right).$$
(62)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=i\sigma _{12}`$, $`l_0=[1,2]`$

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu <\nu }{}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }V_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{as})}.$$
(63)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=i\sigma _{13}`$, $`l_0=[1,3,2,3]`$

$$\frac{1}{4}\underset{\mu \nu \rho }{}^{}i\sigma _{\mu \rho }\left(V_\mu S_\nu ^{(\rho ,)}V_\mu S_\nu ^{(\rho ,)}+V_\mu S_\nu ^{(\rho ,)}V_\mu S_\nu ^{(\rho ,)}\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(64)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=i\sigma _{34}`$, $`l_0=[1,2,3,4,3,4]`$

$$\frac{1}{32}\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}i\sigma _{\rho \sigma }\frac{1}{2}\left(V_{\mu \nu }^{(++)}P_{\rho \sigma }^{(\mathrm{as})}\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(65)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _5`$, $`l_0=[1,2,3,4,3,4]`$

$$\frac{1}{32}\gamma _5\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left(V_{\mu \nu }^{()}P_{\rho \sigma }^{(\mathrm{as})}+\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(66)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _1\gamma _5`$, $`l_0=[1,2,3,4,3,4]`$

$$\frac{1}{16}\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left(V_{\mu \nu }^{(+)}P_{\rho \sigma }^{(\mathrm{as})}+\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(67)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _3\gamma _5`$, $`l_0=[1,4,2,4]`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{8}\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}\gamma _\rho \gamma _5ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(V_\mu S_\nu ^{(\sigma ,)}V_\mu S_\nu ^{(\sigma ,)}\hfill \\ \hfill V_\mu S_\nu ^{(\sigma ,)}+V_\mu S_\nu ^{(\sigma ,)}+\text{h.c.}).\end{array}$$
(68)
### 5.4 The offset $`r_0=(1,1,1,0)`$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=1`$, $`l_0=[1,2,3]`$

$$\frac{1}{6}\underset{\mu <\nu <\rho }{}V_{\mu \nu \rho }^{(\mathrm{sym})}.$$
(69)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _1`$, $`l_0=[1,2,3]`$

$$\frac{1}{4}\underset{\mu \nu \rho }{}^{}\gamma _\mu \left(V_{\mu \nu \rho }^{(++)}+V_{\nu \rho \mu }^{(++)}\right).$$
(70)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _4`$, $`l_0=[1,2,4,3,4]`$

$$\frac{1}{24}\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}\gamma _\nu \frac{1}{2}\left(V_{\rho \sigma }^{(\mathrm{sym})}S_\mu ^{(\nu ,)}+V_{\rho \sigma }^{(\mathrm{sym})}S_\mu ^{(\nu ,)}\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(71)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=i\sigma _{12}`$, $`l_0=[1,2,3]`$

$$\frac{1}{4}\underset{\mu \nu \rho }{}^{}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\left(V_{\mu \nu \rho }^{(+)}+V_{\rho \mu \nu }^{(+)}\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(72)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=i\sigma _{14}`$, $`l_0=[1,4,2,4,3]`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{8}\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }(V_\mu S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\sigma +V_\sigma S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\mu V_\mu S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\sigma V_\sigma S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\mu \hfill \\ \hfill +V_\mu S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\sigma +V_\sigma S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\mu V_\mu S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\sigma V_\sigma S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\mu \text{h.c.}).\end{array}$$
(73)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _5`$, $`l_0=[1,4,2,4,3]`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{12}\gamma _5\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(V_\mu S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\sigma V_\sigma S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\mu V_\mu S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\sigma +V_\sigma S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\mu \hfill \\ \hfill V_\mu S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\sigma +V_\sigma S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\mu +V_\mu S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\sigma V_\sigma S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\mu +\text{h.c.}).\end{array}$$
(74)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _1\gamma _5`$, $`l_0=[1,4,2,4,3]`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{8}\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(V_\mu S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\sigma +V_\sigma S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\mu +V_\mu S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\sigma +V_\sigma S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\mu \hfill \\ \hfill V_\mu S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\sigma V_\sigma S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\mu V_\mu S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\sigma V_\sigma S_\rho ^{(\nu ,)}V_\mu +\text{h.c.}).\end{array}$$
(75)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _4\gamma _5`$, $`l_0=[1,2,3]`$

$$\frac{1}{6}\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}\gamma _\sigma \gamma _5\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left(V_{\mu \nu \rho }^{()}+\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(76)
### 5.5 The offset $`r_0=(1,1,1,1)`$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=1`$, $`l_0=[1,2,3,4]`$

$$\frac{1}{24}V_{1234}^{(\mathrm{sym})}.$$
(77)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _1`$, $`l_0=[1,2,3,4]`$

$$\frac{1}{12}\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}\gamma _\mu \left(V_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{(+++)}\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(78)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=i\sigma _{12}`$, $`l_0=[1,2,3,4]`$

$$\frac{1}{8}\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }\left(V_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{(++)}\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(79)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _5`$, $`l_0=[1,2,3,4]`$

$$\frac{1}{24}\gamma _5\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left(V_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{()}+\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(80)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\gamma _1\gamma _5`$, $`l_0=[1,2,3,4]`$

$$\frac{1}{12}\underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left(V_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{(+)}+\text{h.c.}\right).$$
(81)
## 6 Concluding remarks

We have given a construction of a generalized Dirac operator with the required symmetry properties. For every offset on the hypercube and every element of the Clifford algebra we have provided at least one example of a contribution to the Dirac operator.

Theoretical or computational considerations should determine the importance of a particular term, which could require the reduction or extension of the set contained in Tables 1-5. We plan to optimize the parameterization to approximate the fixed-point Dirac operator, in order to have good scaling and chiral properties.

Acknowledgment: We thank Philipp Rüfenacht for useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# 1 +-+ model with two ''+'' branes at the fixed points and moving ''-'' branes. In the limiting case when 𝑥→0 we have a RS configuration.

Recently, there has been considerable interest in theories in which the SM fields are localized on a 3-brane in a higher dimensional spacetime. The idea that a multidimensional Universe may not be of KK type, but rather a low dimensional ($`3+1`$ in the case of our Universe) brane dates back to early eighties when independently Akama  and Rubakov and Shapochnikov  suggested models of our Universe as topological defects and later Visser  and Squires  described how particles can be gravitationally trapped on the brane. The possibility that gravity be trapped on a brane was suggested by Gogberashvili

In papers of Antoniadis, Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos and Dvali  it was shown that the size of extra dimensions can be large, up to a mm scale. Then Randall and Sundrum proposed  a scenario in the geometry is non-factorizable and even infinitely large fifth dimension leads to the Newton law at macroscopic distances along the brane. In this picture the concept of a massless graviton localized on a positive tension brane was of utmost importance. Another important element was a negative tension brane.

Then in was suggested in  and later and independently in  that in some modification of RS scenario one can have even more strange behaviour - namely gravity is modified at both large and small scales. Even if explicit realizations of this idea suggested by Oxford group (KMPRS)  and Gregory, Rubakov and Sibiryakov (GRS)  are different one can see that they actually related to each other and share several key elements - for example the presence of free negative tension branes. There is another common feature in both models - exponential suppression and tunneling effect (in case of GRS model it was discussed by Csaki, Erlich and Hollowood in ). In this letter we demonstrate that these two models are actually two limiting cases of a more general model which we shall call $`++`$ or “multigravity” model and which interpolates between “bi-gravity”  and “quasi-localized” gravity , . Besides this we are going to discuss the mechanism which will prevent negative brane destabilization - which is crucial for all these models. At the end we are going to discuss an important observation of Dvali, Gabadadze and Porrati  that in this models four-dimensional graviton is massive and this leads to discrepancy  between Newton law and light bending (and other experimentally observed post-Newtonian effects, for example Mercury perihelion precession). The remarkable resolution of this potentially disastrous discrepancy is that in a full theory there is actually a smooth limit for graviton mass $`m0`$ if one take into account constraint $`𝑑y\sqrt{G^{(5)}}(T_\mu ^\mu 2T_5^5)=0`$ which is a necessary condition for stable compactification and correct cosmology on a brane

Let us first discuss the KMPRS model  which consists of two positive branes located at the fixed points of a $`S_1/Z_2`$ orbifold with one negative brane which can move freely in between (see Fig. 1).

It is easy to see that the two-brane RS model is nothing but the limiting case of our three-brane model, when the negative brane hits one of the positive branes.The model has two parameters, (at a fixed bulk curvature) - the warp factor and the $`x`$ factor - which effectively measures the distance between one of the positive branes and the negative brane. The RS model corresponds to the limiting case $`x=0`$.

The GRS model can be obtained from this model by cutting negative brane in half, i.e. instead of one $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }_{}^{\prime \prime }`$ brane with tension $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ one can take two branes with negative tension $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$ each and then move them apart, as on Fig.2 If one then move the second $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+_{}^{\prime \prime }`$ brane to infinity together with one of the $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }1/2^{\prime \prime }`$ branes we shall get precisely the GRS picture - and the space between $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }1/2^{\prime \prime }`$ brane is, of course, flat. Thus we have a new model - the $`++`$ model which depends on 3 parameters - $`l_L`$ and $`l_R`$ which are the differences between coordinates of left $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+_{}^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }1/2^{\prime \prime }`$ branes and right $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+_{}^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }1/2^{\prime \prime }`$ branes, and $`l_{}`$ which is a difference between coordinates of the two $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }1/2^{\prime \prime }`$ branes. This model consists of four parallel 3-branes in an $`AdS_5`$ space with cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$. The 5-th dimension has the geometry of an orbifold and the branes are located at $`y_0=0`$, $`y_1=l_L`$ and $`y_2=l_L+l_{}`$ and $`y_3=y_2+l_R`$, where $`y_0`$ and $`y_2`$ are the orbifold fixed points333The requirement that we have orbifold fixed points is not really necessary for our analysis, which is much more general (see Fig.2). Firstly we consider the branes having no matter on them in order to find a suitable vacuum solution. The action of this setup is:

$$S=d^4x_{y_2}^{y_2}𝑑y\sqrt{G}\{\mathrm{\Lambda }+2M^3R\}\underset{i}{}_{y=y_i}d^4xV_i\sqrt{\widehat{G}^{(i)}}$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }^{(i)}`$ is the induced metric on the branes and $`V_i`$ their tensions. Here we included negative $`y`$ and we are looking for solutions invariant with respect to $`Z_2`$ symmetry $`yy`$. The notation is the same as in Ref. .

At this point we demand that our metric respects 4D Poincareé invariance. The metric ansatz with this property is the following:

$$ds^2=e^{2\sigma (y)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2$$
(2)
Here the “warp” function $`\sigma (y)`$ is essentially a conformal factor that rescales the 4D component of the metric. It satisfies the following differential equations:

$`\left(\sigma ^{}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`k^2,\sigma ^{\prime \prime }={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_i}{12M^3}}\delta (yL_i)`$ (3)
where $`k=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{24M^3}}`$ is a measure of the curvature of the bulk. The brane tensions are tuned to $`V_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }/k>0`$, $`V_1=V_2=\mathrm{\Lambda }/2k<0`$, $`V_2=\mathrm{\Lambda }/k>0`$. It is convenient to introduce 3 dimensionless parameters

$`x_L=kl_L,x_R=kl_R,x_{}=kl_{}`$ (4)
It is easy to see that when $`x_{}=0`$ we have $`++`$ model  with the hierarchy factor $`w=e^{(x_Rx_L)}`$ and parameter $`x`$ on Fig.1 is $`x_R`$. In the limit of infinite $`x_{}`$ we have two infinitely separated GRS systems. Then it becomes quite clear that $`++`$ model smoothly interpolates between this two models. spectrum that follows from the dimensional reduction. Then we have to find the spectrum of (linear) fluctuations of the metric:

$$ds^2=\left[e^{2\sigma (y)}\eta _{\mu \nu }+\frac{2}{M^{3/2}}h_{\mu \nu }(x,y)\right]dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2$$
(5)
We expand the field $`h_{\mu \nu }(x,y)`$ in graviton and KK states plane waves:

$$h_{\mu \nu }(x,y)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}h_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n)}(y)$$
(6)
where $`\left(_\kappa ^\kappa m_n^2\right)h_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}=0`$ and fix the gauge as $`^\alpha h_{\alpha \beta }^{(n)}=h_\alpha ^{(n)\alpha }=0`$. The function $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n)}(y)`$ will obey a second order differential equation which after a change of variables reduces to an ordinary Schrödinger equation:

$$\left\{\frac{1}{2}_y^2+V(y)\right\}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(n)}(y)=\frac{m_n^2}{2}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(n)}(y),\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(n)}(y)\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n)}(y)e^{\sigma /2}$$
(7)
where potential $`V(y)`$ is determined by $`\sigma (y)`$. Qualitatively it is $`\delta `$-function potentials (attractive for $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+_{}^{\prime \prime }`$ and repulsive for $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }_{}^{\prime \prime }`$ branes) of different weight depending on brane tension and an extra smoothing term (due to the AdS geometry) that gives the potential a “volcano” form.

An interesting characteristic of this potential is that it always gives rise to a (massless) zero mode which reflects the fact that Lorentz invariance is preserved in 4D spacetime. This mode is normalizable for finite $`x_{}`$ and becomes non-normalizable in a GSR limit of infinite $`x_{}`$. The interaction of the linearized gravitons to matter localized on a brane located at some $`y`$ is given by

$`_{int}={\displaystyle \frac{f(y)}{M^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n)}(y)h_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}(x)T_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ (8)
with $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ the energy momentum tensor of the SM Lagrangian and $`f(y)`$ is some universal function. From this expression the Newton potential on a brane is given by

$$U(r)\underset{n0}{}\frac{(\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n)})^2(y)}{M^3}\frac{e^{mr}}{r}𝑑m\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_m^2(y)}{M^3}\frac{e^{mr}}{r}$$
(9)
where $`\rho (m)`$ is the spectral density and it is discrete for $`x_{}=0`$ and becomes continuous in a GRS limit of infinite $`x_{}`$. We shall present full solution of this model for all $`x_{}`$ elsewhere .

Let us remind that one of the striking predictions of $`++`$ model is the fact that the first KK mode can be very light and strongly coupled compared to the rest of the KK states. This light mode can be so light that the corresponding wavelength can be by order of $`1\%`$ of the observable size of the Universe while the second KK mode is in submillimeter region. Surprisingly enough this situation is not excluded experimentally and we called it “Bi-Gravity” - in all experimentally analyzed regions gravitational attraction is due to an exchange of two particles - the massless graviton and ultralight first KK mode. Only at scales larger than $`10^{26}cm`$ will the first KK mode decouple leading to a smaller gravitational coupling beyond this length scale. The reason the anomalously light KK mode exists is due to the fact that with more that one $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+_{}^{\prime \prime }`$ brane there will be a bound state on each of them when they have infinite separation. At finite distances there is a mixing between the two localized states. One superposition is the true ground state while the other configuration has non-zero mass, but the gap may be very small - it is given by a tunneling factor. In the case $`x>>1`$ we obtained a reliable approximation to its mass

$$m_1=2ke^{x_Lx_R}$$
(10)
For $`w=1`$ we get $`m_1=2ke^{2x}`$ and the wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^2(0)=\mathrm{\Psi }_1^2(0)`$ with exponential accuracy. The masses of the other KK states in the above region are found to depend in a different way on the parameter $`x`$. The mass of the second state and the spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ between the subsequent states have the form:

$`m_2ke^x,\mathrm{\Delta }m\epsilon ke^x`$ (11)
where $`\epsilon `$ is a number between 1 and 2. Equations (10) and (11) show that, for large $`x`$, the lightest KK mode splits off from the remaining tower. This leads to an exotic possibility in which the lightest KK mode is the dominant source of Newtonian gravity!

Cavendish experiments and astronomical observations studying the motions of distant galaxies have put Newtonian gravity to test from submillimeter distances up to distances that correspond to $`1\%`$ of the size of observable Universe, searching for violations of the weak equivalence principle and inverse square law. In the context of the graviton KK modes discussed above this constrains $`m<10^{31}\mathrm{eV}`$ or $`m>10^4\mathrm{eV}`$. Our exotic scheme corresponds to the choice $`m_110^{31}\mathrm{eV}`$ and $`m_2>10^4\mathrm{eV}`$. In this case, for length scales less than $`10^{26}\mathrm{cm}`$ gravity is generated by the exchange of both the massless graviton and the first KK mode (C is some constant)

$$U(r)=C\frac{(\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)})^2(0)}{M^3}\left(\frac{1}{r}+\frac{(\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)})^2(0)}{(\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)})^2(0)}\frac{e^{m_1r}}{r}\right)+O(e^{m_2r})2C\frac{(\mathrm{\Psi }^0)^2(0)}{M^3}\frac{1}{r}$$
(12)
so gravitational constant is $`G_N=2C\frac{(\mathrm{\Psi }^0)^2(0)}{M^3}`$. According to this picture deviations from Newton’s law will appear in the submillimeter regime $`m_2r<1`$ as the Yukawa corrections of the second and higher KK states become important. Also the presence of the ultralight first KK state will give deviations from Newton’s law as we probe cosmological scales $`m_1r>1`$ (of the order of the observable universe) with $`G_N/2`$ instead of $`G_N`$. The phenomenological signature of this scenario is that gravitational interactions will appear to become weaker (in general case by the factor $`w`$ ) for distances larger than $`1/m_110^{26}\mathrm{cm}`$!

The idea behind GRS construction was totally different - they did not have normalized modes, but rather continuous spectrum, however they have a “resonance”  which effectively was due to the fact that that the negative brane created a tunneling factor (negative brane acts as a repulsive potential) which effectively leads to a resonance in a wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m(0)`$ of gravitons

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_m^2(0)=\frac{c}{m^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/4}+O(m^4)$$
(13)
From (13) one can see ,

$$U(r)=\frac{2c}{M^3\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{1}{r}\frac{dx}{x^2+1}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }r}{2}x\right)$$
(14)
and we see that for $`r<<1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we recover the Newton $`1/r`$ potential with

$$G_N=\frac{\pi c}{M^3\mathrm{\Gamma }}$$
(15)
and for $`r>1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ potential is $`1/r^2`$ and gravity is modified at large distances.

But this is just the same as we have on our discrete case (see Fig.3) \- the reason is of course that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }e^x`$. Thus we see that in both limits it the same tunneling factor $`e^x`$ made modification of gravity possible - in discrete case it is exponentially small splitting between masses of massles graviton and first KK mode, in continuous case it is exponentially small virtual resonance width.

Of course one get the same behaviour in other models when positive branes are separated by negative branes. For example one may have a crystal  and in this case we have bands. Potential will be proportional to

$$U(r)𝑑m\rho (m)\frac{e^{mr}}{r}$$
(16)
where $`\rho (m)`$ is band density and for narrow band we shall have multigravity again. All we need is that the width of the first band $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is much smaller than the separation between first and second bands (more details will be given in ).

Let’s make some comments about the stability of the brane configuration discussed here. It involves a negative tension brane located between positive tension branes. Necessarily the negative tension (three) brane is free to move (in this configuration it cannot be located at a fixed point) and the question naturally arises about its stability. Being negative tension it will be advantageous to increase its volume and this may happen both by changing its location through the effects of the warp factor or through the brane bending. It is instructive to consider the first effect on its own by determining the effect of moving the position of the brane a distance $`\delta `$ from an initial position midway between the positive branes. In this case  the warp factor at the negative brane decreases by the factor $`e^{\kappa \delta }`$, where $`\kappa `$ is the five dimensional curvature. Thus the volume of the negative brane decreases, implying the midpoint is a position of equilibrium for the “flat” brane. Consider now the effect of deforming the brane over some transverse size $`l`$ which may reasonable be taken to be the horizon size. The mean displacement of the brane about its equilibrium position is proportional to $`RR\mathrm{cos}\theta R\theta ^2=l\theta ,`$ where $`\theta =l/R1.`$ Thus the warp factor decreases by the factor $`e^{2c\kappa l\theta }`$ where $`c`$ is some constant. The deformed brane stretches by an amount $``$($`1+\theta ^2/2)`$ in each transverse dimension so the net change in the brane volume is ($`e^{c\kappa l\theta }(1+\theta ^2/2))^3.`$ Since the horizon size, $`l,`$ will always be much larger than the Planck length $`\kappa ^1),`$ this naive argument suggests that the warp factor is the dominant effect and that the bending of the brane is energetically disfavoured. If this is true the brane configurations discussed in this paper may be stable structures and the modified gravitational interactions discussed above may indeed be possible .

Finally let us discuss problems raised in . Contrary to massless four-dimensional graviton which has 2 polarizations the massive one has 5 possible polarizations. The tensor structure for graviton propagator is given by

$$G^{\mu \nu ,\alpha \beta }=C\frac{\left[1/2\left(g^{\mu \alpha }g^{\nu \beta }+g^{\nu \alpha }g^{\mu \beta }\right)tg^{\mu \nu }g^{\alpha \beta }\right]+O(pp/p^2)}{p^2m^2}$$
(17)
where for all non-zero m parameter $`t=1/3`$  but for $`m=0`$ $`t=1/2`$. Then the one-graviton exchange amplitude for any two four-dimensional sources $`T_{\mu \nu }^1`$ and $`T_{\alpha \beta }^2`$ is given by

$$T_{\mu \nu }^1G^{\mu \nu ,\alpha \beta }T_{\alpha \beta }^2=C\frac{T_{\mu \nu }^1T^{2\mu \nu }tT^1T^2}{p^2m^2}$$
(18)
where $`T=T_\mu ^\mu `$. Massive bodies at rest have only non-zero $`T_{00}`$ and $`T=T_{00}`$. Newton constant can be found from amplitude

$$\frac{C(1t)}{p^2m^2}T_{00}^1T_{00}^2$$
(19)
But there is another type of matter - light and for light $`T=0`$. The amplitude for light bending does not depend on $`t`$ and is given by

$$\frac{C}{p^2m^2}T_{00}^1T_{00}^2$$
(20)
The ratio of two amplitudes is $`1t`$. Because both amplitudes are known experimentally it is easy to find $`t`$ -and of course it must be $`t=1/2`$ as in Einstein General relativity. If we take $`t=1/3`$ the ratio of two amplitudes is going to be $`2/3`$ instead of $`1/2`$ \- and this is factor $`4/3`$ which was discussed in .

However this is not the whole story. We have a five-dimensional General relativity and the graviton propagator in five dimensions has tensor structure

$$G^{MN,PQ}\left[1/2\left(g^{MP}g^{NQ}+g^{MQ}g^{NP}\right)tg^{MN}g^{PQ}\right]+O(pp/p^2)$$
(21)
where $`t=1/3`$ i.e. as massive four-dimensional graviton. The reason is very simple - they both have 5 physical components. It is a well known fact in KK theory that after compactification the massless sector contains massless graviton, graviphotn and KK scalar - in total five degrees of freedom. At the same time massive KK excitations contain only massive 4d graviton.

Let’s then consider the full five-dimensional amplitude

$$T_{MN}G^{MN,PQ}T_{PQ}T_{MN}\left[1/2\left(g^{MP}g^{NQ}+g^{MQ}g^{NP}\right)tg^{MN}g^{PQ}\right]T_{PQ}$$
(22)
where $`T_{MN}`$ is a full stress-energy tensor. We don’t have $`T_{\mu 5}`$ but besides $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ there is $`T_{55}`$. Then the total amplitude can be written as

$`T_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }tTT+(1t)T_5^5T_5^52tTT_5^5=\left[T_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}TT\right]+`$
$`(1/2t)TT+(1t)T_5^5T_5^52tTT_5^5`$ (23)
The first line is the correct four-dimensional amplitude - all known experimental data gives this amplitude, so it will be nice to see that the second line is identically zero. Amusingly at $`t=1/3`$ the second line is a full square

$$\frac{1}{6}(T2T_5^5)^2$$
(24)
Why it is natural to have the condition $`(T2T_5^5)=0`$ ? First of all this is written in momentum representation. All amplitudes under consideration have zero momentum transfer in the fifth direction. This means that we have to integrate over the fifth coordinate $`𝑑y\sqrt{G^{(5)}}(T2T_5^5)`$. But this is precisely the integral condition which was discussed in . The $`g_{55}`$ remains in equilibrium and the size of an extra dimension stays fixed if the stress energy of the 5D matter satisfies the following constraint444This constraint was also derived from a topological argument in .:

$$d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{G^{(5)}}(\widehat{T}_\mu ^\mu 2\widehat{T}_5^5)=0.$$
(25)
To show what does this condition mean let us consider standard Kaluza-Klein decomposition

$$G_{MN}^{(5)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}G^{(4)}_{\mu \nu }& 0\\ 0& e^{2\gamma }\end{array}\right),$$
(26)
and then consider the linear term

$$\delta G_{MN}^{(5)}T^{MN}=\delta G_{\mu \nu }^{(4)}T^{\mu \nu }+\delta (e^{2\gamma })T^{55}$$
(27)
in any system. Using $`G_{\mu \nu }^{(4)}=e^\gamma g_{\mu \nu }`$, one can rewrite the above expression as

$$\delta G_{MN}^{(5)}T^{MN}=e^\gamma \delta g_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }\delta \gamma (T2\widehat{T}_5^5)$$
(28)
Thus, we see that $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is a source for the graviton while the combination $`(T2T_5^5)`$ is the source for the scalar (radion). In the presence of a mechanism that stabilizes the extra dimension (see for example  and  and references therein) the source for the constant mode of this scalar is identically zero. If we do not have a stabilization mechanism but, nevertheless, we look for solutions with a Newtonian limit, we still have to require the absence of the above term.

The conclusion is that there is a smooth limit $`m0`$ in multigravity. The situation here similar to the Higgs mechanism. There is no smooth limit when the mass of a vector particle is given by hand - but there is a smooth limit when it emerges dynamically due to spontaneous symmetry breaking.

Acknowledgments: We would like to thank P. Kanti, S. Mouslopoulos, K.Olive, A. Papazoglou, M. Pospelov and M. Voloshin for interesting discussions. This work is supported in part by PPARC rolling grant PPA/G/O/1998/00567, the EC TMR grant FMRX-CT-96-0090 and by the INTAS grant RFBR - 950567. One of us (I.I.K) would like to thank TPI, University of Minnesota for kind hospitality and stimulating discussions during visit in February 2000.

Note added in proof:  During preparation of this paper for publications several papers were published in which the $`4/3`$ problem  was discussed , but not the constraint (25).


text:
# Slim Disk Model for Soft X-Ray Excess and Variabilityof Narrow-Line Seyfert 1 Galaxies

## 1. Introduction

The terminology of narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies (NLS1s) originates from their relatively $`narrow`$ optical Balmer-line emission with $`v_{\mathrm{BLR}}<2000`$km s-1 compared with those of usual Seyfert 1 galaxies with broad-line emission, BLS1s (see a concise review by Brandt 1999 and references therein). Their optical line ratios and remarkable Feii lines (Osterbrock, Pogge 1985; Halpern, Oke 1987; Grupe et al. 1999) are also distinct from those of BLS1s. NLS1s exhibit unique X-ray properties ($`e.g.`$, Grupe et al. 1998); they are characterized by large soft X-ray excess (Pounds et al. 1996; Otani et al. 1996; Leighly 1999b) and a good correlation is known to exist between the strength of soft excess and FWHM of optical Balmer lines (Boller et al. 1996; Laor et al. 1997). Rapid soft/hard X-ray variability is another signature characterizing NLS1s (Otani et al. 1996; Boller et al. 1997; Leighly 1999a). NLS1s are not rare but comprise a significant part (say, 20%) of the Seyfert 1 galaxies and it seems that a group of NLS1s is smoothly connected to the class of BLS1s (Brandt, Boller 1998).

It is often suggested that the strength of the soft X-ray excess relative to the hard X-ray power law appears to be directly related to the ‘primary eigenvector’ of Boroson and Green (1992), which represents the strongest set of optical emission line correlations ($`e.g.`$, Brandt 1999). In this sense, NLS1s are located at the extreme end of the primary eigenvector. The UV line properties of NLS1s also fits this scheme (Wills et al. 1999). Then, what is the control parameter which drives the primary eigenvector? What physical factor distinguishes NLS1s from BLS1s?

There are several models proposed to account for the narrowness of otherwise broad-line emission (see Boller et al. 1996 for extensive discussion). Successful models should account for a smooth continuation between NLS1s and BLS1s. Among them, one fascinating and probably most promising explanation is that NLS1s contain relatively less massive black holes (with $`M10^{57}M_{}`$). Moderate brightness of NLS1s, $`L10^{4345}`$erg s-1, implies similar mass-flow rates, $`\dot{M}`$, to those of BLS1s. It then follows that the ratio of $`L/L_\mathrm{E}`$ (or $`\dot{M}/M`$) is relatively large for NLS1s. The control parameter which drives the eigen vector could be the fraction of the Eddington rate at which the supermassive black hole is accreting, $`\dot{M}/(L_\mathrm{E}/c^2)`$.

For small black-hole masses, narrow Balmer line emission of NLS1s can be understood, provided that the broad-line clouds (which emit broad-line emission in BLS1s) are bound in the potential by a central black hole (Laor et al. 1997). Since the radius of the broad-line clouds are roughly scaled as $`r_{\mathrm{BLR}}L^{0.5}`$ from the reverberation mapping (Kaspi et al. 1996), the circular velocity of broad-line clouds, $`\sqrt{GM/r_{\mathrm{BLR}}}`$, is systematically smaller for smaller $`M`$ at a constant $`L`$ (and thus constant $`r_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$), yielding narrow Balmer emission.

For a luminosity close to the Eddington,

$$L_\mathrm{E}1.2\times 10^{43}M_5\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(1)
where $`M_5M/(10^5M_{})`$, what do we then expect theoretically for the disk structure and its spectra? It is known that for such a high luminosity advective energy transport dominates over radiative cooling (Abramowicz et al. 1988; section 10.3 of Kato et al. 1998). Such a disk is named as the slim disk, since it is moderately geometrically thick.

The slim disk is an optically thick version of ADAF (advection-dominated accretion flow) and should not be confused with optically thin ADAF proposed for low-luminosity AGNs (see section 10.2 of Kato et al. 1998 and references therein). Unlike the optically thin ADAF the observable features of the slim disk have been poorly investigated. Szuszkiewicz et al. (1996) was the first to start investigation along this line (see also Wang et al. 1999), and we give more detailed discussion on the observational consequences in the present study. Watarai et al. (2000a) studied the super-critical accretion flow in the context of Galactic black-hole candidates (GBHC), showing some unique observational features of the slim disk.

We focus on the AGN case in the present study. Methods of calculations are given in section 2. We then discuss the non-standard emission properties of the slim disk in the context of NLS1s in section 3. We next turn to the subject of large variability and discuss its origin in relation to magnetic-field activity in section 4. Outstanding issues will be discussed in section 5. The final section is devoted to conclusions. Throughout the present study we use the normalization of $`\dot{M}`$ with $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{crit}}L_\mathrm{E}/c^2`$; i.e.,

$`\dot{m}\dot{M}/\dot{M}_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ $``$ $`\dot{M}/(1.3\times 10^{22}M_5\mathrm{g}\mathrm{s}^1)`$ (2)
$``$ $`\dot{M}/(2.5\times 10^4M_5M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1).`$ (3)
## 2. Basic equations and methods of calculations

We first solve the steady-state, transonic disk structure. The methods are the same as those adopted in Matsumoto et al. (1984) and Watarai et al. (2000a), but we briefly repeat the description below.

For the purpose of the present study, it is essential to solve the full-set equations, since the emission from the innermost region is in question. (Approximate solutions, such as the self-similar solutions, do not properly treat the inner boundary conditions nor regularity conditions.) The transonic nature of the accretion flow should also be carefully treated. We do not include any general relativistic (GR) effects except for adopting the pseudo-Newtonian potential by Paczyński and Witta (1980), $`\psi =GM/(rr_\mathrm{S})`$. For discussion of GR effects, see section 3.5. We use cylindrical coordinates, ($`r,\phi ,z`$).

Throughout this paper, we used vertically integrated (or height-averaged) equations. In fact, we numerically confirmed that $`H/r<1`$ for $`\dot{m}<100`$, where $`H`$ is the scale-height of the disk. Certainly, $`H/r>1`$ for even higher mass accretion rate, but for such high $`\dot{m}`$, photon diffusion time over $`H`$ becomes longer than accretion timescale so that the disk height should be significantly reduced (see section 5.1). The height-average approach may not be very precise and we eventually need fully 2-D models. The same problem arises in optically thin ADAF, for which Narayan & Yi (1995) found that the 2-D solutions of the exact non-height-integrated equations agree quite well with those of the simplified height-integrated equations, provided that ‘height-integration’ is done along $`\theta `$ at constant spherical radius, rather than along $`z`$ at constant cylindrical radius. The height-integrated equations therefore are a fairly accurate representation of quasi-spherical ADAFs.

We construct the vertically integrated equations, using integrated variables, such as surface density, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho 𝑑z`$, and integrated pressure, $`\mathrm{\Pi }p𝑑z`$. Vertically integrated mass, momentum, and angular-momentum conservations lead

$$2\pi r\mathrm{\Sigma }v_r=\dot{M}=\mathrm{const}.,$$
(4)
$$v_r\frac{dv_r}{dr}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\frac{d\mathrm{\Pi }}{dr}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{}_\mathrm{K}^2}{r^3}\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{K}}{dr},$$
(5)
and

$$\dot{M}(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{in}})=2\pi r^2T_{r\phi },$$
(6)
respectively, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }(=v_\phi /r)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{K}[=(GM/r)^{1/2}/(rr_\mathrm{S})`$\] are the angular frequency of the gas flow and the Keplerian angular frequency in the pseudo-Newtonian potential, $`\mathrm{}`$ ($`=rv_\phi `$) is specific angular momentum, $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{K}`$ ($`r^2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{K}`$) is the Keplerian angular momentum, $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{in}}`$ is the specific angular momentum finally swallowed by the black hole, and $`r_\mathrm{S}2GM/c^23\times 10^{10}M_5`$ cm is the Schwarzschild radius. As to the viscous stress tensor we adopt the prescription $`T_{r\phi }\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }`$ with the viscosity parameter, $`\alpha =0.1`$. Note, however, that the resultant disk structure does not sensitively depend on $`\alpha `$ (Watarai et al. 2000b).

The vertically integrated energy equation is symbolically written as

$$Q_{\mathrm{adv}}^{}=Q_{\mathrm{vis}}^+Q_{\mathrm{rad}}^{},$$
(7)
where $`Q_{\mathrm{adv}}^{}[\mathrm{\Sigma }v_rT(ds/dr)`$\] is the advective cooling with $`s`$ being specific entropy, and other two terms on the right-hand side represent viscous heating and radiative cooling, respectively.

The outer boundary conditions are imposed at $`r=2.0\times 10^3r_\mathrm{S}`$, where each physical quantity is taken as that of the standard disk. We confirmed that the disk structure near the outer boundary can be very accurately described by the standard-disk relation. When calculating spectra (see below), we extrapolate the temperature distribution up to $`r=2.0\times 10^4r_\mathrm{S}`$ using the standard-disk relation, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}r^{3/4}`$. The basic equations are integrated by the semi-implicit method from the outer boundary to the inner one taken at $`r=1.01r_\mathrm{S}`$. The flow is subsonic far outside ($`rr_\mathrm{S}`$) but is supersonic just near the black hole. The solution should satisfy the regularity condition at the transonic radius, at about 2.7$`r_\mathrm{S}`$, and we adopt the free boundary conditions at the inner edge.

## 3. Observational features of a slim disk

### 3.1. Unique temperature profile

How do structural changes occur from the standard to the slim disk when $`\dot{m}`$ increases? The solid lines in the upper panels of figure 1 represent the temperature profiles of the disks for various values of $`\dot{m}`$ for the black-hole mass of $`M=10^5M_{}`$. For comparison, we also plot with the dashed lines the temperatures expected from the standard-disk relation (Shakura, Sunyaev 1973),

$$T_{\mathrm{eff}}10^{6.5}M_5^{\frac{1}{4}}\dot{m}^{\frac{1}{4}}\left(\frac{r}{r_\mathrm{S}}\right)^{\frac{3}{4}}\left(1\sqrt{\frac{r_{\mathrm{in}}}{r}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{K},$$
(8)
where $`M_5M/10^5M_{}`$.

We note three characteristics:

1. In contrast with the standard disk having an effective temperature profile of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}r^{3/4}`$, the slim disk exhibits flatter slopes, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}r^{1/2}`$ (Watarai, Fukue 1999). As $`\dot{m}`$ increases, the part with a flatter temperature profile expands outward; i.e., up to $`r100r_\mathrm{S}`$ for $`\dot{m}100`$, and $`r1000r_\mathrm{S}`$ for $`\dot{m}1000`$.
2. When the innermost parts become advection-dominated at $`\dot{m}>50`$, substantial amount of radiation is expected from inside the marginally stable last stable orbit, $`r_{\mathrm{ms}}=3r_\mathrm{S}10^{11}`$cm. This can be understood as follows: For $`\dot{m}1`$, the flow is very subsonic far outside, while it should become supersonic near the black hole. A sudden jump in the radial accretion velocity across the transonic radius (at $`2.7r_\mathrm{S}`$) results in an abrupt density drop inside the transonic radius (note $`\dot{M}v_r\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is kept constant). The innermost region become of low density, thus producing little emission (emissivity goes like $`\rho ^2`$). For $`\dot{m}>50`$, conversely, the flow velocity outside the transonic radius is already comparable to the sound speed, thus the velocity and density jump across the transonic radius being small. Therefore, huge, continuous mass supply makes it possible to keep the innermost region (at $`r<3r_\mathrm{S}`$) optically thick and substantial amount of radiation can be produced there as a result.
3. Consequently, the inner disk temperature (which makes a hotter peak in the spectrum) gets systematically higher than the values expected by the standard relation. The size of the region emitting with the maximum energy becomes small, however.

### 3.2. Spectral features

Once temperature distributions are obtained, we can calculate emergent spectra by simply summing up a contribution from each tiny portion of the disk. Such scattering dominated, hot disks as those considered here do not always emit blackbody radiation (Czerny, Elvis 1987; Beloborodov 1998). However, we simply assume blackbody radiation to see the effects of transonic flow (discussed later).

The results are plotted in the lower panels of figure 1. As $`\dot{m}`$ increases, the spectra, $`\nu S_\nu `$, get flatter and flatter around the peak, $`\nu S_\nu \nu ^0`$. (Still, $`\nu S_\nu \nu ^{4/3}`$ in the optical bands.) According to Grupe et al. (1998) soft X-ray selected AGNs (including a number of NLS1s) tend to exhibit bluer optical/UV (around 1400 Å) spectra when compared with those of hard X-ray selected ones and the maximum slope is $`S_\nu \nu ^{0.3}`$. This is consistent with our calculations.

The most significant problem lies in $`a_{\mathrm{os}}`$, or the optical to soft X-ray flux ratio (say 3000A to 0.2 keV). High $`L/L_\mathrm{E}`$ models predict a very flat $`a_{\mathrm{os}}`$, –1 or flatter, as shown in figure 1, whereas the observed slope is more like –1.5 (see Table 1 of Brandt et al. 2000, which includes many NLS1s). Thus, the observed soft X-ray emission is a factor of 10, or more, weaker than high $`L/L_\mathrm{E}`$ disk models predict. In fact, this problem already exists for normal AGNs (Laor et al. 1997) and is actually more severe for NLS1s because of the flatter predicted $`a_{\mathrm{os}}`$. This does not necessarily rule out the disk model, but it does suggest a significantly reduced efficiency of the emission from the inner parts of the accretion disk (e.g. Laor 1998).

NLS1s have a steeper soft (0.1–2 keV) X-ray slope, but since they have a pretty normal $`a_{\mathrm{os}}`$, this slope is actually mostly because the hard X-ray component is weak and not because the soft component is strong (Laor et al. 1997). The slim disk model shows that exponential roll-over extends over 1keV, thus producing large power-law indices in the ROSAT band. The inclusion of Compton scattering within the disk will increase the photon indices further (Ross et al. 1992) which will be discussed in section 3.5. Fairly strong correlation between the optical and soft X-ray emission is naturally explained since both are from the same optically thick disk.

If we include a hard power-law component in the calculation, we expect a larger hard power law index in the ASCA bands for a larger soft excess as a result of more efficient cooling of electrons via inverse Compton scattering. Since the hard power-law slope is determined by the Compton $`y`$-parameter which is related to the energy amplifications of soft photons (e.g. Rybicki, Lightman 1979), less (or more) energy input to high-energy electrons compared with that to soft photons leads to a larger (smaller) $`y`$ and thus a larger (smaller) photon index in the hard X-ray bands; $`\alpha _\mathrm{x}>2`$ ($`\alpha _\mathrm{x}<2`$) as is observed in the soft (hard) state of GBHC (Mineshige et al. 1995). Systematically large $`\alpha _\mathrm{x}`$’s in NLS1s in the ASCA bands (Pounds et al. 1996; Brandt et al. 1997) can be understood.

Further, Tanaka (1989) found highly variable hard emission relative to the soft one in GBHC. If the analogy holds, the relative strength of the hard component could take any values. This may explain a diversity in $`\alpha _\mathrm{x}`$’s of NLS1s in the ASCA bands.

### 3.3. Evolution of the disk luminosity

It should be repeated that the disk luminosity, increases only moderately above $`L_\mathrm{E}`$ for steadily increasing $`\dot{M}`$. We calculate $`L`$ by summing up the contribution from each concentric annulus and plot in figure 2 as a function of $`\dot{m}`$. Asterisks are calculated values, while the solid curve represents the fitting formula (see Watarai et al. 2000a for a derivation),

$$L(\dot{m})/L_\mathrm{E}\{\begin{array}{ccc}2[1+\mathrm{ln}(\dot{m}/50)]\hfill & \text{for}& \dot{m}50\hfill \\ \dot{m}/25\hfill & \text{for}& \dot{m}<50\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
The functional dependence of $`L/L_\mathrm{E}`$ on $`\dot{m}`$ is basically the same as that for GBHC with smaller black-hole masses, thus being insensitive to $`M`$.

Care must be taken when interpreting $`L`$, since radiation field is likely to be anisotropic; i.e., radiation mostly goes out in the vertical direction to the disk plane, whereas matter approaches to the black hole along the disk plane. This is a way in which super-critical accretion is possible, but at the same time, we expect much diluted radiation going out in the direction of the disk plane. Blocking of the radiation by the outer disk rim provides an additional diluting effect (Fukue 2000). Thus, we will detect weaker flux ($`<L_\mathrm{E}/4\pi d^2`$ with $`d`$ being distance), even when the total $`L`$ exceeds $`L_\mathrm{E}`$. We also expect strong radiation-accelerated wind in the central region ($`e.g.`$, Watarai, Fukue 1999), which will give rise to blue-shifted UV lines (Leighly 1999b).

### 3.4. Fitting with the multi-color blackbody

Now we fit the calculated disk spectra by the extended disk blackbody model (Mineshige et al. 1994a), assuming the following $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ profile,

$$T_{\mathrm{eff}}=T_{\mathrm{in}}(r/r_{\mathrm{in}})^p,$$
(10)
where $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$, $`T_{\mathrm{in}}`$, and $`p`$ are fitting parameters.

Note that the fitting results may slightly depend on the X-ray energy ranges for which fitting is made, but in the present study we fix the energy bands to be either 0.1 – 0.5 keV (for $`\dot{m}<10`$), 0.1 – 1.0 keV (for $`10\dot{m}<100`$), or 0.1 – 3.0 keV (for $`\dot{m}100`$).

To have a good fitting result, especially in $`p`$, wider spectral ranges, especially a good coverage of soft X-ray bands, are certainly necessary. The small black hole mass is preferable for this sort of fitting, since then the disk temperature is roughly scaled as $`M^{1/4}`$, expected from the standard-disk relation (which is also roughly valid in the slim-disk regime). In the fitting, $`T_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$ are basically determined by the energy and the intensity of the exponential roll-over, while $`p`$ depends on the slope in lower energy bands. EUV to soft X-ray observations are crucial for discriminating the slim disk from the standard disk.

We examine how the derived fitting parameters of $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$, $`T_{\mathrm{in}}`$, and $`p`$ change with an increase of a mass-flow rate (and $`L`$). The results of the fittings are summarized in table 1 and figure 3.

As $`\dot{m}`$ increases, so does $`T_{\mathrm{in}}`$ more or less gradually, but at the same time $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$ shifts from $`10r_\mathrm{S}`$ to $`0.5r_\mathrm{S}`$ abruptly at $`L/L_\mathrm{E}2`$ ($`\dot{m}50`$). We should recall that $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$ stands for the size of the area emitting with $`B_\nu (T_{\mathrm{in}})`$ and not the radius of the physical inner boundary (which should be always at $`r_\mathrm{S}`$). In fact, the upper part of figure 1 has already shown that the peak effective temperature shifts toward smaller radii as $`\dot{m}`$ increases.

The effective temperature of the slim disk has a weak luminosity dependence, $`T_{\mathrm{in}}M^{1/4}L^{1/4}`$, however, $`T_{\mathrm{in}}`$ also has some dependence on $`\dot{M}/M`$ at $`\dot{m}<50`$. We, hence, expect scatters in $`T_{\mathrm{in}}`$ even for the same $`M`$ and $`L`$.

### 3.5. Comparison with the observations

Hayashida (2000) analyzed the ASCA spectral data of 9 NLS1s and fitted them with a two spectral-component model: a hard power-law component and a soft blackbody one. We assume that the soft component represents the emission from the disk we are discussing. The fitting parameters of the soft component are blackbody temperature, $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$, and the size of the blackbody emitting region, $`r_{\mathrm{bb}}`$. The results of the fitting are summarized in figure 4 and in table 2.

Note that the redshift are small, $`z<0.1`$, for all the sources. Among the nine sources in Hayashida (2000), we excluded Mrk766 because of its complex spectral features and their variability (Leighly et al. 1996). Even for the other eight sources, it must be kept in mind that there may be some model dependence in the data points of $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ and in $`r_{\mathrm{bb}}`$. In particular, modeling of peculiar spectral features around 1.1 keV found for some sources \[IRAS13224, H0707, and PG1404; see Hayashida (2000) and reference therein\] affect the parameter $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ significantly, e.g., $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ for H0707 might be about 30% higher than the value listed in table 2, if we model the feature as absorption edges. On the other hand, sources of which soft component are not so prominent, $`e.g.`$, IZw1, the results will be affected, if we allow some deviation from the perfect power law model for the hard component. Calibration problem of ASCA SIS may add extra error on the results, too. These points would be addressed in a separate paper.

The theoretical expectations based on the slim disk model are also plotted by the solid and dashed lines in figure 4. Since inclination angles are not known, we assume the inclination angle of $`i=60^{}`$ in the theoretical models; i.e., we set $`r_{\mathrm{bb}}=r_{\mathrm{in}}\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}i}`$. Likewise, we set $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}=T_{\mathrm{in}}`$, although the former may be systematically higher than the latter, $`T_{\mathrm{in}}(1.11.3)T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$. Accordingly, the value of $`r_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ should be smaller, for $`Lr_{\mathrm{bb}}^2T_{\mathrm{bb}}^4`$ is kept roughly constant. It might also be noted that the combination of $`r_{\mathrm{bb}}T_{\mathrm{bb}}^4`$, which is proportional to $`L/L_\mathrm{E}`$, is mass-independent, since $`r_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ ($`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$) can be scaled with $`r_\mathrm{S}M`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}T_{\mathrm{in}}M^{1/4}`$. Therefore, constant $`\dot{m}`$ lines give a relation, $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}r_{\mathrm{bb}}^{1/4}`$.

On the theoretical grounds, various kinds of GR effects and Compton scattering should affect the results. When scattering opacity dominates over absorption, the emergent spectra deviate from blackbody one (see Rybicki, Lightman 1979). In a hot disk with Compton $`y>1`$, moreover, inverse Compton scattering should modify the disk spectra in the high-energy tail, thereby yielding, at most, a factor of 2 $`increase`$ in $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$, while the total flux ($`r_{\mathrm{bb}}^2T_{\mathrm{bb}}^4`$) is kept constant; i.e., a factor of 4 $`decrease`$ in $`r_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ (Ross et al. 1992; Shimura, Takahara 1995).

GR effects (such as gravitational redshift, Doppler boosting, gravitational focusing due to ray bending) produce complex effects. We calculate a slim disk model with face-on geometry, for which only gravitational redshift works, finding systematically $`larger`$ $`r_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ ($`3r_\mathrm{S}`$) by a factor of $`6`$ and thus $`lower`$ $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ ($`0.12`$ keV) by a factor of $`2.5`$ even for $`\dot{m}>100`$. In other words, most of radiation from inside $`3r_\mathrm{S}`$ vanishes for this case. \[Although photon energy gets lost partly, the total flux does not drop much because of flatter $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ profile, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)r^{1/2}`$.\] Since Compton and GR effects work independently in opposite ways for a face-on disk, these effects cause decrease in $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ (by a factor of 2.5/2) and increase in $`r_{\mathrm{bb}}`$. Corrections to remove Compton and GR effects from the data points are, hence, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{bb}}<+0.1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}r_{\mathrm{bb}}<0.2`$, which is indicated by the lower-right-ward arrow in figure 4. (Since a model predicts lower $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ by these effects, we need higher $`\dot{m}`$ to reproduce the observed $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$.)

For disks with non-zero inclination angles around a Schwarzschild black hole, Doppler boosting enhances radiation, yielding, at most, a factor of $`1.4`$ $`increase`$ in $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ compared with face-on disks, while the total flux kept roughly constant (Sun, Malkan 1989). We thus expect slight $`increase`$ in $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ and $`decrease`$ in $`r_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ for a fixed $`r_{\mathrm{bb}}^2T_{\mathrm{bb}}^4`$ compared with face-on disks. Required corrections are $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{bb}}<0.2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}r_{\mathrm{bb}}<+0.4`$, which is indicated by the upper-left-ward arrow in figure 4.

It is evident in figure 4 that all NLS1s have relatively large $`\dot{m}`$. In other words, NLS1s shine at luminosities close to the Eddington (Hayashida 2000). Especially, PG1404, H0707, and IRAS13224, all having large $`\dot{m}`$ in figure 4 and enhanced soft components, are known to exhibit giant amplitude variability. In fact, Hayashida (2000) found that the mass estimated by the variability (Hayashida et al. 1998) significantly deviate from that estimated by equating $`r_{\mathrm{bb}}=0.5r_\mathrm{S}`$ in those sources, suggesting anomalously large variability amplitudes compared with other NLS1s with a similar black-hole mass. This tendency indicates a correlation between $`L/L_\mathrm{E}`$ and the variability amplitudes (and soft X-ray excess over hard X-rays, see below).

Despite ambiguities in data points in figure 4, we may conclude that all (or, at least, most of) the NLS1s fall on the region with $`\dot{m}>10`$, supporting our view that slim disks emit substantial fraction of soft X-rays at $`L_\mathrm{E}`$ in NLS1s. The observed steep slopes, $`a_{\mathrm{os}}`$ (see section 3.2), rather enhances our conclusion of high $`\dot{m}`$, since it means more optical radiation and thus higher $`\dot{m}`$ than that expected solely from X-rays.

## 4. Variability of NLS1s

The strength of the soft excess is correlated with the variability amplitudes; objects with strong soft excesses show higher amplitude variability (Leighly 1999b). Hence, successful models for NLS1s should account for the presence of soft X-ray variability. Leighly (1999a) summarize the ASCA observations of NLS1s, finding systematically large excess variance in NLS1s. This fact can be, in principle, explained in terms of small black-hole masses, however, origin of giant-amplitude variations observed in some NLS1s, including IRAS 13224-3809 (Boller et al. 1997, see also Otani et al. 1996) and PHL 1092 (Brandt et al. 1999), seems to require additional explanation (see section 3.5). The lack of optical variability in IRAS 13224-3809 poses a problem (Young et at. 1999), although both of the soft and hard components (in the ASCA band) are known to vary nearly simultaneously in the same source (Otani et al. 1996). Relativistic boosting of otherwise modest variations may produce extreme variability of this source (Boller et al. 1997).

The light curves of NLS1s, especially those exhibiting extreme variations, have the following characteristics:

(1) The light curves seem to be composed of numerous flares (or shots).

(2) The flares do not have an identical time profile but show a variety of flare amplitudes and durations.

(3) Temporal distribution of each flare is apparently random.

Interestingly, these features are the same as those found in GBHC during the low (hard) and very high states (see, $`e.g.`$, van der Klis 1995). Fluctuations in the soft X-ray component (of a disk origin) is observed only in the very high state, while the low-state disk has no soft component. In this sense, NLS1s are more like GBHC during the very high state.

To reproduce theses characteristics of the light curves, Kawaguchi et al. (2000) proposed that fractal magnetic-field structure spontaneously arises in an optically thin, advection-dominated flow and produces sporadic magnetic flare events, like solar flares, via magnetic reconnection. In fact, dynamics of magnetic fields in ADAFs is known to be well represented by a cellular-automaton model based on the notion of the Self-Organized Criticality (Mineshige et al. 1994b, Kawaguchi et al. 1998). It is of great importance to note that both of optically thick and thin ADAFs may share common time-dependent properties, since they are both dynamical systems in the sense that radial accretion velocity, $`v_r`$, is comparable to the free-fall velocity and sound speed, as long as $`\alpha `$ is not small. We, here, argue that the same MHD model can be relevant to the slim disk, thus explaining the variability of NLS1s, as well.

If fluctuations are of magnetic origin, large-amplitude fluctuations indicate relatively large field energy compared to the radiation energy. Suppose that gas cloud of a unit mass falls onto a black hole. Since radiative cooling is efficient in the standard-type disk, energy that is emitted away is comparable to the release of the gravitational energy, $`E_{\mathrm{rad}}E_{\mathrm{grav}}(GM/r)`$. As a result, the internal energy of gas should be much lower than the gravitational energy, $`E_{\mathrm{gas}}E_{\mathrm{grav}}`$. Since magnetic field energy will be, at most, the same order of the gas energy, $`E_{\mathrm{mag}}<E_{\mathrm{gas}}`$, we have $`E_{\mathrm{mag}}E_{\mathrm{grav}}E_{\mathrm{rad}}`$. If fluctuations occur due to sporadic release of magnetic energy via magnetic reconnection, this inequality explains small fluctuations in the standard disk.

In the ADAF state, both optically thick and thin ones, radiative cooling is inefficient. Suppose again that gas cloud of a unit mass falls onto a black hole. A distinction exists in what carries energy to a hole; it is internal energy of gas for the case of the optically thin ADAF, whereas it is trapped photons for the slim disks. In any cases, internal energy of gas or of trapped photons is of the order of gravitational energy which much exceeds radiation energy which is emitted away, $`(E_{\mathrm{rad}})_{\mathrm{trapped}}>(E_{\mathrm{rad}})_{\mathrm{out}}`$. Since again $`E_{\mathrm{mag}}<(E_{\mathrm{rad}})_{\mathrm{trapped}}`$, moderately large magnetic energy compared with the energy radiated away is expected, $`E_{\mathrm{mag}}>(E_{\mathrm{rad}})_{\mathrm{out}}`$. The larger $`\dot{m}`$ is, the more becomes the ratio of $`(E_{\mathrm{rad}})_{\mathrm{trapped}}/(E_{\mathrm{rad}})_{\mathrm{out}}`$. Namely, large fluctuations in soft X-ray emission are inevitable at high $`\dot{m}`$, consistent with the observations of NLS1s.

In contrast, the standard-type disk (which may exist in BLS1s) is stable and, hence, is not variable. Fluctuations from BLS1s are thus due to variation of incident power-law radiation from disk coronae, which are presumably filled with magnetic fields and thus variable for the same reason mentioned above. In terms of variability, therefore, the disk main body is passive in BLS1s while it is active in NLS1s. To elucidate the theory distinguishing these two, however, realistic modeling of the disk-corona structure is needed as future work.

## 5. Outstanding issues

### 5.1. Radiation transfer

In a hot and dense layer with a very large Thomson depth ($`\tau `$), there are several important effects to be considered in addition to Compton scattering effects. First, the photon diffusion time ($`H\tau /c`$) may exceed the accretion time.

$$\tau _{\mathrm{dif}}4\times 10^4\mathrm{\Sigma }_4(H/r)(r/10r_\mathrm{S})M_5\mathrm{s}$$
(11)
and

$$\tau _{\mathrm{acc}}5\times 10^2(v_r/0.1v_{\mathrm{ff}})^1(r/10r_\mathrm{S})^{3/2}M_5\mathrm{s},$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_4\mathrm{\Sigma }/10^4`$g cm-2 and $`v_r`$ is the accretion (radial) velocity. Then, the amount of photons which can be emitted to space is limited so that the disk luminosity gets even lower, say below $`L_\mathrm{E}`$, even for large $`\dot{m}`$. Such effects as those arising due to a finite diffusion time are omitted in the present study but this treatment is reasonable if efficient convective mixing of gas and radiation occurs so that photons generated on the equatorial plane can reach the disk surface on dynamical timescales. Such effects should be examined in future, however.

Second, thermalization timescales may exceed the accretion time for $`\alpha >0.03`$ (Beloborodov 1998). Then, disk temperature gets remarkably high, $`10^8`$K even for the parameters of AGN, producing much higher-energy radiation. However, such high-energy emission spectra do not reconcile with the observed soft spectra of NLS1s with soft excess of $`kT100`$eV. Probably, again convective mixing of gas and radiation promotes rapid thermalization between them. Or alternatively, the viscosity parameter could be small, $`\alpha <0.03`$, for which thermalization occurs within accretion time.

Finally, radiation field is more likely to be anisotropic; i.e., radiation mostly goes out in the vertical direction to the disk plane, whereas matter approaches to the black hole along the disk plane. This much reduces flux to an observer viewed from the direction with large inclination angles. Sub-Eddington luminosity is expected even when the total $`L`$ exceeds $`L_\mathrm{E}`$.

### 5.2. Limit-cycle oscillations

Since the standard and slim-disk branches form an $`𝐒`$-shape in the thermal equilibrium curves (Abramowicz et al. 1988), there is a possibility of limit-cycle oscillations between the two branches (Honma et al. 1991; Szuszkiewicz, Miller 1998). Such oscillations, if occurs, will possibly explain quasi-periodic outburst behavior, which may explain transient AGN phenomena in otherwise normal (inactive) galactic nuclei (see, $`e.g.`$, Komossa, Bade 1999; Komossa, Greiner 1999), although repeated outbursts will produce permanent AGN-typical NLR emission lines, which are not observed in some sources. Alternatively, the $`𝐒`$-shaped curve may produce soft-hard transitions; i.e., transitions from the slim disk to the optically thin ADAF (Takeuchi, Mineshige 1998). These possibilities should be elucidated in future.

### 5.3. Implications on the cosmological evolution

It is often argued that for a BH to increase its mass by a factor of $`e`$ it takes $`t_\mathrm{E}M/\dot{M}_\mathrm{E}10^8`$yr, since the maximum accretion rate onto a BH is regulated by the Eddington rate, $`\dot{M}_\mathrm{E}10L_\mathrm{E}/c^2`$. Then, it takes quite a long time, $`2\times 10^9`$yr, to make a $`10^9M_{}`$ BH out of $`10M_{}`$ BH. Much shorter time is enough, however, if supercritical accretion is allowed. Indeed, supercritical accretion is unavoidable to account for the present quasar population (e.g. Kauffmann, Haehnelt 1999). It might be that there used to be numerous NLS1s in the past. The observational consequences need to be investigated.

## 6. Conclusions

To summarize, we discussed various aspects of the slim disk in the context of NLS1s in comparison with the other disk models (see table 3). The followings are the main conclusions.

1. The disk begins to exhibit the slim-disk properties, when the luminosity moderately exceeds $`L_\mathrm{E}`$. Then, substantial amount of radiation is expected to originate from inside the marginally stable last circular orbit at $`3r_\mathrm{S}`$. Therefore, a small $`r_{\mathrm{bb}}<3r_\mathrm{S}`$ does not necessarily mean the presence of a Kerr hole.
2. If we fit the spectrum of the slim disk with the disk blackbody model, the derived size of the X-ray emitting region will be $`r_{\mathrm{in}}<3r_\mathrm{S}`$ and the maximum temperature will be $`kT_{\mathrm{in}}0.2M_5^{1/4}`$keV. Further, $`p`$ $`(d\mathrm{ln}T_{\mathrm{eff}}/d\mathrm{ln}r)`$ decreases from $`0.75`$ to $`0.5`$ as $`\dot{M}`$ increases.
3. All the ASCA data of NLS1s fall on the region with supercritical accretion, $`\dot{m}>10`$, supporting that the disks in NLS1s are likely to be slim disks.
4. The slim disk can also produce large fluctuations because release of magnetic-field energy (which will produce fluctuations via magnetic flares) dominates over the energy release due to persistent emission.

We are grateful for A. Laor and an anonymous referee for useful comments. This work was supported in part by the Grants-in Aid of the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture of Japan (10640228, SM).

## References

Abramowicz M.A., Czerny B., Losota J.P., Szuszkiewicz E. 1988, ApJ 332, 646

Beloborodov A.M. 1998, MNRAS 297, 739

Boller Th., Brandt W.N., Fabian A.C., Fink H.H. 1997, MNRAS 289, 393

Boller Th., Brandt W.N., Fink H.H. 1996, A&A 305, 53

Boroson T.A., Green R.F. 1992, ApJS 80, 109

Brandt W.N. in High-Energy Processes in Accreting Black Holes (ASP Conf. Ser. 161) ed J. Poutanen, R. Svensson (ASP, San Francisco) p166

Brandt W.N., Boller Th., 1998, Astron. Nachr. 319, 163

Brandt W.N., Boller Th., Fabian A.C., Ruszkowski 1999, MNRAS 303, L53

Brandt W.N., Mathur S., Elvis M. 1997, MNRAS 285, L25

Brandt et al. 2000, ApJ 528, 637

Czerny B., Elvis M. 1987, ApJ 321, 305

Fukue J. 2000, PASJ submitted

Grupe G.D., Beuermann K., Thomas H.-C., Mannheim K. Fink H.H. 1998, A&A 330, 25

Grupe G.D., Beuermann K., Mannheim K., Thomas H.-C. 1999, A&A 350, 805

Hayashida K. 2000, in Proc. of 32nd COSPAR Meeting: Broad Band X-Ray Spectra of Cosmic Sources, ed K. Makishima (Adv. Space Research), 25, 489

Hayashida K. et al. 1998, ApJ 500, 642

Halpern J.P., Oke J.B. 1987, ApJ 312, 91

Honma F., Matsumoto R., Kato S. 1991, PASJ 43, 147

Kato S., Fukue J., Mineshige S. 1998, Black-Hole Accretion Disks (Kyoto University Press, Kyoto)

Kaspi S., Smith P.S., Maoz D., Netzer H., Jannuzi B.T. 1996, ApJ 471, 75

Kauffmann G., Haehnelt M. 1999, (astro-ph/9906493)

Kawaguchi T., Mineshige S., Machida M., Matsumoto R., Shibata K. 2000, PASJ in press

Kawaguchi T., Mineshige S., Umemura M., Turner E.L. 1998, ApJ 504, 671

Komossa S., Bade N. 1999, A&A in press

Komossa S., Greiner J. 1999, A&A 349, L45

Laor A. 1998 in astro-ph/9810227

Laor A., Fiore F., Elvis M., Wilkes B.J., McDowell J.C. 1997, ApJ 477, 93

Leighly K.M. 1999a, ApJS accepted (astro-ph/9907294)

Leighly K.M. 1999b, ApJS accepted (astro-ph/9907295)

Leighly K.M., Mushotzky R.F., Yaqoob T., Kunieda H., Edelson R. 1996, ApJ, 469, L147.

Matsumoto R., Kato S., Fukue J., Okazaki A.T. 1984, PASJ 36, 71

Mineshige S., Hirano A., Kitamoto S., Yamada T.T., Fukue J. 1994a, ApJ 426, 308

Mineshige S., Kusunose M., Matsumoto R. 1995, ApJ 445, L43

Mineshige S., Takeuchi M., Nishimori H. 1994b, ApJ 435, L125

Narayan R., Yi I. 1995, ApJ 444, 231

Osterbrock D.E., Pogge R.W. 1985, ApJ 297, 166

Otani C., Kii T., Miya K. 1996 in Röntgenstrahlung from the Universe (MPE Report 263), ed H.U. Zimmermann, J.E. Trümper, H. Yorke (MPE Press, Garching) p491

Paczyński B., Wiita P.J. 1980, A&A 88, 23

Pounds K.A., Done C., Osborne J. 1996, MNRAS 277, L5

Ross R., Fabian A.C., Mineshige S. 1992, MNRAS 258, 189

Rybicki G.B., Lightman A.P. 1979, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics (John Wiley & Sons, New York)

Shakura N.I., Sunyaev R.A. 1973, A&A 24, 337

Shimura T., Takahara F. 1995, ApJ 440, 610

Sun W.-H., Malkan M.A. 1989, ApJ 346, 68

Szuszkiewicz E., Malkan M.A., Abramowicz M.A. 1996, ApJ 458, 474

Szuszkiewicz E., Miller J.C. 1998, MNRAS 298, 888

Takeuchi M., Mineshige S. 1998, ApJ 505, L19

Tanaka Y. 1989, in Proc. 23rd ESLAB Symp. on Two Topics in X-Ray Astronomy, ed J. Hunt, B. Battrick (ESA SP-296, Dordrecht) p3

van der Klis M. 1995, in X-Ray Binaries, ed W.H.G. Lewin et al. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) p58

Wang J., Szuszkiewicz E. et al. 1999, ApJ 522, 839

Watarai K., Fukue J. 1999, PASJ 51, 725

Watarai K., Takeuchi M., Fukue J., Mineshige, S. 2000a, PASJ 52, in press

Watarai K. et al. 2000b, in preparation

Wills B., Laor A., Brotherton M.S., Wills D., Wikes B.J., Ferland G.J., Shang Z. 1999, ApJ 515, L53

Young A.J., Crawford C.S., Fabian A.C., Brandt W.N., O’Brien P.T. 1999, MNRAS 304, L46