text:
# Spin-triplet superconductivity due to antiferromagnetic spin-fluctuation in Sr2RuO4

## Abstract

A mechanism leading to the spin-triplet superconductivity is proposed based on the antiferromagnetic spin fluctuation. The effects of anisotropy in spin fluctuation on the Cooper pairing and on the direction of $`d`$ vector are examined in the one-band Hubbard model with RPA approximation. The gap equations for the anisotropic case are derived and applied to Sr2RuO4. It is found that a nesting property of the Fermi surface together with the anisotropy leads to the triplet superconductivity with the $`d=\widehat{z}(\mathrm{sin}k_x\pm i\mathrm{sin}k_y)`$, which is consistent with experiments.

74.20-z, 74.20Mn, 74.25Dw

Since the discovery of superconducting phase in Sr2RuO4, much effort has been paid for understanding its exotic properties. Among several interesting natures, the most fascinating one is that it is a spin-triplet superconductor confirmed by NMR experiment. While most superconductors found during several decades are singlet, the only exceptions were 3He and UPt3. Therefore the fact that the triplet pairing is realized in Sr2RuO4 has attracted much attention. While UPt3, the second example of spin-triplet superconductor, has a complicated electronic structure, Sr2RuO4 has a rather simple electronic state. Thus clarifying the microscopic mechanism of superconductivity in Sr2RuO4 is very important for understanding the triplet superconductors in general.

In 3He, Cooper pairs are formed due to ferromagnetic spin fluctuations peaked at $`𝒒=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Therefore it is natural to expect the origin of the triplet pairing in Sr2RuO4 is also ferromagnetic spin fluctuation. This assumption has been believed to be justified by NMR experiments. However the recent neutron scattering experiment has shown that there exists a significant peak near $`𝒒_0=(\pm 2\pi /3,\pm 2\pi /3)`$ and no sizable ferromagnetic spin fluctuation. Thus it is difficult to assume that the spin fluctuation near $`𝒒_0`$ plays no role in the Cooper pairing in Sr2RuO4. (In the following discussion we call this fluctuation as antiferromagnetic (AF) spin fluctuation, for simplicity.) However this AF fluctuation leads to the singlet superconductivity rather than the triplet superconductivity as expected in analogy to high-$`T_c`$ cuprates.

In this paper we propose a mechanism which gives the triplet pairing even if the spin fluctuation is AF. We find that the characteristic features of Sr2RuO4 are twofold: One is the anisotropy of the spin fluctuation found in NMR experiments, and the other is a nesting property with momentum $`𝒒_0`$ of the two-dimensional Fermi surface. We show that these two features explain the pairing in Sr2RuO4.

In addition to the competition between singlet and triplet pairing, the direction of the $`𝒅`$ vector, which is the order parameter of triplet superconductivity, is another interesting problem. We show that the anisotropy of the spin fluctuation also explains the experimental fact that the $`𝒅`$ vector is parallel to the $`z`$-direction. First we extend the RPA formulation to the case of anisotropic spin fluctuation. Using the obtained effective interactions, we investigate the most stable pairing based on the weak-coupling gap equations. When the spin fluctuation is isotropic, the so-called d$`_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing is the most stable. However when the anisotropy is increased, the state corresponding to $`\widehat{𝒛}(\mathrm{sin}k_x\pm i\mathrm{sin}k_y)`$, which is the prime candidate of Sr2RuO4, becomes the most stable.

For the $`\gamma `$ band which is one of the three bands in Sr2RuO4, we assume a two-dimensional effective Hamiltonian

$$H=H_0+\frac{I}{2N}\underset{kk^{}q\sigma }{}c_{k\sigma }^{}c_{k^{}\sigma }^{}c_{k^{}q\sigma }c_{k+q\sigma },$$
(1)
where $`c_{k\sigma }`$ is the annihilation operator of an electron with momentum $`𝒌`$ and spin $`\sigma `$. We consider only the on-site Coulomb repulsion, $`I`$, as in the previous studies of spin-fluctuation mechanism. Among the three bands, we consider the $`\gamma `$ band consisting of the antibonding band of Ru 4dxy and O 2pπ orbitals in this paper, because it has the largest density of states at Fermi energy and the superconductivity is considered to be realized predominantly in the $`\gamma `$ band. Although the spin fluctuation near $`𝒒_0`$ is understood from the nesting effect of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ bands, we assume that the wave-number dependence of spin fluctuation is common in the three bands due to some interactions, such as spin-orbit couplings and/or Hund couplings. In the following calculation, we use the $`\gamma `$ band. However the same discussions can be also applied to the $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ bands.

The anisotropy of spin fluctuation observed experimentally is implicitly included in the two-body Hamiltonian, $`H_0`$. Our purpose is not to investigate the origin of anisotropy in details but to examine the role of the anisotropy to Cooper pairing. Therefore we introduce a phenomenological parameter $`\alpha `$ by

$$\chi _{(+,0)}(𝒒)=\alpha \chi _{(,0)}(𝒒),$$
(2)
where $`\chi _{(,0)}(𝒒)`$ ($`\chi _{(+,0)}(𝒒)`$) is the unperturbed static susceptibility of $`z`$ axis ($`xy`$ plane), which originates from $`H_0`$. The parameter $`\alpha `$ represents the anisotropy of spin fluctuation and we take $`\alpha 1`$ since NMR experiments show that $`\chi _{(xx)}<\chi _{(zz)}`$.

Using this one-band model, we discuss the effective interactions between Cooper pairs due to spin fluctuations. Summation of bubble and ladder diagrams (i.e., RPA approximation) gives

$`H_{\mathrm{int}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{kk^{}s}{}}V_{\mathrm{b}.\mathrm{o}}(𝒌𝒌^{})c_{ks}^{}c_{ks}^{}c_{k^{}s}c_{k^{}s}`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{kk^{}s}{}}V_{\mathrm{b}.\mathrm{e}}(𝒌𝒌^{})c_{ks}^{}c_{ks}^{}c_{k^{}s}c_{k^{}s}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{kk^{}s}{}}V_{\mathrm{lad}}(𝒌𝒌^{})c_{ks}^{}c_{ks}^{}c_{k^{}s}c_{k^{}s},`$
with

$`V_{\mathrm{b}.\mathrm{o}}(𝒌𝒌^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{I}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{(I/N)\chi _{(,0)}(𝒌𝒌^{})}{1(I/N)^2\chi _{(,0)}^2(𝒌𝒌^{})}},`$ (6)
$`V_{\mathrm{b}.\mathrm{e}}(𝒌𝒌^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{I}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{(I/N)^2\chi _{(,0)}^2(𝒌𝒌^{})}{1(I/N)^2\chi _{(,0)}^2(𝒌𝒌^{})}},`$ (7)
$`V_{\mathrm{lad}}(𝒌𝒌^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{I}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{(I/N)\chi _{(+,0)}(𝒌𝒌^{})}{1(I/N)\chi _{(+,0)}(𝒌𝒌^{})}}.`$ (8)
Here $`V_{\mathrm{b}.\mathrm{o}}`$ ($`V_{\mathrm{b}.\mathrm{e}}`$) comes from the summation of diagrams with odd (even) number of bubbles, and $`V_{\mathrm{lad}}`$ from the ladder diagrams. It is apparent that $`V_{\mathrm{b}.\mathrm{o}}`$ is between the electrons with equal spins while $`V_{\mathrm{b}.\mathrm{e}}`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{lad}}`$ are between those with the opposite spins.

It is straightforward to derive the gap equations in the anisotropic case, using the method developed by Leggett. First we introduce the operators

$`t_k^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ss^{}}{}}(\sigma _2)_{ss^{}}c_{ks}c_{ks^{}},`$ (9)
$`t_k^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ss^{}}{}}(\sigma _2\sigma _a)_{ss^{}}c_{ks}c_{ks^{}},\mathrm{for}a=1,2,3,`$ (10)
where $`\sigma _a(a=1,2,3)`$ are Pauli matrices. The operator $`t_k^{(0)}`$ ($`t_k^{(a)}`$) corresponds to spin singlet (triplet) Cooper pairs. In terms of these operators, the effective interaction (5) can be rewritten as

$`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{kk^{}}{}}V_{\mathrm{sin}}(𝒌𝒌^{\mathbf{}})t_k^{(0)}t_k^{}^{(0)}`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{kk^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}V_{\mathrm{tri}}^{(a)}(𝒌𝒌^{\mathbf{}})t_k^{(a)}t_k^{}^{(a)},`$
where

$`V_{\mathrm{sin}}(𝒌𝒌^{})`$ $``$ $`2[V_{\mathrm{b}.\mathrm{e}}(𝒌𝒌^{})+V_{\mathrm{lad}}(𝒌𝒌^{})],`$ (13)
$`V_{\mathrm{tri}}^{(1)}(𝒌𝒌^{})`$ $`=`$ $`V_{\mathrm{tri}}^{(2)}(𝒌𝒌^{})2V_{\mathrm{b}.\mathrm{o}}(𝒌𝒌^{}),`$ (14)
$`V_{\mathrm{tri}}^{(3)}(𝒌𝒌^{})`$ $``$ $`2[V_{\mathrm{b}.\mathrm{e}}(𝒌𝒌^{})V_{\mathrm{lad}}(𝒌𝒌^{})].`$ (15)
Since Sr2RuO4 has a long coherence length in $`ab`$ plane, $`\xi _{ab}660`$ Å, we use mean-field approximation to $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$. We restrict the discussion to unitary states because it is unrealistic to assume non-unitary states in Sr2RuO4. Requiring that there is no coexistence of singlet and triplet pairs, we obtain the gap equations

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}V_{\mathrm{sin}}(𝒌𝒌^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒌^{})\mathrm{\Theta }(E_{\mathrm{sin}}(𝒌^{})),`$ (16)
$`d^{(a)}(𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}V_{\mathrm{tri}}^{(a)}(𝒌𝒌^{})d^{(a)}(𝒌^{})\mathrm{\Theta }(E_{\mathrm{tri}}(𝒌^{})),`$ (17)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(E)\frac{1}{2E}\text{tanh}\frac{\beta E}{2}`$, $`E_{\mathrm{sin}}^2(𝒌)=\xi _k^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒌)\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝒌)`$, and $`E_{\mathrm{tri}}^2(𝒌)=\xi _k^2+𝒅(𝒌)𝒅^{}(𝒌)`$ with $`\xi _k=\epsilon _k\mu `$. The singlet and triplet order parameters are defined as $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒌)=\frac{1}{2}_k^{}V_{\mathrm{sin}}(𝒌𝒌^{})t_k^{}^{(0)}`$ and $`d^{(a)}(𝒌)=\frac{1}{2}_k^{}V_{\mathrm{tri}}^{(a)}(𝒌𝒌^{})t_k^{}^{(a)}`$, respectively. Here $`𝒅(𝒌)`$ is the so-called $`𝒅`$-vector for the triplet superconductivity.

In the system with the rotational symmetry in spin space, $`\chi _{(,0)}(𝒒)=\chi _{(+,0)}(𝒒)`$ is satisfied and thus the relation $`V_{\mathrm{b}.\mathrm{o}}+V_{\mathrm{b}.\mathrm{e}}=V_{\mathrm{lad}}`$ holds. In this case, it is easy to see $`V_{\mathrm{tri}}^{(1)}(𝒌𝒌^{})=V_{\mathrm{tri}}^{(2)}(𝒌𝒌^{})=V_{\mathrm{tri}}^{(3)}(𝒌𝒌^{})`$.

On the other hand, the gap equation in Eq. (17) for the triplet pairing becomes dependent on the direction of the $`𝒅`$ vector in the anisotropic case. It means that $`𝐝`$ vector has some preferred direction if the triplet pairs are formed by anisotropic spin fluctuations. This is naturally understood because the $`𝒅`$ vector is orthogonal to the spin direction of triplet Cooper pairs. For the present case with $`\chi _{(+,0)}(𝒒)<\chi _{(,0)}(𝒒)`$ (i.e., $`\alpha <1`$) which is applied to the Sr2RuO4, we can see from Eq. (8) that $`V_{\mathrm{lad}}(𝒌𝒌^{})`$ is suppressed and the effective interaction $`V_{\mathrm{tri}}^{(3)}(𝒌𝒌^{})`$ approaches $`V_{\mathrm{sin}}(𝒌𝒌^{})`$. Consequently the triplet superconductivity with $`d^{(3)}(𝒌)`$ (i.e., $`𝒅\widehat{𝒛}`$) can be stabilized even due to the AF spin fluctuations.

In order to determine the symmetry of the superconducting order parameter, we have to take account of their sign change along the Fermi surface. For the high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ superconductors, the AF spin fluctuation with momentum $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ stabilizes the singlet d$`_{x^2y^2}`$-wave superconductivity. In that case, the singlet order parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒌^{})`$ with $`𝒌^{}=(\pi ,0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒌)`$ with $`𝒌=(0,\pi )`$ have the opposite sign, so that the gap equation in (17) is satisfied with $`V_{\mathrm{sin}}(\pi ,\pi )>0`$.

For Sr2RuO4 we consider that a kind of nesting property of the Fermi surface plays an important role. This is the second point of our mechanism. Figure 1 shows a schematic Fermi surface for the $`\gamma `$ band. Since the AF fluctuation in Sr2RuO4 has momentum $`𝒒_0`$, the Fermi surface is also shifted by $`(2\pi /3,2\pi /3)`$ in Fig. 1. It is apparent that some part of the shifted Fermi surface overlaps with the original Fermi surface with modulo $`2\pi `$. In analogy to the case of high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ superconductivity, if the superconducting order parameters have the opposite sign on these overlapping portions of the Fermi surface, the gap equation is satisfied with $`V_{\mathrm{tri}}^{(a)}(2\pi /3,2\pi /3)>0`$. From Fig. 1, it is natural to consider the p-wave pairing instead of the singlet d$`_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing.

In order to clarify this point quantitatively, we compare various kinds of anisotropic superconductivity using the effective interaction and the simplified Fermi surface. Near the transition temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, we rewrite the gap equations as

$$\varphi (𝒌)=\underset{k^{}}{}V_\varphi (𝒌𝒌^{})\varphi (𝒌^{})\frac{1}{2\xi _k^{}}\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\beta _c\xi _k^{}}{2},$$
(18)
where $`\varphi (𝒌)`$ represents one of the order parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒌)`$ or $`d^{(a)}(𝒌)`$, and $`V_\varphi `$ is determined from Eqs. (15) depending on $`\varphi `$. In the weak coupling approximation, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is obtained as

$$k_BT_\mathrm{c}=1.13\mathrm{}v_Fk_c\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{N(0)V_\varphi _{FS}}\right],$$
(19)
where $`v_F`$, $`k_c`$ and $`N(0)`$ are the Fermi velocity, cut-off of the wave number, and the density of states at the Fermi energy, respectively. $`V_\varphi _{FS}`$ means the average over the Fermi surface,

$$V_\varphi _{FS}\frac{_{FS}𝑑𝒌_{FS}𝑑𝒌^{}V_\varphi (𝒌𝒌^{})\varphi (𝒌)\varphi (𝒌^{})}{\left[_{FS}𝑑𝒌^{}\right]_{FS}𝑑𝒌\varphi ^2(𝒌)}.$$
(20)
We identify that the order parameter which gives the largest $`N(0)V_\varphi _{FS}`$ is realized.

For Sr2RuO4 we choose order parameters $`\varphi (𝒌)`$ as follows

$`\varphi _1(𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y,`$ (21)
$`\varphi _2(𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y,`$ (22)
$`\varphi _3(𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}k_x\mathrm{sin}k_y,`$ (23)
$`\varphi _4(𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}k_x,(\widehat{𝒅}\widehat{𝒛}),`$ (24)
$`\varphi _5(𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}k_x,(\widehat{𝒅}\widehat{𝒛}),`$ (25)
where $`\varphi _1\varphi _3`$ correspond to singlet pairings, and $`\varphi _4`$, $`\varphi _5`$ to triplet pairings, respectively. The most probable candidate for Sr2RuO4 is $`\widehat{𝒛}(\mathrm{sin}k_x\pm i\mathrm{sin}k_y)`$ which is equivalent to $`\varphi _5`$ just below $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, because the gap equation (18) for $`\mathrm{sin}k_x\pm i\mathrm{sin}k_y`$ is exactly same as that for $`\varphi _5`$. If $`N(0)V_{\varphi _5}_{FS}`$ is the largest, we expect that the order parameter $`𝒅(𝒌)=\widehat{𝒛}(\mathrm{sin}k_x\pm i\mathrm{sin}k_y)`$ is realized, because near zero temperature it acquires a larger energy gap than $`\varphi _5`$.

To emphasize the characteristic feature of the nesting, we assume the simplified Fermi surface as shown in Fig. 1. For the $`𝒒`$ dependence of $`\chi _{(,0)}(𝒒)`$ with a maximum at $`q_0`$, we use the susceptibility obtained in the LDA calculation, and fix $`S(\mathrm{𝟎})=0.8`$ with $`S(𝒒)\frac{I}{N}\chi _{(,0)}(𝒒)`$. We regard $`S(𝒒_0)`$ as a phenomenological parameter.

Figure 2 shows the $`\alpha `$ dependence of $`N(0)V_{\varphi _n}_{FS}`$ $`(n=15)`$ for $`S(𝒒_0)=0.95`$. We examined various choices of $`S(𝒒_0)`$ from $`0.90`$ to $`0.99`$ to find that the results do not change qualitatively. When the anisotropy is weak ($`\alpha 1`$), the singlet d$`_{x^2y^2}`$-wave superconductivity, $`\varphi _2`$, is stabilized. On the other hand, when $`\alpha `$ is small, the order parameter $`\varphi _5`$ is stabilized which is consistent with experiments.

The phase diagram as a function of $`\alpha `$ and $`S(𝒒_0)`$ is determined by examining various values of $`S(𝒒_0)`$. Because it is unphysical to assume that $`S(𝒒_0)`$ is very close to 1, we show the results up to $`S(𝒒_0)=0.99`$ in Fig. 3. When the spin fluctuation is isotropic (i.e., $`\alpha =1`$), the singlet d$`_{x^2y^2}`$-wave superconductivity, $`\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y`$, is the most stable pairing. This is consistent with the previous studies. However we find a fairly large parameter region where the state corresponding to $`\widehat{𝒛}(\mathrm{sin}k_x\pm i\mathrm{sin}k_y)`$ is realized.

Finally we discuss the competition between the singlet $`\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y`$ pairing and the triplet $`\widehat{𝒛}(\mathrm{sin}k_x\pm i\mathrm{sin}k_y)`$ pairing in terms of the effective interaction and the nesting property. From the explicit form of $`V_{\varphi _n}`$ for $`n=2`$ and 5, we can see that a relation $`V_{\varphi _2}V_{\varphi _5}`$ is satisfied. Therefore if we consider only the magnitude of the effective interaction, the singlet pairing is favorable. However the nesting property favors the triplet pairing. Let us assume that $`V_{\varphi _n}`$ is enhanced very strongly by the AF fluctuation and approximated as

$$V_{\varphi _n}(𝒒)=\frac{I}{N}A_n\widehat{\delta }(q_x\pm 2\pi /3)\widehat{\delta }(q_y\pm 2\pi /3),$$
(26)
with $`\widehat{\delta }`$ being the $`\delta `$ function with modulo $`2\pi `$. Using this approximated form of $`V_{\varphi _n}(n=2\mathrm{and}5)`$, we obtain

$`N(0)V_{\varphi _2}_{FS}`$ $`=`$ $`[2.79\times 10^2\delta (0)+4.91\times 10^2]A_2,`$
$`N(0)V_{\varphi _5}_{FS}`$ $`=`$ $`[4.24\times 10^2\delta (0)+5.06\times 10^2]A_5.`$
This estimation shows that the $`\widehat{𝒛}(\mathrm{sin}k_x\pm i\mathrm{sin}k_y)`$ pairing utilizes the peak of $`\chi _{(,0)}(𝒒)`$ at $`𝒒_0`$ more effectively than $`\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y`$ pairing does. Therefore, even if $`A_2>A_5`$, the triplet pair can be stabilized.

In determining the phase diagram in Fig. 3, we have assumed simple functional forms of the order parameters, $`\varphi _n(𝒌)`$. For the detailed calculations, it will be necessary to optimize the $`𝒌`$-dependence of $`\varphi _n(𝒌)`$. However the global feature of the phase diagram will not change.

In summary, we have generalized the RPA formulation of the effective interaction due to the spin fluctuations and derived gap equations including the anisotropic case. We have shown that the state corresponding to $`\widehat{𝒛}(\mathrm{sin}k_x\pm i\mathrm{sin}k_y)`$ becomes the most stable even if the AF spin fluctuation is dominant, when the anisotropy is strong enough and the nesting property of the Fermi surface is present. Although the nesting for the actual Fermi surface will be weaker than what we assumed here, it is reasonable to think that our mechanism is the most promising one as far as the AF fluctuation is dominant.

In this paper we have investigated the pairing in the $`\gamma `$ band. However it is straightforward to consider the other bands ($`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ bands) in Sr2RuO4. Since the nesting property will be comparable or even stronger for these bands than for the $`\gamma `$ band, we expect the same mechanism for triplet superconductivity for $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ bands even if the $`\gamma `$ band does not have the peak near $`𝒒_0`$.

It is reported that Sr2RuO4 has exotic property called as 3K phase when Ru metal is embedded in the single crystal. We speculate that the enhancement of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is due to the increase of the anisotropy (i.e., decrease of $`\alpha `$) near the interface region between Sr2RuO4 and Ru metal. We consider that to investigate the origin of the anisotropy is very important both for understanding the superconductivity and for finding the new exotic phenomena.

We are grateful for useful discussions with M. Sigrist, Y. Maeno and Y. Matsuda. One of the authors (T.K.) thanks to H. Namaizawa for useful instructions.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently there has been a considerable effort in studying the AdS/CFT duality  when conformal invariance is broken (see  and references there in). The general philosophy is that conformal invariance can be broken by considering a non-conformal vacuum of the conformal theory, or otherwise by considering a deformation of its Lagrangian. In both cases the dual gravitational background will have an AdS boundary but it will differ from this space in the inside. Identifying the radial coordinate with the field theory energy scale the geometry will describe the RG flow starting from the UV conformal theory at the AdS boundary.

In this note we shall consider the case of a non-conformal vacuum of $`SU(N)`$ $`𝒩=4`$ Super Yang-Mills (SYM) theory. The moduli space of this theory is given by $`\text{}^{6(N1)}/S_N`$, parameterizing the relative position of $`N`$ identical D3-branes in the transverse space $`\text{𝔼}^6`$. Separating the D3-branes in two stacks of $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ branes by a distance $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is equivalent to Higgs the theory by giving an expectation value to the scalar fields according to

$$\frac{\stackrel{}{Y}}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\stackrel{}{\varphi }=\frac{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_1& 0\\ 0& I_2\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
where $`I_i`$ is the $`N_i\times N_i`$ unit matrix. The gauge symmetry is broken to $`S(U(N_1)\times U(N_2))`$ and the theory is left with 16 conserved supercharges because conformal symmetry is broken. The symmetry breaking process gives rise to massive W particles with mass $`m_W=\mathrm{\Delta }/(\pi \alpha ^{})`$. This construction provides an example of maximally supersymmetric RG flow: starting from the UV $`SU(N)`$ conformal theory we flow to the IR conformal fixed points with $`SU(N_i)`$ gauge symmetry. Related aspects of the AdS/CFT duality can be found in references \[5-23\].

To derive the dual gravitational background we start with the double-centered D3-brane geometry with metric

$$ds^2=H^{1/2}ds^2(\text{𝕄}^4)+H^{1/2}ds^2(\text{𝔼}^6),$$
(2)
where the harmonic function $`H`$ reads

$$H=1+\frac{R_1^{4}}{|\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}|^4}+\frac{R_2^{4}}{|\stackrel{}{y}+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}|^4},$$
(3)
with $`R_i^{4}=4\pi g_s\alpha ^2N_i`$ and $`\stackrel{}{y}`$ the coordinates in the transverse space $`\text{𝔼}^6`$. Next, we take the decoupling limit of  which corresponds to drop the factor 1 in the harmonic function $`H`$ and to consider energy scales in the brane theory much smaller than the string scale, i.e. $`ϵ,m_W1/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$. We further require the string coupling $`g_s`$ to be small and $`g_sN_i`$ to be large for the supergravity approximation to hold.

In a recent paper  we studied the classical absorption for a minimally coupled scalar, e.g. the dilaton field, in the double-centered D3-brane geometry. The analysis was valid for low energies such that $`ϵm_gm_W`$, where $`m_g=m_W/\sqrt{gN}`$ is the gravity mass gap. In the above decoupling limit the cross-section for absorption by the $`i`$-th hole was seen to be

$$\sigma _i=\frac{\pi ^4\omega ^3R_i^{8}}{8}\left[1\frac{(\omega R_i)^4}{12}\left(\frac{R_j}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^4\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\omega R_i^{2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)+\mathrm{}\right],(ji).$$
(4)
In the field theory side, the total absorption cross section (i.e. $`\sigma =\sigma _1+\sigma _2`$) for a scalar field $`\varphi `$ is related to the two-point function of the field theory dual operator $`𝒪_\varphi `$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(x)=𝒪_\varphi ^{}(x)𝒪_\varphi (0),$$
(5)
calculated in the non-conformal vacuum described above. In the case of the dilaton field the exact relation is

$$\sigma =\frac{2\kappa ^2}{2i\omega }\mathrm{Disc}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }(s)|_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^0=\omega }{\stackrel{}{p}=\stackrel{}{0}}},$$
(6)
where $`\kappa `$ is the gravitational coupling, $`s=p^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(s)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$.

The low energy expansion of the classical cross section (4) corresponds to consider the dual field theory near the $`SU(N_i)`$ IR fixed point. The purpose of this letter is to determine the exact form of the effective action near the IR fixed points that results from integrating out the W particles and therefore to reproduce exactly the logarithmic correction to the cross section using the dual field theory. We shall see that the effective action is given by a deformation of the $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory by a non-renormalized, irrelevant, dimension 8 operator as anticipated in . Then, the correction to the cross section will be related to a three-point function of chiral primary operators calculated at the IR fixed points . To obtain exact agreement with the classical cross section calculation it was essential to use the symmetrized trace of the Yang Mills fields in the deformed Lagrangian and to keep only the planar diagrams. This result is further evidence for a non-renormalization theorem for three-point functions of chiral primary operators \[27-32\] and provides a test of the AdS/CFT duality on the Coulomb branch.

## 2 Effective Action in the Infrared

We start by writing the Lagrangian for the bosonic sector of $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ SYM theory in the following form

$$_0=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{tr}\left[F_{AB}F^{AB}\right],$$
(7)
where $`A,B,\mathrm{}`$ are ten-dimensional indices and $`F_{AB}`$ is short for $`F_{\mu \nu }=D_\mu A_\nu D_\nu A_\mu `$, $`F_{\mu m}=D_\mu \varphi _m`$ with $`D_\mu _\mu +ig_{YM}[A_\mu ,]`$ and $`F_{mn}=ig_{YM}[\varphi _m,\varphi _n]`$. We removed the gauge coupling from the front of the action by rescaling the fields as $`(A_\mu ,\varphi ^m)g_{YM}(A_\mu ,\varphi ^m)`$, which also rescales the expectation value for the scalars in equation (1).

We want to integrate the W’s in order to obtain an effective action for the light $`SU(N_1)`$ and $`SU(N_2)`$ coloured fields at energy scales $`ϵm_W`$ as explained in . This is similar to the probe calculations extensively considered in the literature \[33-36\], where $`N_1=N`$ and $`N_2=1`$ . In the latter case the first non-vanishing one-loop diagram involves 4 $`SU(N)`$ coloured legs, with the following contribution to the effective bosonic Lagrangian

$$_1=\frac{\pi ^2g_{YM}^4}{(2\mathrm{\Delta }/\alpha ^{})^4}\mathrm{Str}\left[F_{AB}F^{BC}F_{CD}F^{DA}\frac{1}{4}\left(F_{AB}F^{AB}\right)^2\right].$$
(8)
Notice that we are using the symmetrized trace as argued in . This fact will be essential to obtain agreement with the dual classical calculation of the absorption cross-section. Also, these $`F^4`$ terms are protected , i.e. they are not renormalized by higher loop diagrams and therefore comparison with the strongly coupled supergravity regime is allowed.

Now we generalize the above result to arbitrary large $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$. The only difference is that the term in the effective action involving 4 $`SU(N_i)`$ fields will be multiplied by a factor $`N_j`$ $`(ij)`$ because we have a $`SU(N_j)`$ colour index to sum over around the loop (due to the W’s exchange). Also, for large $`N`$ graphs with both $`SU(N_1)`$ and $`SU(N_2)`$ coloured external legs are subleading since they are associated with non-planar graphs. Hence, in the IR and for large $`N`$ there are no terms in the effective action of the type $`\mathrm{tr}_1(F^2)\mathrm{tr}_2(F^2)`$, where the subscript in $`\mathrm{tr}_i`$ means that the trace is over $`SU(N_i)`$ fields. We conclude that the $`F^4`$ terms in the effective action for the IR $`SU(N_i)`$ theory read

$$_1=\frac{\pi ^2g_{YM}^4}{(2\mathrm{\Delta }/\alpha ^{})^4}N_j\mathrm{Str}_i\left[F_{AB}F^{BC}F_{CD}F^{DA}\frac{1}{4}\left(F_{AB}F^{AB}\right)^2\right],(ji).$$
(9)
To check this result consider the action for a probe of $`N_i`$ D3-branes in the AdS near-horizon geometry of $`N_j`$ D3-branes, i.e. we assume that $`N_jN_i`$. The probe dynamics is determined by the non-abelian DBI action  which describes the effect of integrating all the massive strings stretching between the probe and the branes. The AdS background is described by the metric (2) with the harmonic function $`Hf=(R_j/r)^4`$. If the center of mass for the $`N_i`$ probes is placed at $`r`$ we have

$$S_{probe}=T_3d^4xf^1\mathrm{Str}_i\left[\sqrt{\mathrm{det}\left(\eta _{\alpha \beta }+f_\alpha Y^m_\beta Y_m+2\pi \alpha ^{}\sqrt{f}F_{\alpha \beta }\right)}I_i\right],$$
(10)
where $`T_3=((2\pi )^3g_s\alpha ^2)^1`$ is the D3-brane tension. Next we give an expectation value to the scalars $`\stackrel{}{Y}=2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}I_i`$, which means that $`r=2\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta r`$ where $`\delta r`$ is the center of mass fluctuating field in the radial direction. For large $`N_i`$ we can discard the fields in the center of the gauge group and consider only $`SU(N_i)`$ fields. Thus, setting $`f=(R_j/2\mathrm{\Delta })^4`$, expanding the DBI action and rescaling the fields according to $`(A_\alpha ,\varphi _m=(2\pi \alpha ^{})^1Y_m)g_{YM}(A_\alpha ,\varphi _m)`$ we obtain the probe Lagrangian

$$_{probe}=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{tr}_i\left[F_{AB}F^{AB}\right]\frac{\pi ^2g_{YM}^4N_j}{(2\mathrm{\Delta }/\alpha ^{})^4}\mathrm{Str}_i\left[F_{AB}F^{BC}F_{CD}F^{DA}\frac{1}{4}\left(F_{AB}F^{AB}\right)^2\right],$$
(11)
which is in agreement with the previous result as expected from the non-renormalization of the $`F^4`$ terms.

In the context of the asymptotically flat D3-brane geometry, the form of the above deformation of the SYM Lagrangian was conjectured based on the DBI corrections to the SYM theory , or alternatively on the basis of $`PSU(2|2,4)`$ representation theory . For a geometry with harmonic function

$$H=h+\left(\frac{R}{r}\right)^4,$$
(12)
the dual field theory was conjectured to be

$$=_0\frac{h}{8T_3}𝒪_8,$$
(13)
where $`𝒪_8`$ is an irrelevant, dimension 8 operator. This deformation is irrelevant in the IR which agrees with the fact that for $`r0`$ the constant $`h`$ becomes irrelevant in the harmonic function $`H`$. What remains an open question is if the Lagrangian (13) describes the dual gravity theory as we flow from the IR. If we assume that the DBI action is dual to the full D3-brane geometry $`(h=1)`$, then we can regard (13) as the first correction to the SYM theory and determine $`𝒪_8`$ to be exactly $`𝒪_8=\mathrm{Str}[F^4\frac{1}{4}(F^2)^2]`$. However, even in this case agreement between the gravity and the field theory calculations of the cross section is not found . Fortunately the case here studied is entirely under control. While in the asymptotic flat space case the DBI action arises from integrating the massive string states that are dropped out in the decoupling limit, in our case the deformation of the IR Lagrangian arises from integrating the W’s that do survive the decoupling limit. In fact, in the decoupling limit of the double-centered D3-brane geometry the harmonic function $`H`$ is given down the $`i`$-th throat by

$$H=\left(\frac{R_j}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^4+\left(\frac{R_i}{r}\right)^4.$$
(14)
Then the deformation of the SYM action in the IR $`SU(N_i)`$ conformal fixed point is indeed given by (13) with $`h=(R_j/2\mathrm{\Delta })^4`$ and $`𝒪_8=\mathrm{Str}_i[F^4\frac{1}{4}(F^2)^2]`$ . This (non-renormalized) deformation was computed exactly as a result of integrating the W’s. Hence, if we believe the AdS/CFT correspondence to hold on the Coulomb branch, the gravity and perturbative field theory calculation of protected quantities in the IR using the Lagrangian (13) must give exactly the same answer.

## 3 Field Theory Calculation of Cross-Section

We proceed by calculating the cross section for absorption of the dilaton field using the field theory approach. This calculation was done in  using a $`U(1)`$ model. We refer the reader to that reference for the details and will present here only the relevant steps necessary to obtain the correct answer. For world-volume on-shell processes that involve the coupling of the dilaton to the brane only the gauge field is relevant. In the IR $`SU(N_i)`$ theory the operator $`𝒪_\varphi `$ dual to the dilaton field reads

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill S_{int}& =& d^4x\varphi \frac{1}{4}\left(\mathrm{tr}_i\left[F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right]+\frac{h}{T_3}\mathrm{Str}_i\left[F_{\mu \nu }F^{\nu \eta }F_{\eta \lambda }F^{\lambda \mu }\frac{1}{4}\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)^2\right]\right),\hfill \\ & & d^4x\varphi 𝒪_\varphi d^4x\varphi \frac{1}{4}\left[𝒪_4+\frac{h}{T_3}𝒪_8\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
Then the two-point function for the operator $`𝒪_\varphi `$ is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }(x)& =& 𝒪_\varphi ^{}(x)𝒪_\varphi (0)_{h=\left(R_j/2\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^4}=𝒟A_\mu e^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^4z\left[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{4}}𝒪_4+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{h}{8T_3}}𝒪_8\right]}}𝒪_\varphi (x)𝒪_\varphi (0)\hfill \\ & =& 𝒪_\varphi (x)𝒪_\varphi (0)\left(1\left(\frac{R_j}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^4\frac{1}{8T_3}d^4z𝒪_8(z)\right)_{h=0}\hfill \\ & =& \frac{1}{2^4}𝒪_4^{}(x)𝒪_4(0)_{h=0}\left(\frac{R_j}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^4\frac{1}{2^7T_3}d^4z𝒪_4^{}(x)𝒪_8(z)𝒪_4(0)_{h=0}\hfill \\ & & \mathrm{\Pi }_0(x)+\mathrm{\Pi }_1(x),\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
where we are just keeping the leading terms that will give the logarithmic corrections in the classical gravity result for the cross section. We see that the correction to the two-point function is related to a three-point function of chiral primary operators calculated at a IR conformal fixed point.

We start by writing the Euclidean space propagator for the field strength $`(F_{\mu \nu })^{ab}`$ in the conformal theory

$$\begin{array}{c}(F\text{ }\overline{{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{})^{ab}(x)(F}\text{ }_{\alpha \beta })^{cd}(0)\left(F_{\mu \nu }\right)^{ab}(x)\left(F_{\alpha \beta }\right)^{cd}(0)=\\ =\frac{\delta ^{ad}\delta ^{bc}}{\pi ^2x^4}\left[\delta _{\mu \alpha }\delta _{\nu \beta }\delta _{\nu \alpha }\delta _{\mu \beta }\frac{2}{x_{}^2}\left(\delta _{\nu \beta }^{}x_\mu x_\alpha +\delta _{\mu \alpha }x_\nu x_\beta \delta _{\nu \alpha }x_\mu x_\beta \delta _{\mu \beta }x_\nu x_\alpha \right)\right],\end{array}$$
(17)
where $`a,b,\mathrm{}`$ are $`SU(N_i)`$ colour indices. In what follows it is convenient to write first the following contraction of the field strength propagators

$$\left((F\text{ }\overline{{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{})^{ab}(F\text{ }\overline{{}_{}{}^{ba}{}_{}{}^{\alpha \beta }))(x)((F}\text{ }_{\mu \nu })^{cd}(F}\text{ }_{\eta \lambda })^{ef}\right)(0)=\frac{2\delta ^{de}\delta ^{cf}}{\pi ^4x^8}\left(\delta _{\mu \eta }^{}\delta _{\nu \lambda }\delta _{\mu \lambda }\delta _{\nu \eta }\right).$$
(18)
It is trivial to check that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0(x)\frac{1}{2^4}𝒪_4^{}(x)𝒪_4(0)_{h=0}=(3N_i^{2})(\pi ^4x^8)`$ . To calculate $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(x)`$ first we expand the symmetrized trace of $`𝒪_8`$ in terms of simple traces as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝒪_8(z)=\mathrm{Str}_i\left[F^4\frac{1}{4}(F^2)^2\right]& =& \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{tr}_i[F_{\mu \nu }^{}F^{\nu \eta }F^{\mu \lambda }F_{\lambda \eta }+\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\nu \eta }F_{\eta \lambda }F^{\lambda \mu }\hfill \\ & & \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }F_{\eta \lambda }F^{\eta \lambda }\frac{1}{8}F_{\mu \nu }F_{\eta \lambda }F^{\mu \nu }F^{\eta \lambda }].\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
Then using standard perturbative field theory techniques we have (see also )

$$𝒪_4^{}(x)𝒪_8(z)𝒪_4(0)_{h=0}=\frac{(3\times 2^8)N_i^{3}}{\pi ^8(xz)^8z^8},$$
(20)
and therefore

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_1(x)=\left(\frac{R_j}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^4\frac{1}{2^7T_3}d^4z\frac{(3\times 2^8)N_i^{3}}{\pi ^8(xz)^8z^8}.$$
(21)
Notice that we have to be careful in applying Wick’s theorem to obtain this result. The reason is that for large $`N_i`$ only contractions between the fields in $`𝒪_4`$ and fields that are consecutive in the trace expansion (19) of $`𝒪_8`$ will contribute. The other contractions correspond to non-planar graphs and are subleading in the large $`N_i`$ limit222I thank Igor Klebanov for bringing this point to my attention. (see figure). A consequence of this fact is that it was essential that we used the symmetrized trace in the effective action, otherwise we would obtain a different answer. Using the result

$$d^4u\frac{e^{ipu}}{u^8}=\frac{\pi ^2}{3\times 2^6}p^4\mathrm{log}\left(p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right),$$
(22)
a simple calculation gives the Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(x)`$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_1(p)=\left(\frac{R_j}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^4\frac{N_i^{3}}{(3\times 2^{11})\pi ^4}p^8\left(\mathrm{log}\left(p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)\right)^2,$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cut-off scale. Then the absorption cross section is related by equation (6) to the momentum space two-point function $`\mathrm{\Pi }(p)`$. The result is

$$\sigma _i=\frac{\kappa ^2\omega ^3N_i^{2}}{32\pi }\left[1\left(\frac{R_j}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^4\frac{N_i\omega ^4}{(3\times 2^3)T_3\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)\right],$$
(24)
which agrees exactly with the classical gravity prediction, including the numerical factors. We remark that in the perturbative field analysis it seems natural to set the cut-off scale to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=m_W`$, while the strong coupled gravity calculation suggests that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Delta }/R_i^{2}m_W/\sqrt{gN}`$. This fact may be related to the existence of colour singlet condensates of W particles at strong coupling with a large binding energy . However, a better understanding of the cut-off scale would require the extension of this calculation to the next order .

In resume, we tested the AdS/CFT duality on the Coulomb branch by finding agreement between the gravity and field theory absorption cross sections for the dilaton field near the $`SU(N_i)`$ IR conformal fixed points. This was done by determining the large $`N`$ (non-renormalized) $`F^4`$ terms in the field theory IR effective action that arise from integrating the massive W particles. Then the correction to the absorption cross section is related to a three-point function of chiral primary operators. To obtain the correct result required large $`N`$ considerations as well as the use of the symmetrized trace in the effective action. This result provides further evidence for a non-renormalization theorem for three-point functions of chiral primary operators \[27-32\].

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Lori Paniak and Igor Klebanov for many discussions. This work was supported by FCT (Portugal) under programme PRAXIS XXI and by the NSF grant PHY-9802484.


text:
# Gorenstein models of del Pezzo surfaces of degree 1 over Dedekind schemes.

## 1. Preliminary.

The aim of this note is the following. Running the Sarkisov program in order to factorize a birational map between two Mori fibrations by elementary links (see, for instance, ), we have to consider birational maps that induce an isomorphism of fibers over generic points. This is especially important in the birational rigidity problem. It is amazing but during a long time we did not know nearly anything about such transformations in cases of 3-fold fibrations on del Pezzo surfaces of degree 1,2 or 3, except, probably, the Corti paper . Here, arguing in ”coordinates” almost by the same way as in , we try to clear this subject in the practically important case of Gorenstein fibrations on del Pezzo surfaces of degree 1. Our argumentation is rather elementary and allows us to construct various interesting examples.

Everywhere in the sequel the following conditions hold. The characteristic of the ground field $`k`$ is equal to 0. Let $`𝒪`$ be a DVR, $`R=𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝒪`$, $`K`$ the field of functions of $`𝒪`$, $`X`$ and $`V`$ del Pezzo surfaces of degree 1 over $`R`$. We assume $`X`$ and $`V`$ to be Gorenstein Mori fibrations over $`R`$. In particular, the fibers $`X_K`$ and $`V_K`$ over the generic point of $`R`$ have the Picard number 1. We denote $`X_0`$ and $`V_0`$ the central fibers,

$$\phi :XV$$

a birational map over $`R`$ inducing an isomorphism $`\phi _K:X_KV_K`$.

###### Remark 1.1.

Recently in Park’s preprint  it was proved that for degree of fibers up to 4, $`\phi `$ is an isomorphism always if the central fibers are smooth.

It is well known that $`|K_X|`$ embeds $`X`$ into the weighted projective space $`_𝒪(1,1,2,3)`$ over $`𝒪`$, so that $`X_0`$ avoids the singular points of $`_k(1,1,2,3)`$ because of the Gorenstein property. As to $`X_0`$ itself, there are two possibilities (, ):

###### Proposition 1.2.

If $`X_0`$ is normal, then it has either a unique singular point which is minimally elliptic, or at most du Val singularities.

If $`X`$ is not normal, then its normalization is $`^2`$, and $`X`$ is obtained by gluing $`^2`$ along a quadric (possibly, reducible or non-reduced).

Note that in both the cases there exists a degree 2 morphism from $`X`$ onto a quadratic cone in $`^3`$ branched along a cubic section that does not pass through the cone vertex. In fact, this morphism is the restriction of a projection $`(1,1,2,3)(1,1,2)`$ to $`X`$ (the last weighted space is nothing but a quadratic cone).

In order to separate terminal cases, we will need the following statement ():

###### Proposition 1.3.

Let $`U`$ be a germ of a 3-fold terminal singularity, $`S|K_U|`$ a general element. Then $`S`$ has at most du Val singularities.

This statement will be used together with the so-called ”recognition principle” (see ), which allows us to discern du Val singularities by an equation not in normal form.

The remaining part of the paper is organized as follows. First, we give a suitable system of coordinates in $`(1,1,2,3)`$, that allows us to define equations for $`\phi `$, $`X`$, and $`V`$ in a convenient form (section 2). In section 3, we produice the main division into cases and deal with each of them. Then, we give some examples in section 4. Finally, section 5 contains some remarks that are closely related to the subject.

I would like to thank Prof. V.Shokurov and J.Park for useful discussions of the problem. This work was carried out during my stay at the Max-Planck Institute in Bonn. I would like also to express my gratitude to the Directors and the stuff of the insitute for hospitality and very nice atmosphere for a good work.

## 2. Suitable coordinates.

We denote $`𝔪`$ the maximal ideal of $`𝒪`$. We may suppose that it is generated by $`t`$, i.e., $`𝔪=(t)𝒪`$.

Then, we fix a copy of a weighted projective space $`P_{1_𝒪}_𝒪(1,1,2,3)`$ to which $`X`$ is embedded. By $`P_1`$ and $`P_{1_K}`$ we denote the specializations of $`P_{1_𝒪}`$ over the central point $`t=0`$ and the generic point respectively. Let $`(x:y:z:w)`$ be the coordinates in $`P_{1_𝒪}`$ of weights (1,1,2,3) (we will use the same denotations of coordinates for the specializations). $`P_{2_𝒪}`$, $`P_2`$, $`P_{2_K}`$, and $`(p:q:r:s)`$ are used for $`V`$ in the same sense.

Further, $`X`$ is defined by a homogeneous polynomial of degree 6 in $`P_{1_𝒪}`$:

$$aw^2+bz^3+cwzf_1(x,y)+z^2f_2(x,y)+zf_4(x,y)+f_6(x,y)=0,$$

where $`a,b,c𝒪`$; $`f_i`$ denotes a homogeneous polynomial of degree $`i`$. But $`X_0`$ does not pass through points $`(0:0:1:0)`$ and $`(0:0:0:1)`$, so $`a`$ and $`b`$ are invertible in $`𝒪`$, and we suppose $`a=1`$. As to $`b`$, we may also assume $`b=1`$ since it is not important in the sequel, or, if it is more convenient for the reader, we may extend $`𝒪`$ by the cubic root of $`b`$ and put $`z:=z\sqrt[3]{b}`$. Note that such a substitution can not increase the Picard number of $`X_K`$, since the new $`K`$ will be an extension of degree 3, i.e., not even.

Now it is clear that substituting the coordinates $`w`$ and $`z`$ by a suitable manner, we obtain the following equation for $`X`$:

(2.1)
$$w^2+z^3+zf_4(x,y)+f_6(x,y)=0$$

($`f_i`$’s may be different from the previous ones, of course).

Further, since for $`1i3`$ $`H^1(P_{1_K},_{X_K}\times 𝒪(i))=0`$, we see that

$$H^0(X_K,iK_{X_K})H^0(P_{1_K},𝒪(i)).$$

So the isomorphism $`\phi _K^1:V_KX_K`$ induces isomorphisms

$$(\phi _K^1)^{}:H^0(P_{1_K},𝒪(i))H^0(P_{2_K},𝒪(i)),$$

which yields an isomorphism

$$\phi _K^1:P_{2_K}P_{1_K}.$$

Thus, for the coordinates in $`P_{2_K}`$ we may put

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}p& =& (\phi _K^1)^{}(x)\hfill \\ q& =& (\phi _K^1)^{}(y)\hfill \\ r& =& (\phi _K^1)^{}(z)\hfill \\ s& =& (\phi _K^1)^{}(w)\hfill \end{array}$$

It remains to take into account a projection

$$P_{2_K}=P_{2_𝒪}\underset{𝒪}{}𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜KP_{2_𝒪},$$

and then, multiplying by a suitable element of $`𝒪`$, for the coordinates in $`P_{2_𝒪}`$ we get $`p=Ax`$, $`q=By`$, $`r=Cz`$, and $`s=Dw`$, where $`A,B,C,D𝒪`$. Now it is clear that we may suppose (possibly, stretching the coordinates by invertible elements)

(2.2)
$$\phi =\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}p& =& t^ax\hfill \\ q& =& t^by\hfill \\ r& =& t^cz\hfill \\ s& =& t^dw\hfill \end{array}\right\}$$

where the set $`(a,b,c,d)`$ contains at least one 0. It is obvious that

(2.3)
$$\phi ^1=\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}x& =& t^\alpha p\hfill \\ y& =& t^\beta q\hfill \\ z& =& t^\gamma r\hfill \\ w& =& t^\delta s\hfill \end{array}\right\}$$

with the same condition on the set $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )`$. Moreover, taking into account the weights, we get

$$6(a+\alpha )=6(b+\beta )=3(c+\gamma )=2(d+\delta ).$$

Then, substituting (2.3) for the coordinates in (2.1) and using the condition that $`V_0`$ does not pass through points (0:0:1:0) and (0:0:0:1), we obtain an equation of $`V`$

(2.4)
$$s^2+r^3+rg_2(p,q)+g_6(p,q)=0$$

and a condition $`3\gamma =2\delta `$, where $`g_i`$ are some homogeneous polynomials of degree $`i`$.

Finally, we see that there exists a positive integer $`m`$ such that the following conditions hold:

(2.5)
$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a+\alpha & =& m\hfill \\ \hfill b+\beta & =& m\hfill \\ \hfill c+\gamma & =& 2m\hfill \\ \hfill d+\delta & =& 3m\hfill \\ \hfill 2d& =& 3c\hfill \\ \hfill 2\delta & =& 3\gamma \hfill \end{array}$$

## 3. Main division into cases.

Using the results of section 2 and the symmetry of the situation, we can produice the following division into four cases:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ \text{Case}& (a,b,c,d)& (\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )& \text{Remarks}\\ & & & \\ A& (a,m,0,0)& (\alpha ,m,2m,3m)& \begin{array}{c}a+\alpha =m\\ a,\alpha >0\end{array}\\ & & & \\ B& (0,m,0,0)& (m,0,2m,3m)& \\ & & & \\ C& (m,m,0,0)& (0,0,2m,3m)& \\ & & & \\ D& (0,m,2k,3k)& (m,0,2l,3l)& \begin{array}{c}k+l=m\\ m2\\ k,l>0\end{array}\end{array}$$

We will show that

The cases A, B, and C can not occur.

Here our main tools will be proposition 1.3, the ”recognition principle”, and a condition that the central fibers are Gorenstein.

First, assuming $`X`$ and $`V`$ to be defined by equations (2.1) and (2.4) while $`\phi `$ and $`\phi ^1`$ are in form (2.2) and (2.3), we obtain the following conditions:

(3.1)
$$\begin{array}{c}\{\begin{array}{ccc}f_4(x,y)& =& t^{c2d}g_4(t^ax,t^by)\hfill \\ f_6(x,y)& =& t^{2d}g_6(t^ax,t^by)\hfill \end{array}\\ \\ \{\begin{array}{ccc}g_4(p,q)& =& t^{\gamma 2\delta }f_4(t^\alpha x,t^\beta y)\hfill \\ g_6(p,q)& =& t^{2\delta }f_6(t^\alpha x,t^\beta y)\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$

Then, we will suppose that $`g_4`$ and $`g_6`$ are defined by

(3.2)
$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill g_4(p,q)& =& _{i=0}^4a_ip^{4i}q^i;\hfill & & \hfill g_6(p,q)& =& _{i=0}^6b_ip^{6i}q^i.\hfill \end{array}$$

Case A. Here we have

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill f_4(x,y)& =& _{i=0}^4a_it^{4a+(ma)i}x^{4i}y^i& =& t^{4a}g_4(x,t^{ma}y),\hfill \\ \hfill f_6(x,y)& =& _{i=0}^6b_it^{6a+(ma)i}x^{6i}y^i& =& t^{6a}g_6(x,t^{ma}y).\hfill \end{array}$$

So $`X`$ is defined by

$$w^2+z^3+t^{4a}zg_4(x,t^{ma}y)+t^{6a}g_6(x,t^{ma}y)=0.$$

Since $`a>0`$, the curve $`\{t=w=z=0\}`$ lies on $`X`$, and $`X`$ is singular along it. So it can not be a terminal case.

Case C. The same reason as above: simply substitute $`m`$ for $`a`$.

Case B. We have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill f_4(x,y)& =& _{i=0}^4a_it^{mi}x^{4i}y^i,\hfill \\ \hfill f_6(x,y)& =& _{i=0}^6b_it^{mi}x^{6i}y^i,\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`X`$ is

$$w^2+z^3+z(\underset{i=0}{\overset{4}{}}a_it^{mi}x^{4i}y^i)+\underset{i=0}{\overset{6}{}}b_it^{mi}x^{6i}y^i=0.$$

Note that at least one of the coefficients is not identically 0. Choose an affine piece $`\{y0\}`$. Using the same denotations for the coordinates in this affine piece, we see that a point $`A=\{t=x=z=w=0\}`$ is singular on $`X`$.

Then, a general element of $`|K_X|`$ through $`A`$ has the form $`\{x=th\}`$ in the affine part, where $`h𝒪`$. Thus, we obtain that such an element is defined by

$$w^2+z^3+uzt^4+vt^6=0,$$

where $`u,v𝒪`$ and at least one of them is not 0. Due the ”recognition principle”, it can not be an equation of a du Val singularity. By proposition 1.3, $`X`$ can not be terminal.

So we proved that the cases A,B, and C can not occur. Now we shall deal with the case D.

The unique possibility: case D. In the sequel we will always assume that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\phi =\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}p& =& x\hfill \\ q& =& t^my\hfill \\ r& =& t^{2k}z\hfill \\ s& =& t^{3k}w\hfill \end{array}\right\},& \phi ^1=\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}x& =& t^mp\hfill \\ y& =& q\hfill \\ z& =& t^{2l}r\hfill \\ w& =& t^{3l}s\hfill \end{array}\right\},\end{array}$$

where $`k+l=m`$, and $`0<kl`$, so $`k\frac{m}{2}`$.

Using (3.1), we see that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_4(x,y)=t^{4k}g_4(x,t^my),\hfill & & \hfill f_6(x,y)=t^{6k}g_6(x,t^my).\end{array}$$

Thus, there exist $`\alpha _0,\alpha _1,\beta _0,\beta _1,\beta _2𝒪`$ such that

(3.3)
$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a_0& =& \alpha _0t^{4k}\hfill \\ \hfill a_1& =& \alpha _1t^{4km}\hfill \\ \hfill b_0& =& \beta _0t^{6k}\hfill \\ \hfill b_1& =& \beta _1t^{6km}\hfill \\ \hfill b_2& =& \beta _2t^{6k2m}\hfill \end{array}$$

For convenience, let us put down all equations that we will need in the sequel:

(3.4)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill f_4(x,y)& =& \alpha _0x^4+\alpha _1x^3y+a_2t^{2m4k}x^2y^2+a_3t^{3m4k}xy^3+\hfill \\ & & +a_4t^{4m4k}y^4,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill f_6(x,y)& =& \beta _0x^6+\beta _1x^5y+\beta _2x^4y^2+b_3t^{3m6k}x^3y^3+\hfill \\ & & +b_4t^{4m6k}x^2y^4+b_5t^{5m6k}xy^5+b_6t^{6m6k}y^6,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill g_4(p,q)& =& \alpha _0t^{4k}p^4+\alpha _1t^{4km}p^3q+a_2p^2q^2+a_3pq^3+a_4q^4,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill g_6(p,q)& =& \beta _0t^{6k}p^6+\beta _1t^{6km}p^5q+\beta _2t^{6k2m}p^4q^2+b_3p^3q^3+\hfill \\ & & b_4p^2q^4+b_5pq^5+b_6q^6,\hfill \end{array}$$

and

(3.5)
$$\begin{array}{cc}X:& \{\begin{array}{c}w^2+z^3+z\left(\alpha _0x^4+\alpha _1x^3y+t^{2m4k}_{i=2}^4a_it^{m(i2)}x^{4i}y^i\right)+\hfill \\ \\ +\beta _0x^6+\beta _1x^5y+\beta _2x^4y^2+t^{3m6k}_{i=3}^6b_it^{m(i3)}x^{6i}y^i=0,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ & \\ V:& \{\begin{array}{c}s^2+r^3+r\left(\alpha _0t^{4k}p^4+\alpha _1t^{4km}p^3q+_{i=2}^4a_ip^{4i}q^i\right)+\hfill \\ \\ +\beta _0t^{6k}p^6+\beta _1t^{6km}p^5q+\beta _2t^{6k2m}p^4q^2+_{i=3}^6b_ip^{6i}q^i=0.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that $`\phi `$ is not defined along the curve $`\{t=x=0\}`$, and $`\phi ^1`$ along $`\{t=q=0\}`$. Then, $`V_0`$ is contracted to the point $`A=\{t=0,(0:1:0:0)\}X`$, and $`X_0`$ to the point $`B=\{t=0,(1:0:0:0)\}V`$.

###### Claim 3.1.

$`X`$ is always singular.

Proof. Since $`2m4k0`$, it is easy to check that the point $`A`$ is singular.

In particular, we proved the following important result:

###### Corollary 3.2.

Let $`U/T`$ be a Mori fibration on del Pezzo surfaces of degree 1 over a curve $`T`$. Denote

$$_{base}=\left\{\text{Mori fibrations that are birational over }T\text{ to }U\right\}.$$

Then $`_{base}`$ contains at most one non-singular element.

###### Lemma 3.3.

Always $`m6k`$.

Proof. Assume the converse, i.e., $`m>6k`$. Then $`\alpha _1,\beta _1𝔪`$ and $`\beta _2𝔪^6`$ because of (3.3). Let $`S=\{x=th\}`$, $`h𝒪`$, be a general element of $`|K_XA|`$ (in the affine piece $`y0`$). Then $`S`$ has the form

$$w^2+z^3+uzt^4+vt^6=0$$

for some $`u,v𝒪`$. So $`S`$ is not canonical, which contradicts to proposition 1.3.

Now we consider two possible cases: $`k=l`$, i.e., $`m=2k`$, and $`k<l`$.

Case $`𝐤=𝐥`$. In this case, let us consider the affine part $`\{p0\}`$ of $`V`$. Then $`V`$ is defined by

$$s^2+r^3+r(\alpha _0t^{4k}+q(\mathrm{}\text{terms}\mathrm{}))+\beta _0t^{6k}+\beta _1t^{4k}q+q^2(\mathrm{}\text{terms}\mathrm{})=0,$$

and we see that the point $`BV`$ is singular. Thus, for $`k=l`$, such a fiber-wise transformations only exist between singular varieties.

Case $`𝐤<𝐥`$. Here, it would be interesting to know under which conditions $`V`$ is non-singular. Since $`X_0`$ is contracted to the point $`B`$, we should first check $`V`$ at this point. Take an affine piece $`\{p0\}`$. Then from equations (3.5) it follows that $`\beta _1t^{6km}𝔪`$, i.e., $`6km0`$. Thus, $`m=6k`$ because of lemma 3.3, and $`\beta _1`$ is invertible in $`𝒪`$.

So, if $`V`$ is smooth, then $`(a,b,c,d)=(0,6k,2k,3k)`$ and $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )=(6k,0,10k,15k)`$. Let us note that $`\alpha _1𝔪^{2k}`$ and $`\beta _2𝔪^{6k}`$ in this case. It easy to check also that $`X_0`$ only has a $`E_8`$-singularity at $`A`$, so $`X`$ has $`cE_8`$ there.

## 4. Examples.

Here we give examples with some interesting properties.

Example 1. Smooth case. Suppose $`(a,b,c,d)=(0,6,2,3)`$ and $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )=(6,0,10,15)`$. $`X`$ and $`V`$ is defined by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X:& & w^2+z^3+x^5y+t^{24}xy^5=0,\hfill \\ & & \\ V:& & s^2+r^3+p^5q+pq^5=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

It is easy to see that $`V`$ is non-singular, $`X`$ has a $`cE_8`$-singularity at the point $`\{t=0,(0:1:0:0)\}`$.

Example 2. Birational automorphism. Let $`(a,b,c,d)=(2,0,2,3)`$ and $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )=(0,2,2,3)`$. Equations:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X:& & w^2+z^3+t^4x^5y+xy^5=0,\hfill \\ & & \\ V:& & s^2+r^3+p^5q+t^4pq^5=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that $`X`$ and $`V`$ are isomorphic to each other: simply take $`w=s`$, $`z=r`$, $`x=q`$, and $`y=p`$. So we may assume that $`\phi Bir(X)`$ is defined by a transformation of coordinates in $`P_{1_K}`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill x& & t^1y;\hfill \\ \hfill y& & tx;\hfill \\ \hfill z& & z;\hfill \\ \hfill w& & w.\hfill \end{array}$$

$`X`$ has a $`cE_8`$-singularity in the central fiber.

Example 3. Non-normal fibers. We give two examples with the same weights $`(a,b,c,d)=(2,0,2,3)`$ and $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )=(0,2,2,3)`$ such that $`X_0`$ and $`V_0`$ are not normal. Both the cases are also birational automorphisms. The first one is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X:& & w^2+z^3+tzx^2y^2+tx^6+t^7y^6=0,\hfill \\ & & \\ V:& & s^2+r^3+trp^2q^2+t^7p^6+tq^6=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

$`X_0`$ is non-normal with an equation $`w^2+z^3=0`$ (the ”cusp” case, see , 1.4.). $`X`$ has a $`cE_7`$-singularity in the central fiber.

The second is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X:& & w^2+z^33zx^2y^2+tx^6+2x^3y^3+t^7y^6=0,\hfill \\ & & \\ V:& & s^2+r^33rp^2q^2+t^7p^6+2p^3q^3+tq^6=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

$`X_0`$ is defined by $`w^2+(zxy)^2(z+2xy)=0`$ (the ”node” case), and $`X`$ is $`cD_4`$.

## 5. Remarks.

As it was shown, both $`\phi `$ and $`\phi ^1`$ contract central fibers to points. It gives us some special conditions on central fibers and elements of $`|K|`$.

Central fibers. Since $`X`$ and $`V`$ are assumed to be terminal, i.e., having only rational singularities, their central fibers $`X_0`$ and $`V_0`$ must be rational. Consider $`X_0`$. If it is not normal, then its normalization is $`^2`$, so $`X_0`$ is rational (example 3 of the previous section). If $`X_0`$ is normal, then it is rational if and only if it has at most du Val singularities. So the remaining case of minimally elliptic singularities (defined by $`w^2+z(z^2x^4)=0`$) is not possible.

Anticanonical divisors. Let $`S|K_X|`$ be a general element, $`S^{}|K_V|`$ its strict transform. Then $`S`$ is a smooth elliptic surface. We will show that the elliptic surface $`S^{}`$ has an elliptic (non-minimal in general case) singularity.

Denote $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$ sections of $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ that are the base locus of anticanonical divisors, $`\rho :TS^{}`$ the minimal resolution of singularities of $`S^{}`$. Since $`S`$ is relatively minimal over $`R`$, it yields a birational morphism $`\mu :TS`$, which is factorized by contractions of -1-curves. Denote $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ the central fibers of $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{}`$ their strict transforms on $`T`$, and $`s_T`$ the pre-image of $`s`$ (or $`s^{}`$) on $`T`$. Obviously, $`C`$ is either an elliptic curve, or a rational curve with a double point (”cusp” or ”node”). We also know that $`\rho `$ contracts $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ to a point on $`S^{}`$, and $`\mu `$ contracts $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{}`$. Then, since $`C^{}`$ is irreducible, $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{}`$ is a unique -1-curve on $`T`$. Moreover, $`s^{}C^{}`$ is a non-singular point on $`S^{}`$, thus $`s_T`$ does not intersect the exeptional curves. Further, the point $`sC`$ is a non-singular point of $`C`$, so $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ has the arithmetic genus 1. The following picture clarifies the geometric situation.

Here $`E_1,\mathrm{},E_n`$, $`n0`$, are -2-curves. Let us note also that $`C^{}`$ can not have a node point, so it is a cusp.

Thus, we have the following intersection numbers: $`\stackrel{~}{C}^2=\stackrel{~}{C}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=1`$, $`E_i^2=2`$, $`E_iE_{i+1}=1`$.

Then, comparing $`K_T`$ for morphisms $`\rho `$ and $`\mu `$, we see that

$$K_T(n+1)\stackrel{~}{C}nE_1(n1)E_2\mathrm{}E_n$$

and

$$K_TE_1+2E_2+\mathrm{}nE_n+(n+1)\stackrel{~}{C}^{},$$

whence

$$(n+1)(\stackrel{~}{C}+E_1+\mathrm{}+E_n+\stackrel{~}{C}^{})0$$

(in fact, it is obvious, since $`\stackrel{~}{C}+E_1+\mathrm{}+E_n+\stackrel{~}{C}^{}`$ is a fiber of $`T`$). This formula can be explained as follows. Suppose for instance that $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ are projective elliptic surfaces, $`f`$ and $`f^{}`$ are their classes of a fiber. There exist integers $`m`$ and $`m^{}`$ such that $`K_Smf`$ and $`K_S^{}m^{}f^{}`$. Then $`m^{}=m+(n+1)`$.

Now it is clear that $`S^{}`$ has an elliptic singularity with $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ as the fundamental cycle, so it is minimally elliptic if and only if $`n=0`$.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the search for the origin of electroweak symmetry breaking, strong coupling models are an alternative to the Standard Model Higgs mechanism, or for weakly coupled theories based on supersymmetry. Although classical technicolor suffers from major shortcomings, viable multiscale models have been developed  which allow for fermion mass generation and for the absence of weak neutral currents. These models, which are not necessarily excluded by precision measurements of electroweak parameters at LEP and SLC , not only provide the technipions which serve as the longitudinal components of the gauge bosons, but also predict the existence of technipions ($`\pi _T`$) as mass eigenstates, as well as technirhos ($`\rho _T`$), and other techniparticles.

The feasibility of observing such resonances produced in $`q\overline{q}`$ fusion, in ATLAS has been reported in . The analysis was based on a PYTHIA  implementation of the multiscale model of Eichten, Lane and Womersley , and took into account detector effects by using a fast simulation of the ATLAS detector. In particular, one of the channels analyzed was $`\rho _T^\pm `$ production with subsequent decay into $`\pi _T^0W_L^\pm b\overline{b}\mathrm{}^\pm \nu `$. Assuming a quark fusion process, the authors  of the model have calculated the relevant matrix elements. It has then been shown in  that, given some reasonable values for the parameters of the model, the observation of such a process should be feasible with ATLAS, but is limited by background for possible large masses of $`\rho _T`$ and $`\pi _T`$.

The technique of forward jet tagging has been shown  to be very powerful in eliminating backgrounds from such processes as $`W`$ \+ jets production. For that reason, it is important to estimate if $`\rho _T`$ production via a vector boson fusion process can be a useful complementary channel for discovery of such a resonance. We evaluate here the cross section for this process.

The article is organized as follows. First, the model for the form factor and decay width of $`\rho _T`$ are presented in section 2. Results on the cross section calculation are given in section 3. The main results are summarized in the conclusion.

## 2 Model

In this section we describe in detail the essential features of the model used in our calculations.

The lighter isotriplet $`\rho _T`$ is assumed to decay dominantly into pairs of the mixed state of isotriplet $`|\mathrm{\Pi }_T=\mathrm{sin}\chi |W_L+\mathrm{cos}\chi |\pi _T`$, where the value of the mixing angle $`\chi `$ is assumed  to be: $`\mathrm{sin}\chi =1/3`$. The vertex $`\rho _T\pi _A\pi _B`$, where $`\pi _{A,B}`$ may be longitudinal $`W_L^\pm ,Z_L`$ bosons or technipion $`\pi _T`$, has the following form :

$`g_\rho F_{\rho \pi \pi }(p,q_A,q_B)C_{AB}\epsilon ^\nu (q_Aq_B)_\nu `$ (1)
where $`p`$, $`q_A`$ and $`q_B`$ are the momenta of $`\rho _T`$, $`\pi _A`$ and $`\pi _B`$; $`\epsilon ^\nu `$ is the polarization vector of $`\rho _T`$; the parameters $`C_{AB}`$ are equal to

$`C_{AB}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{sin}^2\chi \hfill & \mathrm{for}& W_L^\pm Z_L,\hfill \\ \mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{cos}\chi \hfill & \mathrm{for}& W_L^\pm \pi _T,\hfill \\ \mathrm{cos}^2\chi \hfill & \mathrm{for}& \pi _T\pi _T\hfill \end{array}`$ (5)
and $`g_\rho `$ is a coupling constant, normalized as follows :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho ^2}{4\pi }}=2.91\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{N_{TC}}}\right),`$
where $`N_{TC}=4`$ (see ).

Being a compound object, consisting of two heavy techniquarks, the technirho couples to two technipions (or longitudinal $`W,Z`$ bosons) by means of the diagram in Fig.1. In the loop the techniquarks 1 and 2 are on-shell (it is a typical approximation for a such consideration), while quark 3 is virtual. The latter has a momentum $`p_3`$ given by:

$$p_3=p_1q_A=\frac{1}{2}p_\rho q_A=\frac{1}{2}(q_Bq_A).$$

The production vertex is naturally suppressed by large virtualities of the $`W_L`$ and $`Z_L`$, but is enhanced, in that case, by large values of $`p_3`$ in the numerator. To be consistent with the Effective W Approximation (EWA), the additional form factor $`F_{\rho \pi \pi }(p,q_A,q_B)`$ in (1) is introduced.

$`F_{\rho \pi \pi }(p,q_A,q_B)={\displaystyle \frac{M_\rho ^2M_{\pi _A}^2M_{\pi _B}^2}{2(q_Aq_B)}},`$ (6)
where $`M_\rho ,M_{\pi _{A,B}}`$ are the masses of $`\rho _T,\pi _{A,B}`$. In analogy with the case of a heavy $`(Q_1\overline{Q}_2)`$-meson, this form-factor takes into account the possible off-shellness of technipions $`\pi _A`$ and $`\pi _B`$. The denominator in the effective $`\rho _T\pi _A\pi _B`$ vertex (6) results from the propagator of this virtual quark in the loop:

$`m_3^2p_3^2={\displaystyle \frac{M_\rho ^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(q_Bq_A)^2}{4}}=(q_Aq_B),`$ (7)
where $`M_\rho ^2=q_A^2+q_B^2+2(q_Aq_B)`$.

In the decay vertex of $`\rho _T`$, for on-shell technipions $`\pi _A`$ and $`\pi _B`$, we have $`F_{\rho \pi \pi }|_{\mathrm{on}\mathrm{shell}}=1`$.

Using the vertex (1) we get the well-known equation for the $`\rho _T\pi _A\pi _B`$ decay width :

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho _T\pi _A\pi _B)={\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _{\rho _T}C_{AB}^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_{AB}^3}{M_\rho ^2}}`$ (8)
We investigate the case of $`\rho _T^\pm `$ production with its subsequent decay into $`\pi _T^0W_L^\pm `$ pair. The corresponding branching ratio has a non-trivial behavior, as can be seen in Fig.2 for three decay channels of the charged technirho: $`\rho _T^\pm \pi _T^0\pi _T^\pm `$, $`\rho _T^\pm \pi _T^0W_L+\pi _T^\pm Z_L`$ or $`\rho _T^\pm Z_LW_L^\pm `$.

We can distinguish two regions in the technipion to technirho mass ratio. In the first region, namely $`M_{\pi _T}/M_{\rho _T}1/2`$, the $`\rho _T^\pm \pi _T\pi _T`$ decay is kinematically allowed. As $`M_{\pi _T}`$ increases (keeping $`M_{\rho _T}`$ fixed) the relative momentum $`p_{AB}`$ in equation (8) decreases. As a result we have a decreasing branching fraction for the $`\pi _T\pi _T`$ channel, while the other two channels increase in their relative value (see Fig. 2). Just above the value $`M_{\pi _T}/M_{\rho _T}=1/2`$ the branching ratio for the $`\pi _TW_L`$ channel reaches its maximum value. As the mass of $`\pi _T`$ rises further, in the second region up to the kinematic bound $`M_{\pi _T}/M_{\rho _T}=1`$, the relative boson momentum $`p_{W\pi _T}`$ decreases, yielding a decreasing branching ratio for technipion $`+`$ longitudinal $`W`$ boson.

## 3 Calculation of the cross section

We examine the reaction of technirho production at $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV (LHC collider) with subsequent decay of the technirho into a neutral technipion $`\pi _T^0`$ and a longitudinal $`W_L^\pm `$-boson

$`ppq_fq_f\rho _T(\pi _T^0W_L)X`$ (9)
Since each of the final particles from the $`\rho _T`$ decay has a very narrow width in comparison with its mass, we take both the final $`W_L`$-boson and technipion to be on-shell.

One of the diagrams describing the subprocess

$`qq^{}q_fq_f^{}\rho _Tq_fq_f^{}\pi _T^0W_L`$ (10)
is shown in Fig. 3. Only fusion of longitudinal $`W_L`$ and $`Z_L`$ bosons, radiated from the initial quarks $`q`$ and $`q^{}`$, needs to be taken into account.

The polarization vector of a longitudinal boson with mass $`M`$ and 4-momentum $`q`$ is equal to ;

$`e^\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{q^\nu }{M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(q_0|\stackrel{}{q}|)}{M}}(1,\stackrel{}{q}/|\stackrel{}{q}|).`$ (11)
In our calculations we set that

$`\mathrm{BR}(\pi _T^0b\overline{b})=1,`$
$`\mathrm{and}`$ $`\mathrm{BR}(W_L^\pm l^\pm \nu )=1/9.`$
We use the CTEQ2L parameterization of the proton structure functions . For evolution scale we set $`\sqrt{Q^2}=M_W`$.

The resulting cross sections for different values of the masses of $`\rho _T^\pm `$ and $`\pi _T^0`$ are presented in the Table 1. Note that the cross section of the reaction (9) may be presented in the factorized form as follows:

$`\sigma (ppq_fq_f\rho _T(\pi _T^0W_L)X)=\sigma (ppq_fq_f\rho _TX)\times \mathrm{BR}(\rho _T\pi _T^0W_L).`$ (12)
Therefore, the $`M_{\pi _T}`$-dependence of the cross section for reaction (9) with a given value of $`M_{\rho _T}`$ is completely determined by the branching ratio of technirho decay into $`\pi _TW_L`$ (see Fig.2). In particular, we expect that the cross section of reaction (9) should reach a maximum for $`M_{\pi _T}/M_{\rho _T}1/2`$.

A brief remark about the role of the form-factor $`F_{\rho \pi \pi }`$ in the $`\rho _T\pi _A\pi _B`$ vertex (1) is in order. In Fig.4 comparison is made of the pseudorapidity distribution of the final primary light quarks $`q_f,q_f^{^{}}`$ (not from $`\pi _T^0`$ decay). The dashed histogram corresponds to the $`q_W`$ and $`q_Z`$ dependent form-factor $`F_{\rho \pi \pi }`$ using expression (6), while the solid histogram is produced with $`F_{\rho \pi \pi }=1`$. From this figure one clearly sees that the latter choice ($`F=1`$) disagrees with expectations from the effective $`W`$-approximation, since the pseudorapidity distribution of the final $`q_f`$ do not peak in the forward and backward direction).

Other differential distributions are shown in the Figs. 5-6 (solid histograms).

We also compare our exact results with the calculations within effective $`W`$-approximation approach . In this case the matrix element for the process

$$W_LZ_L\rho _T\pi _TW_L$$

looks very simple. The exact form of the $`|M|^2`$ is presented below

$`|M|^2`$ $``$ $`C_{WZ}^2C_{\pi W}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{(p_w^2p_z^2)(p_a^2p_a^2)}{M_{\rho _T}^2}}(p_wp_z)(p_ap_b)\right)^2`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(P_{\rho _T}^2M_{\rho _T}^2)^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho _T}M_{\rho _T})^2}},`$
where $`p_w`$ and $`p_z`$ are the momenta of the initial $`W_L`$ and $`Z_L`$, while $`p_a`$ and $`p_b`$ are the momenta of the final longitudinal $`W_L`$ boson and techipion $`\pi _T`$, respectively (see , for detail). The parameters $`C_{WZ}`$ and $`C_{\pi W}`$ are given by the equation (5).

The corresponding differential distributions are shown in the Figs. 5-6 (dashed histograms). One can see from these figures that the shapes from the exact and EWA calculations are in good agreement.

As an example for the above calculation, the same case as in  but by the process of gauge boson fusion, has been reported in : $`\rho _T^\pm qqW^\pm \pi _T^0l\nu b\overline{b}`$ (where $`l`$ is an electron or muon), with $`m_{\rho _T}`$ = 800 GeV and $`m_{\pi _T}`$ = 500 GeV. For this process, $`\sigma \times BR`$ is about 2.2 fb, as can be seen from table 1 (accounting for both $`\mu \nu `$ and $`e\nu `$ decays of the charged $`W`$. This cross section depends sensitively on the assumed value of the mixing $`\mathrm{sin}\chi `$ between the longitudinal gauge bosons and the technipions since it involves the $`WZ\rho _T`$ vertex as well as the $`\rho _TW\pi _T`$ vertex. It was shown that, with the same model parameters, the resulting signal would leave about 2.6 events on a background of about 5.6 for an integrated luminosity of 30 fb<sup>-1</sup>, or a value of $`\sigma /\sqrt{B}=1.1`$. This is to be compared with a significance of 2.1 obtained in ref  for the $`q\overline{q}`$ fusion contribution. This process of vector boson fusion with forward tagging of jets could therefore complement the $`q\overline{q}`$ fusion process, but would not be a discovery channel unless the $`\sigma \times BR`$ is at least 12 fb.

## 4 Conclusion

We have calculated the cross section and differential distributions for $`\rho _T`$ production, in the vector boson fusion channel. We have compared our exact calculations with those within the effective W-boson approximation. The shapes of the differential distributions for the final particles (charged leptons and $`b`$-quarks) obtained by the two methods (the exact and EWA) are in reasonable agreement.

For a particular choice of masses for the technirho and technipion ($`M_{\rho _T}=800`$ GeV and $`M_{\pi _T}=500`$ Gev) the possibility of extracting the signal from the background was evaluated. After applications of kinematical cuts, assuming low luminosity, one would expect about 2.6 events from the signal and about 5.6 ones from the background. Therefore, the process of vector boson fusion with forward tagging of jets could complement the $`q\overline{q}`$ fusion process.

## Acknowledgments

We thank to D. Froidevaux, R. Mazini, A. Miagkov, V. Obraztsov, and A. Zaitsev for fruitful discussions. S.S. acknowledges the hospitality of Theory Division of CERN, where this work had complete.