text:
# The infimum, supremum and geodesic length of a braid conjugacy class

## 1. Introduction

The conjugacy problem in the $`n`$-string braid group $`B_n`$ is the following decision problem:

> Given two braids $`\alpha ,\alpha ^{}B_n`$, determine, in a finite number of steps, whether $`\alpha =\gamma \alpha ^{}\gamma ^1`$ for some $`\gamma B_n`$.

In the late sixties Garside  solved the (word and) conjugacy problems in $`B_n`$. His solution to both problems was exponential in both word length and braid index. Subsequently, the efficiency of his algorithm was improved by Thurston  and Elrifai-Morton  to give a solution to the word problem which is polynomial in both word length and braid index.

All three papers ,  and  work with the following well-known presentation of $`B_n`$, which we will call the *old presentation*:

> $`\begin{array}{cc}\text{generators:}\hfill & \sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{n1}\hfill \\ \text{relations:}\hfill & \sigma _i\sigma _j=\sigma _j\sigma _i,|ij|>1\hfill \\ & \sigma _i\sigma _j\sigma _i=\sigma _j\sigma _i\sigma _j,|ij|=1\hfill \end{array}`$

There is also a parallel and slightly more efficient solution to the word and conjugacy problems in , due to the authors of this paper. It uses a different presentation which we call the *new presentation*:

> $`\begin{array}{cc}\text{generators:}\hfill & a_{ts},nt>s1\hfill \\ \text{relations:}\hfill & a_{ts}a_{rq}=a_{rq}a_{ts},(tr)(tq)(sr)(sq)>0\hfill \\ & a_{ts}a_{sr}=a_{tr}a_{ts}=a_{sr}a_{tr},nt>s>r1\hfill \end{array}`$

The terms old and new are due to Krammer, who used the new presentation in . Both the old and new solutions to the word problem are polynomial in word length and braid index, but the best estimates obtained for the complexity of the solution to the conjugacy problem (see ) were rough exponential bounds. It was clear that better answers could not be obtained without more detailed information about the combinatorics, using either the old or new presentation.

Let $`|W|`$ denote the letter length of $`W`$, as a word in the given set of generators of $`B_n`$. The main result in this note is an algorithm which is polynomial in both $`|W|`$ and $`n`$ for computing two key integer invariants of the conjugacy class $`[W]`$ of $`W`$. The invariants in question are known as the infimum and supremum (or more informally inf and sup), using either presentation. See $`\mathrm{\S }`$2 below for precise definitions. We will also be able to compute the geodesic length (defined in $`\mathrm{\S }`$2,4 below) for the conjugacy class in polynomial time.

The reason we are able to do this requires some explanation. The method for finding inf (resp. sup) in both  and  rests on a procedure which is known as cycling (resp. decycling). While cycling and decycling are clearly finite processes, it had not been known how many times one must iterate them to either increase inf($`W^{}`$) (resp. decrease sup($`W^{}`$)) for a word $`W^{}[W]`$ or to guarantee that a maximum (resp. minimum) value, denoted by inf($`[W]`$) (resp. sup($`[W]`$)), for the conjugacy class has already been achieved. For the old presentation it had been claimed in  that the bound is 1, however an example was given in  for which 2 cyclings were needed to increase the infimum. Up to now, there were no published results which gave bounds, except for a very crude estimate in . Our main result in this note is to find upper and lower bounds for the number of times one must cycle (resp. decycle), using either presentation, in order to replace a given word $`W`$ with $`W^{}[W]`$, where $`\text{inf}(W^{})>\text{inf}(W)`$ (resp. $`\text{sup}(W^{})<\text{sup}(W))`$, or be sure that $`W`$ realizes inf($`[W]`$) (resp. sup($`[W]`$)). For the new presentation we will prove that our upper bound is the best possible one.

Here is an outline of this paper. In $`\mathrm{\S }`$2 we review the background and state our results in a precise way. See Theorem 1, Corollary 2 and Corollary 3. In §3, we prove these three results. In §4, we give examples which prove that the bound in Corollary 2 is sharp for the new presentation, with somewhat weaker results for the old. In $`\mathrm{\S }`$5 we discuss the open problem of whether the solutions which we know to the conjugacy problem are polynomial in word length and braid index, and state several conjectures relating to that matter and also to the ‘shortest word problem’ in $`B_n`$, defined in that section.

## 2. Statement of Results

In this section we state our results precisely. To do so we need to review what has already been done. Since almost all the machinery is identical in the two theories, it will be convenient to introduce unified notation, so that we may review both theories at the same time. The symbol $`W`$ will be used to indicate a word in the generators of $`B_n`$, using either presentation. The element and conjugacy class which $`W`$ represents will be denoted $`\{W\}`$ and $`[W]`$. The letter length of $`W`$ is $`|W|`$.

1. Note that the relations in the old and new presentations are equivalences between positive words with same word-length. So the word-length is easy to compute for positive words. Let $`B_n^+`$ be the semigroup defined by the same generators and relations in the given presentation. The natural map $`B_n^+B_n`$ is injective. .
2. There is a *fundamental braid* $`𝐃`$. In the old presentation, $`𝐃`$ has length $`((n^2n)/2)1`$ and is the half-twist

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _{n1})(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _{n2})\mathrm{}(\sigma _1\sigma _2)\sigma _1.$$

In the new presentation it has length $`n1`$ and it is the $`(1/n)`$-twist

$$\delta =a_{n(n1)}a_{(n1)(n2)}\mathrm{}a_{32}a_{21}.$$

The fundamental braid admits many many braid transformations, in both the old and the new presentations, and so can be written in many ways as a positive word in the braid generators. As a result of this flexibility, it has two important properties:

1. For any generator $`a`$, there exist $`A,BB_n^+`$ such that:
    $`𝐃=aA=Ba`$;
    2. For each generator $`a`$ we have $`a𝐃=𝐃\tau (a)`$ and also $`𝐃a=\tau ^1(a)𝐃`$, where $`\tau `$ is the automorphism of $`B_n`$ which is defined by $`\tau (\sigma _i)=\sigma _{ni}`$ for the old presentation and $`\tau (a_{ts})=a_{(t+1)(s+1)}`$ for the new presentation.
    3. $`\tau (\{𝐃\})=\{𝐃\}`$.
3. There are partial orderings ‘$``$’ and ‘$``$’ in $`B_n`$. For two words $`V`$ and $`W`$ in $`B_n`$ we say that $`VW`$ (resp. $`WV`$) if $`V=PW`$ (resp. $`V=WP`$) for some $`PB_n^+`$. Note that $`W`$ is a positive word if and only if $`We`$. We denote $`V<W`$ (resp. $`V>W`$) if $`VW`$ (resp. $`VW`$) and $`VW`$. In general $`VW`$ is not equivalent to $`WV`$, although if either $`W`$ or $`V`$ is a power of $`𝐃`$ the two ordering conditions are equivalent because powers of $`𝐃`$ commute with elements of $`B_n`$ up to powers of the index-shift automorphism $`\tau `$. Note that $`\tau `$ preserves the partial ordering.
4. The symbol $`𝐐`$ denotes the set of all initial subwords of $`𝐃`$, and $`𝐐^{}=𝐐\{e,𝐃\}.`$ The cardinality $`|𝐐_{old}|`$ is $`n!`$, whereas the cardinality $`|𝐐_{new}|`$ is the $`n^{th}`$ Catalan number. Note that $`|\delta |<|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$, also $`|𝐐_{new}|<|𝐐_{old}|`$. These are the main reasons why it is sometimes easier to work with the new presentation than the old.
5. The geodesic length $`l_Q(\{W\})`$ was introduced and investigated by Ruth Charney in . It is the smallest integer $`k`$ such that there is a word $`q_1q_2\mathrm{}q_k`$ representing $`\{W\}`$, with each $`q_i𝐐𝐐^1`$. Define the geodesic length of the conjugacy class $`l_Q([W])`$ to be the shortest such representation for words in the conjugacy class $`[W]`$.
6. For each positive word $`P`$, there is a decomposition, called the *left-greedy decomposition*, $`P=A_0P_0`$ for $`A_0𝐐`$ and $`P_0e`$, where $`A_0`$ has maximal length among all such decompositions, i.e. if $`P=A_0^{}P_0^{}`$, where $`A_0^{}𝐐`$ and $`P_0^{}B_n^+`$, then $`A_0^{}A_0`$. The term ‘greedy’ suggests that $`A_0`$ has absorbed as many letters from $`P_0`$ as it can without leaving $`𝐐`$. The canonical factor $`A_0`$ is called the *maximal head* of $`P`$. If $`P=A_0P_0=A_0^{}P_0^{}`$ in left greedy form, then $`\{A_0\}=\{A_0^{}\}`$ and $`\{P_0\}=\{P_0^{}\}`$. (Remark: The term left-canonical decomposition was used in  and , however in recent years left-greedy decomposition has become the term of choice for the same concept in the literature, hence we now change our notation.)
7. Any word $`W`$ in the generators admits a unique normal form which solves the word problem in $`B_n`$. The normal form is:

$$W=𝐃^uA_1A_2\mathrm{}A_k,u\text{ZZ },A_i𝐐^{},$$

where for each $`1ik1`$, the product $`A_iA_{i+1}`$ is a left-greedy decomposition. The integer $`u`$ (resp. $`u+k`$) is called the *infimum* of $`W`$ (resp.supremum of $`W`$) and denoted by $`\text{inf}(W)`$ (resp. $`\text{sup}(W)`$).
8. To solve the conjugacy problem, we need to study the maximum and minimum values of inf and sup for the conjugacy class rather than for the word class. We consider the following two operations $`𝐜`$ and $`𝐝`$, called *cycling* and *decycling*, respectively. For a given braid in normal form $`W=𝐃^uA_1A_2\mathrm{}A_k`$, we define:

$`𝐜(W)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐃^uA_2A_3\mathrm{}A_k\tau ^u(A_1)`$
$`𝐝(W)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐃^u\tau ^u(A_k)A_1\mathrm{}A_{k1}.`$
In general the braids on the right hand side will not be in normal form, and must be rearranged into normal form before the operation can be repeated.
9. Theorem (see ):

1. If $`W`$ is conjugate to $`V`$ and if $`\text{inf}(V)>\text{inf}(W)`$, then repeated cycling will produce $`𝐜^{\mathrm{}}(W)`$ with $`\text{inf}(𝐜^{\mathrm{}}(W))>\text{inf}W`$.
    2. If $`W`$ is conjugate to $`V`$ with $`\text{sup}(V)<\text{sup}(W)`$, then repeated decycling will produce $`𝐝^{\mathrm{}}(W)`$ with $`\text{sup}(𝐝^{\mathrm{}}(W))<\text{sup}(W)`$.
    3. The maximum value of inf and the minimum value of sup can be achieved simultaneously.
10. The *super summit set* SSS($`[W]`$) () is the set of all conjugates of $`W`$ which have the maximal infimum and the minimal supremum in the conjugacy class $`[W]`$. It is a proper subset of the summit set SS$`([W])`$ which was introduced in by Garside in .
11. Theorem (see ): Let $`W,W^{}`$ be any two words in SSS($`[W]`$ = SSS$`([W^{}])`$. Then there is a sequence

$$W=W_0W_1\mathrm{}W_k=W^{}$$

such that each intermediate braid $`W_i\mathrm{SSS}([W])`$ and each $`W_{i+1}`$ is a conjugate of $`W_i`$ by a single member of $`𝐐`$.
12. By the theorems in $`\mathrm{\S }`$2.9 and $`\mathrm{\S }`$2.11 one can compute SSS($`[W]`$) as follows:

* Obtain an element $`W^{}`$ in the super summit set by iterating cyclings and decyclings, starting with any given word $`W`$.
    * Compute the whole super summit set from $`W^{}`$ as follows: Compute $`AW^{}A^1`$ for all $`A𝐐`$ and collect the braids in the super summit set. Repeat the same process with each newly obtained element, until no new elements are obtained.

Therefore there is a finite time algorithm to generate SSS$`(W)`$. This algorithm solves the conjugacy problem in $`B_n`$. The integers $`\text{inf}([W])`$ and $`\text{sup}([W])`$ are the same for all members of SSS$`(W)`$ and so are partial invariants of the conjugacy class $`[W]`$.

In this article, we obtain an upper bound for the necessary number of cyclings and decyclings in the theorem in $`\mathrm{\S }`$2.9 above. for both the old presentation and the new presentation. We denote the word length of $`W`$ by $`|W|`$. Our main result is:

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`WB_n`$. If $`\text{inf}(W)`$ is not maximal for $`[W]`$, then inf$`(𝐜^{|𝐃|1}(W))>\text{inf}(W)`$. If $`\text{sup}(W)`$ is not minimal for $`[W]`$, then sup$`(𝐝^{|𝐃|1}(W))<\text{sup}(W)`$.

As immediate applications, we have:

###### Corollary 2.

Given any braid word $`WB_n`$, there is an algorithm which is polynomial in both word length and braid index for the computation of $`\text{inf}[W]`$ and $`\text{sup}[W]`$. Using the new presentation the complexity of the algorithm is $`O(|W|^2n^2)`$.

###### Corollary 3.

There is an algorithm which is polynomial in both word length and braid index for the computation of the geodesic length $`l_Q([W])`$ of the conjugacy class of $`W`$, using either presentation. Using the new presentation the complexity is $`O(|W|^2n^2)`$.

## 3. Proof of Theorem 1 and Corollaries 2 and 3.

Proof of Theorem 1: We focus on cycling because the proof and the difficulties are essentially identical for decycling.

Here is the plan of the proof. We begin with a word $`W=𝐃^uP`$ which is in normal form, so that $`u=\text{inf}(W)`$ and $`P>e`$. By hypothesis $`\text{inf}([W])>u`$, so there exists an integer $`m`$ such that $`u=\text{inf}(W)=\text{inf}(𝐜(W))=\mathrm{}=\text{inf}(𝐜^m(W))`$, but $`\text{inf}(𝐜^{m+1}(W))>u`$. Each instance of cycling can be realized by conjugation of $`W`$ by an element in $`𝐐^{}`$, so we know there are $`A_1^{},A_2^{}\mathrm{},A_m^{}𝐐^{}(𝐐^{})^1`$ such that after conjugating $`W`$, successively, by $`A_1^{},A_2^{}\mathrm{},A_m^{}`$ we obtain $`W^{}=R^{}𝐃^uP(R^{})^1`$ with $`\text{inf}(W^{})=u+1`$. (See Lemma 4 below.) Write $`R^{}`$ in normal form. (See Lemmas 8 and 9.) Our plan is to show that the sequence of lengths of the canonical factors $`H_m^{},\mathrm{},H_0^{}`$ for $`R^{}`$ satisfies $`|H_m^{}|<|H_{m1}^{}|<\mathrm{}<|H_0^{}|`$. Since each $`H_i^{}𝐐^{}`$, we have $`e<|H_i^{}|<|𝐃|`$. This places a limit on the length of the chain, i.e. $`m+1|𝐃|1`$ or $`m|𝐃|2`$, as claimed.

We used the symbols $`R^{},A_i^{},H_j^{}`$ in the description above, but in the actual proof we will use symbols $`R,A_i,H_j`$ which differ a little bit from $`R^{},A_i^{},H_j^{}`$ because we wish to focus on the changes in the positive part $`P`$ of $`W`$, rather than on changes in $`𝐃^uP`$:

###### Lemma 4.

Choose any $`WB_n`$. Let $`W=𝐃^uP`$, where $`u=\text{inf}(W)`$. Then $`\text{inf}([W])>\text{inf}(W)`$ if and only if there exists a positive word $`R`$ such that $`RP\tau ^u(R^1)𝐃`$.

###### Proof.

By hypothesis $`\text{inf}([W])>\text{inf}(W)`$, so there exists $`XB_n`$ with $`\text{inf}(XWX^1)>\text{inf}(W).`$ Let $`X=𝐃^vY,Ye`$, where $`v=\text{inf}(Y)`$. Then:

$$(𝐃^vY)(𝐃^uP)(Y^1𝐃^v)𝐃^{u+1},$$

which implies (via part (ii) of (3) above) that:

$$(\tau ^u(Y))(P)(Y^1)𝐃.$$

Set $`R=\tau ^u(Y)`$, so that $`Y=\tau ^u(R)`$. Then $`Re`$ and

$$(R)(P)(\tau ^u(R^1))𝐃,$$

as claimed. ∎

We will need to understand the structure of the positive word $`R`$ in Lemma 4, and to learn how the normal form of $`R`$ is related to that of $`W`$ and its images under repeated cycling. Once we understand all these issues, we will be able to extract information from $`R`$ about repeated cycling. We begin our work with several preparatory lemmas (i.e. Lemmas 5, 6 and 7.):

###### Lemma 5.

Suppose that $`Pe`$ and that $`RP𝐃`$ for some $`Re`$. Let $`P=A_0P_0`$ be in left-greedy form. Then $`RA_0𝐃`$.

###### Proof.

See Proposition 3.9 (IV) of  for the new presentation and Proposition 2.10 of  for the old presentation. ∎

###### Lemma 6.

If $`WB_n`$ and $`A𝐐`$, then $`\text{inf}(W)\text{inf}(WA)\text{inf}(W)+1.`$

###### Proof.

Since $`WWAW𝐃`$ and $`\text{inf}(W𝐃)=\text{inf}(W)+1`$ the assertion follows. ∎

For each $`A𝐐`$, let $`\overline{A}`$ denote the unique member of $`𝐐`$ which satisfies $`\overline{A}A=𝐃`$.

###### Lemma 7.

Let $`Z=B_{\mathrm{}}B_\mathrm{}1\mathrm{}B_1`$ be the normal form for $`Ze`$. Then $`Z^1𝐃^{\mathrm{}}e`$ and the normal form for $`Z^1𝐃^{\mathrm{}}`$ is

$$\tau (\overline{B}_1)\tau ^2(\overline{B}_2)\mathrm{}\tau ^{\mathrm{}}(\overline{B}_{\mathrm{}}).$$

###### Proof.

Observe that $`𝐃=\overline{B}_iB_i`$ implies that $`𝐃=\tau ^i(\overline{B}_i)\tau ^i(B_i)`$ for every $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$. Therefore:

$`Z^1𝐃^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`B_1^1B_2^1\mathrm{}B_{\mathrm{}}^1𝐃^{\mathrm{}}`$
$`=`$ $`(𝐃\tau (B_1^1))(𝐃\tau ^2(B_2^1))\mathrm{}(𝐃\tau ^{\mathrm{}}(B_{\mathrm{}}^1))`$
$`=`$ $`(\tau (\overline{B}_1)\tau (B_1)\tau (B_1^1))(\tau ^2(\overline{B}_2)\tau ^2(B_2)\tau ^2(B_2^1))\mathrm{}(\tau ^{\mathrm{}}(\overline{B}_{\mathrm{}})\tau ^{\mathrm{}}(B_{\mathrm{}})\tau ^{\mathrm{}}(B_{\mathrm{}}^1))`$
$`=`$ $`\tau (\overline{B}_1)\tau ^2(\overline{B}_2)\mathrm{}\tau ^{\mathrm{}}(\overline{B}_{\mathrm{}})`$
because

$$\tau (B_i)\tau (B_i^1)=\tau (B_iB_i^1)=\tau (e)=e.$$

We continue the proof of Theorem 1. By $`\mathrm{\S }`$2.8 and Lemma 6 there exists a nonnegative integer $`m`$ such that $`\text{inf}(𝐜(W))=\text{inf}(𝐜^2(W))=\mathrm{}=\text{inf}(𝐜^m(W))`$ but $`\text{inf}(𝐜^{m+1}(W))=\text{inf}(W)+1`$. To prove Theorem 1, we must show that $`m+1`$ is bounded above by $`|𝐃|1`$. Let $`W=𝐃^uP`$, where $`Pe`$ and $`u=\text{inf}(W)`$. By Lemma 4 we know that $`\text{inf}([W])>\text{inf}(W)`$ if and only if there exists a positive word $`R`$ such that $`RP\tau ^u(R^1)𝐃`$. Assume that among all such words we have chosen $`R`$ so that $`|R|`$ is minimal. We wish to describe this shortest word $`R`$ as a specific product (in general not left-greedy) of canonical factors. Our first observation is:

###### Lemma 8.

$`\text{inf}(R)=0`$.

###### Proof.

If not, then $`R=𝐃R^{}`$ for some $`R^{}e`$ and

$$R^{}P\tau ^u(R^{})^1=𝐃^1RP\tau ^u(R)^1𝐃=\tau (RP\tau ^u(R)^1)𝐃,$$

which contradicts the minimality of $`|R|`$. ∎

###### Lemma 9.

Let $`𝐜^i(W)=𝐃^uA_iP_i`$, where $`A_i`$ is the maximal head of $`𝐜^i(W)`$. Then the positive word $`R`$ whose existence is guaranteed by Lemma 4 is related to the $`A_i`$’s as follows:

$$R=\tau ^m(\overline{A}_m)\mathrm{}\tau ^1(\overline{A}_1)\overline{A}_0.$$

###### Proof.

Our starting point is:

$$RP\tau ^u(R)^1𝐃,$$

which implies that $`RP𝐃`$. Since $`P=A_0P_0`$ is left-greedy, Lemma 5 then implies that $`RA_0𝐃`$ and so $`R=R_1\overline{A}_0`$ for some positive word $`R_1`$. Now:

$`RA_0P_0\tau ^u(R)^1`$ $`=`$ $`R_1\overline{A}_0A_0P_0\tau ^u(\overline{A}_0^1)\tau ^u(R_1^1)`$
$`=`$ $`R_1𝐃P_0\tau ^u(A_0)𝐃^1\tau ^u(R_1^1)`$
$`=`$ $`R_1\tau ^1\left(A_1P_1\right)\tau ^u(R_1^1).`$
Since $`RA_0P_0\tau ^u(R^1)𝐃`$, we conclude that:

$$R_1\tau ^1(A_1P_1)\tau ^u(R_1^1)𝐃.$$

Iterating the construction, we obtain $`R_1=R_2\tau ^1(\overline{A}_1)`$ for some positive word $`R_2`$, also $`R_2=R_3\tau ^2(\overline{A}_2),\mathrm{},R_m=R_{m+1}\tau ^m(\overline{A}_m)`$. Putting all of these together we learn that:

$$R=R_{m+1}\tau ^m(\overline{A}_m)\mathrm{}\tau ^1(\overline{A}_1)\overline{A}_0$$

for some positive word $`R_{m+1}`$. Let $`S=\tau ^m(\overline{A}_m)\mathrm{}\tau ^1(\overline{A}_1)\overline{A}_0,`$ so that $`R=R_{m+1}S.`$ A straightforward calculation shows that

$$\tau ^{(m+1)}(SP\tau ^u(S^1))=A_{m+1}P_{m+1}.$$

Since $`\text{inf}(𝐜^{m+1}(W))=\text{inf}(W)+1`$, we have

$$1=\text{inf}(\tau ^{(m+1)}(SP\tau ^u(S^1)))=\text{inf}(SP\tau ^u(S^1)).$$

By the minimality of $`|R|`$, we must have $`R=S`$. Lemma 9 is proved. ∎

The expression given for $`R`$ in the statement of Lemma 9 is in general not in normal form. We now study the maximal head $`H_0`$ of $`R=\tau ^m(\overline{A}_m)\mathrm{}\tau ^1(\overline{A}_1)\overline{A}_0`$, and related canonical factors $`H_1,\mathrm{},H_m`$. To define them, let $`H_k`$ be the maximal head of $`\tau ^m(\overline{A}_m)\mathrm{}\tau ^k(\overline{A}_k)R.`$

###### Lemma 10.

$`e<H_m<H_{m1}<\mathrm{}<H_1<H_0<𝐃.`$

###### Proof.

Our first observation is that $`\text{inf}(R)=0`$ (see Lemma 8). Since $`H_0`$ is the maximal head of $`R`$, it follows that

$$H_0<𝐃.$$

Our second observation is that by hypothesis $`\text{inf}(𝐜^m(W))=u`$ and $`𝐜^m(W)=𝐃^uA_mP_m`$ is left-greedy, so that $`A_m<𝐃`$, which implies that $`e<\overline{A}_m`$ and so:

$$e<H_m.$$

Our third observation is that by the definition of $`H_k`$ we must have:

$$H_mH_{m1}\mathrm{}H_1H_0.$$

Therefore the only thing that we need to prove is that $`H_{k+1}H_k`$ for $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},m1`$.

We first prove the assertion for $`k=0`$. Assume that $`H_1=H_0`$. We will show that this leads to a contradiction to our choice of $`R`$.

We are given that:

$$R=\tau ^m(\overline{A}_m)\mathrm{}\tau ^1(\overline{A}_1)\overline{A}_0=B_{\mathrm{}}B_\mathrm{}1\mathrm{}B_1,$$

where the decomposition on the left comes from Lemma 9 and the one on the right is the normal form for $`R`$. By Lemma 7 the normal form for $`R^1𝐃^{\mathrm{}}`$ is $`\tau (\overline{B}_1)\tau ^2(\overline{B}_2)\mathrm{}\tau ^{\mathrm{}}(\overline{B}_{\mathrm{}}).`$

By hypothesis $`H_1=H_0=B_{\mathrm{}}`$, so

$$\tau ^m(\overline{A}_m)\mathrm{}\tau ^1(\overline{A}_1)=B_{\mathrm{}}R_1$$

for some $`R_1e`$. Since $`B_{\mathrm{}}R_1\overline{A}_0=R=B_{\mathrm{}}B_\mathrm{}1\mathrm{}B_1`$, it follows that $`B_\mathrm{}1\mathrm{}B_1=R_1\overline{A}_0`$ and so

$$B_\mathrm{}1\mathrm{}B_1P𝐃.$$

Let $`a_i`$ be the infimum of $`B_\mathrm{}1\mathrm{}B_1P\tau ^u\left(\tau (\overline{B}_1)\tau ^2(\overline{B}_2)\mathrm{}\tau ^i(\overline{B}_i)\right)`$. Then

1. $`a_01`$ by the above discussion,
2. $`a_ia_{i+1}a_i+1`$ by Lemma 5, and
3. if $`a_i=a_{i+1}`$, then $`a_i=a_{i+1}=\mathrm{}=a_{\mathrm{}}`$ since $`\tau ^i(\overline{B}_i)\tau ^{i+1}(\overline{B}_{i+1})`$ is left-greedy.

If $`a_\mathrm{}1\mathrm{}`$, then

$$(B_\mathrm{}1\mathrm{}B_1)P\tau ^u\left(B_\mathrm{}1\mathrm{}B_1\right)^1𝐃,$$

which contradicts the minimality of $`|R|`$. So $`a_\mathrm{}1\mathrm{}1`$. Then $`a_i=a_{i+1}`$ for some $`i\mathrm{}2`$ and so $`a_i=a_{i+1}=\mathrm{}=a_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}1`$ so that $`\text{inf}(RP\tau ^u(R^1))0`$. However, by our choice of $`R`$, we know that $`\text{inf}(RP\tau ^u(R^1))>0`$. Retracing our steps we conclude that the assumption $`H_1=H_0`$ is impossible, so $`H_1<H_0<𝐃`$.

It remains to attack the cases $`k>0`$. The method is identical to the case $`k=0`$. Set $`V=𝐜^k(W)=𝐃^uA_kP_k`$ and let $`V`$ play the role of $`W=𝐃^uA_0P_0`$. ∎

The proof of Theorem 1 is almost complete. We have learned that $`e<H_m<H_{m1}<\mathrm{}<H_1<H_0<𝐃`$. This implies that:

$$0<|H_m|<|H_{m1}|<\mathrm{}<|H_1|<|H_0|<|𝐃|.$$

Thus the length $`m+1`$ of the chain must be smaller than $`|𝐃|`$, that is $`m+1|𝐃|1`$. The proof of Theorem 1 is complete. ∎

Proof of Corollary 2: The proof follows directly from Theorem 1 and the estimates in . In Theorem 4.4 of  it is shown that for the new presentation there is an algorithm rewriting a word into its left greedy form that is a $`O(|W|^2n)`$ solution to the word problem. The initial preparation of our algorithm puts a given word $`W`$ into its left greedy form and takes $`O(|W|^2n)`$. Notice that the number of factors is proportional to $`|W|`$ in the worst case. In order to compute inf we need to cycle at most $`n2`$ times. After each cycling the new word so-obtained must be put into left greedy form but this time it takes only $`O(|W|n)`$ by Corollary 3.14 of . Thus the test to determine whether inf is maximal takes $`O(|W|n^2)`$. If it is not the entire process must be repeated, but the number of such repeats, i.e., the total increase of inf, is clearly bounded by the number of factors so the entire calculation is $`O(|W|^2n^2)`$. We note that if $`W`$ is a positive word, the total increase of inf is the maximum number of powers of $`\delta `$ formed cyclically from $`W`$ but this number is clearly bounded by $`|W|/(n1)`$, so the entire calculation is $`O(|W|^2n)`$. The discussion for the old presentation is similar and is left to the reader. ∎

Proof of Corollary 3: Let $`W=𝐃^uA_1A_2\mathrm{}A_k`$ be a word which is in normal form and which realizes the maximum value $`u`$ of inf and the minimum value $`k`$ of sup for the word class $`\{W\}`$. The geodesic length $`l_Q(\{W\})`$ of $`\{W\}`$ is computed in  (or see ) as follows:

* If $`u0`$ then $`W`$ is a positive word of geodesic length $`l_Q(\{W\})=u+k`$.
* If $`ku<0`$, then we may use the fact that for every $`X_i𝐐`$ there exists $`Y_i𝐐`$ with $`X_iY_i=𝐃`$. From this it follows that $`𝐃^1X_i=Y_i^1`$. Using the additional fact that if $`\tau `$ is the index shift automorphism of $`\mathrm{\S }`$2.2, then $`\tau (𝐐)=𝐐`$, it follows that we may eliminate all of the powers of $`𝐃`$ and replace $`u`$ of the factors $`A_1,A_2,\mathrm{}A_u𝐐`$ with appropriate elements of $`𝐐^1`$, thereby achieving a shorter word. So in this case $`l_Q(\{W\})=k`$.
* If $`u<k`$ then every factor $`A_1,A_2,\mathrm{}A_u𝐐`$ is replaced by an appropriate element of $`𝐐^1`$. After all of these reductions the new word will be entirely negative. Its geodesic length is $`l_Q(\{W\})=u`$.
* The three cases may be combined into a single formula:
$`l_Q(\{W\})=max(k+u,u,k).`$

The above considerations relate to the length of a word class $`\{W\}`$. However, observe that the normal form for elements in the conjugacy class $`[W]`$ is identical to that for the word class, moreover if $`Y,Z`$ are in the super summit set of $`[W]`$ then $`\text{inf}(Y)=\text{inf}(Z)`$ and $`\text{sup}(Y)=\text{sup}(Z)`$. Since the complexity of computing $`l_Q([W])`$ is identical to the complexity of computing $`\text{inf}([W])`$ and $`\text{sup}([W])`$, the assertion then follows from Corollary 2. ∎

## 4. Are the cycling-decycling bounds sharp?

Note that the bound we obtained for the number of cyclings and decyclings in Theorem 1 is $`n2`$ for the new presentation and $`1+(n1)(n2)/2`$ for the old presentation. In this section we investigate whether these bounds are sharp.

We first give an example of $`n`$-braid written in the new generators for which $`n2`$ cyclings are required to increase the infimum. This shows that the bound given in Theorem 1 is sharp for the new presentation. To simplify notation, use $`[t,t1,\mathrm{},s]`$ instead of $`a_{t(t1)}a_{(t1)(t2)}\mathrm{}a_{(s+1)s}.`$ Consider the example $`W=([2,1][5,4,3])([3,2])`$ in normal form. Then

$`𝐜(W)`$ $`=`$ $`([3,2])([2,1][5,4,3])=([3,2,1][5,4])([4,3])`$
$`𝐜^2(W)`$ $`=`$ $`([4,3])([3,2,1][5,4])=([4,3,2,1])([5,4])`$
$`𝐜^3(W)`$ $`=`$ $`([5,4])([4,3,2,1])=[5,4,3,2,1]=\delta `$
So $`\text{inf}(W)=\text{inf}(𝐜(W))=\text{inf}(𝐜^2(W))=0`$ but $`\text{inf}(𝐜^3(W))=1`$. More generally, if

$$W=[2,1][n,n1,\mathrm{},3,2]=([2,1][n,n1,\mathrm{},3])([3,2]),$$

then $`\text{inf}(W)=\text{inf}(𝐜^{n3}(W))=0`$ but $`\text{inf}(𝐜^{n2}(W))=1`$. See Figure 1(a) for a sketch of the braid $`W`$ in the case $`n=7`$.

In the old presentation, the example in  shows that $`\text{inf}(W)=\text{inf}(𝐜(W))=0`$ but $`\text{inf}(𝐜^2(W))=1`$. There are plenty of examples for which more than 2 cyclings are required to increase the infimum. Let $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ denote the permutation braid corresponding to the permutation $`\pi `$ on $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ defined by $`\pi (i)=a_i`$, Consider the following example, with $`WB_{2k+1}`$.

$$W=(\underset{2k1}{\underset{}{2k+1,2k,\mathrm{},3}},1,2)(\underset{k}{\underset{}{1,2,\mathrm{},k}},\underset{k}{\underset{}{k+2,\mathrm{},2k+1}},k+1)$$

Then $`\text{inf}(W)=\text{inf}(𝐜^{2k1}(W))=0`$ but $`\text{inf}(𝐜^{2k}(W))=1`$. See Figure 1(b) for a sketch of this example in the case $`n=7`$.

For another example let $`WB_{2k+1}`$ be such that

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`(\underset{k1}{\underset{}{2k+1,\mathrm{},k+3}},k+1,k+2,\underset{k}{\underset{}{k,k1,\mathrm{},1}})`$
$`(\underset{k1}{\underset{}{3,4,\mathrm{},k+1}},1,\underset{k1}{\underset{}{k+2,\mathrm{},2k}},2,2k+1)`$
See Figure 1(c). Then $`4k5`$ cyclings are needed to increase the infimum. So if $`n`$ is odd, there is an example for which $`2n7`$ cyclings are needed. Therefore the lower bound for the old presentation is at least linear in $`n`$.

We do not know an exact bound that works for every $`n`$-braid written in the old generators. It is easy to see that the upper bound in $`B_3`$ is 1, that is, if $`\text{inf}(W)=\text{inf}(𝐜(W))`$ for $`WB_3`$, then the infimum is already maximized. In an exhaustive search, we learned that the upper bound for $`B_4`$, using the old presentation, is 2 for positive words whose normal form contains up to 5 canonical factors.

## 5. Complexity issues and the conjugacy problem

In this section we consider implications of the work in the preceding sections for the complexity of the conjugacy problem in $`B_n`$.

### 5.1. The special cases $`n=3`$ and $`4`$:

Before discussing the problem, it will be helpful to review what is known about the cases $`n=3`$ and $`4`$, since well-chosen examples always help one to arrive at a better understanding of a problem. In the manuscript  P.J. Xu introduced the new presentation for $`B_3`$ and used it to solve the word and conjugacy problems in $`B_3`$ and to study the letter lengths of shortest words in a word and conjugacy class in $`B_3`$, using the new presentation. Her main result in this regard was that words of shortest ‘geodesic length’ (she doesn’t use the term geodesic length, which was introduced after she completed her work) are, without further work, also words of shortest letter length in the new generators. She also found growth functions for $`B_3`$, both for word classes and conjugacy classes, proved that they were rational, and computed the rational functions which described them. Her algorithm for the conjugacy problem was clearly polynomial in $`|W|`$.

In  the word and conjugacy problems were solved in $`B_4`$, using the new presentation and following the methods of . The authors also solved the shortest word problem in conjugacy classes. In a forthcoming paper the second and third author of this paper will prove that the algorithm for the conjugacy problem in  is polynomial in $`|W|`$.

### 5.2. The conjugacy problem:

In $`\mathrm{\S }`$2.10 above the super summit set SSS$`([W])`$ of the conjugacy class of $`WB_n`$ is defined. It is a finite set and it can be computed in a systematic manner in a finite number of steps from any braid word $`W`$ which realizes $`\text{inf}([W])`$ and $`\text{sup}([W])`$. The Theorem which is quoted in $`\mathrm{\S }`$2.11 above asserts that $`W`$ is conjugate to $`V`$ in $`B_n`$ if and only if $`\text{inf}([W])=\text{inf}([V]),\text{sup}([W])=\text{sup}([V])`$ and SSS$`([W])=\mathrm{SSS}([V])`$.

The super summit set has a fairly transparent structure when $`n=3`$, the main reason being that words in $`𝐐^{}=𝐐\{\delta ,e\}`$ all have length 1. In $`B_4`$ the situation is a little bit more complicated, but still within reach. Let $`W=\delta ^uA_1A_2\mathrm{}A_k`$ be in the super summit set of $`[W]`$ and be in normal form, and let $`A=A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_k`$ be the ‘positive part’ of $`W`$. Notice that $`\delta `$ has letter length 3 and the $`A_j^{}s`$ are elements of $`𝐐^{}`$, and so have letter length 1 or 2. Let $`k_1`$ (resp. $`k_2`$) be the number of factors in $`A`$ which have length 1 (resp. 2). Let $`e`$ be the exponent sum of $`W`$. Clearly $`e`$ is a class invariant. Since $`k=k_1+k_2`$ and since $`e=3u+k_1+2k_2`$ it follows that $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ are determined by the triplet $`(u=\text{inf},k=\text{sup},e)`$. This makes the SSS somewhat easier to understand in the case $`n=4`$ than in the general case.

In the general case the super summit set SSS$`([W])`$ splits into orbits under cycling and decycling. Clearly the number of such orbits and their sizes are class invariants, but unfortunately we have examples to show that they are not complete invariants. The orbits are complicated by the fact that $`𝐐^{}`$ contains elements of letter length $`1,2,\mathrm{},n2`$, and the number $`k_i`$ of elements of letter length $`i`$ of a member of SSS$`([W])`$ is no longer controlled by $`(u,k,e)`$. We don’t know whether $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n2}`$ are orbit invariants, and if they can vary from one orbit to another. Also, while it is known that one can pass from any orbit to any other orbit by conjugating by an appropriate product of elements of $`𝐐`$, it is difficult to understand which products do the job. While the super summit set is a great improvement over the summit set of , it is still too big to make it possible to study many examples. For all these reasons the complexity of the conjugacy problem remains open at this time. Nevertheless, based on what we know, we conjecture:

###### Conjecture 11.

There is an algorithmic solution to the conjugacy problem in $`B_n`$, using the combinatorial approach which is described in this paper, which is polynomial in word length $`|W|`$ for each fixed braid index $`n`$.


format: text

text:
# Magnetic and electrical resistance behaviour of the oxides, Ca3-xYxLiRuO6 (x= 0.0, 0.5 and 1.0)

## I Introduction

There is a considerable interest in the current literature in identifying Ru-based magnetic and/or superconducting oxides. The magnetism in a Ru-based material for the first time was reported nearly forty years ago, namely, in SrRuO3 exhibiting ferromagnetism below (TC=) 160 K . Subsequently there has been very little work in this direction until the discovery  of superconductivity at (Tc=) 1.5 K in Sr2RuO4, which turned out to be the first superconductor not containing Cu with the same structure as by-now-well-known K2NiF4-related high-Tc oxides; this work naturally rekindled the interest on Ru-based oxides. The investigations in recent years led to the discovery of the following Ru based materials with the magnetism arising from Ru: Sr4Ru3O10, TC= 148 K ; Sr3Ru2O7, TC= 104 K , Eu(Gd)Sr2RuCu2O8, TN= 168 (185)K , YSr2RuO6, TN= 26 K , and A3A’RuO6 (A= Ca, Sr; A’= Li, Na), TN= 70-120 K . While the ferromagnets of this class are generally metallic, the antiferromagnets are found to be insulators. However, there is no distinct evidence for high-Tc superconductivity (from Ru d band) in any Ru-based oxides. At this point, it is worth noting that superconductivity could be induced in the temperature (T) range 30-50 K by small Cu doping in the antiferromagnetic insulator, YSr2RuO6, and in fact superconductivity and magnetism seem to compete in such substituted oxides ; however, considering that Cu doping is essential for superconductivity, one is not sure whether this phenomenon arises from Ru. Also, the compounds, R1.4Ce0.6RuSr2Cu2O10 (R= Eu and Gd) are found to be superconducting below about 40 K arising from Cu layers, whereas Ru exhibits magnetic ordering below about 180 K . Thus, one may conclude that there is no clearcut evidence for high-Tc in Ru oxides not containing Cu and that there is an upsurge of activity in identifying novel Ru based oxides. In this context, we report here the results of magnetization (M) and electrical resistivity ($`\rho `$) on a compound, Ca3LiRuO4 , hitherto not extensively studied in the literature; we have also probed the influence of partial Y substitution for Ca on its properties in order to explore whether metallicity (and possibly superconductivity) could be induced by electron doping, considering that such doping effects have profound influnce on the properties of many other oxides, e.g., by now well-known, cuprates and manganates.

The compound under investigation has been synthesized and reported to adopt K4CdCl6-type rhombohedral structure . The crystallographic details can be found in Ref. 7. The structure consists of infinite chains of alternating face-sharing LiO6 trigonal prisms and RuO6 octahedra (antitrigonal prisms), which are separated by Ca ions.

## II Experimental

The compounds have been prepared by solid state method as described by Darriet et al . To start with, CaRuO3 was prepared by heating in air of appropriate amounts of high purity CaCO3 (Leico Industries, 99.995%) and RuO2 (Cerac, 99.9%) at 750 oC for 24 hours and then for 8 days at 1100 oC in air. The samples were then prepared by reaction of CaRuO3, Li2CO3 (Koch Chemicals, 99.999 %) and Y2O3 (Johnson-Matthey, 99.9%) at 550 oC for 24 hours, at 800 oC for 24 hours and at 950 oC for two weeks with intermediate grindings. All the preparations were carried out under a flow of oxygen. The samples were subsequently characterized by x-ray diffraction (Cu Kα) and scanning electron microscope. The magnetization measurements were performed by a commercial (Quantum Design) Superconducting Quantum Interference Device (SQUID) Magnetometer in the T interval 5 - 300 K. We have obtained the magnetization data for all the compositions in different ways (isothermal magnetization (M), T-dependence of magnetic susceptibility ($`\chi `$) at different magnetic fields (H), field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) $`\chi `$ behaviour) and we show only those data which are relevant to highlight the main findings. The temperature (T= 77-300 K)) dependent electrical resistivity ($`\rho `$) behaviour was probed by a conventional four-probe method, employing silver paint to make electrical contacts.

## III Results and Discussion

The results of x-ray diffraction measurements are shown in Fig. 1. The diffraction pattern for the parent compound could be indexed on the basis of K4CdCl6-type structure except perhaps for the presence of few very weak unidentified lines ($`<`$5%); the diffraction pattern seen by us is identical to the one reported by Darriet et al  and the lattice constants (a= 9.221 Åand c= 10.798 Å) are also in agreement with their report. A piece of the parent compound was subjected to the 950 oC (24 hrs) heat treatment in air and brought to room temperature by quenching and this heat treatment apparently resulted in purer sample, as indicated by the disappearance of the weak extra line (marked by asterisk in Fig. 1). The Y substituted samples also are characterized by the same x-ray diffraction pattern as that of that of the parent compound, though few, weak additional lines start appearing in the range 2$`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ = 30 to 40 degrees, the origin of which is at present unclear. The x-dependence of unit-cell volume clearly reveals that there is a contraction of the unit-cell (along c-direction, see Fig. 1) with Y substitution, expected for replacement of (bigger) Ca ions. The homogeniety of the samples were further checked by scanning electron spectroscopy and we do not find evidence for segregation of any other phase. The energy dispersive x-ray analysis in addition established that the proportion of the metallic elements are in good agreement with the starting compositions and uniform throughout the sample. We therefore conclude that the properties reported here are characteristic of the pure phases.

In figure 2a we show the T dependent $`\chi `$ behavior recorded in the presence of a field of 2 kOe for the ZFC as well as FC state of a specimen of the parent compound. It is distinctly clear that there is a sharp rise at 113 K as T is lowered with a peak at about 107 K for the ZFC state, however without any such peak for FC state; thus ZFC-FC curves deviate below 113 K in perfect agreement with the experimental observations of Darriet et al . This observation establishes that we have prepared a sample with the same magnetic characteristics as those of these authors. Thus, these data provide evidence for the fact that there is a magnetic ordering setting in below (TN=) 113 K in this compound. In order to see how TN is influenced by Y substitution, we have recorded the FC data very carefully in a field of 100 Oe and the data (see Fig. 2b) suggest that the value of TN undergoes only a marginal reduction with increasing x (108 and 106 K for x= 0.5 and 1.0 respectively). With respect to $`\chi `$ behaviour in the paramagnetic state, the plot of inverse $`\chi `$ versus T is found to be linear in the range 160-300 K (see Fig. 3) and the value of the effective moment ($`\mu `$eff) and paramagnetic Curie temperature ($`\theta `$p) obtained from the region 150-300 K are nearly independent of x (3.96, 3.65 and 3.77 $`\mu `$B and -250, -180 and -207 K for x= 0.0, 0.5 and 1.0 respectively). It may be noted that the value of $`\mu `$eff is indicative of pentavalent state of Ru ion, assuming spin-only contribution to magnetic moment. It is important to note that the sign of $`\theta `$p is negative, which suggests that the exchange interaction is of an antiferromagnetic type. However, the value of TN is far below the magnitude of $`\theta `$p, which may indicate complex nature of the magnetism of this compound. In order to get better insight on the nature of magnetic ordering, we have also performed isothermal M measurements at various temperatures for the ZFC state of the samples at many temperatures and typical behaviour are shown in Fig. 4. It is obvious that, at 120 K, M varies linearly with H as expected for a paramagnetic state; for T$`<`$100 K, M is a non-linear function of H for initial applications of H (below about 20 kOe), however undergoing linear variation for higher values of H, without any indication for saturation. This behaviour of M establishes that these compounds are better classified as antiferromagnets, though we observe some hysteresis loops as shown in the inset of Fig. 4, for instance for x= 0.0 and 0.5.

Thus, all these results establish that the magnetism of Ru ions is fairly insensitive to Y substitution at the Ca site. Thus magnetic Ru chains are decoupled by intervening Ca ions. This finding may support the idea of quasi-one-dimensional behaviour of magnetism in this compound, a question of debate in this class of compounds .

We now present the results of $`\rho `$ measurements (Fig. 5). It is obvious that the Y substituted compounds remain insulating like the parent compound, exhibiting activated behaviour with the activation energy marginally decreasing by about 10 meV by Y substitution (for both x= 0.5 and 1.0) from 90 meV for x= 0.0. Interestingly, the $`\rho `$ of quenched specimen of the parent compound is significantly lower and the activation energy is also considerably reduced to 1.5 meV (Fig. 6).

## IV conclusions

To conclude, the magnetic and electrical transport behaviour of the oxides Ca3-xYxLiRuO6 (x= 0.0, 0.5 and 1.0) have been investigated. These are one of the very few Ru-based oxides exhibiting magnetic ordering at rather high temperatures, presumably of a complex type. The carrier doping induced by Y substitution for Ca apparently does not bring about any significant change in the magnetic and transport behaviour of the parent compound. On the basis of the present results, we infer that the Ru-magnetism could be of quasi-one-dimensional character. Finally, we would like to point out an observation in the low-field magnetization data for the ZFC-state of the specimen (see Fig. 4): In the magnetically ordered state, below about 400 Oe, the sign of M is negative (which is however positive for the FC specimen). Though a possible source of this negative M could be that the specimen may not be in true ZFC state due to a small negative remanent field in the SQUID magnetometer we employed, this view can be challenged by the observation that the data at 120 K (in the paramagnetic state) do not show negative M at low fields. Alternatively, the magnetic moments (below TN) in the ZFC state may have got locked in the direction of the negative remanence field requiring larger applications of H in the positive direction to reorient them. More work is required to understand this aspect of these compounds.

## V References

1. J.T. Randall and R. Ward, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 81 (1959) 2629.
2. Y. Maeno, H. Hashimoto, I.K. Yoshida, S. Ishizaki, T. Fujita, J.G. Bednorz, and F. Lichtenberg, Nature (London), 372 (1994) 532.
3. G. Cao, S.K. McCall, J.E. Crow, and R.P. Guertin, Phys. Rev. B, 56 (1997) R5740.
4. G. Cao, S. McCall, and J.E. Crow, Phys. Rev. B, 55 (1997) R672.
5. I. Felner, U. Asaf, S. Reich, and Y. Tsabba, Physica C,311 (1999) 163.
6. I. Felner, U. Asaf, Y. Levi, and O. Millo, Phys. Rev. B, 55 (1997) R3374.
7. M.F. Wu, D.Y. Chen, F.Z. Chien, S.R. Sheen, D.C. Ling, C.Y. Tai, G.Y. Tseng, D.H. Chen, and F.C. Zhang, Z. Phys. B, 102 (1997) 37.
8. J. Darriet, F. Grasset, and P.D. Battle, Mater. Res. Bull., 32 (1997) 139.


text:
# Clustering statistics on a light-cone in the cosmological redshift space

## Abstract

We summarize a series of our recent work concerning the cosmological redshift-space distortion and light-cone effects. After briefly describing the theoretical formalism, we show how those effects are sensitive to the cosmological parameters. Then we apply this formalism to predict the two-point correlation functions and power spectra for the X-ray clusters, galaxies and quasars in future surveys, and discuss their cosmological implications.

## 1. Cosmological effects in the high-z universe

Redshift surveys of galaxies definitely serve as the central database for observational cosmology. In addition to the existing catalogues including CfA1, CfA2, SSRS, and the Las Campanas survey, upcoming galaxy surveys such as 2dF (2-degree Field Survey) and SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey) are expected to provide important clues to the evolution of structure in the universe. In addition to those shallower surveys, clustering in the universe in the range $`z=13`$ has been partially revealed by, for instance, the Lyman-break galaxies and X-ray selected AGNs. In particular, the 2dF and SDSS QSO redshift surveys promise to extend the observable scale of the universe by an order of magnitude, up to a few Gpc. A proper interpretation of such redshift surveys in terms of the clustering evolution, however, requires an understanding of many cosmological effects which can be neglected for $`z1`$ and thus have not been considered seriously so far. These cosmological contaminations include linear redshift-space (velocity) distortion (Kaiser 1987), nonlinear redshift-space (velocity) distortion (e.g., Suto & Suginohara 1991; Cole, Fisher, & Weinberg 1994), cosmological redshift-space (geometrical) distortion (Alcock & Paczyński 1979; Ballinger, Peacock, & Heavens 1996; Matsubara & Suto 1996), and cosmological light-cone effect (Yamamoto & Suto 1999; Suto et al. 1999; Yamamoto, Nishioka & Suto 1999).

We describe a theoretical formalism to incorporate those effects, in particular the cosmological redshift-distortion and light-cone effects, and present several specific predictions in cold dark matter (CDM) models.

## 2.  Cosmological redshift-space distortion

Due to a general-relativistic effect through the geometry of the universe, the observable separations perpendicular and parallel to the line-of-sight direction, $`x_\mathrm{s}=(c/H_0)z\delta \theta `$ and $`x_\mathrm{s}=(c/H_0)\delta z`$, are mapped differently to the corresponding comoving separations in real space $`x_{}`$ and $`x_{}`$:

$`x_\mathrm{s}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`x_{}cz/[H_0(1+z)d_\mathrm{A}(z)]x_{}/c_{}(z),`$ (1)
$`x_\mathrm{s}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`x_{}H(z)/H_0x_{}/c_{}(z),`$ (2)
with $`d_\mathrm{A}(z)`$ being the angular diameter distance. The difference between $`c_{}(z)`$ and $`c_{}(z)`$ generates an apparent anisotropy in the clustering statistics, which should be isotropic in the comoving space. Then the power spectrum in cosmological redshift space, $`P^{(\mathrm{CRD})}`$, is related to $`P^{(\mathrm{S})}`$ defined in the comoving redshift space as

$$P^{(\mathrm{CRD})}(k_\mathrm{s},k_\mathrm{s};z)=\frac{1}{c_{}(z)^2c_{}(z)}P^{(\mathrm{S})}(\frac{k_\mathrm{s}}{c_{}(z)},\frac{k_\mathrm{s}}{c_{}(z)};z),$$
(3)
where the first factor comes from the Jacobian of the volume element $`dk_\mathrm{s}^2dk_\mathrm{s}`$, and $`k_\mathrm{s}=c_{}(z)k_{}`$ and $`k_\mathrm{s}=c_{}(z)k_{}`$ are the wavenumber perpendicular and parallel to the line-of-sight direction. If one assumes a scale-independent deterministic linear bias, the power spectrum distorted by the peculiar velocity field, $`P^{(\mathrm{S})}(k;z)`$, is known to be well approximated by the following expression (Cole et al. 1995; Peacock & Dodds 1996):

$$P^{(\mathrm{S})}(k_{},k_{};z)=b^2(z)P_{\mathrm{mass}}^{(\mathrm{R})}(k;z)\left[1+\beta (z)\left(\frac{k_{}}{k}\right)^2\right]^2D\left[k_{}\sigma _\mathrm{P}(z)\right],$$
(4)
where $`k_{}`$ and $`k_{}`$ are the comoving wavenumber perpendicular and parallel to the line-of-sight of an observer, and $`P_{\mathrm{mass}}^{(\mathrm{R})}(k;z)`$ is the mass power spectrum in real space. The finger-of-god effect is modeled by the damping function, $`D\left[k_{}\sigma _\mathrm{P}(z)\right]`$, for which we assume a Lorentzian. Then equation (3) reduces to

$`P^{(\mathrm{CRD})}(k_\mathrm{s},\mu _k;z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b^2(z)}{c_{}(z)^2c_{}(z)}}P_{\mathrm{mass}}^{(\mathrm{R})}({\displaystyle \frac{k_\mathrm{s}}{c_{}(z)}}\sqrt{1+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta (z)^2}}1\right]\mu _k^2};z)`$ (6)
$`\times \left\{1+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta (z)^2}}1\right]\mu _k^2\right\}^2\left\{1+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta (z)}{\eta (z)^2}}1\right]\mu _k^2\right\}^2\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mathrm{s}^2\mu _k^2\sigma _{\mathrm{P}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2c_{}^2(z)}}\right]^1,`$
where we introduce

$`k_\mathrm{s}\sqrt{k_\mathrm{s}^2+k_\mathrm{s}^2},\mu _kk_\mathrm{s}/k_\mathrm{s},\eta c_{}/c_{},`$ (7)
following Ballinger et al. (1996) and Magira et al. (2000).

Figure 1. shows anisotropic power spectra $`P^{(\mathrm{CRD})}(k_\mathrm{s},\mu _k;z=2.2)`$. As specific examples, we consider SCDM (standard CDM), LCDM (Lambda CDM), and OCDM (Open CDM) models, which have $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\lambda _0,h,\sigma _8)`$ $`=(1.0,0.0,0.5,0.6)`$, $`(0.3,0.7,0.7,1.0)`$, and $`(0.3,0.0,0.7,1.0)`$, respectively. These sets of cosmological parameters are chosen so as to reproduce the observed cluster abundance (Kitayama & Suto 1997). Our theoretical predictions use the fitting formulae of Peacock & Dodds (1996; PD) for the nonlinear power spectrum, $`P_{\mathrm{mass}}^{(\mathrm{R})}(k;z)=2\pi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{NL}}^2(k,z)/k^3`$, of Mo, Jing, & Börner (1997) for the pair-wise peculiar velocity dispersions:

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{P},\mathrm{MJB}}^2`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }(z)H_0^2\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1+z}{D_+^2(z)}}{\displaystyle _z^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{D_+^2(z^{})}{(1+z^{})^2}}𝑑z^{}\right]{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{NL}}^2(k,z)}{k^2}},`$ (8)
with $`D_+(z)`$ being the linear growth rate. Clearly the linear theory predictions ($`\sigma _\mathrm{P}=0`$; top panels) are quite different from the results of N-body simulations (bottom panels), indicating the importance of the nonlinear velocity effects ($`\sigma _\mathrm{P}=\sigma _{\mathrm{P},\mathrm{MJB}}`$; middle panels).

Next we decompose the power spectrum into harmonics:

$`P(k,\mu _k;z)={\displaystyle \underset{l:\mathrm{even}}{}}P_l(k)L_l(\mu _k),P_l(k;z){\displaystyle \frac{2l+1}{2}}{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑\mu _kP(k,\mu _k;z)L_l(\mu _k),`$ (9)
where $`L_l(\mu _k)`$ are the $`l`$-th order Legendre polynomials. Similarly, the two-point correlation function is decomposed as

$`\xi (x,\mu _x;z)={\displaystyle \underset{l:\mathrm{even}}{}}\xi _l(x)L_l(\mu _x),\xi _l(x;z){\displaystyle \frac{2l+1}{2}}{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑\mu _x\xi (x,\mu _x;z)L_l(\mu _x),`$ (10)
using the direction cosine, $`\mu _x`$, between the separation vector and the line-of-sight. The above multipole moments satisfy the following relations:

$`\xi _l(x;z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2i^l}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}P_l(k;z)j_l(kx)k^2𝑑k,`$ (11)
with $`j_l(kx)`$ being spherical Bessel functions. Substituting $`P^{(\mathrm{CRD})}(k_\mathrm{s},\mu _k;z)`$ in equation (9) yields $`P_l^{(\mathrm{CRD})}(k_\mathrm{s};z)`$, and then $`\xi ^{(\mathrm{CRD})}(𝐱_𝐬;z)`$ can be computed from equation (11).

Comparison of the monopoles and quadrupoles from simulations and model predictions exhibits how the results are sensitive to the cosmological parameters, which in turn may put potentially useful constraints on $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\lambda _0)`$. Figure 2. indicates the feasibility, which interestingly results in a constraint fairly orthogonal to that from the Supernovae Ia Hubble diagram.

## 3. Cosmological light-cone effect

Observing a distant patch of the universe is equivalent to observing the past. Due to the finite light velocity, a line-of-sight direction of a redshift survey is along the time, as well as spatial, coordinate axis. Therefore the entire sample does not consist of objects on a constant-time hypersurface, but rather on a light-cone, i.e., a null hypersurface defined by observers at $`z=0`$. This implies that many properties of the objects change across the depth of the survey volume, including the mean density, the amplitude of spatial clustering of dark matter, the bias of luminous objects with respect to mass, and the intrinsic evolution of the absolute magnitude and spectral energy distribution. These aspects should be properly taken into account in order to extract cosmological information from observed samples of redshift surveys. We apply the formulation on the light-cone originally developed by Yamamoto & Suto (1999) to X-ray selected clusters and on-going SDSS galaxy and QSO catalogues.

### 3.1.  Two-point correlation functions of X-ray selected clusters

Provided an X-ray flux-limited sample of clusters ($`S>S_{\mathrm{lim}}`$), it is fairly straightforward to compute its two-point correlation function $`\xi _{\mathrm{cl}}^\mathrm{S}(R,z;>S_{\mathrm{lim}})`$ at a given $`z`$; a fairly accurate empirical expression for the bias parameter $`b(z)`$ as a function of the halo mass is known (e.g., Jing 1998), and the mass is translated to the X-ray temperature assuming the virial equilibrium, and then to the X-ray luminosity from the observed luminosity-temperature relation (e.g., Kitayama & Suto 1996). The corresponding correlation function on the light-cone is given by

$`\xi _{\mathrm{X}\mathrm{cl}}^{\mathrm{LC}}(R;>S_{\mathrm{lim}})={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle _{z_{\mathrm{min}}}^{z_{\mathrm{max}}}}dz{\displaystyle \frac{dV_\mathrm{c}}{dz}}n_0^2(z)\xi _{\mathrm{cl}}^\mathrm{S}(R,z(r);>S_{\mathrm{lim}})}{{\displaystyle _{z_{\mathrm{min}}}^{z_{\mathrm{max}}}}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{dV_\mathrm{c}}{dz}}n_0^2(z)}},`$ (12)
where $`R`$ is the comoving separation of a pair of clusters, $`z_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{min}}`$ denote the redshift range of the survey, and $`dV_\mathrm{c}/dz`$ is the comoving volume element per unit solid angle (Suto et al. 2000; Moscardini et al. 2000). The comoving number density of clusters in the flux-limited survey, $`n_0(z;>S_{\mathrm{lim}})`$, is computed by integrating the Press – Schechter mass function.

Figure 3. plots several predictions for two-point correlation functions under different assumptions; linear and nonlinear mass correlations in real space at $`z=0`$ using the Bardeen et al. (1986; BBKS) and PD formulae for mass power spectra, cluster correlations with linear redshift-space distortion (Kaiser 1987) and with full redshift-space distortion at $`z=0`$ using $`\sigma _{\mathrm{P},\mathrm{MJB}}`$. These should be compared with our final predictions on the light-cone in redshift space (with $`S_{\mathrm{lim}}=10^{14}`$erg/s/cm2; thick solid lines). Figure 4. shows our predictions for $`\xi _{cl}^{\mathrm{LC}}(R)`$ for cluster samples selected with different flux-limit $`S_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ (left panels), and with additional temperature and absolute bolometric luminosity limits, $`T_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ (middle and right panels). For the latter two cases, $`S_{\mathrm{lim}}=10^{14}`$erg/s/cm2 is assumed for definiteness. The results are insensitive to $`S_{\mathrm{lim}}`$, but very sensitive to $`T_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{lim}}`$, reflecting the strong dependence of the bias on the latter quantities.

For a cosmological application of the present result, it is interesting to examine how $`r_{c,0}(S_{\mathrm{lim}})`$ defined through

$`\xi _{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mathrm{LC}}(r_{c0};>S_{\mathrm{lim}})=1`$ (13)
depends on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. This is summarized in Figure 5., where we fix the value of the fluctuation amplitude $`\sigma _8`$ adopting the cluster abundance constraint (Kitayama & Suto 1997). Again the results are not sensitive to the flux limit $`S_{\mathrm{lim}}`$. The dependence on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is rather strong, and these predictions combined with the future observational results will be able to break the degeneracy of the cosmological parameters.

### 3.2. Power spectra of SDSS galaxy and QSO samples

Finally we present theoretical predictions of power spectra relevant for SDSS galaxy and QSO samples, fully taking account of the cosmological redshift-space distortion and light-cone effects. Denoting the comoving number density and the selection function of the objects by $`n_0^{\mathrm{com}}(z)`$, and $`\varphi (z)`$, Suto, Magira & Yamamoto (2000) obtain

$`P_l^{(\mathrm{LC},\mathrm{CRD})}(k_\mathrm{s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle _{z_{\mathrm{min}}}^{z_{\mathrm{max}}}}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{dV_\mathrm{c}}{dz}}[\varphi (z)n_0^{\mathrm{com}}(z)]^2c_{}(z)^2c_{}(z)P_l^{(\mathrm{CRD})}(k_\mathrm{s};z)}{{\displaystyle _{z_{\mathrm{min}}}^{z_{\mathrm{max}}}}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{dV_\mathrm{c}}{dz}}[\varphi (z)n_0^{\mathrm{com}}(z)]^2c_{}(z)^2c_{}(z)}}.`$ (14)
Figure 6. compares several predictions for the angle-averaged (monopole) power spectra normalized by the real-space counterpart in linear theory. The upper and lower panels adopt the selection functions appropriate for galaxies in $`0<z<z_{\mathrm{max}}=0.2`$ and QSOs in $`0<z<z_{\mathrm{max}}=5`$, respectively. The left and right panels present the results in SCDM and LCDM models. For simplicity we adopt a scale-independent linear bias model of Fry (1996),

$$b(z)=1+\frac{1}{D_+(z)}[b(k,z=0)1],$$
(15)
with $`b(k,z=0)=1`$ and $`1.5`$ for galaxies and quasars, respectively. It is clear that the cosmological redshift-space distortion and the light-cone effect substantially change the predicted shape and amplitude of the power spectra, even for the SDSS galaxy sample.

## 4.  Summary and conclusions

We have presented a theoretical formalism to predict the two-point clustering statistics on a light-cone in the cosmological redshift space. The present methodology will find two completely different applications. For relatively shallower catalogues like galaxy samples, the evolution of bias is not supposed to be so strong. Thus, one may estimate the cosmological parameters from the observed degree of the redshift distortion, as has been conducted conventionally. Most importantly, one can now correct for the systematics due to the light-cone and geometrical distortion effects, which affect the estimate of the parameters by $`10`$%. Alternatively, for deeper catalogues like high-redshift quasar samples, one can extract information on the nonlinearity, scale-dependence and stochasticity of the object-dependent bias only by correcting the observed data on the basis of our formulae. In this case, although one should adopt a set of cosmological parameters a priori, those will be provided both from the low-redshift analysis described above and from precision data of the cosmic microwave background and supernovae Ia. In a sense, the former approach uses the light-cone and geometrical distortion effects as real cosmological signals, while the latter regards them as inevitable, but physically removable, noise. In both cases, the present methodology is essential in properly interpreting the observations of the universe at high redshifts.

I thank Y.P.Jing, Tetsu Kitayama, Hiromitsu Magira, Takahiko Matsubara, Hiroaki Nishioka, and Kazuhiro Yamamoto for enjoyable collaborations on which the present talk is based. Numerical computations were carried out on VPP300/16R and VX/4R at the Astronomical Data Analysis Center of the National Astronomical Observatory, Japan, as well as at RESCEU and KEK (National Laboratory for High Energy Physics, Japan). This research was supported in part by the Grants-in-Aid by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan to RESCEU (07CE2002).

## References

1. Alcock C., Paczyński B. 1979, Nature 281, 358

2. Ballinger W.E., Peacock J.A., Heavens A.F. 1996, MNRAS 282, 877

3. Bardeen J.M., Bond J.R., Kaiser N., Szalay A.S. 1986, ApJ 304, 15

4. Cole S., Fisher K.B., Weinberg D.H. 1994, MNRAS 267, 785

5. Fry J.N. 1996, ApJ 461, L65

6. Jing Y.P. 1998, ApJ 503, L9

7. Kaiser N. 1987, MNRAS 227, 1

8. Kitayama T., Suto Y. 1996, ApJ 469, 480

9. Kitayama T., Suto Y. 1997, ApJ 490, 557

10. Magira H., Jing Y.P., Suto Y. 2000, ApJ 528, 30

11. Matsubara T., Suto Y. 1996, ApJ 470, L1

12. Mo H.J., Jing Y.P., Börner G. 1997, MNRAS 286, 979

13. Moscardini, L., Matarrese, S., Lucchin, F., & Rosati, P. 2000; MNRAS, submitted (astro-ph/9909273);

14. Peacock J.A., Dodds S.J. 1996, MNRAS 280, L19

15. Suto Y., Magira H., Jing Y.P., Matsubara T., Yamamoto K. 1999, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 133, 183

16. Suto Y., Magira H., Yamamoto K. 2000, PASJ, 52, No.2, in press

17. Suto Y., Suginohara T. 1991, ApJ 370, L15

18. Suto Y., Yamamoto K., Kitayama T., Jing Y.P. 2000, ApJ 534, May 10 issue, in press

19. Yamamoto K., Nishioka H., Suto Y. 1999, ApJ 527, 488

20. Yamamoto K., Suto Y. 1999, ApJ 517, 1


text:
# SU(2) WZW D-branes and their noncommutative geometry from DBI action Work supported in part by Polish State Committee for Scientific Research (KBN) under contract 2P 03 B03 715 (1998-2000) and the Alexander-von-Humboldt Foundation.

## Abstract:

Using properties of the DBI action we find D-branes on $`S^3`$ of the radius $`Q_5`$ corresponding to the conjugacy classes of SU(2). The branes are stable due to nonzero 2-form NSNS background. In the limit of large $`Q_5`$ the dynamics of branes is governed by the non-commutative Yang-Mills theory. The results partially overlap with those obtained in the recent paper hep-th/0003037.

Recently it has been discovered that in a special limit the dynamics of the matrix model is described by the non-commutative Yang-Mills theory . This has sparked new interest in NCG for strings propagating in NSNS antisymmetric tensor field background . Introduction of D-branes has provided deeper understanding of the role of non-commutativity  and it has allowed to derive conditions under which NCG starts to play dominant role in the dynamics of strings. It has also led to new understanding of the connection between quantum groups and WZW models . These two papers have used the standard CFT language what is a drastic bound on possible applications. In particular it does not allow to analyze RR backgrounds so much studied in the context of Maldacena’s conjecture .

The purpose of this paper is to provide understanding of the results of  in the more universal language then that of WZW models. The hope is that after taking this lesson one would be able to derive interesting results for more general string/M-theory backgrounds. Thus we shall describe various branes on the background of SU(2) WZW model using the D-brane effective action (DBI action) only. We shall also show how the non-commutativity appears in this approach. Methods applied here are limited to the case of large level of the SU(2) WZW model what in gravity language means large radius of the $`S^3`$.

Let us recall some of the results of  and . D-branes in the level $`k`$ SU(2) WZW model are in one-to-one correspondence with special integer conjugacy classes $`ghg^1`$ for some fixed $`h`$ . There are $`k+1`$ of them: two D-particles ($`h=\pm 1`$) and $`k1`$ D2-branes corresponding to two-spheres. The n-th sphere passes through the point $`\mathrm{exp}(i\pi n\sigma ^3/k)`$SU(2), $`n=1\mathrm{}k1`$. We must also stress that D3-branes and D1-branes are excluded from this list. For large $`k`$ the 2-spheres are in fact so-called fuzzy spheres .

The example of string theory background which involves the level $`k`$ SU(2) WZW model is the near horizon limit of the F1, NS5 system (see e.q. ). Below we write only the relevant terms

$`ds^2/\alpha ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_5d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$
$`H^{NSNS}/\alpha ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2Q_5ϵ_3`$
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`const.`$ (1)
where $`Q_5`$ denotes the number of NS5-branes and it is equal to the level $`k`$ of the SU(2) WZW model, $`ϵ_3`$ is the volume element of the unit 3-sphere.

The effective action of the D-branes is given by DBI expression

$$S_{DBI}=T_p_{\mathrm{Vol}}e^\varphi \sqrt{\mathrm{det}[(X^{}G+2\pi \alpha ^{}F+X^{}B)_{ab}]}$$
(2)
In the following we shall discuss classical configurations of branes embedded in $`S^3`$ of (1). Before we start to analyze equation of motion resulting from (2) we state several assumptions we make which seems to be natural here. We require the string coupling constant to be small and $`Q_5`$ to be large in which case (1) is the part of an exact string background as at this limit supergravity is the perfect description of string theory. Moreover D-branes can be described completely classically by the DBI action. We also assume that the higher order correction to the DBI action are negligible. We shall be interested here only in the $`S^3`$ part of the configuration thus it is even irrelevant if we consider IIB (as above) or IIA string. Thus some of the arguments given in our paper could be easily generalized to branes embedded in a 10d manifold of the form $`S^3\times M^7`$ under the condition that the embeddings are of the product structure i.e. the induced metric, pull-back of $`B`$ and $`F`$ fields are of block diagonal form.

Recall that D-branes are defined to be the ends of the open strings. The string couple to the external sources (gauge $`A`$ and $`B`$ field) as follows

$$\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}(_\mathrm{\Sigma }2\pi \alpha ^{}X^{}A+_\mathrm{\Sigma }X^{}B)]$$
(3)
The example of the WZW model shows that the above formula can not be well defined globally for topologically non-trivial $`A`$ and $`B`$ fields. It is known that for closed strings $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$ the proper formula is $`\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\widehat{X}^{}H)]`$ for $`H`$ being locally $`dB`$ and $`\widehat{X}`$ is an extension of $`X`$ to a 3-manifold $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ such that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Now we consider configuration of D-brane embedded into submanifold $`M_D`$ of the target space manifold $`M`$. One must repeat the above construction for the open string case . For the world sheet with one boundary the appropriate 3-manifold must respect $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\mathrm{\Sigma }+D^2`$. Rewriting the WZW model with boundary we get the proper global form of (3) 111$``$ in front of the first term is due to different orientation of boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=D^2`$ in $`D^2`$ compare to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\left(_{D^2}\widehat{X}^{}(2\pi \alpha ^{}F+B)+_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\widehat{X}^{}H\right)\right]$$
(4)
where $`\widehat{X}`$ is an extension of $`X(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ to a full 2-disc $`D^2`$ such that $`\widehat{X}(D^2)M_D`$ ($`F0`$ only on the D-brane manifold $`M_D`$). We stress that (4) has proper gauge invariance and for topologically trivial $`H`$ it reduces to

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\left(_{D^2}\widehat{X}^{}(2\pi \alpha ^{}F)+_\mathrm{\Sigma }X^{}B\right)\right]$$
(5)
i.e. to (3). Notice that one must be able to define $`B`$ on any $`\widehat{X}(D^2)`$ thus we must have $`[H]_{M_D}=0`$. The value of the integral (4) should not depend on the way one make the extension. This forces to put

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\left[{\displaystyle _{C^2}}(2\pi \alpha ^{}F+B){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _{C^3}}H\right]=2i\pi m`$ (6)
where $`C^2H_2(M_D)`$ and $`C^3H_3(M,M_D)`$. Here a note is necessary concerning topology of the problem. For the argument we need an exact sequence of homologies

$$\mathrm{}H_3(M_D)H_3(M)H_3(M,M_D)H_2(M_D)H_2(M)\mathrm{}$$
(7)
If we assume that $`H_3(M_D)=H_2(M)=0`$ then all cycles of $`H_3(M)`$ are in $`H_3(M,M_D)`$. Then one can write $`_{C^3}H=_{C^2}B`$ mod $`\frac{i}{2\pi }_{C_M^3}H=2\pi Q_5m`$ for $`C_M^3H_3(M)`$. Thus the quantization condition reads

$$_{C^2}F=2\pi n,n\text{ }\text{Z}$$
(8)
and $`n`$ is defined modulo $`Q_5`$. This is the same as postulated in . In the above we have disregarded the difference between the cycles in $`M`$ and $`M_D`$ and their image given by $`\widehat{X}`$.

D3 brane. Here we discuss the Dp-branes wrapped on the entire $`S^3`$. According to the condition $`[H]_{M_D}=0`$ we see that such a wrapping is impossible. We would like to provider here a different argument based on DBI action. First one must notice that due to $`[H]_{M_D}=0`$ the DBI action (2) is not well defined as $`B`$ is not well defined on $`S^3`$.

In order to be more specific we concentrate on D3 brane in the background (1) and change the brane description to the dual form of the DBI action discussed e.g. in . It has the same classical solutions as (2) what is the property we are interested in.

$$S_{DBI}_{\mathrm{Vol}}e^\varphi \sqrt{\mathrm{det}[(X^{}G+2\pi \alpha ^{}\stackrel{~}{F})_{ab}]}\pi \alpha ^{}\stackrel{~}{F}B$$
(9)
The last term come form CS part of the DBI action. Integrating it by parts we get

$$\pi \alpha ^{}\stackrel{~}{A}H^{NSNS}$$
(10)
thus the action contains only the well defined $`B`$ field strength. With the $`H^{NSNS}`$ background given by (1) we see that there is a U(1) charge generated on the D3 world-volume. The charge can not stay on $`S^3`$ as it is a compact space, thus it forces the brane to partially unwrap the sphere. In the case of $`AdS_3\times S^3`$the brane runs into the boundary of the AdS space. The above argument follows the baryon construction of .

D2 brane. Here we concentrate upon D2-brane case totally wrapped on $`S^3`$. It can be also a e.g. partially wrapped D3 brane. We analyze its equation of motion and find that contrary to the naive expectation the static brane it stable. As the indication of stability we invoke the lack of the tachyonic mode for the fluctuation of the brane.

In order to analyze the classical equations of motion we must find out the pull back of $`B`$ field to the brane world-volume. On any 2-d submanifold of $`S^3`$ the $`B`$ filed is well (but not uniquely) defined. We have the freedom of changing $`B`$ by an exact 2-form - in our case this will realized by choice of the solution for $`F_{12}`$. In the coordinates in which the metric on $`S^3`$ is $`ds^2=Q_5[d\varphi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi )d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2]`$ we have for the chart covering $`\varphi =0`$

$$B=Q_5\alpha ^{}(\varphi \nu \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi ))ϵ_2$$
(11)
where $`ϵ_2`$ is the volume form of the unit $`S^2`$.

We shall find extrema of the DBI action corresponding to branes wrapped on $`S^2`$ given by some constant angle $`\varphi `$. The Euler-Lagrange equations are respected by

$$2\pi \alpha ^{}F=Q_5\alpha ^{}(\varphi \nu )ϵ_2,\varphi (x)=\varphi =const.$$
(12)
with all the other components of $`F`$ equals zero. We also set $`\nu =0`$ requiring that the charge and the tension of the $`\varphi =0`$ brane be zero. It is worth to note that the classical solution exists for any angle $`\varphi `$. When we apply the quantization condition (8) we get

$$Q_5\varphi =2\pi n$$
(13)
We remind that $`n`$ is defined only modulo $`Q_5`$.

We can compare (13) with results one gets assuming that the brane couple to some RR fields i.e. carry RR charge

$$+T_pe^{2\pi \alpha ^{}F+X^{}B}\underset{q}{}C_q$$
(14)
where, $`T_{Dp}=1/((2\pi )^p\alpha ^{(p+1)/2}g_s)`$. The background $`2\pi \alpha ^{}F+X^{}B`$ generates RR charge of the D(p-2)-brane equals to

$$T_p_{S^2}(2\pi \alpha ^{}F+X^{}B)=T_p(4\pi \alpha ^{}Q_5)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi ).$$

One expects that this charge is integer multiple of $`T_{(p2)}`$ i.e.

$$\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}_{S^2}(2\pi \alpha ^{}F+X^{}B)=2\pi n$$
(15)
but this is in contradiction with (13) for finite $`Q_5`$. If one takes the $`Q_5\mathrm{}`$ limit then both formulae agree. 222The gap between (13) and (15) has been filled recently in .

The second derivative of the DBI action with respect to the gauge fields and $`\varphi (x)`$ gives kinematics of fluctuations. One easily finds that fluctuations of $`\varphi (x)`$ only are massive but $`\varphi (x)`$ mixes with gauge field $`F`$ leading to some massless modes . Thus there is no tachyon in the spectrum and the brane configuration is stable.

Non-commutative geometry. We can also claim that at the $`Q_5\mathrm{}`$limit some of the branes are described by the non-commutative geometry. Here we follow the route of . First we notice that at the $`Q_5\mathrm{}`$limit we have

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(n\pi )^2}{Q_5}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^20`$
$`2\pi \alpha ^{}F+X^{}B`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^{}(n\pi )ϵ_2`$ (16)
Thus the closed string metric goes to zero while induced $`2\pi \alpha ^{}F+X^{}B`$ is constant on the D2-branes world-volume what is a good sign for the non-commutativity. Next we calculate the open string metric and the Poisson structure inverting $`2\pi \alpha ^{}F+X^{}(B+g)`$. The inverse matrix is

$$\left(\frac{1}{X^{}(g+B)+2\pi \alpha ^{}F}\right)=\frac{1}{Q_5\mathrm{sin}\varphi \alpha ^{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}\varphi & \mathrm{cos}\varphi \\ \mathrm{cos}\varphi & \mathrm{sin}\varphi \end{array}\right)$$
(17)
Inverse of its symmetric part is the open string metric. We have $`G_{ab}=\alpha ^{}Q_5\delta _{ab}`$. Hence from the open string point of view all spheres have the same area! This, of course, is directly related to the flat direction $`\varphi =const`$ in the solution (12). The Poisson structure on $`S^2`$ (also called deformation parameter) is

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{12}=\frac{2\pi }{Q_5}\mathrm{cot}\varphi \frac{2}{n}$$
(18)
The symplectic structure is the inverse of the Poisson structure and it is $`\omega _{12}=(n/2)`$. One can check that this parameter precisely corresponds to the symplectic structure used by Berezin in order to quantize $`S^2`$ . The non-commutative version on this $`S^2`$ is called the fuzzy spheres . From  one may claim that the Y-M theory on this sphere is a theory of $`(n+1)\times (n+1)`$ hermitian matrices. Such a Y-M theory has $`(n+1)^2`$ degrees of freedom. Here we must stress that these results are in full agreement with . It would be interesting to make explicit comparison of the brane dynamics and the above matrix model.

We conclude that the branes dynamics is described by the non-commutative Y-M theory. The branes world-volume are 2-spheres which are non-commutative manifolds with the non-commutativity parameter $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{12}=\frac{2}{n}`$.

A note added. Some of the results of this paper have been independently obtained in the recent paper .

###### Acknowledgments.

I am grateful S.Theisen for illuminating discussions and reading the manuscript. I also thank K.Gawȩdzki, A.Alekseev, G. Arutyunov and A. Recknagel for comments and interest in this work.


text:
# Importance of Coupling between the Charge and Spin Degrees of Freedom in High 𝑇_𝑐 Superconductivity

## Abstract

Based on an improved SU(2) slave-boson approach showing coupling between the charge and spin degrees of freedom, we derive a phase diagram of high $`T_c`$ cuprates which displays both the superconducting and pseudogap phases in the plane of temperature vs. hole doping rate. It is shown that phase fluctuations in the order parameters results in a closer agreement with the observed phase diagram of an arch shape, by manifesting the presence of an optimal doping rate.

High $`T_c`$ superconductivity arises as a consequence of hole(or electron) doping in the parent cuprate oxides which are Mott insulators with antiferromagnetic long-range order. The observed phase diagram in the plane of temperature $`T`$ vs. hole doping rate $`\delta `$ shows the bose condensation(superconducting temperature) curve of an ‘arch’ shape rather than the often predicted linear increase, by manifesting the presence of the optimal doping rate of $`\delta =0.16`$ to $`0.2`$. On the other hand, the observed pseudogap temperature displays nearly a linear decrease with $`\delta `$. The high $`T_c`$ cuprate of $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_{8+\delta }`$ with a higher pseudogap(spin gap) temperature $`T^{}`$ is observed to have a higher superconducting transition temperature $`T_c`$ than the cuprate of $`La_{2x}Sr_xCuO_4`$ with a lower $`T^{}`$. Further we find from the observed phase diagrams of both cuprates above that the two different high $`T_c`$ cuprates, $`La_{2x}Sr_xCuO_4`$ and $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_{8+\delta }`$ display an universal behavior of $`T^{}/T_c`$ as a function of hole(positive charge) doping $`\delta /\delta _o`$ with $`\delta _o`$, the optimal doping rate, as is shown in Fig.1. Earlier Nakano et al found another type of universality by pointing out that the observed spin gap temperature $`T^{}`$ scaled by the maximum superconducting transition temperature $`T_c^{max}`$ at optimal doping, $`T^{}/T_c^{max}`$ as a function of doping scaled by the optimal doping, $`\delta /\delta _o`$ falls on the same curve for the two different high $`T_c`$ cuprates above. The two observations manifests the presence of a relationship between the spin gap (relevant to the spin degree of freedom) and the superconductivity (related to the charge degree of freedom). Thus, the spinon pairing(spin singlet pairing) for pseudogap phase and the charge pairing(holon pairing) for superconductivity are not independent owing to the manifest presence of coupling between the charge and spin degrees of freedom.

Various U(1) slave-boson approaches to the t-J Hamiltonian were able to predict such a linear decrease in the pseudogap temperature as a function of $`\delta `$-. In our earlier U(1) slave-boson study, we presented a phase diagram based on the allowance of holon pairing channel, thus showing the feature of the holon-pair bose condensation temperature rather than the single-holon bose condensation temperature-. On the other hand, all of these theories failed to predict the experimentally observed bose condensation temperature $`T_c`$ of the arch shape as a function of $`\delta `$. Instead a linear increase of $`T_c`$ with $`\delta `$ was predicted. Further the pseudogap phase was shown to disappear when the gauge fluctuations are introduced into the U(1) slave-boson mean field theory. Most recently Wen and Lee proposed an SU(2) theory to readily estimate the low energy phase fluctuations of order parameters and made a brief discussion on the possibility of holon(boson) pair condensation. In view of failure in the correct prediction of the bose condensation temperature $`T_c`$ in the phase diagram with earlier theories, in the present study we examine the variation of the holon-pair condensation temperature with the hole doping rate, by treating the phase fluctuations of the order parameters in the SU(2) slave boson theory. We realize from the aforementioned observation of the universality in $`T^{}/T_c`$ vs. $`\delta /\delta _o`$ for high $`T_c`$ cuprates that coupling between the spin(spinon) and charge(holon) degrees of freedom is essential for superconductivity. Our theoretical derivation from the use of the slave-boson theory for t-J Hamiltonian manifests this feature as is shown in the fourth term of the effective Hamiltonian in Eq.(32). In addition, comparison between the two approaches will be made to reveal the importance of the low energy phase fluctuations of the order parameters. The present work differs from our previous U(1) slave-boson study(of the phase diagram involving the holon-pair bose condensation) and other earlier studies-(involving the single holon condensation) in that coupling between the holon and spinon degrees of freedom in the slave-boson representation of the Heisenberg term of the t-J Hamiltonian is no longer neglected. We find from the treatment of the coupling that the predicted phase diagram displays the arch-shaped bose condensation curve(temperature $`T_c`$) as a function of hole doping rate in both treatments of the U(1) and SU(2) slave-boson approaches.

We write the t-J Hamiltonian,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+c.c.)+J{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}(𝐒_i𝐒_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}n_in_j).`$ (1)
Here $`𝐒_i`$ is the electron spin operator at site $`i`$, $`𝐒_i=\frac{1}{2}c_{i\alpha }^{}𝝈_{\alpha \beta }c_{i\beta }`$ with $`𝝈_{\alpha \beta }`$, the Pauli spin matrix element and $`n_i`$, the electron number operator at site $`i`$, $`n_i=c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }`$. We note that $`𝐒_i𝐒_j\frac{1}{4}n_in_j=\frac{1}{2}(c_{i2}^{}c_{j1}^{}c_{i1}^{}c_{j2}^{})(c_{j1}c_{i2}c_{j2}c_{i1})`$ leads to $`\frac{1}{2}b_ib_jb_j^{}b_i^{}(f_i^{}f_j^{}f_i^{}f_j^{})(f_jf_if_jf_i)`$ in the U(1) slave boson representation. It should be emphasized that the derivation of $`P(𝐒_i𝐒_j\frac{1}{4}n_in_j)P=\frac{1}{2}b_ib_jb_j^{}b_i^{}(f_i^{}f_j^{}f_i^{}f_j^{})(f_jf_if_jf_i)`$ is correct based on the U(1) slave-boson constraint and that most importantly physics demands the presence of this four boson operator $`b_ib_jb_j^{}b_i^{}`$ to represent the charge degree of freedom, in addition to the four fermion operator which represents the spin degree of freedom. Each one of $`n_in_j`$ and $`𝐒_i𝐒_j`$ in the Heisenberg term self-evidently reveals such physics(e.g., note that $`n_i`$ here represents the electron(or physically the negative charge) number operator). In earlier studies of the slave-boson theory, it is often assumed that $`b_ib_jb_j^{}b_i^{}=1`$. Strictly speaking, this is precise only at half-filling(or no hole doping). This is because charge fluctuations can not occur owing to the prohibition of actual electron hopping from site to site.

By admitting the coupling between the charge and spin degrees of freedom in the SU(2) slave-boson representation, the t-J Hamiltonian above can be written,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>\sigma }{}}[(f_{\sigma i}^{}f_{\sigma j})(b_{1j}^{}b_{1i}b_{2i}^{}b_{2j})`$ (5)
$`+(f_{\sigma j}^{}f_{\sigma i})(b_{1i}^{}b_{1j}b_{2j}^{}b_{2i})`$
$`+(f_{2i}f_{1j}f_{1i}f_{2j})(b_{1j}^{}b_{2i}+b_{1i}^{}b_{2j})`$
$`+(f_{1j}^{}f_{2i}^{}f_{2j}^{}f_{1i}^{})(b_{2i}^{}b_{1j}+b_{2j}^{}b_{1i})]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}(1h_i^{}h_i)(1h_j^{}h_j)\times `$ (10)
$`(f_{2i}^{}f_{1j}^{}f_{1i}^{}f_{2j}^{})(f_{1j}f_{2i}f_{2j}f_{1i})`$
$`\mu _0{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(h_i^{}h_i\delta ){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[i\lambda _i^{(1)}(f_{1i}^{}f_{2i}^{}+b_{1i}^{}b_{2i})`$
$`+i\lambda _i^{(2)}(f_{2i}f_{1i}+b_{2i}^{}b_{1i})`$
$`+i\lambda _i^{(3)}(f_{1i}^{}f_{1i}f_{2i}f_{2i}^{}+b_{1i}^{}b_{1i}b_{2i}^{}b_{2i})].`$
Here $`f_{\alpha i}`$ ( $`f_{\alpha i}^{}`$ ) is the spinon annihilation(creation) operator and $`h_i\left(\begin{array}{c}b_{1i}\\ b_{2i}\end{array}\right)`$ $`\left(h_i^{}=(b_{1i}^{},b_{2i}^{})\right)`$, the doublet of holon annihilation(creation) operators. $`\lambda _i^{(1),(2),(3)}`$ are the real Lagrangian multipliers to enforce the local single occupancy constraint in the SU(2) slave-boson representation.

The Heisenberg interaction term(the second term in Eq.(10)) above can be decomposed into terms involving mean fields and fluctuations respectively,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}(1h_i^{}h_i)(1h_j^{}h_j)(f_{2i}^{}f_{1j}^{}f_{1i}^{}f_{2j}^{})(f_{1j}f_{2i}f_{2j}f_{1i})`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}<(1h_i^{}h_i)(1h_j^{}h_j)>\times `$ (20)
$`(f_{2i}^{}f_{1j}^{}f_{1i}^{}f_{2j}^{})(f_{1j}f_{2i}f_{2j}f_{1i})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}<(f_{2i}^{}f_{1j}^{}f_{1i}^{}f_{2j}^{})(f_{1j}f_{2i}f_{2j}f_{1i})>\times `$
$`(1h_i^{}h_i)(1h_j^{}h_j)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}<(1h_i^{}h_i)(1h_j^{}h_j)>\times `$
$`<(f_{2i}^{}f_{1j}^{}f_{1i}^{}f_{2j}^{})(f_{1j}f_{2i}f_{2j}f_{1i})>`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}((1h_i^{}h_i)(1h_j^{}h_j)<(1h_i^{}h_i)(1h_j^{}h_j)>)\times `$
$`((f_{2i}^{}f_{1j}^{}f_{1i}^{}f_{2j}^{})(f_{1j}f_{2i}f_{2j}f_{1i})`$
$`<(f_{2i}^{}f_{1j}^{}f_{1i}^{}f_{2j}^{})(f_{1j}f_{2i}f_{2j}f_{1i})>).`$
By introducing the Hubbard-Stratonovich fields, $`\rho _i^k`$, $`\chi _{ij}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ in association with the direct, exchange and pairing channels of the spinon, we obtain the effective Hamiltonian from Eq.(10),

$`H_{eff}=`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{J(1\delta )^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{3}{}}}\left((\rho _{ij}^l)^2\rho _{ij}^l(f_i^{}\sigma ^lf_i)\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J(1\delta )^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}[|\chi _{ij}|^2\{f_{\sigma i}^{}f_{\sigma j}`$ (24)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2t}{J(1\delta )^2}}(b_{1i}^{}b_{1j}b_{2j}^{}b_{2i})\}\chi _{ij}c.c.]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J(1\delta )^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}[|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}|^2\{(f_{2i}^{}f_{1j}^{}f_{1i}^{}f_{2j}^{})`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{t}{J(1\delta )^2}}(b_{1j}^{}b_{2i}+b_{1i}^{}b_{2j})\}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}c.c.]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f|^2\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}b_{\alpha i}^{}b_{\beta j}^{}b_{\beta j}b_{\alpha i}(h_j^{}h_j+h_i^{}h_i2\delta )\delta ^2\right]`$ (27)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{J(1\delta )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}[(b_{1i}^{}b_{1j}b_{2j}^{}b_{2i})(b_{1j}^{}b_{1i}b_{2i}^{}b_{2j})`$ (29)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(b_{1j}^{}b_{2i}+b_{1i}^{}b_{2j})(b_{2i}^{}b_{1j}+b_{2j}^{}b_{1i})]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J(1\delta )^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}(f_{\sigma i}^{}f_{\sigma i})\mu _0{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(h_i^{}h_i\delta )`$ (30)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[i\lambda _i^1(f_{1i}^{}f_{2i}^{}+b_{1i}^{}b_{2i})+i\lambda _i^2(f_{2i}f_{1i}+b_{2i}^{}b_{1i})`$ (32)
$`+i\lambda _i^3(f_{1i}^{}f_{1i}f_{2i}f_{2i}^{}+b_{1i}^{}b_{1i}b_{2i}^{}b_{2i})],`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=<(f_{1i}f_{2j}f_{2i}f_{1j})\frac{t}{J(1\delta )^2}(b_{2i}^{}b_{1j}+b_{2j}^{}b_{1i})>=\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f\frac{t}{J(1\delta )}\chi _{ij;12}^b`$, with $`\chi _{ij;12}^b=<b_{2i}^{}b_{1j}+b_{2j}^{}b_{1i}>`$ with $`\delta `$, hole doping rate. In Eq.(32) above we introduced $`<(f_{2i}^{}f_{1j}^{}f_{1i}^{}f_{2j}^{})(f_{1j}f_{2i}f_{2j}f_{1i})><(f_{2i}^{}f_{1j}^{}f_{1i}^{}f_{2j}^{})><(f_{1j}f_{2i}f_{2j}f_{1i})>=|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f|^2`$ and $`<(1h_i^{}h_i)(1h_j^{}h_j)><(1h_i^{}h_i)><(1h_j^{}h_j)>=(1\delta )^2`$ and neglected the last term in Eq.(20) above.

The four boson term in the fourth term of Eq.(32) allows holon pairing and a scalar boson field, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij;\alpha \beta }^b`$ is introduced for the holon pairing between the nearest neighbor $`b_\alpha `$ and $`b_\beta `$single bosons with the boson index, $`\alpha ,\beta =`$ $`1`$ or $`2`$. Using the saddle point approximation, we obtain from Eq.(32) the mean field Hamiltonian,

$`H^{MF}={\displaystyle \frac{J(1\delta )^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}\left[|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\chi _{ij}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right]`$ (43)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f|^2\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij;\alpha \beta }^b|^2+\delta ^2\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{J(1\delta )^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}[\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f(f_{1j}f_{2i}f_{2j}f_{1i})+c.c.]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{J(1\delta )^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}[\chi _{ij}(f_{\sigma i}^{}f_{\sigma j})+c.c.]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}\left[\chi _{ij}(b_{1i}^{}b_{1j}b_{2j}^{}b_{2i})\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f(b_{1j}^{}b_{2i}+b_{1i}^{}b_{2j})\right]c.c.`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>,\alpha ,\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f|^2[\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij;\alpha \beta }^b(b_{\alpha i}b_{\beta j})+c.c.]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[\mu _i(h_i^{}h_i\delta )+i\lambda _i^1(f_{1i}^{}f_{2i}^{}+b_{1i}^{}b_{2i}^{})`$
$`+i\lambda _i^2(f_{2i}f_{1i}+b_{2i}b_{1i})+i\lambda _i^3(f_{1i}^{}f_{1i}f_{2i}f_{2i}^{}+b_{1i}^{}b_{1i}+b_{2i}^{}b_{2i})]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f(f_{1j}f_{2i}f_{2j}f_{1i})\right)\chi _{ij;12}^bc.c.`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{2J(1\delta )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}\left|\chi _{ij;12}^b(b_{2i}^{}b_{1j}+b_{2j}^{}b_{1i})\right|^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{J(1\delta )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}(b_{1i}^{}b_{1j}b_{2j}^{}b_{2i})(b_{1j}^{}b_{1i}b_{2i}^{}b_{2j}),`$
where $`\chi _{ij}=<f_{\sigma j}^{}f_{\sigma i}+\frac{2t}{J(1\delta )^2}(b_{1j}^{}b_{1i}b_{2i}^{}b_{2j})>`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f=<f_{1j}f_{2i}f_{2j}f_{1i}>`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij;\alpha \beta }^b=<b_{i\alpha }b_{\beta j}>`$ and $`\mu _i=\mu _0\frac{J}{2}_{j=i\pm \widehat{x},i\pm \widehat{y}}|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f|^2`$. The Hubbard Stratonovich field $`\rho _i^{k=1,2,3}=<\frac{1}{2}f_i^{}\sigma ^kf_i>`$ for direct channel is taken to be $`0`$ and $`\rho _i^{k=0}=\frac{1}{2}`$. Owing to the energy cost the exchange interaction terms(the last two positive energy terms in Eq.(43)) is usually ignored-.

We now introduce the uniform hopping order parameter, $`\chi _{ij}=\chi `$, the d-wave spinon pairing order parameter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ with the sign $`+()`$ for the nearest neighbor link parallel to $`\widehat{x}`$ ($`\widehat{y}`$) and the s-wave holon pairing order parameter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij;\alpha \beta }^b=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }^b`$ with the boson indices $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. For the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }^b=0`$, $`\lambda ^{(k)}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^f\chi `$, the $`b_1`$-bosons are populated at and near $`k=(0,0)`$ in the momentum space and the $`b_2`$-bosons, at and near $`k=(\pi ,\pi )`$. Pairing of two different($`\alpha \beta `$) bosons(holons) gives rise to the non-zero center of mass momentum. On the other hand, the center of mass momentum is zero only for pairing between identical($`\alpha =\beta `$) bosons. Thus writing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }^b=\mathrm{\Delta }_b(\delta _{\alpha ,1}\delta _{\beta ,1}\delta _{\alpha ,2}\delta _{\beta ,2})`$ for pairing between the identical holons and allowing the uniform chemical potential, $`\mu _i=\mu `$, the mean field Hamiltonian from Eq.(43) is derived to be,

$`H^{MF}`$ $`=`$ $`NJ(1\delta )^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_f^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right)+NJ\mathrm{\Delta }_f^2(2\mathrm{\Delta }_b^2+\delta ^2)`$ (44)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}E_k^f(\alpha _{k1}^{}\alpha _{k1}\alpha _{k2}\alpha _{k2}^{})`$ (45)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k,s=1,2}{}}\left[E_{ks}^b\beta _{ks}^{}\beta _{ks}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(E_{ks}^b+\mu )\right]+\mu N\delta .`$ (46)
Here $`E_k^f`$ and $`E_{ks}^b`$ are the quasiparticle energies of spinon and holon respectively. $`\alpha _{ks}(\alpha _{ks}^{})`$ and $`\beta _{ks}(\beta _{ks}^{})`$ are the annihilation(creation) operators of the spinon quasiparticles and the holon quasiparticles respectively.

From the diagonalized Hamiltonian Eq.(46), we readily obtain the total free energy,

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`NJ(1\delta )^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_f^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi ^2\right)`$ (50)
$`2k_BT{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}ln[\mathrm{cosh}(\beta E_k^f/2)]`$
$`+NJ\mathrm{\Delta }_f^2(\mathrm{\Delta }_b^2+\delta ^2)+k_BT{\displaystyle \underset{k,s}{}}ln[1e^{\beta E_{ks}^b}]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k,s}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_{ks}^b+\mu }{2}}+\mu N\delta .`$
The chemical potential is determined from the number constraint of doped holes,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F}{\mu }}={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta E_{k1}^b}1}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_k^b\mu }{E_{k1}^b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_k^b\mu }{E_{k1}^b}}1)`$ (52)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta E_{k2}^b}1}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_k^b\mu }{E_{k2}^b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_k^b\mu }{E_{k2}^b}}1)]N\delta =0,`$
and the Lagrangian multipliers are determined by the following three constraints imposed by the SU(2) slave-boson theory,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F}{\lambda ^{(k)}}}={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta E_k^f}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_k^f}{\lambda ^{(k)}}}`$ (54)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k,s}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\beta E_{ks}^b}+1}{2(e^{\beta E_{ks}^b}1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_{ks}^b}{\lambda ^{(k)}}}=0,\text{ }k=1,2,3.`$
It can be readily proven from Eq.(54) above that $`\lambda ^{(k)}=0`$ satisfies the three constraints above.

By minimizing the free energy, the order parameters $`\chi `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$ are numerically determined as a function of temperature and doping rate. In Fig.2 the mean field results of the U(1) slave-boson theory(dotted lines) are displayed for $`J=0.2`$ $`t`$, $`J=0.3`$ $`t`$ and $`J=0.4`$ $`t`$ for comparison with the predicted phase diagrams(solid lines). The predicted pseudogap(spin gap) temperature, $`T_{SU(2)}^f`$ is consistently higher than $`T_{U(1)}^f`$, the U(1) value. $`T_{SU(2)}^b`$ at optimal doping is predicted to be lower than the value of $`T_{U(1)}^b`$ predicted by the U(1) theory. The predicted optimal doping rate is shifted to a larger value, showing closer agreement with observation than the U(1) mean field treatment. Such discrepancies are attributed to the phase fluctuations of order parameters, which were not treated in the U(1) mean field theory. We note from the four boson operator $`\frac{J}{2}|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f|^2b_{\alpha i}^{}b_{\beta j}^{}b_{\beta j}b_{\alpha i}`$ in the fourth term of Eq.(32) that the strength of holon pairing depends on the spinon pairing amplitude(order parameter) $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^f`$. Accordingly the predicted holon pair condensation temperature(superconducting transition temperature) $`T_{SU(2)}^b`$ depends on the spin gap(pseudogap) temperature $`T^{}`$; $`T_{SU(2)}^b`$ decreases with $`T^{}`$ in the overdoped region. Indeed it is shown in Eq.(10) that the predicted holon pair bose condensation at $`T_c`$($`=T_{SU(2)}^b`$) is not independent of the spin gap(pseudogap) formation at $`T^{}`$, by exhibiting the diminishing trend of superconducting temperature $`T_c`$ as the spin gap temperature $`T^{}`$ decreases in the overdoped region. This is consistent with an experimental observation of the universal behavior of $`T^{}/T_c`$ as a function of hole doping rate $`\delta /\delta _o`$ for different high $`T_c`$ cuprates, as is shown in Fig.1.

In summary, based on the SU(2) slave-boson symmetry conserving t-J Hamiltonian which shows coupling between the charge and spin degrees of freedom, we derived a phase diagram of high $`T_c`$ cuprates which displays the bose condensation temperature of an arch shape as a function of hole doping rate. Unlike other previous studies which predicted a linear increase with the hole doping rate, this result is consistent with observation. We showed that the low energy fluctuations cause a shift of the optimal doping rate to a larger value and a suppression of the holon pair bose condensation temperature, thus allowing a closer agreement with observation compared to the U(1) case.

One(SHSS) of us acknowledges the generous supports of Korea Ministry of Education(BSRI-99). We thank Tae-Hyoung Gimm for helpful discussions.