text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The component Lagrangian of matter-coupled supergravity can be derived from a superspace formulation or a tensor calculus . Both approaches inevitably lead to a component theory in which the gravitational action is of a generalized Brans-Dicke form,

$$e^1=\frac{1}{2}e^{K/3}+\mathrm{}.$$
(1.1)
In this expression, $`e`$ is the vielbein determinant, $``$ is the curvature scalar and $`K`$ is the Kähler potential, a function of the scalar fields $`A^{},A`$.

The Lagrangian (1.1) leads to a kinetic mixing between the graviton and the scalar fields. In addition, the kinetic terms of the scalar fields appear in non-Kähler form. It is therefore convenient and customary to carry out a field-dependent Weyl rescaling of the metric to bring the Lagrangian into canonical Einstein form. In supergravity, this Weyl rescaling must also be accompanied by a chiral rotation of the fermions. As we shall see, this rotation gives rise to an anomalous Jacobian in the supergravity action.

The field redefinitions needed to go to this “Einstein frame” are usually performed in terms of component fields . This obscures the symmetries of the theory and complicates the study of anomalies and their consequences. Therefore, in this paper we will use the superspace approach of  to study anomalies in supergravity theories. We will show that:

1. The Einstein-frame field redefinitions can be carried out directly in superspace through a super-Weyl transformation of the vielbein. The corresponding component-field Lagrangian gives rise to ordinary Einstein gravity.
2. Local supersymmetry transformations in the Einstein frame involve chiral rotations of the fermions. They are anomalous at one loop.
3. The local supersymmetry anomaly is cancelled by a Jacobian that arises from the transition to the Einstein frame. This Jacobian is necessary to ensure the quantum consistency of Einstein-frame supergravity.
4. The anomalous Jacobian can have important physical consequences. For example, it is necessary to ensure the quantum equivalence of scattering amplitudes computed in different frames.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we define super-Weyl transformations and derive the corresponding Jacobians. In Section 3 we study the transition to the Einstein frame. We show that one-loop supergravity invariance of the Einstein-frame Lagrangian requires that a certain superspace Jacobian be added to the bare Lagrangian. In Section 4 we present an explicit example which illustrates the physical importance of this Jacobian. We summarize our results in Section 5.

## 2 Super-Weyl Transformations

### 2.1 Classical Level

In this section we study super-Weyl transformations in classical and quantum supergravity. These transformations will play an important role throughout this paper.

In what follows we use the notation and conventions of . We take the matter-coupled supergravity Lagrangian to be of the form

$`(X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^2\mathrm{\Theta }2[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}(\overline{𝒟}^28R)\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(K(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi })+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi },V))\}`$ (2.1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}H_{ab}(\mathrm{\Phi })W^{(a)}W^{(b)}+P(\mathrm{\Phi })]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$
where $`X=(\mathrm{\Phi },V,E_{M}^{}{}_{}{}^{A})`$ denotes the set of fields in the supergravity Lagrangian, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`V`$ are the chiral and vector superfields, and $`E_M^A`$ is the supervielbein. In this expression, $`K`$ is the Kähler potential, $`P`$ the superpotential, and $`W^{(a)}`$ the field strength superfield, where $`(a)`$ is the index for the adjoint representation.#1#1#1In this paper, we sometimes omit the spin index $`\alpha `$. Therefore $`W^{(a)}W^{(b)}`$ should be understood as $`W^{(a)\alpha }W_\alpha ^{(b)}`$. In addition, $`H_{ab}`$ is the gauge kinetic function, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the gauge counterterm which renders the Lagrangian gauge invariant.

In the superspace formalism, supergravity transformations are given by translations in superspace. Chiral and vector superfields transform as follows,

$`\delta _{\mathrm{SUSY}}\mathrm{\Phi }=\xi ^A𝒟_A\mathrm{\Phi },\delta _{\mathrm{SUSY}}V=\xi ^A𝒟_AV,`$ (2.2)
while the vielbein transforms as

$`\delta _{\mathrm{SUSY}}E_M{}_{}{}^{A}=𝒟_M\xi ^A\xi ^BT_{BM}{}_{}{}^{A}.`$ (2.3)
In these expressions, the $`𝒟_A`$ are covariant derivatives and the $`T_{BM}^A`$ are the superspace torsion. The superspace formalism ensures that the Lagrangian (2.1) is invariant,

$`(X+\delta _{\mathrm{SUSY}}X)=(X),`$ (2.4)
up to a total derivative, under the supersymmetry transformations (2.2) and (2.3).

Super-Weyl transformations are defined as rescalings of the superspace vielbein that preserve the torsion constraints .#2#2#2It is important to distinguish between super-Weyl and super-Weyl-Kähler transformations. The latter are symmetries of the classical supergravity Lagrangian. A super-Weyl-Kähler transformation is a super-Weyl transformation, with chiral superfield parameter $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, combined with a redefinition of the Kähler potential and superpotential, $`KK+6\mathrm{\Sigma }+6\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`P\mathrm{exp}(6\mathrm{\Sigma })P`$. They are parameterized by a chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. If we denote the super-Weyl transformed $`X`$ field as $`\widehat{X}`$, we can write

$`X=\widehat{X}+\delta _{\mathrm{SW}}X,`$ (2.5)
where $`\delta _{\mathrm{SW}}X`$ is the super-Weyl variation of $`X`$.

To linear order in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the super-Weyl transformations are given by

$`\delta _{\mathrm{SW}}`$ $`=`$ $`6\mathrm{\Sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Theta }^\alpha }}\left(S^\alpha \right)`$
$`\delta _{\mathrm{SW}}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`S^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Theta }^\alpha }}\mathrm{\Phi }`$
$`\delta _{\mathrm{SW}}\left(\overline{𝒟}^28R\right)U`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{𝒟}^28R\right)\left(4\mathrm{\Sigma }2\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\right)US^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Theta }^\alpha }}\left(\overline{𝒟}^28R\right)U`$
$`\delta _{\mathrm{SW}}W_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`3\mathrm{\Sigma }W_\alpha S^\beta {\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Theta }^\beta }}W_\alpha ,`$ (2.6)
where $`U`$ is any real vector superfield of Weyl weight zero, and $`S^\alpha `$ is defined by

$`S^\alpha =\mathrm{\Theta }^\alpha (2\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma })|+\mathrm{\Theta }^2(𝒟^\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma })|.`$ (2.7)
The bar $`|`$ denotes the $`\theta =\overline{\theta }=0`$ component of the superfield.

Note that super-Weyl transformations also induce chiral rotations of the component fermions. Taking the appropriate components of Eq. (2.6) and re-exponentiating, we find

$`\chi =\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Sigma }|2\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}|)\widehat{\chi },\lambda =\mathrm{exp}(3\mathrm{\Sigma }|)\widehat{\lambda },`$ (2.8)
where $`\chi `$ and $`\lambda `$ are the fermions in the chiral and gaugino multiplets, respectively.

In general, super-Weyl transformations are not symmetries of the classical supergravity Lagrangian. Indeed, substituting the transformed variables (2.6) into the Lagrangian (2.1), all derivative terms cancel. Nevertheless, a nontrivial $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ dependence remains. At the classical level, the Lagrangian (2.1) becomes

$`(\widehat{X}+\delta _{\mathrm{SW}}X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^2\mathrm{\Theta }2\widehat{}[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}(\widehat{\overline{𝒟}}^28\widehat{R})\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\widehat{K}6\mathrm{\Sigma }6\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }})\}`$ (2.9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\widehat{H}_{ab}\widehat{W}^{(a)}\widehat{W}^{(b)}+\mathrm{exp}(6\mathrm{\Sigma })\widehat{P}]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$
where the hatted objects are evaluated using the Weyl-transformed fields. The Kähler and superpotential are different, so the Lagrangian (2.1) is not invariant.

### 2.2 Quantum Level

We are now ready to discuss the anomalous Jacobian associated with a given super-Weyl transformation. A proper framework is provided by the one-particle-irreducible (1PI) effective Lagrangian $`_{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{I}}`$, defined by

$`{\displaystyle d^4x_{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{I}}(X_\mathrm{C})}=i\mathrm{log}\left[{\displaystyle [dX_\mathrm{Q}]\mathrm{exp}\left(id^4x_{\mathrm{bare}}(X_\mathrm{C}+X_\mathrm{Q})\right)}\right].`$ (2.10)
Here $`_{\mathrm{bare}}`$ is the bare Lagrangian, and $`X_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`X_\mathrm{Q}`$ are classical and quantum parts of the $`X`$ field, respectively.

In general, super-Weyl transformations are anomalous; they have a mixed super-Weyl-gauge anomaly.#3#3#3It also has a mixed super-Weyl-gravity anomaly. We ignore the gravity anomaly here.#4#4#4For a discussion of supergravity anomalies in the compensator formalism, see . Anomalies generate a set of non-local terms in the 1PI effective action . For the case at hand, the one-loop anomaly-induced terms are ,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{256\pi ^2}d^2\mathrm{\Theta }2W^{(a)}W^{(a)}\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\left(\overline{𝒟}^28R\right)\left[4(T_R3T_G)R^{}\frac{1}{3}T_R𝒟^2K\right]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(2.11)
where we have omitted a term from the sigma-model anomaly that is irrelevant for our discussion. In Eq. (2.11), $`T_G`$ is the Dynkin index of the adjoint representation, normalized to $`N`$ for $`SU(N)`$, and $`T_R`$ is the Dynkin index associated with the matter fields. A sum over all matter representations is understood. The first term, which contains the $`R^{}`$ superfield, arises from the superconformal anomaly. It is proportional to the beta function coefficient, $`b_0=3T_GT_R`$. The second term expresses the Kähler anomaly .

The variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be computed by considering a super-Weyl transformation with superfield parameter $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Under such a transformation, the superfield $`R`$ changes as follows,

$`\delta _{\mathrm{SW}}R=2(2\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{𝒟}^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}.`$ (2.12)
This induces a shift by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the $`R^{}`$ term in Eq. (2.11). A second shift comes from replacing $`K`$ by $`\widehat{K}6\mathrm{\Sigma }6\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. These two shifts induce the following change in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }+_\mathrm{J},$$
(2.13)
where

$`_\mathrm{J}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}(3T_R3T_G){\displaystyle d^2\mathrm{\Theta }2\mathrm{\Sigma }W^{(a)}W^{(a)}}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (2.14)
The Lagrangian $`_\mathrm{J}`$ can be interpreted as the superspace Jacobian that arises from the super-Weyl transformation (2.5). (Note that the imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }|`$ corresponds to the Jacobian from the anomalous $`U(1)_R`$ transformation.)

The nonvanishing Jacobian implies that the functional measure is not invariant. It transforms as follows under an arbitrary super-Weyl transformation:

$`[d\mathrm{\Phi }][dV]=[d(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}+\delta _{\mathrm{SW}}\mathrm{\Phi })][d(\widehat{V}+\delta _{\mathrm{SW}}V)]=[d\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}][d\widehat{V}]\mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle d^4x_\mathrm{J}}\right],`$ (2.15)
The super-Weyl-rescaled 1PI Lagrangian is then

$`\mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle d^4x_{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{I}}}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle [d(\widehat{X}+\delta _{\mathrm{SW}}X)]\mathrm{exp}\left[id^4x_{\mathrm{bare}}(\widehat{X}+\delta _{\mathrm{SW}}X)\right]}`$ (2.16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle [d\widehat{X}]\mathrm{exp}\left[id^4x\left\{_{\mathrm{bare}}(\widehat{X})|_{\widehat{K}\widehat{K}6\mathrm{\Sigma }6\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},\widehat{P}e^{6\mathrm{\Sigma }}\widehat{P}}+_\mathrm{J}\right\}\right]}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle [d\widehat{X}]\mathrm{exp}\left[id^4x\widehat{}_{\mathrm{bare}}(\widehat{X})\right]},`$
where

$`\widehat{}_{\mathrm{bare}}(\widehat{X})_{\mathrm{bare}}(\widehat{X}+\delta _{\mathrm{SW}}X)+_\mathrm{J}=_{\mathrm{bare}}(\widehat{X})|_{\widehat{K}\widehat{K}6\mathrm{\Sigma }6\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},\widehat{P}e^{6\mathrm{\Sigma }}\widehat{P}}+_\mathrm{J}.`$ (2.17)
In these expressions, $`\widehat{}_{\mathrm{bare}}`$ is the bare Lagrangian for the quantum theory with super-Weyl-rescaled variable $`\widehat{X}`$. The bare Lagrangian does not contain the anomaly term $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which arises from integrating out the massless quantum fields. It does, however, contain the Jacobian $`_\mathrm{J}`$. As we will see, $`_\mathrm{J}`$ is important for ensuring the quantum consistency of supergravity in the Einstein frame.

## 3 Einstein Supergravity

### 3.1 The Einstein Frame

In this section, we find the field-dependent Weyl rescaling that takes the “supergravity frame” Lagrangian of Eq. (2.1)

$$e^1=\frac{1}{2}e^{K/3}+\mathrm{}$$
(3.1)
into the Einstein frame. In the literature, this rescaling has traditionally been done in terms of component fields . Here we perform the transformation in superspace. This allows us to keep better track of the symmetries of the theory.

The relevant superfield rescaling is, as we will see below, a super-Weyl transformation with transformation parameter $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}`$,

$`_\mathrm{E}(X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^2\mathrm{\Theta }2[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}(\overline{𝒟}^28R)\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(K6\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}6\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma })\}`$ (3.2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}H_{ab}W^{(a)}W^{(b)}+\mathrm{exp}(6\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E})P]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$
where we have omitted all “hats” in the above equation. (Here and hereafter, all quantities should be understood as being defined in the frame obtained after the super-Weyl transformation, unless specified otherwise.)

The parameter $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}`$ can be found by demanding that $`K6\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}6\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}^{}`$ have no lowest, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^2`$ components since this combination appears in the exponent of the first term in Eq. (3.2). To see, for example, why $`(K6\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}6\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}^{})|`$ must vanish, note that Eq. (3.1) involves the lowest component of $`e^{K/3}`$. If the lowest component of this term is scaled to 1, the factor $`e^{K/3}`$ is absent and gravity is canonically normalized. The other two conditions lead to a canonical kinetic term for the gravitino, and to canonical Kähler kinetic terms for the matter multiplets.

The conditions on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}`$ are, therefore,

$`K|=6\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}|+6\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}^{}|,(𝒟_\alpha K)|=6(𝒟_\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E})|,(𝒟^2K)|=6(𝒟^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E})|,`$ (3.3)
or the vanishing of the lowest, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^2`$ components of $`K6\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}6\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}^{}`$. The Einstein frame conditions (3.3) almost completely determine the parameter $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}`$,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}=A_\mathrm{\Sigma }+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Theta }\chi _\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Theta }^2F_\mathrm{\Sigma },`$ (3.4)
with

$`A_\mathrm{\Sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}K+i\varphi ,\chi _\mathrm{\Sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}K_i\chi ^i,F_\mathrm{\Sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}K_iF^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}K_{ij}\chi ^i\chi ^j,`$ (3.5)
where the subscript $`i`$ on $`K`$ denotes the derivative with respect to $`A^i`$ ($`K_iK/A^i`$), and $`F^i`$ is the highest component of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$. Note that the conditions (3.3) do not completely fix $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}`$; the imaginary part $`\varphi `$ of its lowest component is left undetermined. Also note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not contribute to the conditions (3.3): we assume that a field redefinition is performed so that the matter fields are in the Wess-Zumino gauge, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has no lowest, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^2`$ components.

With the above $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}`$, it is not hard to find the component Lagrangian. If we substitute Eq. (3.4) into (3.2), all terms leading to non-Einstein gravity vanish. The rest of the component Lagrangian can be readily evaluated and gives the well-known Einstein supergravity Lagrangian with canonical kinetic terms. The complete expression for the Lagrangian is given in . We have seen that the component Lagrangian can be directly obtained from superspace, without any extra Weyl rescalings of the component fields.

Let us now show that we can safely set the field $`\varphi `$ to zero. This field appears in the kinetic terms of the matter and gauge fermions,

$`e^1_{\mathrm{kin}}`$ $`=`$ $`iK_{ij^{}}\overline{\chi }^j^{}\overline{\sigma }^a\left[_a+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{6}}b_a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left(K_k_aA^kK_j^{}_aA^j^{}12i_a\varphi \right)\right]\chi ^i`$ (3.6)
$`i\overline{\lambda }\overline{\sigma }^a\left(_a{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}b_a\right)\lambda .`$
(We omit terms with spin, sigma-model, and gauge connections because they are not relevant for our discussion.) The field $`\varphi `$ also appears in the solution to the equations of motion for the auxiliary field $`b_a`$,

$`b_a={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(K_j_aA^jK_j^{}_aA^j^{}12i_a\varphi \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}K_{ij^{}}\chi ^i\sigma _a\overline{\chi }^j^{}+\mathrm{}.`$ (3.7)
(For the complete expression for $`b_a`$, see Appendix B.) In addition, it appears in the superpotential terms in the Einstein frame,

$`e^1_{\mathrm{Yukawa}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K+6i\varphi \right)P_{ij}\chi ^i\chi ^j+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.+\mathrm{}.`$ (3.8)
(The complete expression for the Yukawa terms can be found in .)

Upon inspection of Eqs. (3.6), (3.7) and (3.8), one can check that the classical component Lagrangian can be made independent of $`\varphi `$ by redefining $`\chi e^{3i\varphi }\chi `$ and $`\lambda e^{3i\varphi }\lambda `$. In fact, the $`\varphi `$ dependence also cancels at the quantum level. The field redefinitions used to go to the Einstein frame are $`\chi e^{\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}|+3i\varphi }\chi `$ and $`\lambda e^{3\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}|3i\varphi }\lambda `$. The Jacobian from these transformations exactly cancels the Jacobian from the redefinitions used to eliminate $`\varphi `$ from the component Lagrangian. Therefore the field $`\varphi `$ is unphysical, and we can safely set it to zero.

### 3.2 Supersymmetry Transformations in the Einstein Frame

In this subsection, we discuss the invariance of the classical supergravity Lagrangian in the Einstein frame. Then, in the next subsection, we consider quantum effects, and in particular, anomalies.

It is simple to see that the Einstein-frame Lagrangian is not invariant under the supersymmetry transformations (2.2). Under a supersymmetry transformation, the Kähler potential transforms as $`\delta _{\mathrm{SUSY}}K=\xi ^A𝒟_AK`$, in which case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}`$ transforms to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}^{}`$,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}|_{KK+\delta _{\mathrm{SUSY}}K}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}\xi ^A𝒟_A\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi ,`$ (3.9)
where

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\sqrt{2}}}\left(\xi \chi ^iK_i\overline{\xi }\overline{\chi }^i^{}K_i^{}\right)+𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta })+𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }^2)i\varphi _\xi +𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta })+𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }^2).`$ (3.10)
The second term on the RHS of Eq. (3.9) is the supersymmetry transformation of a normal chiral superfield. The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi `$ term is an additional super-Weyl transformation under which the action is not invariant.

To see this explicitly, consider the supersymmetry transformation of the Einstein-frame Lagrangian,

$`_\mathrm{E}(X+\delta _{\mathrm{SUSY}}X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^2\mathrm{\Theta }2[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}(\overline{𝒟}^28R)\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(K6(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi )6(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi ^{})+\mathrm{\Gamma })\}`$ (3.11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}H_{ab}W^{(a)}W^{(b)}+\mathrm{exp}\left\{6(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi )\right\}P]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$
Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi `$ is nonvanishing, the Lagrangian is not invariant under the supersymmetry transformation (2.2).

This lack of invariance stems from the fact that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi `$ takes the Lagrangian out of the Einstein frame. Invariance can be restored by returning to the Einstein frame through a compensating super-Weyl transformation. This is similar to gauge invariance in globally supersymmetric gauge theories. There, a supersymmetry transformation in the Wess-Zumino gauge must be supplemented by a superfield gauge transformation to restore the Wess-Zumino gauge condition. It is instructive to consider this case in some detail because of the close analogy to supergravity . To that end, we review the supersymmetry transformations of globally supersymmetric gauge theories in Appendix A.

For the case at hand, the compensating super-Weyl transformation has parameter $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi `$. In the Einstein frame, therefore, we define a supersymmetry transformation to include a frame-restoring super-Weyl transformation with parameter $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi `$:

$`\delta _\xi \delta _{\mathrm{SUSY}}+\delta _{\mathrm{SW}}.`$ (3.12)
Under such a transformation, chiral and vector superfields transform as follows,

$`\delta _\xi \mathrm{\Phi }=\xi ^A𝒟_A\mathrm{\Phi }+\delta _{\mathrm{SW}}\mathrm{\Phi },\delta _\xi V=\xi ^A𝒟_AV+\delta _{\mathrm{SW}}V,`$ (3.13)
and analogously for the vielbein. In these expressions, the first terms on the RHS are the original supersymmetry transformations; the second are the compensating super-Weyl transformations with parameter $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi `$. These transformations eliminate the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi `$ in Eq. (3.11) and restore the classical invariance of the action,

$`_\mathrm{E}(X+\delta _\xi X)=_\mathrm{E}(X).`$ (3.14)
The transformation properties of the individual component fields can be derived by expanding Eq. (3.13). We have checked that they agree with the transformations given in  after eliminating the auxiliary fields.

### 3.3 Quantum Consistency in the Einstein Frame

We are now ready to discuss anomalies in the supersymmetry transformations (3.12). As we have seen, these transformations include frame-restoring super-Weyl field rescalings that induce chiral rotations on the matter fermions,

$`\delta _\xi \chi =\mathrm{}+3i\varphi _\xi \chi ,\delta _\xi \lambda =\mathrm{}3i\varphi _\xi \lambda ,`$ (3.15)
where $`i\varphi _\xi =\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi |`$. At the quantum level, these transformations are anomalous, so they should give rise to an anomalous variation of the 1PI Lagrangian,

$`\delta _\xi _{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{I}}=e\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}(3T_R3T_G)\varphi _\xi F_{mn}^{(a)}\stackrel{~}{F}^{mn(a)}+\mathrm{}\right],`$ (3.16)
If nothing were to cancel this variation, local supersymmetry in the Einstein frame would be anomalous. In what follows, we will show that the full 1PI effective action is, in fact, invariant. The variation (3.16) is cancelled by the variation of the Jacobian (2.14) that arises in passing to the Einstein frame.

In the Einstein frame, the complete 1PI effective Lagrangian is of the following form,

$`_{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{I}}=_\mathrm{E}+\mathrm{\Delta }+_\mathrm{J}.`$ (3.17)
The first term is the classical part of the Einstein-frame Lagrangian, the second is the non-local term induced by anomalies, and the third is the Jacobian (2.14). The first term is invariant under the local supersymmetry transformation (3.12), as discussed in the previous subsection. The second and third terms are not. Under the supersymmetry transformation (3.12), the nonvanishing variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ expresses the anomaly associated with the frame-restoring super-Weyl transformation.#5#5#5If we make the argument before integrating out the light fields, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ does not exist. In this case the anomaly arises as a change of the functional measure of the path integral. If this variation were the only change of the Lagrangian, supersymmetry would be explicitly broken by anomalies at the quantum level.

Fortunately, however, it is not. There is also $`_\mathrm{J}`$, the Jacobian that arises in the Einstein frame. This term is not invariant under (3.12). From Eq. (3.9), we have

$`\delta _\xi \mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}=\xi ^A𝒟_A\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi .`$ (3.18)
The first term on the RHS is the supersymmetry transformation of a normal chiral superfield. The second is a super-Weyl transformation of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This gives

$`\delta _\xi _\mathrm{J}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}(3T_R3T_G){\displaystyle d^2\mathrm{\Theta }2\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi W^{(a)}W^{(a)}}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (3.19)
$`=`$ $`e\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}(3T_R3T_G)\varphi _\xi F_{mn}^{(a)}\stackrel{~}{F}^{mn(a)}+\mathrm{}\right].`$
Equation (3.19) exactly cancels the variation (3.16) and restores supersymmetry invariance in the Einstein frame.

Thus we have seen that the Einstein-frame 1PI effective Lagrangian is invariant under local supersymmetry transformations – provided the Jacobian (2.14) is added to the bare Lagrangian. Otherwise, local supersymmetry is explicitly broken at the quantum level because of the anomaly associated with the frame-restoring super-Weyl transformations. The Jacobian (2.14) is essential for the consistency of the quantum theory. The component expression for the Jacobian is given in Appendix B.

## 4 Physical Implications of the Jacobian: An Example

In this section, we show that the anomalous Jacobian $`_\mathrm{J}`$ has physical consequences. We illustrate this with an example of a scattering amplitude which requires the Jacobian to give a frame-independent result.

In what follows we consider a model with a no-scale Kähler potential of the form

$`K=3\mathrm{log}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\right).`$ (4.1)
This Kähler potential (4.1) is chosen for simplicity; upon substitution into the superspace Lagrangian (2.1), it gives rise to canonically normalized scalars with a conformal coupling to gravity,

$`_{\mathrm{SUGRA}}=\sqrt{g}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}A^{}A\right)g^{mn}_mA^{}_nA+\mathrm{}\right],`$ (4.2)
where we used the metric $`g_{mn}`$ instead of a vielbein. In Eq. (4.2), the subscript SUGRA indicates that this is the supergravity-frame Lagrangian. As discussed in the previous sections, we can use a super-Weyl transformation to pass to the Einstein frame.

In this model, we study the scattering process $`A^{}Av_mv_m`$ via a graviton exchange, where $`v_m`$ is a gauge boson and $`A`$ is a massless neutral scalar field. For simplicity, we assume that the gauge theory is pure supersymmetric Yang Mills.#6#6#6If the matter fields had gauge quantum numbers, the following discussion would still hold, provided we replace $`3T_G`$ by $`3T_GT_R`$.

The amplitude of this process can be written as follows (see Fig. 1)

$`i(A^{}Av_mv_m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}v_m(ϵ_1,p_1^{})v_m(ϵ_2,p_2^{})|T^{kl}|0\times i\mathrm{\Delta }_{kl,mn}`$ (4.3)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}0|T^{mn}|A^{}(p_1)A(p_2)`$
$`+v_m(ϵ_1,p_1^{})v_m(ϵ_2,p_2^{})|i_\mathrm{J}|A^{}(p_1)A(p_2),`$
where the $`p_i`$ denote the momenta of the scalars, while $`ϵ_i`$ and $`p_i^{}`$ denote the polarizations and momenta of the gauge bosons. Here, $`T_{mn}`$ is the energy momentum tensor,

$`T_{mn}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta g^{mn}}},`$ (4.4)
while $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{kl,mn}`$ is the graviton propagator, given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{mn,kl}(q)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{q^2}}(\eta _{km}\eta _{ln}+\eta _{kn}\eta _{lm}\eta _{kl}\eta _{mn}),`$ (4.5)
where $`\eta _{mn}`$ is the flat-space metric. We omit the part that depends on the gauge parameter because it does not contribute to the amplitude of interest.

For the scalars, the matrix element of the energy-momentum tensor is

$`0|T^{mn}|A^{}(p_1)A(p_2)=p_1^mp_2^n+p_1^np_2^m(p_1p_2)\eta ^{mn}+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{3}}(q^2\eta ^{mn}q^mq^n),`$ (4.6)
where $`qp_1+p_2`$, and $`\zeta `$ is a coefficient proportional to the coupling of the scalars to the scalar curvature $``$; $`\zeta =1`$ in the supergravity frame and $`\zeta =0`$ in the Einstein frame. Note that $`\zeta =1`$ corresponds to conformally coupled scalars; this is easy to see upon computing the trace of Eq. (4.6) with $`q^2=2p_1p_2`$.

Substituting Eqs. (4.5) and (4.6) into Eq. (4.3), we obtain the amplitude

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{q^2}}p_{1k}p_{2l}v_mv_m|T^{kl}|0+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{6}}v_mv_m|T_k^k|0+v_mv_m|_\mathrm{J}|A^{}A`$ (4.7)
$``$ $`_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{6}}v_mv_m|T_k^k|0+v_mv_m|_\mathrm{J}|A^{}A,`$
where $`_0`$ is frame independent. At the classical level, with $`_\mathrm{J}`$ absent, the amplitudes in both frames are identical because the gauge boson energy momentum tensor is traceless.

At the quantum level, the frame independence is more subtle. First, the gauge boson energy momentum tensor is no longer traceless. Second, there is a Jacobian in the Einstein frame, but not the supergravity frame. To see what happens, let us consider the supergravity frame. We take $`\zeta =1`$ and use the trace anomaly relation

$`T_k^k={\displaystyle \frac{3}{32\pi ^2}}T_GF_{mn}^{(a)}F^{mn(a)},`$ (4.8)
to find

$`_{\mathrm{SUGRA}}=_0+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{192\pi ^2}}T_Gv_mv_m|F_{mn}^{(a)}F^{mn(a)}|0.`$ (4.9)
In the Einstein frame, where $`\zeta =0`$, there is no contribution from the $`T_k^k`$ term. However, in this frame there is the super-Weyl Jacobian,

$`_\mathrm{J}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}(3T_G){\displaystyle d^2\mathrm{\Theta }2\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}W^{(a)}W^{(a)}}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (4.10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{192\pi ^2}}T_GA^{}AF_{mn}^{(a)}F^{mn(a)}+\mathrm{},`$
where we have used $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}|=\frac{1}{12}A^{}A+\mathrm{}`$. With this Jacobian, the Einstein-frame matrix element is

$`_\mathrm{E}=_0+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{192\pi ^2}}T_Gv_mv_m|F_{mn}^{(a)}F^{mn(a)}|0,`$ (4.11)
which is in complete agreement with the amplitude in the supergravity frame. The results in the two frames are identical because of the super-Weyl Jacobian.

## 5 Summary

In this paper, we studied the quantum consistency of the supergravity Lagrangian. We used a superspace approach in which the supergravity Lagrangian does not automatically give canonically normalized Einstein gravity. In the literature, Einstein gravity is recovered after a redefinition of the component fields. In this paper, we showed that the field redefinition is, in fact, a super-Weyl transformation, and we demonstrated a systematic way to do the field redefinition in superspace. This approach provides us with a clear understanding of supersymmetry transformations in the Einstein frame.

Supersymmetry transformations in the Einstein frame must preserve the Einstein frame condition, so they differ from the original supersymmetry transformations defined in the supergravity frame. We showed that the Einstein-frame supersymmetry transformations are ordinary supersymmetry transformations, $`\delta _{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, combined with compensating super-Weyl transformations, $`\delta _{\mathrm{SW}}`$, which are necessary to maintain the Einstein frame condition.

The compensating super-Weyl transformations are, at the quantum level, anomalous. Because of this fact, one must be careful when studying the supersymmetry invariance of the quantum effective action. In this paper we emphasized that the super-Weyl transformation used to pass to the Einstein frame is anomalous. It gives rise to an anomalous Jacobian that must be included in the bare Einstein-frame Lagrangian. The 1PI Einstein-frame Lagrangian is supersymmetric because the variation of this Jacobian precisely cancels the anomaly arising from the frame-restoring super-Weyl transformation. If the Jacobian were omitted, the 1PI Lagrangian would not be invariant under Einstein-frame supersymmetry transformations. Consistency demands that the Jacobian be included in the bare Einstein-frame Lagrangian.

## Acknowledgments

The work of J.B. is supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation, grant NSF-PHY-9970781. T.M. is supported by U.S. National Science Foundation under grant NSF-PHY-9513835, and by the Marvin L. Goldberger Membership. E.P. is supported by the Department of Energy, contract DOE DE-FG0292ER-40704.

## Appendix A Globally Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

In this Appendix, we show how the supersymmetry transformations are defined in globally supersymmetric gauge theories. In particular, we demonstrate how the Wess-Zumino gauge condition is maintained after supersymmetry transformations. We will see that there is a close analogy between supersymmetry transformations in globally supersymmetric gauge theories and supergravity transformations in the Einstein frame.

Consider a globally supersymmetric gauge theory, with the Lagrangian

$`=_{\mathrm{gauge}}+{\displaystyle d^4\theta \mathrm{\Phi }^{}e^V\mathrm{\Phi }},`$ (A.1)
where $`_{\mathrm{gauge}}`$ is the kinetic term for the gauge multiplet. This Lagrangian is invariant under the superspace supersymmetry transformations

$`\delta _{\mathrm{SUSY}}V=\xi ^A_AV,\delta _{\mathrm{SUSY}}\mathrm{\Phi }=\xi ^A_A\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (A.2)
where $`\xi ^a=i\xi \sigma ^a\overline{\theta }+i\theta \sigma ^a\overline{\xi }`$ and $`\xi ^\alpha `$ is the supersymmetry transformation parameter. The component transformations can be determined by expanding (A.2) in powers of $`\theta `$.

The Lagrangian (A.1) contains the lower components of $`V`$, which are gauge degrees of freedom. Usually, it is convenient to use a Lagrangian in which these lower components are eliminated by a gauge transformation. This “frame” is often called “the Wess-Zumino gauge;” it is obtained by the following field redefinitions:

$`V_{\mathrm{WZ}}=V\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{WZ}}=e^\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (A.3)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a chiral superfield. The gauge parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is chosen so that all the unphysical fields are eliminated from the Lagrangian. The conditions are

$`V|=\mathrm{\Lambda }|+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}|,(D_\alpha V)|=(D_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda })|,(D^2V)|=(D^2\mathrm{\Lambda })|,`$ (A.4)
so $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the chiral basis is simply

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C+i\varphi +i\theta \chi +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta ^2(M+iN),`$ (A.5)
where $`C`$, $`\chi `$, $`M+iN`$ are the lowest, $`\theta `$ and $`\theta ^2`$ components of the vector superfield $`V`$, respectively. Note that the field $`\varphi `$ is not determined by the Wess-Zumino gauge conditions; it is the parameter of an ordinary gauge transformation. In terms of the new variables, the Lagrangian becomes

$`_{\mathrm{WZ}}`$ $`=`$ $`_{\mathrm{gauge}}+{\displaystyle d^4\theta \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{WZ}}^{}e^{V\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{WZ}}}`$ (A.6)
$`=`$ $`_{\mathrm{gauge}}+{\displaystyle d^4\theta \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{WZ}}^{}e^{V_{\mathrm{WZ}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{WZ}}}.`$
The Wess-Zumino gauge Lagrangian $`_{\mathrm{WZ}}`$ contains only the physical fields.

The Wess-Zumino gauge conditions, however, are not preserved by the supersymmetry transformations (A.2). They must be supplemented by compensating superfield gauge transformations,

$`\delta _\xi V_{\mathrm{WZ}}=\xi ^A_AV_{\mathrm{WZ}}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\xi ,\delta _\xi \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{WZ}}=\xi ^A_A\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{WZ}}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\xi \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{WZ}},`$ (A.7)
where, in the chiral basis,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\xi =\theta \sigma ^m\overline{\xi }(2v_m+2_m\varphi )+\theta ^2\overline{\xi }\overline{\lambda }.`$ (A.8)
Here $`v_m`$ and $`\lambda `$ are the gauge boson and gaugino fields, respectively.

The transformations (A.7) are combinations of the original supersymmetry transformations (A.2) and the frame-restoring gauge transformations. They leave invariant the Wess-Zumino-gauge Lagrangian. Furthermore, if we expand the LHS of (A.7) in powers of $`\theta `$, we obtain the Wess-Zumino-gauge supersymmetry transformations given, for example, in . Note that in Wess-Zumino gauge, a theory with a gauge anomaly would also have a supersymmetry anomaly because the transformations (A.2) contain ordinary gauge transformations.

Finally, we comment on the difference between (A.8) and (3.10), that is, on the different way we treat the imaginary part of the lowest component of the compensating transformation parameters. In each case, the term is not determined by the Wess-Zumino gauge/Einstein frame conditions. In globally supersymmetric gauge theory, we choose not to fix $`\varphi _\xi `$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\xi |`$; it is the degree for freedom associated with an ordinary gauge transformation. By contrast, in supergravity, we completely fix it and demand that the imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}|`$ vanish. The first term in (3.10) ensures that the imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}|`$ does not reappear in the Lagrangian after a supersymmetry transformation.

## Appendix B Component Expression for the Jacobian

In this Appendix, we present the complete component expression for the Jacobian that arises from the super-Weyl transformation required to pass to the Einstein frame.

As we have seen in this paper, the bare Lagrangian in Einstein-frame supergravity is given by

$`\widehat{}_{\mathrm{bare}}=_\mathrm{E}+_\mathrm{J}`$ (B.1)
where $`_\mathrm{E}`$ is the classical supergravity Lagrangian whose component expression is given, for example, in . $`_\mathrm{J}`$ is the Jacobian. At one-loop level, $`_\mathrm{J}`$ is given by

$`_\mathrm{J}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}(3T_R3T_G){\displaystyle d^2\mathrm{\Theta }2\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}W^{(a)}W^{(a)}}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (B.2)
where the chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}`$ is given in Eqs. (3.4) and (3.5) with $`\varphi =0`$,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}=A_\mathrm{\Sigma }+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Theta }\chi _\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Theta }^2F_\mathrm{\Sigma },`$ (B.3)
with

$`A_\mathrm{\Sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}K,\chi _\mathrm{\Sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}K_i\chi ^i,F_\mathrm{\Sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}K_iF^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}K_{ij}\chi ^i\chi ^j.`$ (B.4)
Expanding Eq. (B.2), we obtain

$`e^1_\mathrm{J}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}(3T_R3T_G)[A_\mathrm{\Sigma }F_{mn}^{(a)}F_{}^{mn}{}_{}{}^{(a)}`$ (B.5)
$`2iA_\mathrm{\Sigma }\lambda ^{(a)}\sigma ^m\left(𝒟_m\overline{\lambda }^{(a)}f^{abc}v_m^{(b)}\overline{\lambda }^{(c)}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}b_m\overline{\lambda }^{(a)}\right)`$
$`2iA_\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\lambda }^{(a)}\overline{\sigma }^m\left(𝒟_m\lambda ^{(a)}f^{abc}v_m^{(b)}\lambda ^{(c)}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}b_m\lambda ^{(a)}\right)`$
$`+2A_\mathrm{\Sigma }D_{\mathrm{aux}}^{}{}_{}{}^{(a)}D_{\mathrm{aux}}^{}{}_{}{}^{(a)}`$
$`+iA_\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\psi _m\sigma ^{kl}\sigma ^m\overline{\lambda }^{(a)}+\overline{\psi }_m\overline{\sigma }^{kl}\overline{\sigma }^m\lambda ^{(a)}\right)\left(F_{kl}^{(a)}+\widehat{F}_{kl}^{}{}_{}{}^{(a)}\right)`$
$`\sqrt{2}\left(\chi _\mathrm{\Sigma }\sigma ^{mn}\lambda ^{(a)}+\overline{\chi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\sigma }^{mn}\overline{\lambda }^{(a)}\right)F_{mn}^{(a)}`$
$`+\sqrt{2}i\left(\chi _\mathrm{\Sigma }\sigma ^{mn}\lambda ^{(a)}\psi _m\sigma _n\overline{\lambda }^{(a)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{\psi }_m\overline{\sigma }^m\chi _\mathrm{\Sigma }\lambda ^{(a)}\lambda ^{(a)}\right)`$
$`+\sqrt{2}i\left(\overline{\chi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\sigma }^{mn}\overline{\lambda }^{(a)}\overline{\psi }_m\overline{\sigma }_n\lambda ^{(a)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\psi _m\sigma ^m\overline{\chi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\lambda }^{(a)}\overline{\lambda }^{(a)}\right)`$
$`+\sqrt{2}i\left(\chi _\mathrm{\Sigma }\lambda ^{(a)}\overline{\chi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\lambda }^{(a)}\right)D_{\mathrm{aux}}^{}{}_{}{}^{(a)}`$
$`F_\mathrm{\Sigma }\lambda ^{(a)}\lambda ^{(a)}F_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\overline{\lambda }^{(a)}\overline{\lambda }^{(a)}]`$
where $`\widehat{F}_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{(a)}`$ is the supercovariant field strength,

$`\widehat{F}_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{(a)}=F_{mn}^{(a)}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(\psi _m\sigma _n\overline{\lambda }^{(a)}+\overline{\psi }_m\overline{\sigma }_n\lambda ^{(a)}\psi _n\sigma _m\overline{\lambda }^{(a)}\overline{\psi }_n\overline{\sigma }_m\lambda ^{(a)}\right).`$ (B.6)
For a detailed explanation of the notation, see .

The full component expression is given by substituting the solutions to the Einstein-frame auxiliary field equations of motion,

$`F^i`$ $`=`$ $`(K^1)^{ij^{}}\left(e^{K/2}D_j^{}P^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_{j^{}kl}\chi ^k\chi ^l+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}_j^{}h_{(ab)}\overline{\lambda }^{(a)}\overline{\lambda }^{(b)}\right)`$
$`D_{\mathrm{aux}}^{}{}_{}{}^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`h_{}^{\mathrm{R}(ab)}{}_{}{}^{1}\left[D^{(b)}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\sqrt{2}}}\left(_ih_{(bc)}\chi ^i\lambda ^{(c)}_i^{}h_{(bc)}\overline{\chi }^i\overline{\lambda }^{(c)}\right)\right]`$
$`b_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(K_i\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_mA^iK_i^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_mA^i\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}K_{ij^{}}\chi ^i\sigma _m\overline{\chi }^j`$ (B.7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}h_{(ab)}^\mathrm{R}\lambda ^{(a)}\sigma _m\overline{\lambda }^{(b)}+i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(K_iX^{i(a)}K_i^{}X^{i(a)}\right)+iD^{(a)}\right]v_m^{(a)},`$
where $`D_iPP_i+K_iP`$, $`X^{(a)}`$ is the Killing vector, $`D^{(a)}`$ is the Killing potential associated with $`X^{(a)}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_mA^i𝒟_mA^iv_m^{(a)}X_{(a)}^i`$ .


format: text

text:
# Partial Teleportation of Entanglement in the Noisy Environment

## I introduction

Quantum teleportation of a single-particle state has been extensively studied both theoretically  and experimentally . Quantum teleportation reproduces an unknown quantum state at a remote place while the original state is destroyed . The key of the quantum teleportation is the quantum channel composed of the quantum entangled pair. If the quantum channel is maximally entangled, for example, by using the singlet state, the quantum state is perfectly reproduced at the remote place and the fidelity of the teleportation is unity. However, in the real world, the quantum channel lies in the noisy environment, which degrades the entanglement of the channel. The less is the quantum channel entangled, the smaller is the fidelity . It has also been found that the fidelity of the quantum teleportation is always larger than that of any classical communication protocol even in the noisy environment.

In this paper, we are interested in partial teleportation of an entangled state of a two spin-1/2 system. An entangled pair of particles are prepared by Alice who wants to teleport one of the entangled pair to Bob as shown in Fig. 1. If the quantum channel is maximally entangled, the partial teleportation is nothing more than entanglement swapping . Bennett et al.  argued that teleportation is a linear operation for the perfect quantum channel and could be extended to what is now called entanglement swapping , which has been experimentally realised . Entanglement swapping was considered for a more generalised multi-particle system  and for concentration of partially entangled states . In this paper, we analyse the environmental effects on the partial teleportation of the entangled state, considering the entanglement transfer and the fidelity. We define a measure of entanglement using the partial transposition. Although this measure does not completely agree with the entropy of entanglement for a pure state, it is useful and gives qualitative information. As it is easily calculated and satisfies important conditions of the measure of entanglement, we use it to analyse the partial teleportation in this paper. The concept of correlation information is also introduced. The correlation information we define is, in general, dependent on classical and quantum correlation but we show that it bears a simple and useful linear relation for the partial teleportation.

We assume that the initial entangled state is pure and the mixed quantum channel is represented by the Werner state. We show that the calculation is much simpler as we employ the Werner-state channel while we do not lose the generality of the treatment. Entanglement transfer was extensively studied by Schumacher  and teleportation through general channels was considered by Horodecki et al. .

## II measures of entanglement

For a pure state $`\widehat{\rho }`$ of a bipartite system, one can choose the entropy $`S`$ of entanglement as a measure of entanglement, where

$$S=\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\rho }_a\mathrm{log}_2\widehat{\rho }_a=\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\rho }_b\mathrm{log}_2\widehat{\rho }_b$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{\rho }_{a,b}=\mathrm{Tr}_{b,a}\widehat{\rho }`$ is the reduced density matrix for the subsystem $`a`$ or $`b`$. For a mixed state, there have been many definitions for the measure of entanglement such as entanglement of formation , quantum relative entropy, and Bures metric . Every measure $`E(\widehat{\rho })`$ should satisfy the following necessary conditions for a given density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }`$ ,

* $`E(\widehat{\rho })=0`$ if and only if $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is separable.
* A local unitary transformation leaves $`E(\widehat{\rho })`$ invariant;

$$E(\widehat{U}_1\widehat{U}_2\widehat{\rho }\widehat{U}_1^{}\widehat{U}_2^{})=E(\widehat{\rho })$$
(2)
for all unitary operators $`\widehat{U}_1`$ and $`\widehat{U}_2`$.
* $`E(\widehat{\rho })`$ cannot increase under local general measurements (LGM), classical communications (CC), and post selection of subensemble (PSS),

$$p_iE(\widehat{\rho }_i)E(\widehat{\rho }),$$
(3)
where $`p_i\widehat{\rho }_i=\widehat{A}_i\widehat{B}_i\widehat{\rho }\widehat{A}_i^{}\widehat{B}_i^{}`$ with $`p_i=\text{Tr}\widehat{A}_i\widehat{B}_i\widehat{\rho }\widehat{A}_i^{}\widehat{B}_i^{}`$; two set of LGM operators $`\{\widehat{A}_i\}`$ and $`\{\widehat{B}_i\}`$ are classically correlated by CC.

The requirement of the condition (C.1) is clear since a separable state is just classically correlated and should be independent of the entanglement. Since a local unitary operation is performed only locally, it cannot affect any entanglement, required by the condition (C.2). The condition (C.3) is related with the purification procedure which selects a subensemble of maximally-quantum-correlated pairs among an impure ensemble . The purification procedure can distill maximally entangled states such that $`E(\widehat{\rho }_i)E(\widehat{\rho })`$ for a certain route $`i`$, but the average entanglement cannot increase over the whole ensemble since quantum nonlocal operations are not introduced, represented in the condition (C.3).

For a two spin-1/2 system, we define the measure of entanglement in terms of the negative eigenvalues of the partial transposition of the state. Consider a density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }`$ for a two spin-1/2 system and its partial transposition $`\widehat{\sigma }=\widehat{\rho }^{T_2}`$. The density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is inseparable if and only if $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ has any negative eigenvalues. The measure of entanglement $`E(\widehat{\rho })`$ is then defined as

$$E(\widehat{\rho })=2\underset{i}{}\lambda _i^{}$$
(4)
where $`\lambda _i^{}`$ are the negative eigenvalues of $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ and the factor 2 is introduced to have $`0E(\widehat{\rho })1`$. In Appendix, we prove that the entanglement measure (4) satisfies the above necessary conditions.

In fact, there is the fourth condition which a measure of entanglement has to satisfy:

* For pure states, the measure of entanglement reduces to the entropy of entanglement.

We note that for a pure entangled state the entanglement measure (4) is not reduced to the entropy of entanglement $`S`$ but is a monotonously increasing function of $`S`$ as shown in Fig. 2. Vedral and Plenio  showed that the Bures metric satisfies the condition (C.1)-(C.3) but is smaller than the entropy of entanglement for pure states. They then wrote that measures which do not satisfy condition (C.4) can nevertheless contain useful information on entanglement. The Schmidt norm is another example of the measure of entanglement which does not satisfy condition (C.4) . The entanglement measure (4) can qualitatively give information on the entanglement of a given state as it satisfies conditions (C.1)-(C.3). Because of convenience in calculation, we use $`E(\widehat{\rho })`$ in Eq. (4) as the measure of entanglement in this paper.

## III partial teleportation of entanglement

We consider the partial teleportation of entanglement as shown in Fig. 1, where Alice teleports one particle of her entangled pair to Bob. Alice and Bob share an ancillary pair of an entangled state. Alice performs the Bell-state measurement on one of her original entangled pair and her part of the ancillary pair. Upon receiving Alice’s measurement result through a classical channel, Bob unitary rotates his part of the ancillary pair based on it. If the ancillary pair is perfectly entangled, Bob’s particle and Alice’s unmeasured particle become entangled as the Alice’s original entangled pair. The basic idea of the partial teleportation is similar to the single-particle teleportation or entanglement swapping but our interest here does not stop at a simple result of the teleportation of a particle. In this paper, the quantum channel is represented by a mixed entangled state due to the influence from the environment. We are interested in how the entanglement of the teleported state is affected by such the imperfect quantum channel by studying the channel-dependent fidelity, information transfer and entanglement transfer. We assume for the simplicity that Alice’s initial state is pure and the quantum channel is represented by a Werner state .

An initial pure state for entangled two particles 1 and 2 is given in the Hilbert-Schmidt space by

$$\widehat{\rho }^{12}=\frac{1}{4}\left(\widehat{1}\widehat{1}+\stackrel{}{a}_0\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{1}+\widehat{1}\stackrel{}{b}_0\stackrel{}{\sigma }+\underset{nm}{}c_0^{nm}\widehat{\sigma }_n\widehat{\sigma }_m\right)$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{}{a}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}_0`$ are real vectors and $`c_0^{nm}`$ is an element of the real matrix $`C_0`$. The initial pure state $`\widehat{\rho }_0`$ in Eq. (5) satisfies the pure state condition $`\widehat{\rho }^2=\widehat{\rho }`$. We can also consider a general representation of the initial pure state (5), with help of the seed state $`\widehat{\rho }_s^{12}`$ defined as follows

$$\widehat{\rho }^{12}=(\widehat{U}^1\widehat{U}^2)\widehat{\rho }_s^{12}(\widehat{U}^1\widehat{U}^2)^{}$$
(6)
where $`\widehat{U}^1`$ and $`\widehat{U}^2`$ are local unitary operators acting respectively on the particles 1 and 2. The density operator for the seed state is

$$\widehat{\rho }_s^{12}=\frac{1}{4}\left(\widehat{1}\widehat{1}+a_0\widehat{\sigma }_z\widehat{1}+\widehat{1}a_0\widehat{\sigma }_z+\underset{n}{}c_n\widehat{\sigma }_n\widehat{\sigma }_n\right)$$
(7)
where $`a_0`$ is a positive real number and $`\stackrel{}{c}=(c_0,c_0,1)`$ a real vector, constrained by $`a_0^2+c_0^2=1`$. The vector $`\stackrel{}{c}`$ describes the quantum correlation of the pure state $`\widehat{\rho }_s^{12}`$, yielding the relation $`E_0=|c_0|`$, where $`E_0`$ is the measure of entanglement for $`\widehat{\rho }_s^{12}`$. The state has no entanglement, i.e., $`E_0=0`$, if and only if $`c_0=0`$. Now, the state $`\widehat{\rho }_s^{12}`$ is characterised by one parameter $`c_0`$ or equivalently by its entanglement $`E_0`$. By the definition of the measure of entanglement, the initial state of the density operator $`\widehat{\rho }^{12}`$ and the state of the seed density operator $`\widehat{\rho }_s^{12}`$ have the same measure of entanglement, $`E_0`$. It is thus clear that the initial state $`\widehat{\rho }^{12}`$ is fully determined by its measure of entanglement $`E_0`$ and the local unitary operations $`\widehat{U}^1`$ and $`\widehat{U}^2`$.

We take the Werner state for the quantum channel. In fact, any mixed state can be made a Werner state by random local $`SU(2)SU(2)`$ operations  so that we do not lose the generality by taking the Werner state in describing the mixed channel. The Werner state $`\widehat{w}^{34}`$ of the ancillary particles 3 and 4 is

$$\widehat{w}^{34}=\frac{1}{4}\left(\widehat{1}\widehat{1}+\underset{nm}{}c_w^{nm}\widehat{\sigma }_n\widehat{\sigma }_n\right).$$
(8)
where $`c_w^{nm}`$ is an element of the real matrix $`C_w=(2\mathrm{\Phi }+1)/3\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)`$. The Werner state becomes the singlet state when $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is related to the entanglement $`E_w`$ of the Werner state $`\widehat{w}^{34}`$. It is straightforward to show that $`E_w=\text{max}(0,\mathrm{\Phi })`$.

The Bell-state measurement by Alice is represented by a family of projectors

$$\widehat{P}_\alpha ^{23}=|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{23}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{23}|=\frac{1}{4}\left(II+\underset{nm}{}p_\alpha ^{nm}\sigma _n\sigma _m\right)$$
(9)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{23}`$ are the four possible Bell states and $`p_\alpha ^{nm}`$ is an element of the real matrix $`P_\alpha `$; $`P_0=\text{diag}(1,1,1)`$, $`P_1=\text{diag}(1,1,1)`$, $`P_2=\text{diag}(1,1,1)`$, $`P_3=\text{diag}(1,1,1)`$. The Bell measurement is performed on the particle 2 of the initial entangled pair and the particle 3 of the Werner state (see Fig. 1).

The quantum teleportation utilises both the classical and quantum channels. Upon receiving the two-bit classical message on the Bell-state measurement through the classical channel, Bob performs the unitary transformation on the particle 4 accordingly. If the quantum channel is in the spin singlet state, the teleportation can be perfectly completed by one of the following four possible unitary operators: $`\widehat{1}`$, $`\widehat{\sigma }_x`$, $`\widehat{\sigma }_y`$, and $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$. However, for the mixed channel, it is difficult for Bob to decide which unitary transformation to get the final state $`\widehat{\rho }^{14}`$ maximally close to the initial state $`\widehat{\rho }^{12}`$. Let us consider how to determine the right unitary transformation when the channel is in the Werner state.

Suppose Bob receives a two-bit message through the classical channel saying that Alice’s measurement was $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{23}`$. Bob then applies the unitary transformation $`\widehat{U}_\alpha ^4`$ on the particle 4, then the state $`\widehat{\rho }_\alpha ^{14}`$ of the two particles 1 and 4 becomes

$$\widehat{\rho }_\alpha ^{14}=\frac{1}{p_\alpha }\mathrm{Tr}_{2,3}\left[\widehat{P}_\alpha ^{23}\widehat{U}_\alpha ^4\left(\widehat{\rho }_0^{12}\widehat{w}^{34}\right)\widehat{P}_\alpha ^{23}\widehat{U}_{\alpha }^{4}{}_{}{}^{}\right]$$
(10)
where $`p_\alpha `$ is the probability of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{23}`$ to be the result of Alice’s measurement. Eq. (10) can be written in the Hilbert-Schmidt space as

$$\widehat{\rho }_\alpha ^{14}=\frac{1}{4}\left(\widehat{1}\widehat{1}+\stackrel{}{a}_\alpha \stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{1}+\widehat{1}\stackrel{}{b}_\alpha \stackrel{}{\sigma }+\underset{nm}{}\stackrel{~}{c}_\alpha ^{nm}\widehat{\sigma }_n\widehat{\sigma }_m\right).$$
(11)
with the parameters

$`\stackrel{}{a}_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{a}_0,`$ (12)
$`\stackrel{}{b}_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Phi }+1}{3}}O_\alpha ^TP_\alpha \stackrel{}{b}_0,`$ (13)
$`C_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Phi }+1}{3}}O_\alpha ^TP_\alpha C_0.`$ (14)
Here we have the rotation matrix $`O_\alpha `$ in the Bloch space for a single particle state, obtained from the unitary operator $`\widehat{U}_\alpha `$ :

$$\widehat{U}_\alpha \stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{U}_\alpha ^{}=\left(O_\alpha ^T\stackrel{}{a}\right)\stackrel{}{\sigma }.$$
(15)
The fidelity $`F`$ measures how close the final state $`\widehat{\rho }^{14}`$ is to the initial state $`\widehat{\rho }^{12}`$; $`F=_\alpha p_\alpha \mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\rho }^{12}\widehat{\rho }_\alpha ^{14}`$. If the teleportation is perfect, the final state is the same as the initial state so that the fidelity is 1. By substituting $`\widehat{\rho }^{12}`$ in (5) and $`\widehat{\rho }_\alpha ^{14}`$ in (12) into the definition of the fidelity, we find the fidelity for the Werner-state channel

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[1+|\stackrel{}{a}_0|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Phi }+1}{3}}\stackrel{}{b}_0({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}O_\alpha ^TP_\alpha \stackrel{}{b}_0)`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Phi }+1}{3}}\text{Tr}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}O_\alpha ^TP_\alpha C_0^TC_0)].`$
The task is now to find Bob’s unitary operations $`\widehat{U}_\alpha `$ to maximise fidelity (17). For a general mixed channel, the fidelity is a function of the initial and channel states as well as Bob’s unitary operation. However, the basic assumption of the quantum teleportation is that the initial state is unknown. In order to examine the faithfulness of quantum teleportation, we need to average the fidelity over the Hilbert space where the initial state lies in. The unitary operations should be determined to maximise the average fidelity .

For the Werner-state channel the fidelity has been calculated as in Eq. (17), where the measurement dependence is found in the terms including $`_\alpha O_\alpha ^TP_\alpha `$. It is clear that $`P_\alpha `$ in Eq. (9) is a rotation matrix thus $`|O_\alpha ^TP_\alpha |1`$. Choosing $`O_\alpha =P_\alpha `$ to maximise the fidelity (17), we find that the corresponding unitary operators are the same as in the singlet-state channel discussed above. This choice enables Bob to produce the measurement-independent final state $`\widehat{\rho }_\alpha ^{14}=\widehat{\rho }^{14}`$.

The fidelity for the Werner-state channel is then given by

$$F=\frac{1}{4}\left(1+|\stackrel{}{a}_0|^2+\frac{2\mathrm{\Phi }+1}{3}|\stackrel{}{b}_0|^2+\frac{2\mathrm{\Phi }+1}{3}\text{Tr}C_0^TC_0\right).$$
(18)
It is seen that the fidelity is invariant for the local unitary transformations on the initial pure state. Noting $`|\stackrel{}{a}_0|`$, $`|\stackrel{}{b}_0|`$ and $`\text{Tr}C_0^TC_0`$ are uniquely determined by the entanglement $`E_0`$ for the initial state, the fidelity can be finally written as

$$F=\frac{E_w+2}{3}+\frac{E_w1}{6}E_0^2.$$
(19)
It is clear that the fidelity (19) depends on the initial-state entanglement $`E_0`$ and channel entanglement $`E_w`$.

The large entanglement in the channel enhances the fidelity and the maximally entangled channel gives the unit fidelity independent from the initial-state entanglement $`E_0`$. When Alice’s initial state is disentangled, i.e. $`E_0=0`$, it can be written as a direct product of two individual states and the partial entanglement teleportation becomes equivalent to a single-particle case. In this case, the fidelity is $`F=(E_w+2)/3`$, equal to that for the single-particle teleportation . It has an upper bound of $`2/3`$ producible by classical communication of $`E_w=0`$ . For the entangled initial state with $`E_00`$, the large initial-state entanglement $`E_0`$ reduces monotonously the fidelity (19) for a given channel entanglement $`E_w<1`$ because the sign of the second term is negative in Eq. (19). This implies that the initial entanglement has fragile nature to teleport. In other words, the entanglement is destroyed easily by the environment.

To examine the loss of the initial entanglement, we consider the entanglement transfer by teleportation. We are interested in how much the initial-state entanglement is transferred to the final state. The measure of entanglement for the final state is calculated as

$$E(\widehat{\rho }^{14})=\frac{1}{3}\left[\sqrt{(1E_w)^2+3E_w(2+E_w)E_0^2}(1E_w)\right].$$
(20)
As $`E/E_w0`$, large entanglement of the channel enhances the entanglement transfer to the final state from the initial one. For a given entanglement of the channel, the entanglement of the final state increases as the initial-state entanglement gets larger. The entanglement of the final state is nonzero as far as $`E_w0`$ and $`E_00`$, which shows that the entangled channel transfers at least some of the initial entanglement to the final state.

## IV correlation information

Brukner and Zeilinger have recently derived a measure of information for a quantum state . The information measure is invariant for a choice of a complete set $`\{\widehat{A}_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{A}_m\}`$ of complementary observations and is conserved as far as there is no information exchange between the system and the environment . We employ the measure of information to study the quantum information transfer in the partial teleportation of entanglement.

Suppose an experimental arrangement for a measurement by observable $`\widehat{A}_j`$ which has $`n`$ possible outcomes with $`n`$ dimensional probability vector $`\stackrel{}{p}=(p_1,\mathrm{},p_i,\mathrm{},p_n)`$ for a given system. The system is supposed to have maximum $`k`$-bits of information such that $`n=2^k`$. The measure of information $`I_j`$ for the observable $`\widehat{A}_j`$ is defined as

$$I_j=𝒩\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(p_i\frac{1}{n}\right)^2.$$
(21)
where the normalisation constant $`𝒩=2^kk/(2^k1)`$. $`I_j`$ results in $`k`$ bits of information if one $`p_i=1`$ and 0 bits of information if all $`p_i`$ are equal. For a complete set of $`m`$ mutually complementary observables the measure of information is defined as the sum of the measures of information over the complete set

$$I(\widehat{\rho })=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}I_j.$$
(22)
for the quantum state $`\widehat{\rho }`$. A single spin-1/2 system, for example, is represented by the measure of information $`I(\widehat{\rho })=2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\widehat{\rho }^21`$.

In the following, we define the measure of correlation information based on the measure of information introduced by Brukner and Zeilinger. Let us consider the measure of information for a composite system of two particles which can be decomposed into three parts. Each particle has its own information corresponding to its reduced density matrix, which we call the individual information. The two particles can also have the correlation information which depends on how much they are correlated.

The measure of total information for a density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }`$ of the two spin-1/2 particles is

$$I(\widehat{\rho })=\frac{2}{3}\left(4\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\widehat{\rho }^21\right).$$
(23)
The measures of individual information $`I_a(\widehat{\rho })`$ and $`I_b(\widehat{\rho })`$ for the particles $`a`$ and $`b`$ are

$`I_a(\widehat{\rho })`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}_a\left(\widehat{\rho }_a\right)^21`$ (24)
$`I_b(\widehat{\rho })`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}_b\left(\widehat{\rho }_b\right)^21`$ (25)
where $`\widehat{\rho }_{a,b}=\mathrm{Tr}_{b,a}\widehat{\rho }`$ are reduced density matrices for the particles $`a`$ and $`b`$. If the total density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is represented by $`\widehat{\rho }=\widehat{\rho }_a\widehat{\rho }_b`$, the total system is completely separable and we know that there is no correlation information. We thus define the measure of correlation information as

$`I_c(\widehat{\rho })=I(\widehat{\rho })I(\widehat{\rho }_a\widehat{\rho }_b)=I(\widehat{\rho }){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}[I_a(\widehat{\rho })+I_b(\widehat{\rho })`$ (26)
$`+I_a(\widehat{\rho })I_b(\widehat{\rho })].`$ (27)
The measures of individual and correlation information are invariant for any particular choice of the complete set of complementary observables.

If there is no correlation between the two particles, the measure of total information is a mere sum of the measures of individual information. On the other hand, the total information is imposed only on the correlation information, $`I=I_c`$, if there is no individual information, $`I_a=I_b=0`$. For a two spin-1/2 system, the maximally entangled states have only the correlation information.

Note that the correlation information is not the same as the measure of entanglement. Only when a pure state is considered the measure of the correlation is directly related to the measure of entanglement. For a mixed state, the correlation information also includes the information due to classical correlation. For example, the state of the density operator $`\widehat{\rho }_{cc}=1/4(\widehat{1}\widehat{1}\sigma _z\sigma _z)`$ is not quantum-mechanically entangled but classically correlated with the correlated information $`I_c0`$ .

The total information $`I(\widehat{\rho }^{14})`$ in the final state (11) is obtained using its definition (23):

$$I(\widehat{\rho }^{14})=\frac{2}{3}\left[1+2\left(\frac{2E_w+1}{3}\right)^2+\left\{\left(\frac{2E_w+1}{3}\right)^21\right\}E_0^2\right]$$
(28)
which depends on the initial-state and the channel entanglement. We can easily find that $`0I(\widehat{\rho }^{14})2`$ from the range of the entanglement measure $`0E_w,E_01`$. The measure of information for the initial state is 2 as it is a pure two spin-1/2 system. The final state can have at best the same amount of information as the initial state because the noisy environment acts only to dissipate the information. The total information is better preserved for the larger channel entanglement $`E_w`$. The total information is lost more easily for the larger initial entanglement as the sign of the coefficient for $`E_0^2`$ is negative. This is consistent with the discussions for the fidelity.

We evaluate the measures of individual $`I_1`$, $`I_4`$ and correlation $`I_c`$ information for the final state given by

$`I_1(\widehat{\rho }^{14})`$ $`=`$ $`I_1^0`$ (29)
$`I_4(\widehat{\rho }^{14})`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2E_w+1}{3}}\right)^2I_2^0`$ (30)
$`I_c(\widehat{\rho }^{14})`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2E_w+1}{3}}\right)^2I_c^0`$ (31)
where $`I_1^0=1E_0^2`$, $`I_2^0=1E_0^2`$, and $`I_c^0=2(4E_0^2)E_0^2/3`$ are the measures of individual and correlation information for the initial state $`\widehat{\rho }^{12}`$. Because there has been no action on Alice’s particle 1, its individual information remains unchanged with $`I_1=I_1^0`$. On the other hand, the individual information for the particle 2 is not fully transferred to the particle 4 and the correlation information is decreased. The coefficient for the decrease of the information is the same for $`I_4`$ and $`I_c`$ but we must remember that the maximum measure of correlation information is 2 while that of individual information is 1, which shows that the correlation information can be lost more easily.

Because the final state is a mixed state, its correlation information $`I_c`$ describes in general both the quantum and classical correlations. For an entangled initial state of $`E_00`$ we consider two cases: $`E_w=0`$ and $`E_w0`$. If $`E_w=0`$, the final state is classically correlated because $`I_c0`$ in Eq. (31) whereas $`E=E(\widehat{\rho }^{14})=0`$ in Eq. (20). On the other hand, if $`E_w0`$, the correlation information $`I_c`$ can be written in terms of the final entanglement $`E`$:

$`I_c=2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2E_w+1}{3}}\right)^2\left(43{\displaystyle \frac{E+(1E_w)}{E_w(2+E_w)}}E\right)`$ (32)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{E+(1E_w)}{E_w(2+E_w)}}E.`$ (33)
The correlation information $`I_c=0`$ if and only if $`E=0`$ for partial teleportation via the Werner channel. This shows that for $`E_w0`$ the correlation information of the final state is only due to the quantum correlation.

## V Remarks

The partial teleportation of entanglement has been considered in the noisy environment. The measures of individual and correlation information have been extensively studied for the two spin-1/2 system. As the Werner-state is employed for the quantum channel, the calculation of the fidelity, the information transfer and the entanglement transfer became extremely simple while we do not lose the generality to consider the noisy environment. The larger the initial-state entanglement is, the worse the fidelity becomes for any imperfect quantum channel. We, however, find more entanglement in the final state with the larger initial-state entanglement. The entangled channel transfers at least some of the entanglement to the final state.

###### Acknowledgements.

JL thanks Mr.Č. Bruckner for discussions at the Entanglement and Decoherence Workshop in Garda. This work was supported by the Brain Korea 21 grant (D-0055) of the Korean Ministry of Education.

## proof of the measure of entanglement Eq. (4)

Consider a density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }`$ for a two spin-1/2 system and the partial transposition $`\widehat{\sigma }=\widehat{\rho }^{T_2}`$ . The density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is inseparable if and only if $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ has any negative eigenvalues . The measure of entanglement $`(\widehat{\rho })`$ is defined as $`2_i(\lambda _i^{})`$ with the negative eigenvalues $`\lambda _i^{}`$ of $`\widehat{\sigma }`$. We will show that $`(\widehat{\rho })`$ satisfies the three conditions (C.1)-(C.3).

Let $`\widehat{d}(\widehat{\rho })`$ be a diagonal matrix of the partial transposition $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ such that, for some unitary operator $`U`$,

$`\widehat{d}(\widehat{\rho })`$ $`=`$ $`\left(U\widehat{\sigma }U^{}\right)`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`\text{diag}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3,\lambda _4)`$ (35)
where $`\text{diag}(\{\lambda _i\})`$ represents a diagonal matrix with its diagonal elements $`\lambda _i`$ and thus $`\lambda _i`$ are eigenvalues of $`\widehat{\sigma }`$. For the given $`\widehat{d}(\widehat{\rho })`$, the density matrix space is decomposed into two subspaces; one is expanded by eigenvectors of the semi-positive (positive or zero) eigenvalues and the other of the negative eigenvalues of $`\widehat{d}`$. The identity operator $`\widehat{1}`$ is then the sum of two projectors $`\widehat{P}_+`$ and $`\widehat{P}_{}`$ such that

$$\widehat{1}=\widehat{P}_++\widehat{P}_{}$$
(36)
where $`\widehat{P}_+`$ ($`\widehat{P}_{}`$) projects the density matrix space onto the semi-positive (negative) eigenvalue subspace. Any hermitian matrix $`\widehat{H}`$ is decomposed into

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{P}_+\widehat{H}\widehat{P}_++\widehat{P}_+\widehat{H}\widehat{P}_{}+\widehat{P}_{}\widehat{H}\widehat{P}_++\widehat{P}_{}\widehat{H}\widehat{P}_{}$$
(37)
and thus

$$\widehat{d}(\widehat{\rho })=\widehat{d}_+(\widehat{\rho })+\widehat{d}_{}(\widehat{\rho })$$
(38)
where $`\widehat{d}_+\widehat{P}_+\widehat{d}\widehat{P}_+`$ and $`\widehat{d}_{}\widehat{P}_{}\widehat{d}\widehat{P}_{}`$. Note that $`\widehat{P}_+\widehat{d}\widehat{P}_{}=\widehat{P}_{}\widehat{d}\widehat{P}_+=0`$ since $`\widehat{d}`$ is a diagonal matrix. Now, the measure of entanglement $`(\widehat{\rho })`$ is defined as twice the absolute value of the trace on the negative diagonal matrix $`\widehat{d}_{}(\widehat{\rho })`$, given by

$$(\widehat{\rho })2\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{d}_{}(\widehat{\rho })\right]=2\underset{\beta }{}(\lambda _\beta ^{})$$
(39)
where $`\lambda _\beta ^{}`$ is negative eigenvalue of $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ and the factor 2 is introduced to be $`0(\widehat{\rho })1`$.

Now we consider that $`E(\widehat{\rho })`$ in Eq. (4) satisfies the necessary conditions (C.1)-(C.3). If $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is separable, $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ has no negative eigenvalues and the converse statement also holds, satisfying the condition (C.1). A local unitary transformation leads to new density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }^{}=\widehat{U}_1\widehat{U}_2\widehat{\rho }\widehat{U}_1^{}\widehat{U}_2^{}`$ and its partial transposition $`\widehat{\sigma }^{}=\widehat{U}_1\widehat{U}_2^{}\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{U}_1^{}(\widehat{U}_2^{})^{}`$. Note that $`\widehat{U}_1\widehat{U}_2^{}`$ is a unitary operator such that $`\widehat{U}_1\widehat{U}_2^{}\widehat{U}_1^{}(\widehat{U}_2^{})^{}=\widehat{1}`$. Since the eigenvalues are independent of the unitary transformation, the condition (C.2) is satisfied with $`E(\widehat{\rho }^{})=E(\widehat{\rho })`$.

To consider the final condition (C.3), we introduce the LGM+CC(+PSS) which maps the density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }`$ into $`\widehat{\rho }^{}`$, defined by

$$\widehat{\rho }^{}=\underset{i}{}\widehat{V}_i\widehat{\rho }\widehat{V}_i^{}$$
(40)
where the classically correlated operator $`\widehat{V}_i=\widehat{A}_i\widehat{B}_i`$ satisfies the complete relation as $`_i(\widehat{V}_i)^{}\widehat{V}_i=\widehat{1}`$. Let $`p_i\widehat{\rho }_i=\widehat{V}_i\widehat{\rho }\widehat{V}_i^{}`$ with $`p_i=\text{Tr}\widehat{V}_i\widehat{\rho }\widehat{V}_i^{}`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }_i=\widehat{\rho }_i^{T_2}`$. Since $`\widehat{V}_i`$ is a local operator, $`\widehat{\sigma }_i`$ is represented in terms of $`\widehat{\sigma }`$, namely,

$$p_i\widehat{\sigma }_i=\widehat{V}_i^{}\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{V}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}$$
(41)
where $`\widehat{V}_i^{}=\widehat{A}_i\widehat{B}_i^{}`$ is an LGM+CC operator with a completeness relation $`_i\widehat{V}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{V}_i^{}=\widehat{1}`$.

Suppose $`\widehat{d}^i`$ are diagonal matrices of $`\widehat{\sigma }_i`$ with some unitary operator $`\widehat{U}_i`$ and $`\widehat{d}`$ of $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ with $`\widehat{U}`$. The diagonal matrix $`\widehat{d}^i`$ can be written as

$`p_i\widehat{d}^i`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\widehat{U}_i\widehat{V}_i^{}\widehat{U}^{}\right)\left(\widehat{U}\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{U}^{}\right)\left(\widehat{U}\widehat{V}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{U}_i^{}\right)`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`\widehat{W}_i\widehat{d}\widehat{W}_i^{}`$ (43)
where $`\widehat{W}_i=\widehat{U}_i\widehat{V}_i^{}\widehat{U}_0^{}`$ is also a LGM+CC operator. For the given $`\widehat{d}^i`$, two projectors $`\widehat{P}_{}^i`$ and $`\widehat{P}_+^i`$ are defined to project the density matrix space onto semi-positive and negative eigenvalue subspaces of $`\widehat{d}^i`$. The measure of entanglement $`E(\widehat{\rho }_i)`$ on the subensemble $`\widehat{\rho }_i`$ is given by

$`p_iE(\widehat{\rho }_i)`$ $`=`$ $`2p_i\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{d}_{}^i(\widehat{\rho }_i)\right]`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`2\text{Tr}\left(\widehat{P}_{}^i\widehat{W}_i\widehat{d}\widehat{W}_i^{}\widehat{P}_{}^i\right).`$ (45)
We represent $`\widehat{d}=_j\lambda _j|\psi _j\psi _j|=_\alpha \lambda _\alpha ^+|\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha |+_\beta \lambda _\beta ^{}|\psi _\beta \psi _\beta |`$ where the sum is decomposed into two sums of semi-positive and negative eigenvalues. The whole-ensemble average of the measures of entanglement is given by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_iE(\widehat{\rho }_i)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(\lambda _j)\psi _j|\widehat{W}_i^{}\widehat{P}_{}^i\widehat{P}_{}^i\widehat{W}_i|\psi _j`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{i\alpha }{}}(\lambda _\alpha ^+)\psi _\alpha |\widehat{W}_i^{}\widehat{P}_{}^i\widehat{P}_{}^i\widehat{W}_i|\psi _\alpha `$ (48)
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{i\beta }{}}(\lambda _\beta ^{})\psi _\beta |\widehat{W}_i^{}\widehat{P}_{}^i\widehat{P}_{}^i\widehat{W}_i|\psi _\beta `$
where we separate the sum into the sums of semi-positive eigenvalues $`\lambda _\alpha ^+`$ and negative eigenvalues $`\lambda _\beta ^{}`$ of $`\widehat{d}`$. The inequality, $`\psi _j|\widehat{W}_i^{}\widehat{P}_{}^i\widehat{P}_{}^i\widehat{W}_i|\psi _j0`$, and the sign of eigenvalues make the first term negative and the second term positive in Eq. (46). Eq. (46) results in the following inequality

$$\underset{i}{}p_iE(\widehat{\rho }_i)2\underset{i\beta }{}(\lambda _\beta ^{})\psi _\beta |\widehat{W}_i^{}\widehat{P}_{}^i\widehat{P}_{}^i\widehat{W}_i|\psi _\beta .$$
(50)
Since $`0_i\psi |\widehat{W}_i^{}\widehat{P}_{}^i\widehat{P}_{}^i\widehat{W}_i|\psi 1`$ for arbitrary wave function $`|\psi `$ , we finally arrive at the inequality

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_iE(\widehat{\rho }_i)`$ $``$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}(\lambda _\beta ^{}){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\psi _\beta |\widehat{W}_i^{}\widehat{P}_{}^i\widehat{P}_{}^i\widehat{W}_i|\psi _\beta `$ (51)
$``$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}(\lambda _\beta ^{})=E(\widehat{\rho }),`$ (52)
which satisfies the condition (C.3) for an arbitrary set of LGM+CC operators.

As an example how to calculate the measure of entanglement, consider the Werner state $`\widehat{w}`$ in Eq. (8). When we select the following representations,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{1}\widehat{1}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),\hfill & \widehat{\sigma }_x\widehat{\sigma }_x=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ \widehat{\sigma }_y\widehat{\sigma }_y=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\hfill & \widehat{\sigma }_z\widehat{\sigma }_z=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(53)
the Werner state is written as

$$\widehat{w}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{1f}{4}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1+f}{4}& \frac{f}{2}& 0\\ 0& \frac{f}{2}& \frac{1+f}{4}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \frac{1f}{4}\end{array}\right)$$
(54)
where $`f=(2\mathrm{\Phi }+1)/3`$, and the set of eigenvalues is $`\{(1f)/4,(1f)/4,(1f)/4,(1+3f)/4\}`$. The positivity of density matrix requires that $`1/3f1`$ and thus $`1\mathrm{\Phi }1`$. The partial transposition is now given by

$$\widehat{\sigma }=\widehat{w}^{T_2}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{1f}{4}& 0& 0& \frac{f}{2}\\ 0& \frac{1+f}{4}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1+f}{4}& 0\\ \frac{f}{2}& 0& 0& \frac{1f}{4}\end{array}\right)$$
(55)
which has its eigenvalues $`\{(1+f)/4,(1+f)/4,(1+f)/4,(13f)/4\}`$. It is clear that three eigenvalues are positive since $`(1+f)/40`$ under the constraint of $`1/3f1`$. The other eigenvalue can be negative only if $`3f>1`$ or equivalently $`\mathrm{\Phi }>0`$. For $`3f>1`$, $`E(\widehat{\rho })2_\beta (\lambda _\beta ^{})=(3f1)/2`$ while $`E(\widehat{\rho })=0`$ for $`3f1`$. The Werner state with $`f=1`$ becomes a maximally entangled singlet state and then $`E(\widehat{w})=1`$.