format: text

text:
# Probing flavor changing interactions in hadron collisions 11footnote 1This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Abstract

The subprocess $`ggt\overline{c}+\overline{t}c`$ in the two-Higgs-doublet model with flavor-changing scalar couplings is examined at the one loop level. With perturbative QCD factorization theorem, the corresponding cross sections for hadron-hadron collisions are computed numerically. The results are applicable to the whole mass range of the weakly coupled Higgs bosons. In case we could efficiently exclude the severe backgrounds of the $`t\overline{c}\left(\overline{t}c\right)`$ production signal, probing the flavor-changing top-charm-scalar vertex at hadron colliders would be very promising and accessible experimentally.

PACS number(s):13.85.Ni, 11.30.Hv, 12.60.Fr, 14.65.Ha

I. Introduction

There are stringent experimental constraints against the existence of tree level neutral flavor changing interactions, especially for light quarks. This leads to the naturalness to suppress the flavor changing neutral current interactions (FCNCs) for all kinds of model building studies, that is realized in terms of the Glashow-Iliopoulos-Maiani (GIM) mechanism in the standard model(SM).

The two-Higgs-doublet models(THDMs) are extensions of the SM in which one more scalar doublet is added. In order to forbid possible tree level FCNCs to appear in the models, Glashow and Weinberg proposed a neutral flavor conservation (NFC) condition by imposing discrete symmetries on the models. The common THDMs with the NFC condition can be divided into two categories, i.e., Model I and Model II. In Model I, both the up- and down-type quarks couple to the same one of the Higgs doublets, but in the Model II the up- and down-type quarks couple to the two Higgs doublets respectively. In fact, the suppression facts of the FCNC processes in the cases involving the light down-type quark sector have been observed experimentally, whereas those relevant to the up-type quark sector have not been established so well. Therefore the so-called Model-III of the THDM is proposed and it allows the FCNC Yukawa couplings which has the character that the couplings are related to the masses of the coupled flavors even at tree level.

As pointed out by Cheng, Sher and other authors , the Yukawa couplings are typically proportional to the masses of the coupled fermions at the vertices, it is rather natural to imagine having such Yukawa couplings for the FCNC interactions instead of placing the constraints on the theory. In this case, low energy limits on the FCNCs may be evaded, because the flavor changing couplings to the light quarks are small, and the suppression of the FCNC processes involving light quarks can be automatically satisfied. Then the imposition of discrete symmetries to obtain the NFC condition, therefore, is unnecessary, which is normally invoked in common THDMs to prevent the FCNC interactions at tree level. In the literature such the THDM without the NFC condition is called as the ‘third’ THDM (i.e., THDM III) , where the up-type and down-type quarks are allowed simultaneously to couple to more than one scalar doublet. In the framework of the model the effects of the FCNC interactions involving the heavy quark will be enhanced.

Now the top quark has been observed and a unexpected very large mass $`m_t=173.8\pm 5.2GeV`$ (world average value) has been recognized. This ‘extraordinary’ mass scale of the top quark may have many important implications pertaining to many outstanding issues. One of them is to test the FCNC processes requested in the Model-III. Namely, it is a ‘good place’ to observe the facts of the Model-III for the FCNC interactions. The measurement of FCNC processes involving top quark would provide an important test for the discrimination of various models. In the THDM III one would expect that large effects of the FCNC interactions could manifest themselves in the cases involving the massive top quark. Therefore testing the existence of the flavor changing scalar interactions involving top quarks are clearly important. D. Atwood et al.  presented results of a calculation for the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{c}`$(or $`\overline{t}c`$)in the THDM III, and they obtained $`R^{tc}/\lambda ^4`$ to be in the order of $`10^5`$ with proper parameters. Recently, Jiang et al.studied the production rates of $`e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}+\overline{t}c`$ for the NLC and found that this process is more promising than the straight production via $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions for probing the FCNC interactions. Abraham et al. also investigated the anomalous $`\overline{t}q\gamma `$ couplings via single top quark production processes by considering effective Lagrangian of the lowest dimension with $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions, and found the processes would be observable with suitable strength of anomalous coupling as long as b-tagging and suitable kinematic cuts are taken properly.

After the termination of the running of the LEP2, the hadron colliders Tevatron and LHC will be the only machines in searching for the FCNC processes. It is believed that more experimental events involving top quark will be collected in these hadronic machines. It will give a good chance to study the physics relevant to the FCNC processes of the Model-III. In this paper we are to study the problem and present complete one-loop calculation for the subprocess $`ggt\overline{c}`$(or $`\overline{t}c`$) to the order $`O(m_tm_c/m_W^2)`$ for the THDM Model-III. In fact, the obtained results in the paper are applicable to the whole mass range for weakly coupled Higgs bosons. The production cross sections of $`pp(\overline{p})ggt\overline{c}+\overline{t}c+X`$ are also given for the Tevatron and LHC. The paper is organized as follows: The details of the calculation are given in Sec. II. In Sec. III numerical results, discussions and a short summary are presented. Finally, the explicit expressions used in the paper are collected in appendix.

II. Calculation

In the third type of the two-Higgs-doublet model, the up-type and down-type quarks are allowed simultaneously to couple to more than one scalar doublet. Since there is no global symmetry that distinguishes the two doublets in the model, we will assume that only one of them $`(\varphi _1)`$ develops a vacuum expectation value and the second one $`(\varphi _2)`$ remains unbroken, i.e.

$$<\varphi _1>=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\hfill \\ v/\sqrt{2}\hfill \end{array}\right),<\varphi _2>=0$$
$`\left(1\right)`$
where $`v246GeV`$. The physical spectrum of Higgs bosons consists of two scalar neutral bosons $`h^0`$ and $`H^0`$, one pseudoscalar neutral boson $`A^0`$ and two charged Higgs $`H^\pm `$,

$$\begin{array}{c}H^0=\sqrt{2}\left[\left(Re\varphi _1^0v\right)\mathrm{cos}\alpha +Re\varphi _2^0\mathrm{sin}\alpha \right],\hfill \\ h^0=\sqrt{2}\left[\left(Re\varphi _1^0v\right)\mathrm{sin}\alpha +Re\varphi _2^0\mathrm{cos}\alpha \right],\hfill \\ A^0=\sqrt{2}\left(Im\varphi _2^0\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(2\right)`$
The masses of the five neutral and charged Higgs bosons and the mixing angle $`\alpha `$ are free parameters of the model. The Yukawa couplings to quarks are,

$$_Y^Q=\lambda _{ij}^U\overline{Q_i}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}U_j+\lambda _{ij}^D\overline{Q_i}\varphi _1D_j+\xi _{ij}^U\overline{Q_i}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _2}U_j+\xi _{ij}^D\overline{Q_i}\varphi _2D_j,$$
$`\left(3\right)`$
where the first two terms give masses of the quark mass eigenstates, and $`\xi _{ij}^U`$ and $`\xi _{ij}^D`$ are the $`3\times 3`$ matrices which give the strength of the flavor changing neutral scalar vertices. The $`\xi `$s are all free parameters and can be constrained by the experimental data. If we neglect CP violation, the $`\xi `$s are all real. We will use the Cheng-Sher Ansatz(CSA) and let

$$\xi _{ij}\frac{\sqrt{m_im_j}}{v}.$$

And we can parametrize the Yukawa couplings as

$$\xi _{ij}=g\frac{\sqrt{m_im_j}}{m_W}\lambda .$$
$`\left(4\right)`$
Comparing it with the usual gauge couplings of $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$, one has $`\lambda =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$. In our calculation we use $`\lambda =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$ and note that there is no theoretical bound on the coupling factor $`\lambda `$.

The subprocess producing $`t\overline{c}(\overline{t}c)`$ via gluon-gluon collisions,

$$ggt\overline{c}\left(\overline{t}c\right)$$

can be induced through one-loop diagrams at the lowest order, and the Feynman diagrams are drawn in figure 1(a) and figure 1(b), where the contributions from the one-loop diagrams involving neutral and charged Higgs bosons are presented, respectively. The contributions from the figures of Fig.1(b) with the charged Higgs boson in loops being replaced by W-boson, is much smaller due to the GIM suppression and Yukawa coupling. We can omitted this part in our calculation. The diagrams exchanging the two external gluon-gluon lines are not shown, but are numbered in Fig.1(a) and Fig.1(b). Fig.1(a)(1 $``$ 12) and Fig. 1(b)(1 $``$ 6) are the self-energy diagrams, Fig. 1(a)(13 $``$ 20) and Fig. 1(b)(7 $``$ 10) are the vertex correction diagrams, Fig. 1(a)(25 $``$ 34) and Fig. 1(b) (13 $``$ 15) are the s-channel diagrams, Fig. 1(a)(21 $``$ 24) and Fig. 1(b)(11 $``$ 12) are the box diagrams. Note that in the present case at one-loop level the ultraviolet divergence would be canceled automatically, if all the one-loop diagrams at the $`O(m_tm_c/m_W^2)`$ order in the THDM III are included. In this work, we perform the calculation in the t’Hooft-Feynman gauge.

To simplify the calculation we set $`\alpha =0`$ and let all scalar bosons be degenerate, i.e., $`m_{h^0}=m_{A^0}=m_{H^\pm }=M_s`$ where $`M_s`$ is the common scalar mass. The contribution from the coupling involving $`H^0`$ is suppressed due to $`\alpha =0`$.

In the calculation for the s-channel diagrams(Fig.1.(a)(25 $``$ 28)), we take into account the width effects of the $`h^0`$ and $`A^0`$ propagators. The decays of $`h^0`$ to WW and ZZ are suppressed, because of the factor $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ in the $`h^0WW`$ and $`h^0ZZ`$ couplings, and $`h^0`$ decay to $`A^0A^0`$ is also forbidden due to the case of the degenerate masses of $`h^0`$ and $`A^0`$. Note that the pseudoscalar $`A^0`$ does not couple with gauge boson pair. Therefore only the decays of $`h^0`$ and $`A^0`$ to final states $`q_i\overline{q_j}`$ need to be considered, where $`q_i`$ and $`q_j`$ represent quarks of flavor i and j respectively. The decay width for the scalar $`h^0`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(h^0q\overline{q}\right)=\frac{3g^2m_{h^0}}{32\pi M_W^2}m_q\left(14m_q^2/m_{h^0}^2\right)^{3/2}$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(h^0t\overline{c}+\overline{t}c\right)=\frac{3g^2m_{h^0}}{32\pi M_W^2}2m_tm_c\left[1\left(m_t+m_c\right)^2/m_{h^0}^2\right]^{3/2}\times \left[1\left(m_tm_c\right)^2/m_{h^0}^2\right]^{1/2}.$$
$`\left(5\right)`$
The decay width for the pseudoscalar $`A^0`$ boson can be represented by exchanging exponents $`3/21/2`$ and $`m_{h^0}m_{A^0}`$ in Eq.(5). When $`m_t+m_c<M_s<2m_t`$, the dominant decay modes of $`h^0`$ and $`A^0`$ are $`h^0,A^0c\overline{c},b\overline{b},t\overline{c}+\overline{t}c`$, whereas when $`M_s>2m_t`$, the final state $`t\overline{t}`$ decay channel is open, and their decay widths are rather large due to the large masses of $`M_s`$ and $`m_t`$.

We denote $`\theta `$ as the scattering angle between one of the gluons and the final top quark. Then we express all the four-momenta of the initial and final particles in the center-of-mass(CMS) by means of the total energy $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ and the scattering angle $`\theta `$. The four-momenta of top quark and charm quark are $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ respectively and are read

$$\begin{array}{c}p_1=(E_t,\sqrt{E_t^2m_t^2}sin\theta ,0,\sqrt{E_t^2m_t^2}cos\theta ),\hfill \\ p_2=(E_c,\sqrt{E_c^2m_c^2}sin\theta ,0,\sqrt{E_c^2m_c^2}cos\theta ),\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(6\right)`$
where

$$E_t=\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{\widehat{s}}+\left(m_t^2m_c^2\right)/\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\right),E_c=\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\left(m_t^2m_c^2\right)/\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\right).$$
$`\left(7\right)`$
$`p_3`$ and $`p_4`$ are the four-momenta of the initial gluons and are expressed as

$$p_3=(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\widehat{s}},0,0,\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\widehat{s}}),p_4=(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\widehat{s}},0,0,\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\widehat{s}}).$$
$`\left(8\right)`$
The corresponding matrix element for all the diagrams in figure 1(a) and figure 1(b) is written as

$$M=Tr\left(T^aT^b\right)\delta _{jl}M^{\widehat{s}_1}+\left(f_{abc}T_{jl}^c\right)M^{\widehat{s}_2}+\left(T_{jm}^aT_{ml}^b\right)M^{\widehat{t}}+\left(T_{jm}^bT_{ml}^a\right)M^{\widehat{u}}$$
$`\left(9\right)`$
The upper indexes $`\widehat{s}_1`$, $`\widehat{s}_2`$, $`\widehat{t}`$ and $`\widehat{u}`$ represent the amplitudes corresponding to the s-channel diagrams Fig. 1(a) (25$``$ 28), s-channel diagrams Fig. 1(a) (29 $``$ 34) and Fig. 1(b) (13 $``$ 15), t-channel and u-channel diagrams in figure 1(a) and figure 1(b) respectively. The $`T^a(a=18)`$ are the $`SU(3)_c`$ generators introduced by Gell-Mann and $`f_{abc}`$ are the antisymmetric $`SU(3)_c`$ structure constants. The subscripts $`j,l(j,l=1,2,3)`$ of $`T^a`$ represent the color of final state top quark and charm quark respectively. The variables $`\widehat{s}`$, $`\widehat{t}`$ and $`\widehat{u}`$ are usual Mandelstam variables in the center of mass system of gluon-gluon. Their definitions are:

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{s}=\left(p_1+p_2\right)^2=\left(p_3+p_4\right)^2,\widehat{t}=\left(p_1p_3\right)^2=\left(p_2p_4\right)^2,\hfill \\ \widehat{u}=\left(p_1p_4\right)^2=\left(p_2p_3\right)^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(10\right)`$
We collect all the explicit expressions of the amplitudes appearing in equation (9) in the appendix. The total cross section for $`ggt\overline{c}+\overline{t}c`$ can be written in the form

$$\widehat{\sigma }\left(\widehat{s}\right)=\frac{2}{16\pi \widehat{s}^2}_{\widehat{t^{}}}^{\widehat{t^+}}𝑑\widehat{t}\left|\overline{M}\right|^2$$
$`\left(11\right)`$
where $`|\overline{M}|^2`$ is the initial spin-averaged matrix element squared and $`\widehat{t^\pm }=1/2(m_t^2+m_c^2\widehat{s})\pm \sqrt{E_t^2m_t^2}\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$. The cross section for $`ppggt\overline{c}+\overline{t}c+X`$ is conveniently written in terms of the rapidities $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$ of the two jets (finial states) and their common transverse momentum $`p_T`$. Here we neglect the intrinsic transverse momentum carried by partons. It is

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dy_1dy_2dp_T}=\frac{\pi \tau p_T}{\widehat{s}}f_g(x_1,Q^2)f_g(x_2,Q^2)\widehat{\sigma }\left(ggt\overline{c}+\overline{t}c\mathrm{at}\widehat{s}=\tau s\right),$$
$`\left(12\right)`$
where $`\sqrt{s}`$ and $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ denote the proton-proton and gluon-gluon c.m. energies respectively and $`\widehat{s}=s\tau `$. $`f_g(x_i,Q^2)`$ is the distribution function of gluon in proton.

Defining

$$y^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(y_1y_2\right)$$
$`\left(13\right)`$
and

$$y_{boost}=\frac{1}{2}\left(y_1+y_2\right).$$
$`\left(14\right)`$
We may write

$$\tau =\frac{4p_T^2}{s}\mathrm{cosh}^2y^{}$$
$`\left(15\right)`$
and

$$x_1=\sqrt{\tau }e^{y_{boost}},x_2=\sqrt{\tau }e^{y_{boost}}.$$
$`\left(16\right)`$
In our numerical calculation we adopt the MRS set G parton distribution function $`f_g(x_i,Q^2)`$  and let the factorization scale $`Q^2=\widehat{s}`$. The numerical calculation is carried out around the Tevatron and LHC energy ranges.

III. Numerical Results and Discussions

In the numerical calculation we take the input parameters as $`m_b=4.5GeV`$, $`m_c=1.35GeV`$, $`m_t=175GeV`$, $`M_W=80.2226GeV`$, $`G_F=1.166392\times 10^5(GeV)^2`$ and $`\alpha =1/128`$. We adopt a simple one-loop formula for the running strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ as

$$\alpha _s\left(\mu \right)=\frac{\alpha _s\left(m_Z\right)}{1+\frac{332n_f}{6\pi }\alpha _s\left(m_Z\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu }{m_Z}\right)}.$$
$`\left(14\right)`$
where $`\alpha _s(m_Z)=0.117`$ and $`n_f`$ is the number of active flavors at energy scale $`\mu `$.

Figure 2 shows the cross sections for $`ggt\overline{c}+\overline{t}c`$ as a function of the masses of the Higgs bosons $`M_s`$. The cross sections are displayed with the three values of the gluon-gluon CMS energy 200 GeV, 400 GeV and 500 GeV respectively. Because there is no stringent bound on the Higgs bosons masses, we choose $`M_s`$ in the range from 50 GeV to 800 GeV. The peak of each curve comes from s-channel resonance effects, where $`M_s=m_{h^0}=m_{A^0}\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$. From these curves we find that the cross section can be obviously enhanced when $`M_s`$ gets close to $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$.

Figure 3 shows the cross sections of $`ggt\overline{c}+\overline{t}c`$ as a function of $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$, and the three curves correspond to the $`M_s`$ values 100 GeV, 250 GeV and 500 GeV, respectively. For $`M_s=100GeV`$, the effects of the widths of the Higgs bosons are not obvious, and s-channel resonance effects are suppressed, since $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ is far beyond the Higgs boson masses $`M_s`$. Therefore the curve of its cross section is relative flat with the increasing of $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$. When $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ approaches the value of $`M_s`$, such as $`M_s=250GeV`$ and $`M_s=500GeV`$, the cross sections will be enhanced by the s-channel resonance effects, and the width effects become stronger, since the $`h^0,A^0t\overline{c}+\overline{t}c`$ channels are opened. In Fig.3, we can see that the curve for $`M_s=500GeV`$ shows a sharp peak around the position at $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}500GeV`$ due to the s-channel resonance effects and large width effects of $`h^0`$ and $`A^0`$.

In figure 4 and figure 5 we show the transverse momentum spectrum of the top quark at the Tevatron and LHC energies respectively, where we assume the off-line analysis will require at least the event selection criterion of involving one isolated high $`p_T`$ track with the cut of pseudorapidity $`|\eta |<2`$. Again, the peaks on the curves of $`M_s=250`$ and $`M_s=500`$ show the s-channel resonance effects, where $`M_s=m_{h^0}=m_{A^0}\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$.

In figure 6 and 7 we show the cross section of $`ppggt\overline{c}+\overline{t}c+X`$ as a function of center-of-mass energy of electron-positron system $`\sqrt{s}`$. The cross section may reach 0.83 femtobarn when $`M_s=100GeV`$ and $`\sqrt{s}=2TeV`$ at the Tevatron and 131 femtobarn when $`M_s=100GeV`$ and $`\sqrt{s}=14TeV`$ at the LHC. For the Tevatron at 2 TeV we can expect about 4 raw events when $`M_s=100GeV`$ if we assume $`5fb^1`$ integrated luminosity, and for the LHC at 14 TeV we can expect about $`1.3\times 10^4`$ raw events if we assume $`100fb^1`$ integrated luminosity. Since the cross section of this process is roughly scaled by $`\lambda ^4`$, if we let $`\lambda 1`$, the cross section will be 4 times larger. There are several potentially severe backgrounds from the SM to the signal. A top quark with a mass about $`174GeV`$, decays dominantly to $`tW^+b`$. In the $`t\overline{c}W^+b\overline{c}l^+\nu b\overline{c}`$ detection mode, the backgrounds are mainly from $`t\overline{t}W+jets`$ and $`t\overline{t}WWb\overline{b}l^+\nu q\overline{q}^{^{}}b\overline{b}`$ processes. The calculation shows that the cross section of top pair production will reach about $`5pb`$ at the Tevatron for $`\sqrt{s}=1.8TeV`$ and about $`10^2pb`$ at the LHC for $`\sqrt{s}=14TeV`$. If we use the $`t\overline{c}+\overline{t}clepton+jets`$ detection mode, the production rate of $`t\overline{c}W^+b\overline{c}l^+\nu b\overline{c}`$ can reach about $`0.1fb`$ at the Tevatron and $`14fb`$ at the LHC, while the possible background from $`t\overline{t}WWb\overline{b}l^+\nu q\overline{q}^{^{}}b\overline{b}`$ would be about $`0.8pb`$ at the Tevatron and some dozens picobarn at the LHC. The reduction of the these backgrounds is possible through various kinematics cuts on the transverse energy, on the rapidity of jets and leptons, or involving b-tagging. Due to the very small production rate for the signal of $`ppt\overline{c}+\overline{t}c`$, it is not so easy to suppress its backgrounds. Therefore the further precise analyses are necessary to exclude these backgrounds.

In summary, from our calculation, we can conclude that if we could efficiently exclude the severe backgrounds of the $`t\overline{c}(\overline{t}c)`$ production signal, it would be possible at the Tevatron and the LHC that the process $`ppggt\overline{c}+\overline{t}c`$ could be used to probe the flavor changing interactions in the context of the THDM III.

Acknowledgement:

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China(project numbers: 19675033, 19875049), the Youth Science Foundation of the University of Science and Technology of China(USTC) and a grant from the Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education(RFDP) of China.

Appendix

We adopt the same definitions of one-loop A, B, C and D integral functions as in Ref. and the references therein. The dimension $`D=4ϵ`$. The integral functions are defined as

$$A_0\left(m\right)=\frac{\left(2\pi \mu \right)^{4D}}{i\pi ^2}d^Dq\frac{1}{\left[q^2m^2\right]},$$

$$\{B_1;B_\mu ;B_{\mu \nu }\}(p,m_1,m_2)=\frac{\left(2\pi \mu \right)^{4D}}{i\pi ^2}d^Dq\frac{\{1;q_\mu ;q_{\mu \nu }\}}{\left[q^2m_1^2\right]\left[\left(q+p\right)^2m_2^2\right]},$$

$$\{C_0;C_\mu ;C_{\mu \nu };C_{\mu \nu \rho }\}(p_1,p_2,m_1,m_2,m_3)=\frac{\left(2\pi \mu \right)^{4D}}{i\pi ^2}$$

$$\times d^Dq\frac{\{1;q_\mu ;q_{\mu \nu };q_{\mu \nu \rho }\}}{\left[q^2m_1^2\right]\left[\left(q+p_1\right)^2m_2^2\right]\left[\left(q+p_1+p_2\right)^2m_3^2\right]},$$

$$\{D_0;D_\mu ;D_{\mu \nu };D_{\mu \nu \rho };D_{\mu \nu \rho \alpha }\}(p_1,p_2,p_3,m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4)=\frac{\left(2\pi \mu \right)^{4D}}{i\pi ^2}$$

$$\times d^Dq\{1;q_\mu ;q_{\mu \nu };q_{\mu \nu \rho };q_{\mu \nu \rho \alpha }\}$$

$$\times \left\{\left[q^2m_1^2\right]\left[\left(q+p_1\right)^2m_2^2\right]\left[\left(q+p_1+p_2\right)^2m_3^2\right]\left[\left(q+p_1+p_2+p_3\right)^2m_4^2\right]\right\}^1.$$

In our calculation we take the strange quark mass $`m_s=0`$. The $`M^{\widehat{s}_1}`$ and $`M^{\widehat{s}_2}`$ in equation (9) can be written as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}M^{\widehat{s}_1}\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{i\alpha _s^2g^2}{16\pi ^2M_W^2}m_t\sqrt{m_tm_c}ϵ_\mu \left(p_3\right)ϵ_\nu \left(p_4\right)\overline{u}\left(p_1\right)\hfill \\ & & \{2a_{h^0}m_t^2(C_0+4C_{22}4C_{23})[p_3,p_1p_2,m_t,m_t,m_t](p_1^\mu p_1^\nu +p_1^\mu p_2^\nu +p_1^\nu p_2^\mu +p_2^\mu p_2^\nu )\hfill \\ & & +2a_{h^0}m_t^2g^{\mu \nu }(B_0[p_1p_2,m_t,m_t]((p_1+p_2)p_3C_0+4C_{24})[p_3,p_1p_2,m_t,m_t,m_t]\hfill \\ & & +2ia_{A^0}m_t^2C_0[p_3,p_1p_2,m_t,m_t,m_t]ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\gamma _5(p_1^\alpha p_3^\beta +p_2^\alpha p_3^\beta )\left\}v\right(p_2),\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.1\right)`$
where

$$a_{h^0}=\frac{1}{\widehat{s}m_{h^0}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h^0}m_{h^0}},a_{A^0}=\frac{1}{\widehat{s}m_{A^0}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A^0}m_{A^0}}.$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}M^{\widehat{s}_2}\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{i\alpha _s^2g^2}{128\pi ^2M_W^2\widehat{s}}m_t\sqrt{m_tm_c}ϵ_\mu \left(p_3\right)ϵ_\nu \left(p_4\right)\overline{u}\left(p_1\right)\hfill \\ & & \{16m_t(C_{11}C_{12}+C_{21}C_{23})[p_1,p_1+p_2,M_s,m_t,m_t](p_1^\mu p_2^\nu p_1^\nu p_2^\mu )\hfill \\ & & +(8(2C_{24}+m_t^2(C_0C_{11}+C_{12}C_{21}C_{22}+2C_{23})2(p_1p_2)(C_{22}+C_{23}))\hfill \\ & & [p_1,p_1+p_2,M_s,m_t,m_t]+4m_t^2B_1[p_1,m_t,M_s]\hfill \\ & & 4m_tm_cB_1[p_2,m_t,M_s]+4m_t^2B_1[p_1,m_b,M_s]+\hfill \\ & & 4m_tm_cB_1[p_2,m_b,M_s]+m_t^2B_1[p_1,m_t,M_s]\hfill \\ & & m_tm_cB_1[p_2,m_t,M_s]m_t^2B_1[p_1,m_b,M_s]\hfill \\ & & +m_cm_tB_1[p_2,m_b,M_s]\left)\right(\gamma ^\nu p_1^\mu \gamma ^\mu p_1^\nu +\gamma ^\nu p_2^\mu \gamma ^\mu p_2^\nu +g^{\mu \nu }\text{/}p_3)\hfill \\ & & +(4(2m_tC_{24}2m_t^3C_0+m_t(m_t^2+2(p_1p_2)4(p_1p_3))(C_{11}C_{12}+C_{21}+C_{22}\hfill \\ & & 2C_{23})+4(p_2p_3)(m_cC_{12}m_tC_{22}+m_tC_{23})\left)\right[p_1,p_1+p_2,M_s,m_t,m_t]\hfill \\ & & (m_cm_t^2C_0+2m_tC_{24}+m_t^3(C_{11}C_{12}+C_{21}+C_{22}2C_{23})+2m_t((p_1p_2)\hfill \\ & & 2(p_1p_2)\left)\right(C_{11}C_{12}+C_{21}+C_{22}2C_{23})+4(p_2p_3\left)\right(m_cC_{12}\hfill \\ & & +m_t(C_{23}C_{22})\left)\right[p_1,p_1+p_2,M_s,m_b,m_b]m_t^3B_1[p_1,m_t,M_s]+\hfill \\ & & m_t^2m_cB_1[p_2,m_t,M_s]m_t^3B_1[p_1,m_b,M_s]+(m_cm_t^2+\hfill \\ & & 2m_cp_1p_24m_cp_1p_3)B_1[p_2,m_b,M_s])g^{\mu \nu }4m_t(C_{11}\hfill \\ & & C_{12}+C_{21}C_{23}\left)\right[p_1,p_1+p_2,M_s,m_b,m_b\left]\right(p_1^\mu p_2^\nu p_1^\nu p_2^\mu +\gamma _5p_1^\nu p_2^\mu \gamma _5p_1^\mu p_2^\nu )\hfill \\ & & +(2(2C_{24}+m_cm_tC_0m_t^2(C_{11}C_{12}+C_{21}+C_{22}2C_{23})2(p_1p_2)(C_{22}C_{23}))\hfill \\ & & [p_1,p_1+p_2,M_s,m_b,m_b]+4m_t^2B_1[p_1,m_b,M_s]\hfill \\ & & 4m_cm_tB_1[p_2,m_b,M_s]\left)\right(\gamma ^\nu p_1^\mu \gamma ^\mu p_1^\nu +\gamma ^\nu p_2^\mu \gamma ^\mu p_2^\nu +g^{\mu \nu }\text{/}p_3)(m_cm_t^2C_02m_tC_{24}\hfill \\ & & m_t^3(C_{11}C_{12}+C_{21}+C_{22}2C_{23})2m_t((p_1p_2)2(p_1p_2))(C_{11}C_{12}+C_{21}\hfill \\ & & +C_{22}2C_{23})+4(p_2p_3\left)\right(m_cC_{12}m_t(C_{23}C_{22})\left)\right[p_1,p_1+p_2,M_s,m_b,m_b]\gamma _5g^{\mu \nu }\hfill \\ & & +((4C_{24}2m_cm_tC_02m_t^2(C_{11}C_{12}+C_{21}+C_{22}2C_{23})+4(p_1p_2)(C_{23}\hfill \\ & & C_{22}))[p_1,p_1+p_2,M_s,m_b,m_b])+2m_t^2B_1[p_1,m_b,M_s]\hfill \\ & & 2m_cm_tB_1[p_2,m_b,M_s])\gamma _5(\gamma ^\nu p_1^\mu \gamma ^\mu p_1^\nu +\gamma ^\nu p_2^\mu \gamma ^\mu p_2^\nu g^{\mu \nu }\text{/}p_3)\left\}v\right(p_2),\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.2\right)`$
The amplitude of $`M^{\widehat{t}}`$ can be written as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}M^{\widehat{t}}\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{i\alpha _s^2g^2}{64\pi ^2M_W^2}m_t\sqrt{m_tm_c}ϵ_\mu \left(p_3\right)ϵ_\nu \left(p_4\right)\overline{u}\left(p_1\right)(f_1p_1^\mu p_1^\nu +f_2p_1^\mu p_2^\nu +f_3p_1^\nu p_2^\mu +f_4p_2^\mu p_2^\nu \hfill \\ & & +f_5\gamma ^\nu p_1^\mu +f_6\gamma ^\mu p_1^\nu +f_7\gamma ^\nu p_2^\mu +f_8\gamma ^\mu p_2^\nu +f_9\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu +f_{10}\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\mu +f_{11}\text{/}p_3p_1^\mu p_1^\nu \hfill \\ & & +f_{12}\text{/}p_3p_1^\mu p_2^\nu +f_{13}\text{/}p_3p_1^\nu p_2^\mu +f_{14}\text{/}p_3p_2^\mu p_2^\nu +f_{15}\text{/}p_3\gamma ^\nu p_1^\mu +f_{16}\text{/}p_3\gamma ^\mu p_1^\nu +f_{17}\text{/}p_3\gamma ^\nu p_2^\mu \hfill \\ & & +f_{18}\text{/}p_3\gamma ^\mu p_2^\nu +f_{19}\text{/}p_3\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu +f_{20}\text{/}p_3\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\mu +f_1^{}\gamma _5p_1^\mu p_1^\nu +f_2^{}\gamma _5p_1^\mu p_2^\nu +f_3^{}\gamma _5p_1^\nu p_2^\mu \hfill \\ & & +f_4^{}\gamma _5p_2^\mu p_2^\nu +f_5^{}\gamma _5\gamma ^\nu p_1^\mu +f_6^{}\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu p_1^\nu +f_7^{}\gamma _5\gamma ^\nu p_2^\mu +f_8^{}\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu p_2^\nu +f_9^{}\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \hfill \\ & & +f_{10}^{}\gamma _5\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\mu +f_{11}^{}\gamma _5\text{/}p_3p_1^\mu p_1^\nu +f_{12}^{}\gamma _5\text{/}p_3p_1^\mu p_2^\nu +f_{13}^{}\gamma _5\text{/}p_3p_1^\nu p_2^\mu +f_{14}^{}\gamma _5\text{/}p_3p_2^\mu p_2^\nu \hfill \\ & & +f_{15}^{}\gamma _5\text{/}p_3\gamma ^\nu p_1^\mu +f_{16}^{}\gamma _5\text{/}p_3\gamma ^\mu p_1^\nu +f_{17}^{}\gamma _5\text{/}p_3\gamma ^\nu p_2^\mu +f_{18}^{}\gamma _5\text{/}p_3\gamma ^\mu p_2^\nu \hfill \\ & & +f_{19}^{}\gamma _5\text{/}p_3\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu +f_{20}^{}\gamma _5\text{/}p_3\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\mu \left)v\right(p_2),\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.3\right)`$
where the $`f_is`$ and $`f_i^{}s`$ are expressed explicitly as,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_1^{}\hfill & =\hfill & 4\left(m_c\left(D_{38}D_{310}\right)+m_t\left(D_{32}D_{36}\right)\right)[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.4\right)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_1\hfill & =\hfill & f_1^{}\left(m_tm_t\right)+8m_t\left(D_{11}D_{12}+D_{21}D_{24}D_{25}+D_{26}\right)[p_1,p_3,p_4,M_s,m_t,m_t,m_t]\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.5\right)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_2^{}\hfill & =\hfill & 4a_1\left(m_cC_{22}m_tC_{12}m_tC_{23}\right)[p_4,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s]\hfill \\ & & +4\left(m_c\left(D_{39}D_{310}\right)m_t\left(D_{22}D_{26}+D_{36}D_{38}\right)\right)[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.6\right)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_2\hfill & =\hfill & f_2^{}\left(m_tm_t\right)+8a_1m_tC_{11}[p_2,p_4,M_s,m_t,m_t]\hfill \\ & & 8m_t\left(D_{12}+D_{24}D_{26}\right)[p_1,p_3,p_4,M_s,m_t,m_t,m_t]\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.7\right)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_3^{}\hfill & =\hfill & 4\left(m_c\left(D_{39}D_{37}\right)m_t\left(D_{310}D_{38}\right)\right)[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.8\right)`$
$$f_3=f_3^{}\left(m_tm_t\right)8m_t\left(D_{25}D_{26}\right)[p_1,p_3,p_4,M_s,m_t,m_t,m_t]$$
$`\left(A.9\right)`$
$$f_4^{}=4\left(m_c\left(D_{33}D_{37}\right)+m_t\left(D_{23}D_{26}D_{310}+D_{39}\right)\right)[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]$$
$`\left(A.10\right)`$
$$f_4=f_4^{}\left(m_tm_t\right)+8m_tD_{26}[p_1,p_3,p_4,M_s,m_t,m_t,m_t]$$
$`\left(A.11\right)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_5^{}\hfill & =\hfill & 2a_2a_3m_t^2B_1[p_1,m_b,M_s]2a_1a_2\left(m_t^22\left(p_1p_3\right)\right)B_1[p_1+p_3,m_b,M_s]\hfill \\ & & 2a_1a_3m_cm_tB_1[p_2,m_b,M_s]+2a_2\left(m_cm_t\left(C_0+2C_{11}+C_{21}\right)2C_{24}\right)[p_1,p_3,M_s,m_t,m_t]\hfill \\ & & +2a_1(2C_{24}m_b^2C_0+m_c^2(C_{22}2C_{23})m_cm_tC_{12}+m_t^2(C_{11}+C_{21})\hfill \\ & & +2\left(p_1p_2p_2p_3\right)\left(C_{11}C_{12}+C_{21}C_{23}\right)\hfill \\ & & 2(p_1p_3)(C_{11}+C_{21})\left)\right[p_4,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s]\hfill \\ & & +2(2D_{27}+2D_{312}+m_b^2D_0m_c^2D_{23}m_cm_t(D_{22}D_{26})\hfill \\ & & +2(p_2p_3)(D_{25}D_{26})\left)\right[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.12\right)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_5\hfill & =\hfill & f_5^{}\left(m_tm_t\right)+4a_2a_3m_t^2B_0[p_1,m_t,M_s]\hfill \\ & & +4a_1a_2m_t^2B_0[p_1+p_3,m_t,M_s]4a_1a_3m_t^2B_0[p_2,m_t,M_s]\hfill \\ & & 4a_2m_t^2\left(C_0+C_{11}\right)[p_1,p_3,M_s,m_t,m_t]4a_1m_t^2[p_2,p_4,M_s,m_t,m_t]\hfill \\ & & +4m_t^2\left(D_0+D_{11}D_{13}\right)[p_1,p_3,p_4,M_s,m_t,m_t,m_t]\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.13\right)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_6^{}\hfill & =\hfill & 2(4(D_{311}D_{312})+m_b^2(D_{11}D_{12})m_c^2(D_{37}D_{39})\hfill \\ & & +m_t^2\left(D_{32}D_{36}\right)+2\left(p_1p_2\right)\left(D_{38}D_{310}\right)2\left(p_1p_3\right)\left(D_{22}D_{24}D_{34}+D_{36}\right)\hfill \\ & & +2(p_1p_2)(D_{35}D_{310})\left)\right[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.14\right)`$
$$f_6=f_6^{}$$
$`\left(A.15\right)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_7^{}\hfill & =\hfill & 2(4D_{313}m_b^2D_{13}+m_c^2D_{33}+m_cm_tD_{23}+m_t^2(D_{26}+D_{38})+2(p_1p_2)(D_{23}+D_{39})\hfill \\ & & 2(p_1p_3)(D_{25}+D_{310}+D_{23}+D_{37})\left)\right[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.16\right)`$
$$f_7=f_7^{}\left(m_tm_t\right)4m_t^2D_{13}[p_1,p_3,p_4,M_s,m_t,m_t,m_t]$$
$`\left(A.17\right)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_8^{}\hfill & =\hfill & 4a_1\left(p_1p_3\right)\left(C_{12}+C_{23}\right)[p_4,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s]\hfill \\ & & +2(2(D_{27}+2D_{311}+D_{313})+m_b^2(D_0+D_{11})m_c^2(D_{23}+D_{37})\hfill \\ & & m_t^2\left(D_{22}+D_{36}\right)[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]\hfill \\ & & \left(p_1p_2\right)\left(D_{26}+D_{310}\right)+2\left(p_1p_3\right)\left(D_{12}D_{13}+4D_{24}D_{26}+D_{34}\right)\hfill \\ & & +2(p_2p_3)(D_{25}+D_{35})\left)\right[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.18\right)`$
$$f_8=f_8^{}$$
$`\left(A.19\right)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_9^{}\hfill & =\hfill & a_2a_3m_t^3B_1[p_1,m_b,M_s]\hfill \\ & & +2a_1a_2m_c(p_1p_3)B_1[p_1+p_3,m_b,M_s]a_2m_t(2C_{24}\hfill \\ & & m_t^2(C_0+2C_{11}+C_{21})+2(p_1p_3)(C_0+C_{11}+C_{12}+C_{23})\left)\right[p_1,p_3,M_s,m_t,m_t]\hfill \\ & & 2a_1m_c(p_1p_3)C_{12}[p_4,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s]+(4m_c(D_{313}\hfill \\ & & +m_b^2D_{13}m_c^2D_{33})+m_t(2D_{27}+4D_{312}+m_b^2(D_0+D_{12})m_c^2(D_{23}+D_{39})\hfill \\ & & m_t(m_cD_{38}m_tD_{22}m_tD_{32}))2(p_1p_2\left)\right(m_cD_{39}\hfill \\ & & +m_tD_{26}+m_tD_{38})+2(p_1p_3\left)\right(m_cD_{12}m_cD_{13}+m_cD_{310}+m_tD_{24}+m_tD_{36})\hfill \\ & & +2(p_2p_3)(m_cD_{37}+m_tD_{25}+m_tD_{310})\left)\right[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.20\right)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_9\hfill & =\hfill & f_9^{}\left(m_tm_t\right)2a_2a_3m_t^3B_0[p_1,m_t,M_s]\hfill \\ & & 4a_1a_2m_t\left(p_1p_3\right)B_0[p_1+p_3,m_t,M_s]\hfill \\ & & +4a_2m_t\left(p_1p_3\right)C_0[p_1,p_3,M_s,m_t,m_t]\hfill \\ & & +4a_1m_t\left(p_1p_3\right)C_0[p_2,p_4,M_s,m_t,m_t]\hfill \\ & & +4m_t\left(D_{27}+D_{311}D_{313}\right)[p_1,p_3,p_4,M_s,m_t,m_t,m_t]\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.21\right)`$
$$f_{10}^{}=2\left(m_cD_{313}+m_tD_{312}\right)[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]$$
$`\left(A.22\right)`$
$$f_{10}=f_{10}^{}\left(m_tm_t\right)4m_tD_{27}[p_1,p_3,p_4,M_s,m_t,m_t,m_t]$$
$`\left(A.23\right)`$
$$f_{11}^{}=4\left(D_{22}D_{24}D_{34}+D_{36}\right)[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]$$
$`\left(A.24\right)`$
$$f_{11}=f_{11}^{}$$
$`\left(A.25\right)`$
$$f_{12}^{}=4\left(D_{13}D_{12}2D_{24}+2D_{26}+D_{310}D_{34}\right)[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]$$
$`\left(A.26\right)`$
$$f_{12}=f_{12}^{}$$
$`\left(A.27\right)`$
$$f_{13}^{}$$
$`\left(A.28\right)`$
$$f_{13}=f_{13}^{}$$
$`\left(A.29\right)`$
$$f_{14}^{}=4\left(D_{23}D_{25}D_{35}+D_{37}\right)[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]$$
$`\left(A.30\right)`$
$$f_{14}=f_{14}^{}$$
$`\left(A.31\right)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_{15}^{}\hfill & =\hfill & 2a_2m_t\left(C_{11}C_{12}+C_{21}C_{23}\right)[p_1,p_3,M_s,m_t,m_t]\hfill \\ & & +2\left(m_c\left(D_{13}D_{12}+D_{26}\right)+m_t\left(D_{22}D_{24}\right)\right)[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.32\right)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_{15}\hfill & =\hfill & f_{15}^{}\left(m_tm_t\right)+4a_2m_tC_{11}[p_1,p_3,M_s,m_t,m_t]\hfill \\ & & 4m_t\left(D_{11}D_{13}\right)[p_1,p_3,p_4,M_s,m_t,m_t,m_t]\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.33\right)`$
$$f_{16}^{}=2\left(m_c\left(D_{25}D_{26}\right)m_t\left(D_{22}D_{24}\right)\right)[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]$$
$`\left(A.34\right)`$
$$f_{16}=f_{16}^{}\left(m_tm_t\right)+4m_t\left(D_{11}D_{12}\right)[p_1,p_3,p_4,M_s,m_t,m_t,m_t]$$
$`\left(A.35\right)`$
$$f_{17}^{}=2\left(m_cD_{23}m_t\left(D_{25}D_{26}\right)\right)[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]$$
$`\left(A.36\right)`$
$$f_{17}=f_{17}^{}\left(m_tm_t\right)+4m_tD_{13}[p_1,p_3,p_4,M_s,m_t,m_t,m_t]$$
$`\left(A.37\right)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_{18}^{}\hfill & =\hfill & 2a_1\left(m_cC_{22}m_tC_{12}m_tC_{23}\right)[p_4,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s]\hfill \\ & & +2\left(m_c\left(D_{25}D_{23}\right)+m_t\left(D_{12}D_{13}+D_{24}D_{26}\right)\right)[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.38\right)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_{18}\hfill & =\hfill & f_{18}^{}\left(m_tm_t\right)+4a_1m_tC_{11}[p_2,p_4,M_s,m_t,m_t]\hfill \\ & & 4m_tD_{12}[p_1,p_3,p_4,M_s,m_t,m_t,m_t]\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.39\right)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_{19}^{}\hfill & =\hfill & a_2a_3m_t^2B_1[p_1,m_b,M_s]\hfill \\ & & a_1a_2\left(m_t^22\left(p_1p_3\right)\right)B_1[p_1+p_3,m_b,M_s]\hfill \\ & & a_1a_3m_cm_tB_1[p_2,m_b,M_s]a_2(2C_{24}m_t(m_cC_0+m_tC_{11}\hfill \\ & & +m_tC_{21})+2(C_{12}+C_{23})(p_1p_3)\left)\right[p_1,p_3,M_s,m_t,m_t]\hfill \\ & & +a_1(2C_{24}m_b^2C_0+m_c^2(C_{22}2C_{23})m_cm_tC_{12}\hfill \\ & & +m_t^2\left(C_{11}+C_{21}\right)+2\left(\left(p_1p_2\right)\left(p_2p_3\right)\right)\left(C_{11}C_{12}+C_{21}C_{23}\right)\hfill \\ & & 2(p_1p_3)(C_{11}+C_{21})\left)\right[p_4,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s]\hfill \\ & & +(4(D_{27}+D_{311})+2m_b^2(D_0+D_{11})2m_c^2(D_{23}+D_{37})D_{13}m_cm_t\hfill \\ & & m_t^2(D_{12}+D_{22}+D_{36})2(p_1p_2)(D_{12}+2D_{26}+D_{310})+2(p_1p_3)(D_{12}\hfill \\ & & +2D_{24}+D_{34})+2(p_2p_3)(D_{13}+2D_{25}+D_{35})\left)\right[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.40\right)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_{19}\hfill & =\hfill & f_{19}^{}\left(m_tm_t\right)+2a_2a_3m_t^2B_0[p_1,m_t,M_s]\hfill \\ & & +2a_1a_2m_t^2B_0[p_1+p_3,m_t,M_s]2a_1a_2m_t^2B_0[p_2,m_t,M_s]\hfill \\ & & 2a_2m_t^2C_0[p_1,p_3,M_s,m_t,m_t]2a_1m_t^2C_0[p_2,p_4,M_s,m_t,m_t]\hfill \\ & & +2m_t^2D_0[p_1,p_3,p_4,M_s,m_t,m_t,m_t]\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(A.41\right)`$
$$f_{20}^{}=2D_{311}[p_3,p_1,p_2,m_b,m_b,M_s,m_b]$$
$`\left(A.42\right)`$
$$f_{20}=f_{20}^{}$$
$`\left(A.43\right)`$
where

$$a_1=\frac{1}{\widehat{t}m_t^2},a_2=\frac{1}{\widehat{t}m_c^2}anda_3=\frac{1}{m_t^2m_c^2}.$$

$$M^{\widehat{u}}=M^{\widehat{t}}(p_3p_4,\mu \nu ,\widehat{t}\widehat{u})\left(A.44\right)$$

Figure Captions

Fig.1(a)(b) The Feynman diagrams of the subprocess $`ggt\overline{c}`$.

Fig.2 Total cross sections of the subprocess $`ggt\overline{c}+\overline{t}c`$ as function of $`M_s`$. The solid curve is for $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}=200GeV`$, the dashed curve is for $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}=400GeV`$ and the dotted curve is for $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}=500GeV`$.

Fig.3 Total cross sections of the subprocess $`ggt\overline{c}+\overline{t}c`$ as function of $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$. The solid curve is for $`M_s=100GeV`$, the dashed curve is for $`M_s=250GeV`$ and the dotted curve is for $`M_s=500GeV`$.

Fig.4 The transverse momentum spectrum of top quark for the Tevatron at 2 TeV. The solid curve is for $`M_s=100GeV`$, the dashed curve is for $`M_s=250GeV`$ and the dotted curve is for $`M_s=500GeV`$.

Fig.5 The transverse momentum spectrum of top quark for the LHC at 14 TeV. The solid curve is for $`M_s=100GeV`$, the dashed curve is for $`M_s=250GeV`$ and the dotted curve is for $`M_s=500GeV`$.

Fig.6 Total cross sections of the process $`ppggt\overline{c}+\overline{t}c`$ as function of $`\sqrt{s}`$ at the Tevatron. The solid curve is for $`M_s=100GeV`$, the dashed curve is for $`M_s=250GeV`$ and the dotted curve is for $`M_s=500GeV`$.

Fig.7 Total cross sections of the process $`ppggt\overline{c}+\overline{t}c`$ as function of $`\sqrt{s}`$ at the LHC. The solid curve is for $`M_s=100GeV`$, the dashed curve is for $`M_s=250GeV`$ and the dotted curve is for $`M_s=500GeV`$.


text:
# Some remarks on the free fields realization of the bosonic string on 𝐴𝑑𝑆₃.

## 1 Introduction.

The last year has seen an increasing and renewed interest in string theory propagating on $`AdS`$ backgrounds. A particular attention has been dedicated to the $`AdS_3`$ background with NSNS flux, this because it is the only non trivial model which has been possible to treat exactly at the quantum level. Nevertheless and despite its apparent simplicity our understanding is far from being complete. In particular the question of which is its spectrum is not satisfactorily settled. It was already noted in the old days that with a naive quantization the Virasoro constraints were not sufficient to eliminate the ghost from the spectrum (). In order to remedy to this unfortunate circumstance two different proposals have been put forward111 Some recent papers have done some steps forwards in increasing our understanding of the quantum theory (,,). Especially () has given a nice interpretation of the old results by () on the construction of a modular invariant partition function.

1. To truncate the spectrum to the unitary part: this was the approach first advocated by Petropolous () and independently by Mohammedi (), developed by Hwang () and collaborators. Last year Evans, Gaberdiel and Perry () showed that the free spectrum is actually ghost free;
2. To introduce some new hidden dof in form of zero momenta of the fields used to bosonize the KM currents. This way was first undertaken by Bars () and developed by Satoh () along slightly different lines.

We think that both proposals have some weak sides but the main criticism is due to their philosophical attitude to the problem (see also () for a recent review of the open problems): string theory is so consistent that there should not be necessary to introduce new elements in the game since the string itsself should give the answer.

Our approach is different from both the previous ones even if it is closer to the second one: we find the classical canonical transformation from the string fields to the Wakimoto fields and then we discuss how and in what extent the Wakimoto fields are free.

## 2 The Classical Bosonic String Theory on $`AdS_3`$.

We first exam the equations of motion and boundary conditions for a classical bosonic string with a Kalb-Ramond background thought of as a WZW theory plus Virasoro constraints not relying on the KM symmetry structure present in the theory and we derive the general solution. We set up the canonical formalism which we use to discuss the classical ’canonical’ transformation to the classical Wakimoto fields. finally we discuss the boundary conditions and their consequences. It turns out that the Wakimoto fields while satisfying free fields equations of motion are generically not free because of the boundary conditions; we discuss how to circumvent the problem.

### 2.1 The action and the constraints of the bosonic string on $`AdS_3`$.

The string action is given by222    Spacetime coordinates: $`x^\pm =\frac{x^1\pm x^0}{\sqrt{2}}`$    WS metric $`\eta _{00}=\eta _{11}=1`$; $`\eta _+=\frac{1}{2}`$ $`\eta ^+=2`$    WS coordinates: $`\xi ^\pm =\tau \pm \sigma `$; $`\sigma [0,2\pi ]`$; $`d^2\xi =2d\tau d\sigma `$; $`_\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left(_\tau \pm _\sigma \right)`$    Sigma matrices: $`\sigma _3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \\ & 1\end{array}\right)`$$`\sigma _+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}& 1\\ 0& \end{array}\right)`$$`\sigma _{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}& 0\\ 1& \end{array}\right)`$    $`sl(2,R)`$ algebra: $`\sigma _a\sigma _b=ϵ_{abc}\sigma ^c+\eta _{ab}1`$ with $`ϵ_{+3}=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\eta _+=\frac{1}{2}`$ $`\eta _{33}=1`$

$`S_{wzw}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|k|}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2\xi tr(\omega _+\omega _{})}`$ (2.1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{12\pi }}{\displaystyle tr(\omega ^3)}`$
where $`\omega =g^1dg=\omega _+d\xi ^++\omega _{}d\xi ^{}`$ is the pullback on the string worldsheet of the left invariant one form on the group $`SL(2,R)`$. When we use the explicit expression for $`g`$ in the Gauss form333 This expression only covers half $`AdS_3`$ , even if we perform an analytic continuation letting $`e^\rho R`$ they do not cover the whole manifold since points like $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \frac{1}{\beta }& 0\end{array}\right)`$ are left out.

$$g=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \\ x^{}& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^\rho & \\ & e^\rho \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& x^+\\ & 1\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^\rho & e^\rho x^+\\ e^\rho x^{}& e^\rho +e^\rho x^+x^{}\end{array}\right)$$
(2.2)
and take $`k=|k|`$ the previous expression for the action becomes

$$S_{wzw}=\frac{|k|}{2\pi }d^2\xi _+\rho _{}\rho +e^{2\rho }_{}x^+_+x^{}$$
(2.3)
We can interpret this as a string action in the conformal gauge if we add the Virasoro constraints

$`T_{++}`$ $`=`$ $`|k|\left[\left(_+\rho \right)^2+e^{2\rho }_+x^+_+x^{}\right]=0`$
$`T_{}`$ $`=`$ $`|k|\left[\left(_{}\rho \right)^2+e^{2\rho }_{}x^+_{}x^{}\right]=0`$
We want now to derive the the equations of motion and the allowed boundary conditions associated with the action (2.3) in the same way of we proceed with the usual string action in Minkowski space. The equations of motion read

$`_{}\left(e^{2\rho }_+x^{}\right)=_+\left(e^{2\rho }_{}x^+\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (2.4)
$`_{}_+\rho +e^{2\rho }_{}x^+_+x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (2.5)
while from the request of the cancellation of the surface terms obtained from the fields variation we get the boundary conditions

$`\delta \rho |_{\sigma =0}=\delta \rho |_{\sigma =2\pi }`$ $``$
$`\rho ^{}|_{\sigma =0}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho ^{}|_{\sigma =2\pi }`$
$`\delta x^{}|_{\sigma =0}=\delta x^{}|_{\sigma =2\pi }`$ $``$
$`e^{2\rho }_{}x^+|_{\sigma =0}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\rho }_{}x^+|_{\sigma =2\pi }`$ (2.6)
$`\delta x^+|_{\sigma =0}=\delta x^+|_{\sigma =2\pi }`$ $``$
$`e^{2\rho }_+x^{}|_{\sigma =0}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\rho }_+x^{}|_{\sigma =2\pi }`$ (2.7)
Anticipating the expressions for the KM currents (2.25,2.29) we can rewrite the last two conditions (2.6,2.7) as

$`J^{}|_{\sigma =0}=J^{}|_{\sigma =2\pi }`$ $`\overline{J}^+|_{\sigma =0}=\overline{J}^+|_{\sigma =2\pi }`$
### 2.2 The general solution of the equations of motions.

We are now ready to discuss the general solution of eq.s (2.4-2.5) . We can write the general solution as

$`x^+`$ $`=`$ $`a(\xi ^+)+e^{2c(\xi ^+)}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{b}(\xi ^{})}{1+\overline{b}(\xi ^{})b(\xi ^+)}}`$ (2.8)
$`x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{a}(\xi ^{})+e^{2\overline{c}(\xi ^{})}{\displaystyle \frac{b(\xi ^+)}{1+\overline{b}(\xi ^{})b(\xi ^+)}}`$ (2.9)
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{lg}\left(1+\overline{b}(\xi ^{})b(\xi ^+)\right)`$ (2.10)
$`+c(\xi ^+)+\overline{c}(\xi ^{}).`$
from the knowledge of the general solution of the equations of motion associated with a WZW action, i.e444 The reason why we choose such a parametrization is because we want the canonical momenta associated with $`x^\pm `$ be symmetric in the exchange of the barred and unbarred quantities. .

$`g(\xi ^+,\xi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`g_R^T(\xi ^{})g_L(\xi ^+)`$ (2.11)
$`g_R^T(\xi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{\overline{c}}& e^{\overline{c}}\overline{b}\\ e^{\overline{c}}\overline{a}& e^{\overline{c}}\overline{a}\overline{b}+e^{\overline{c}}\end{array}\right)`$ (2.14)
$`g_L(\xi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^c& e^ca\\ e^cb& e^cab+e^c\end{array}\right)`$ (2.17)
As it is well known the solution (2.11) does not fix completely $`g_R,g_L`$ (2.17) which are determined up to a redefinition

$$g_Lg_0g_Lg_Rg_0^Tg_R$$
(2.18)
we can (partially) fix this invariance by choosing a canonical form for the monodromies. This invariance is also connected to the possibility of using different charts: our parametrization is not global and therefore the group has to be covered with charts where one patch is parametrized as in (2.17) and the others can be chosen to be

$`g_{(1)L}(\xi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{c_{(1)}}b_{(1)}& e^{c_{(1)}}a_{(1)}b_{(1)}+e^{c_{(1)}}\\ e^{c_{(1)}}& e^{c_{(1)}}a_{(1)}\end{array}\right)`$
$`g_{(3)L}(\xi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{c_{(3)}}b_{(3)}& e^{c_{(3)}}a_{(3)}b_{(3)}+e^{c_{(3)}}\\ e^{c_{(3)}}& e^{c_{(3)}}a_{(3)}\end{array}\right)`$
$`g_{(2)L}(\xi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{c_{(2)}}& e^{c_{(2)}}a_{(2)}\\ e^{c_{(2)}}b_{(2)}& e^{c_{(2)}}a_{(2)}b_{(2)}+e^{c_{(2)}}\end{array}\right)`$
with transition function given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}& 1\\ 1& \end{array}\right)`$ (i.e. $`g_{(i+1)L}=\mathrm{\Omega }g_{(i)L}`$ with $`imod\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}4}`$) for $`g_L`$ and similarly for $`g_R`$. If we do not want to use charts we have to use singular functions as it happens with the Dirac monopole.

### 2.3 Canonical formalism.

Since we want to to discuss canonical transformations from interacting fields to Wakimoto ones we need to set up the canonical formalism. This is easily done and we find the momenta

$`𝒫`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|k|}{2\pi }}\dot{\rho }𝒫_+={\displaystyle \frac{|k|}{2\pi }}e^{2\rho }_+x^{}𝒫_{}={\displaystyle \frac{|k|}{2\pi }}e^{2\rho }_{}x^+`$
along with the classical hamiltonian

$$=\frac{\pi }{|k|}𝒫^2+\frac{|k|}{4\pi }\rho ^2+\frac{4\pi }{|k|}e^{2\rho }𝒫_+𝒫_{}𝒫_{}x^{}+𝒫_+x^+$$

Moreover we can write the non vanishing Poisson brackets as

$`\{x^+(\sigma ),𝒫_+(\sigma ^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{x^{}(\sigma ),𝒫_{}(\sigma ^{})\}=\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})`$
$`\{\rho (\sigma ),𝒫(\sigma ^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})`$ (2.22)
Obviously this expressions are not very useful because we cannot use them to deduce the commutation relations between the “oscillators” $`a,b,c`$ and $`\overline{a},\overline{b},\overline{c}`$ due to the highly non linear way they enter the expressions for $`x^\pm ,`$ $`\rho `$, explicitly

$`𝒫_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|k|}{2\pi }}e^{2c}_+b𝒫_{}={\displaystyle \frac{|k|}{2\pi }}e^{2\overline{c}}_{}\overline{b}`$ (2.23)
### 2.4 The KM algebra and the energy-momentum tensor.

From the standard classical expression for the left/right KM currents $`J=|k|g^1_+g`$ ($`\overline{J}=|k|_{}gg^1`$) we can compute the classical KM currents which read

$`J^{}`$ $`=`$ $`|k|e^{2\rho }_+x^{}`$ (2.24)
$`J^3`$ $`=`$ $`|k|\left(_+\rho x^+e^{2\rho }_+x^{}\right)`$ (2.25)
$`J^+`$ $`=`$ $`|k|\left(_+x^++2x^+_+\rho x^{+2}e^{2\rho }_+x^{}\right)`$
and

$`\overline{J}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`|k|\left(_{}x^{}+2x^{}_{}\rho x^2e^{2\rho }_{}x^+\right)`$
$`\overline{J}^3`$ $`=`$ $`|k|\left(_{}\rho x^{}e^{2\rho }_{}x^+\right)`$ (2.28)
$`\overline{J}^+`$ $`=`$ $`|k|e^{2\rho }_{}x^+`$ (2.29)
The previous currents can be rewritten in the canonical formalism in the following way

$`J^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi 𝒫_+`$
$`J^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|k|}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{|k|}}𝒫+\rho ^{}\right)2\pi x^+𝒫_+`$ (2.30)
$`J^+`$ $`=`$ $`|k|x^++|k|x^+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{|k|}}𝒫+\rho ^{}\right)`$
$`2\pi x^{+2}𝒫_++2\pi e^{2\rho }𝒫_{}`$
$`\overline{J}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`|k|x^{}+|k|x^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{|k|}}𝒫\rho ^{}\right)`$ (2.32)
$`2\pi x^2𝒫_{}+2\pi e^{2\rho }𝒫_+`$
$`\overline{J}^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|k|}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{|k|}}𝒫\rho ^{}\right)2\pi x^{}𝒫_{}`$
$`\overline{J}^+`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi 𝒫_{}`$ (2.33)
while the momentum-energy tensor reads

$`T_{++}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|k|}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{|k|}}𝒫+\rho ^{}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{|k|}}e^{2\rho }𝒫_+𝒫_{}`$
$`+2\pi 𝒫_+x^+`$
$`T_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|k|}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{|k|}}𝒫\rho ^{}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{|k|}}e^{2\rho }𝒫_+𝒫_{}`$
$`2\pi 𝒫_{}x^{}`$
It is then an easy matter to verify that they satisfy the following classical Virasoro (with vanishing central charge)

$`\{T_{++}(\sigma ),T_{++}(\sigma ^{})\}`$ $`=`$
$`2\pi \left[T_{++}(\sigma )+T_{++}(\sigma ^{})\right]_\sigma \delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})`$
$`2\pi {\displaystyle \frac{c}{12}}_\sigma ^3\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})`$
$`\{T_{}(\sigma ),T_{}(\sigma ^{})\}`$ $`=`$
$`2\pi \left[T_{}(\sigma )+T_{}(\sigma ^{})\right]_\sigma \delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})`$
$`+2\pi {\displaystyle \frac{c}{12}}_\sigma ^3\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})`$
with $`c=0`$ and Kac-Moody algebra (of level $`|k|`$ )

$`\{J^a(\sigma ),J^b(\sigma ^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi ϵ_{..c}^{ab}J^c\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})`$ (2.35)
$`+\pi |k|\eta ^{ab}\delta ^{}(\sigma \sigma ^{})`$
$`\{\overline{J}^a(\sigma ),\overline{J}^b(\sigma ^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi ϵ_{..c}^{ab}\overline{J}^c\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})`$ (2.36)
$`\pi |k|\eta ^{ab}\delta ^{}(\sigma \sigma ^{})`$
It is not difficult to check the classical Sugawara construction, i.e. $`T=\frac{1}{|k|}\eta _{ab}J^aJ^b`$.

### 2.5 The classical canonical transformation to the Wakimoto fields.

We are now ready to discuss the classical Wakimoto canonical fields. In order to get a hint on how they are related to our starting canonical variables we evaluate $`T`$ on the general solution of the equations of motion and we get

$$T_{++}=|k|(_+c)^2+|k|e^{2c}_+b_+a$$

Remembering the value of $`𝒫_+`$ given in eq. (2.23) the previous expression suggests that $`c`$ has something to do with a “free” field while $`a`$ could be proportional to the field canonically conjugate to $`𝒫_+`$. Starting from this observation it is not difficult to show that

$`F=\sqrt{2|k|}(c+\overline{c})`$ (2.37)
$`\beta =2\pi i𝒫_+,\gamma =a`$ (2.38)
$`\overline{\beta }=2\pi i𝒫_{},\overline{\gamma }=\overline{a}`$ (2.39)
which satisfy the following canonical Poisson brackets

$`\{F(\sigma ),\dot{F}(\sigma ^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})`$ (2.40)
$`\{\beta (\sigma ),\gamma (\sigma ^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi i\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})`$ (2.41)
$`\{\overline{\beta }(\sigma ),\overline{\gamma }(\sigma ^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi i\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})`$ (2.42)
reproduce eq.s (2.3).

We can now use these new canonical variables to express the classical energy momentum tensor

$$T_{++}=\frac{1}{2}\left(_+F\right)^2i\beta _+\gamma $$

and the classical left $`sl(2,R)`$ KM generators

$`J^{}`$ $`=`$ $`i\beta J^3=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{|k|}{2}}}_+F+i\beta \gamma `$ (2.43)
$`J^+`$ $`=`$ $`|k|_+\gamma +\sqrt{2|k|}\gamma _+F+i\beta \gamma ^2`$ (2.44)
and the classical right $`sl(2,R)`$ ones

$`\overline{J}^+`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\beta }\overline{J}^3=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{|k|}{2}}}_{}F+i\overline{\beta }\overline{\gamma }`$ (2.45)
$`\overline{J}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`|k|_{}\overline{\gamma }\sqrt{2|k|}\overline{\gamma }_{}F+i\overline{\beta }\overline{\gamma }^2`$ (2.46)
## 3 Monodromy matrices and boundary conditions.

Which are the boundary conditions to be imposed, here we follow the approach of ()? Usually and naively we would take $`g_R,g_LSL(2,R)`$ but in this case proceeding in this way we would get some very ugly results or miss two different physical sectors as we are going to explain, we take therefore $`g_R,g_LSL(2,C)`$ with the further condition dictated by reality of $`g`$

$$g_L^{}=g_{CC}g_Lg_R^{}=g_Rg_{CC}^1g_{CC}SL(2,C).$$
(3.1)
We can now ask which is the most general boundary conditions we can impose on $`g_{L,R}`$ compatible with eq.s (2.1-2.7). The simplest answer is the periodicity in $`g`$ which can be achieved by imposing the following boundary conditions

$`g_L(\xi ^++2\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`g_Pg_L(\xi ^+)`$
$`g_R(\xi ^{}2\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`g_R(\xi ^{})g_P^1`$ (3.2)
A less obvious answer which is nevertheless allowed by the boundary conditions is

$`g_L(\xi ^++2\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`g_Pg_L(\xi ^+)g_{L0}`$
$`g_R(\xi ^{}2\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`g_{R0}g_R(\xi ^{})g_P^T`$ (3.3)
where $`g_{L0}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2\pi w\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ and $`g_{R0}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2\pi \overline{w}\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ as it can be checked from (2.1-2.7). From the explicit form of the Wakimoto fields it turns out that both $`w`$ and $`\overline{w}`$ have vanishing Poisson brackets with all the fields: this is not strange as it can appear because the same happens in the flat limit.

Obviously eq. (3.1) has to be compatible with eq. (3.3), i.e. $`g_{CC}`$ and $`g_P`$ have to satisfy

$$g_{CC}g_P=g_P^{}g_{CC}$$
(3.4)
As far as the periodicity is concerned there are three different equivalence classes: $`g_P`$ can be either hyperbolic, parabolic or elliptic. Such classes correspond to tachionic, massless and massive string excitations in the flat limit $`k\mathrm{}`$ .

#### 3.0.1 Hyperbolic sector.

Let us start with the hyperbolic class is the most natural with the coordinates associated with the Gauss decomposition (2.2). This case can be described, up to conjugation by a constant element, by taking

$$g_P=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{2\pi p}& \\ & e^{2\pi p}\end{array}\right)p>0$$

where the constraint $`p>0`$ is due to the symmetry $`g_L\mathrm{\Omega }g_L`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}& 1\\ 1& \end{array}\right)`$. This form of the periodicity matrix does not fix completely the invariance (2.18) which can, for example, be generically fixed by the further constraint $`\overline{b}(0)=b(0)`$; analogous considerations apply for the other sectors. This $`g_P`$ is compatible with $`g_{CC}=1`$.

We can write the explicit expansions of the functions entering the general solution with the given boundary conditions as

$`a=w\xi ^++a_{periodic},b=e^{2p\xi ^+}b_{periodic},c=p\xi ^++c_{periodic}`$
$`F=p\tau +F_{periodic},\beta =\beta _{periodic},\gamma =w\xi ^++\gamma _{periodic}`$
similarly for the barred quantities with $`\overline{p}=p`$ but with $`\overline{w}`$ independent of $`w`$. The presence of these two constants $`w`$ and $`\overline{w}`$ is allowed by the equality of the variations of $`x^\pm `$ at $`\sigma =0,2\pi `$ in particular setting $`w=\overline{w}=Rn`$ ($`nZ`$) is equivalent to compactify the $`x^1`$ with radius $`R`$, i.e. to choose an extremal BH as background (). It is important to notice that both $`w`$ and $`\overline{w}`$ have vanishing Poisson brackets with everything as it can be verified from the free field representation. Analogous considerations apply to the other sectors.

It is interesting to notice that this is the only sector considered in (,) as it can be seen from the $`F`$ expansion.

#### 3.0.2 Elliptic sector.

Let us now consider the elliptic case which describes massive excitations in the flat limit where

$$g_P=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}2\pi p& \mathrm{sin}2\pi p\\ \mathrm{sin}2\pi p& \mathrm{cos}2\pi p\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i2\pi p}& \\ & e^{i2\pi p}\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}0}<p<\frac{1}{2}$$

where the first expression is the natural one when restricting the attention to real $`g_{L,R}`$ , i.e. when $`g_{CC}=1`$ while the second one is the most natural when considering complex $`g_{L,R}`$ with $`g_{CC}=\pm \left(\begin{array}{cc}& i\\ i& \end{array}\right)`$.

If we insist to use the real fields we get strange and ugly boundary conditions such as

$$c(\xi ^++2\pi )=c(\xi ^+)+\mathrm{log}\left(\mathrm{cos}2\pi p+b(\xi ^+)\mathrm{sin}2\pi p\right)$$

which propagate to strange, non free boundary conditions for the Wakimoto fields while using complex fields we get nice and free boundary conditions since the complex fields have analogous expansion as (3.0.1) with the substitution $`pi(p+k)`$ (where $`kZ`$) but it obliges us to impose the constraints

$$a^{}=a+\frac{1}{be^{2c}},b^{}=\frac{1}{b},c^{}=c+\mathrm{log}\left(\pm ib\right)$$

They can be imposed in a better way by requiring the reality of the KM currents.

Notice that if we restrict the momentum $`p`$ to the first Block wave the constraint $`0<p<\frac{1}{2}`$ implies $`0<j=p_F<\frac{k}{2}`$ which is equivalent to the unitary spectrum truncation at the quantum level.

#### 3.0.3 Parabolic sector.

Let us now consider the parabolic case where

$$g_P=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 2\pi p& 1\end{array}\right)pR$$

and $`g_{CC}=1`$, then the fields in the 0th patch can be expanded as

$`a=w\xi ^++a_{periodic},b=p\xi ^++b_{periodic},`$
$`c=c_{periodic}F=F_{periodic},`$
$`\beta =\beta _{periodic},\gamma =\gamma _{periodic}`$
However life is not so easy since the fields in the 1st patch satisfy

$`a_{(1)}(\xi ^++2\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`a_{(1)}(\xi ^+){\displaystyle \frac{e^{2c_{(1)}}}{12\pi pb_{(1)}(\xi ^+)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_{(1)}(\xi ^++2\pi )}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_{(1)}(\xi ^+)}}2\pi p`$
$`c_{(1)}(\xi ^++2\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`c_{(1)}(\xi ^+)+\mathrm{log}\left(12\pi pb_{(1)}(\xi ^+)\right)`$
There is apparently not an easy way to impose these constraints on the Wakimoto fields however it is necessary to use patches in this sector. A comment is now necessary in order to explain why it is necessary to work with two patches in order the canonical transformation work fine, exactly as it happens for the Liouville case. . If $`p_F0`$ we can express $`b`$ using the new canonical variables $`F`$ and $`\beta `$ but if we try to solve for $`b`$ when $`p_F=0`$ then we cannot recover $`b_0`$ (the constant mode of $`b_{periodic}`$ ) from the expression for $`\beta `$. This can clearly be avoided if we use two patches.

## 4 Conclusions.

We have shown that a free fields approach to string propagating on $`AdS_3`$ requires a lot of attention and that we must work with different charts, as done in () for the Liouville theory, if we want to treat the parabolic sector correctly. As byproducts of this analysis we have shown that the spectrum proposed by (,) is unnaturally truncated to the hyperbolic sector and that it is possible to describe a string propagating on an extremal BH background without much effort.


text:
# KUNS-1654hep-th/0003231 Noncommutative Monopole from Nonlinear Monopole

## 1 Introduction

Recently non-commutative gauge theory has received much attention for its origin in string theory. The effective action of D-brane in string theory with a constant NS 2-form $`B_{ij}`$ is the non-commutative Born-Infeld theory when the point splitting regularization is adopted . On the other hand, if we adopt the Pauli-Villars regularization we obtain the ordinary Born-Infeld theory. Since the method of regularization should not change the physical S-matrices, the two descriptions are argued to be related by a field redefinition  (called the Seiberg-Witten map).

This relation has been investigated intensively from various aspects, and among other things, from various BPS solutions . Since the constant NS 2-form serves as a uniform magnetic field, if we view the monopole solution as a D-string ending on a D3-brane, we expect the D-string tilts due to force balance between the D-string tension and the magnetic force at the endpoint . This system was analyzed in  as the solution of the linearly realized BPS equation in the commutative space.

However if we would like to see the tilts directly from the non-commutative viewpoint, it would be a hard task. We can only solve the linearly realized BPS equation in the perturbation expansion with respect to the non-commutativity parameter $`\theta `$. And even if we have solved the BPS equation, we would have to know how to extract the eigenvalues for the brane interpretation of . In our previous works  we proposed the non-commutative eigenvalue equation to analyze the asymptotic behavior and confirmed the tilts.

In , it was claimed that the brane interpretation is possible if we transform the results into the commutative viewpoint by the Seiberg-Witten map. Actually they argued that the linearly realized BPS monopole in the non-commutative space is mapped to the non-linearly realized BPS monopole in the commutative space by extending the argument in the instanton case . This relation is persuasive for the following reason. Since we are considering the monopole in the non-commutative space with the property that the field strength and the covariant derivative of the Higgs field vanish at the infinity and this property seems unchanged under the Seiberg-Witten map, it is expected that what relates to the non-commutative monopole by the Seiberg-Witten map should also have the same property. The condition of preserving the combination of supersymmetries which is unbroken at the infinity where the field strength and the covariant derivative vanish is exactly the non-linearly realized BPS equation.

One might worry that the linear BPS equation in the non-commutative space usually derived from the Yang-Mills theory cannot be obtained from the Born-Infeld theory which is of our prime interest in discussing the Seiberg-Witten map. However, it is shown that even in the non-commutative space the linear BPS equation of the Yang-Mills theory reproduces the equation of motion of the Born-Infeld theory by extending earlier discussions for the non-Abelian Born-Infeld theory  if we adopt the symmetrized trace prescription  for the definition of the determinant. Note also that this kind of transformation is possible owing to another fact that the solution is unchanged even when the derivative corrections to the Born-Infeld action are taken into account .

Moreover it is proposed that the non-linear BPS monopole in the commutative space is related to the linear BPS monopole in the commutative space by the rotation in the target space. In the electric case of , an exact treatment of the soliton was given though there are no discussions on the non-linear BPS equation. In the magnetic case of  the discussion on the non-linear BPS equation was restricted to the approximation $`r^22\pi \alpha ^{}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2B`$.

In this paper we shall extend the works of  to explore the non-commutative BPS monopole from the non-linear BPS monopole in the commutative space. First we shall solve the non-linear BPS equation in the commutative space exactly without any approximation. We find that the solution is nothing but the one obtained by rotating the solution of the linear BPS equation in the target space.

After establishing the non-linear BPS monopole in the commutative space, we explicitly write down the first few terms in the expansion of the NS 2-form $`B_{ij}`$. What we find is terms in a mess and at first sight it seems impossible that they are related to the non-commutative monopole by the Seiberg-Witten map. We shall resolve this problem by using the moduli of the open string, namely, the open string metric $`G`$ and the non-commutativity parameter $`\theta `$. This resolution is regarded as an evidence for the claim that the non-linear monopole is transformed into the non-commutative monopole by the Seiberg-Witten map. Finally we map the non-linear monopole into the non-commutative space. We confirm that it satisfies the non-commutative BPS equation up to $`O(\theta ^2)`$.

## 2 Nonlinear BPS equation

In this section, we shall explicitly solve the non-linear BPS equation in the commutative space. First we shall recall the linearly realized supersymmetries $`\delta _\mathrm{L}`$ and non-linearly realized supersymmetries $`\delta _{\mathrm{NL}}`$  of the Born-Infeld action:

$`\delta _\mathrm{L}\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}M_{mn}^+\sigma ^{mn}\eta ,`$ (1)
$`\delta _\mathrm{L}\overline{\lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}M_{mn}^{}\sigma ^{mn}\overline{\eta },`$ (2)
$`\delta _{\mathrm{NL}}\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}\left(1PfM+\sqrt{1TrM^2/2+(PfM)^2}\right)\eta ^{},`$ (3)
$`\delta _{\mathrm{NL}}\overline{\lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}\left(1+PfM+\sqrt{1TrM^2/2+(PfM)^2}\right)\overline{\eta }^{},`$ (4)
where $`M`$ denotes

$`M=(2\pi \alpha ^{})\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& _1\mathrm{\Phi }& _2\mathrm{\Phi }& _3\mathrm{\Phi }\\ _1\mathrm{\Phi }& 0& (F_3+B_3)& (F_2+B_2)\\ _2\mathrm{\Phi }& (F_3+B_3)& 0& (F_1+B_1)\\ _3\mathrm{\Phi }& (F_2+B_2)& (F_1+B_1)& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (5)
with the magnetic field $`F_i=ϵ_{ijk}F_{jk}/2`$, a constant NS 2-form background $`B_i=ϵ_{ijk}B_{jk}/2`$ and the Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Here we turn on only the spatial components of the field strength and the NS 2-form. The matrix $`M`$ has been obtained by regarding the Euclidean time component of the gauge field as the Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and discarding the time derivatives. We shall set $`2\pi \alpha ^{}=1`$ for simplicity hereafter, however we can restore it on the dimensional ground anytime we like. The non-linear BPS equation  is the condition for preserving the linear combination of $`\delta _\mathrm{L}`$ and $`\delta _{\mathrm{NL}}`$ which is unbroken at the infinity where the field strength and the derivative of the Higgs field vanish:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑭+𝑩\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }}{1+(𝑭+𝑩)\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }+\sqrt{1+(𝑭+𝑩)^2+(\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi })^2+\left((𝑭+𝑩)\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{𝑩}{1+\sqrt{1+𝑩^2}}}.`$ (6)
This BPS equation is not so complicated to solve as it looks. The starting point is similar to the case of instanton . First we note that eq. (6) implies $`𝑭\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is proportional to $`𝑩`$:

$`𝑭\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }=f𝑩,`$ (7)
where $`f`$ is an unknown function. The key point to solve this BPS equation is to rewrite eq. (6) as

$`(f+1)\left(1+\sqrt{1+𝑩^2}\right)1(𝑭+𝑩)\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }=\sqrt{1+(𝑭+𝑩)^2+(\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi })^2+\left((𝑭+𝑩)\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2}.`$ (8)
Taking the square of this equation (8) and using the relation (7) to eliminate the magnetic field $`𝑭`$ when necessary, we find that eq. (8) is reduced simply to

$`f=(\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi })^2+(f+1)𝑩\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (9)
Another equation for $`f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ besides (9) is obtained by taking the divergence of the relation (7) and using the Bianchi identity $`\mathbf{}𝑭=0`$,

$`\mathbf{}^2\mathrm{\Phi }=𝑩\mathbf{}f.`$ (10)
Now we have a system of differential equations (9) and (10) for the scalar quantities $`f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. After eliminating $`f`$ we find quite a non-linear equation for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$:

$`\mathbf{}^2\mathrm{\Phi }\left(1𝑩\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2+2𝑩\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(1𝑩\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)+𝑩\mathbf{}𝑩\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(1+(\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi })^2\right)=0.`$ (11)
Hereafter we shall suppose the constant background $`𝑩`$ is in the $`z`$ direction and rewrite the equation (11) in the cylindrical coordinate $`(\rho ,\phi ,z)`$ with $`x=\rho \mathrm{cos}\phi `$ and $`y=\rho \mathrm{sin}\phi `$,

$`(_\rho ^2\mathrm{\Phi }+_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }/\rho +_z^2\mathrm{\Phi })(1B_z\mathrm{\Phi })^2+2B(_\rho _z\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }+_z^2\mathrm{\Phi }_z\mathrm{\Phi })(1B_z\mathrm{\Phi })`$
$`+B^2_z^2\mathrm{\Phi }(1+(_\rho \mathrm{\Phi })^2+(_z\mathrm{\Phi })^2)=0.`$ (12)
This differential equation looks impossible to solve. However, we can apply the idea of  to find that the solution is exactly the one obtained by rotating the solution of the linear BPS equation in the target space by an angle $`\varphi `$ with $`\mathrm{tan}\varphi =B`$. This idea is convincing for the following reason.*** We are grateful to T. Hirayama for a valuable discussion on this point.  Originally the string theory has the $`SO(1,9)`$ Lorentz symmetry and 32 supersymmetries. Taking the static gauge the Lorentz symmetry is broken into $`SO(1,3)\times SO(6)`$ and half of the supersymmetries are broken. The broken symmetries are realized non-linearly. If we rotate the target space and still take the static gauge by adopting a different worldsheet coordinate, we would find that originally linearly realized symmetries correspond in general to some combinations of the linear and the non-linear ones. Therefore the linear BPS equation and the non-linear BPS equation should be related by a target space rotation.

To see this explicitly we change our variables into those with bars by the target space rotation,

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\\ \overline{z}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\varphi & \mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \mathrm{cos}\varphi \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }\\ z\end{array}\right),`$ (13)
and show that the solution for the variables with bars is the same as that of the linear BPS equation. First we have to rewrite the equation (12) by changing $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`_\rho `$, $`_z`$ into $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, $`\overline{}_\rho /\rho |_{\overline{z}}`$, $`\overline{}_z/\overline{z}|_\rho `$. Note that, though we do not change the coordinate $`\rho `$, $`\overline{}_\rho `$ is different form $`_\rho `$ because the coordinate to be fixed is different between them. The formulas for rewriting $`_z\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }`$ into $`\overline{}_z\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ and $`\overline{}_\rho \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ read

$`_z\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi \overline{}_z\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\mathrm{cos}\varphi +\mathrm{sin}\varphi \overline{}_z\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}}},`$ (14)
$`_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{}_\rho \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{\mathrm{cos}\varphi +\mathrm{sin}\varphi \overline{}_z\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}}},`$ (15)
where the first formula is directly obtained from the rotation (13) and the second formula is a consequence of the chain rule formula

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{\rho }}|_z={\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\rho }}|_z{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{\rho }}|_{\overline{z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{z}}{\rho }}|_z{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{\overline{z}}}|_\rho ,`$ (16)
and the relations $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}/\rho |_z=\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }/\rho |_z`$ and $`\overline{z}/\rho |_z=\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }/\rho |_z`$. In the same way we also find the similar formulas for higher derivatives,

$`_z^2\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{}_z^2\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}/(\mathrm{cos}\varphi +\mathrm{sin}\varphi \overline{}_z\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})^3,`$ (17)
$`_z_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\mathrm{cos}\varphi \overline{}_z\overline{}_\rho \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}+\mathrm{sin}\varphi (\overline{}_z\overline{}_\rho \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\overline{}_z\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\overline{}_z^2\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\overline{}_\rho \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})\right]/(\mathrm{cos}\varphi +\mathrm{sin}\varphi \overline{}_z\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})^3,`$ (18)
$`_\rho ^2\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`[(\mathrm{cos}\varphi )^2\overline{}_\rho ^2\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}+2\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\varphi (\overline{}_z\overline{}_\rho \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\overline{}_\rho \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}+\overline{}_\rho ^2\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\overline{}_z\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ (19)
$`+(\mathrm{sin}\varphi )^2(\overline{}_z^2\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\overline{}_\rho \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})^22\overline{}_z\overline{}_\rho \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\overline{}_z\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\overline{}_\rho \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}+\overline{}_\rho ^2\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\overline{}_z\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})^2)]/(\mathrm{cos}\varphi +\mathrm{sin}\varphi \overline{}_z\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})^3.`$
Using these formulas, the terribly non-linear equation (12) now becomes

$`\overline{}_\rho ^2\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}+\overline{}_\rho \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}/\rho +\overline{}_z^2\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}=0,`$ (20)
which is nothing but the three-dimensional laplace equation. The solution to eq. (20) is given by the sum of the Coulomb term and the linear term determined by the boundary condition in the asymptotic region:

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}={\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sqrt{\rho ^2+\overline{z}^2}}}+B\overline{z}.`$ (21)
Turning back to the variables without bars using the relation (13), our final result for the Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is given as the solution of the algebraic equation,

$`\left((1+B^2)\rho ^2+z^22Bz\mathrm{\Phi }+B^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^2=q^2,`$ (22)
or its covariant form

$`\left((1+𝑩^2)𝒙^2(𝑩𝒙)^22𝑩𝒙\mathrm{\Phi }+𝑩^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^2=q^2.`$ (23)
The explicit expression of the first few terms in the expansion with respect to $`B`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{q}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2𝑩𝒙}{r^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q𝑩^2}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q(𝑩𝒙)^2}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^3𝑩^2}{r^5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^3(𝑩𝒙)^2}{r^7}},`$ (24)
with $`r=\sqrt{\rho ^2+z^2}`$.

Similarly the magnetic field is also obtained from the relations (7) and (9) as

$`𝑭=\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi })^2+𝑩\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }}{1𝑩\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }}}𝑩.`$ (25)
Using our result (23) we can rewrite this expression (25) by eliminating the derivatives of the Higgs field $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$,

$`𝑭={\displaystyle \frac{(1+𝑩^2)(𝒙+2\mathrm{\Phi }𝑩)\mathrm{\Phi }}{(1+𝑩^2)𝒙^2(𝑩𝒙)^23(𝑩𝒙)\mathrm{\Phi }+2𝑩^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2}}.`$ (26)
## 3 Physical interpretation

In this section, we shall give some comments and physical interpretations to our solution. First, our result is obtained without any approximations and the expansion (24) is consistent with the result obtained in . The behavior of the Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (22) against the worldsheet coordinate $`(z,\rho )`$ is depicted in Fig. 2 (A). Note that in the right hand side of eq. (8) we do not persist in taking the positive branch of the square root, because it forces us to discard part of the solution given in Fig. 2 (A). The spike-like behavior of the Higgs field represents the D-string attached to the D3-brane in the brane interpretation of . This D-string tilts due to the uniform magnetic field and the tilt angle is exactly the one expected from the force balance . Here we find that the Higgs field is multi-valued due to this tilt (see Fig. 2 (B) which shows the multi-valuedness of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on the $`\rho =0`$ plane). This multi-valuedness is a consequence of the fact that the eq. (22) determining $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a fourth order algebraic equation which in general has four solutions. Another solution not depicted in Fig. 2 (B) is a fake one with $`\mathrm{\Phi }<0`$. This multi-valuedness implies that the Dirac monopole might be ill-defined as a field theoretic soliton in the non-linear BPS equation and probably also in the non-commutative BPS equation via the Seiberg-Witten map. However, the multi-valuedness is inevitable from the string theory viewpoint.

Though we do not know the non-linear BPS equation for the non-Abelian case due to the complexity of the ordering in the determinant, it is expected that the Higgs field related to the non-commutative monopole by the Seiberg-Witten map is that obtained by rotating the solution of the linear BPS equation in the target space. Note that in this case of the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole, the problematic multi-valuedness in the Dirac monopole does not necessarily appear. From the behavior near the origin $`r=0`$ of the exact solution in  with $`C=\mathrm{\Phi }`$,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=(Cr/\mathrm{tanh}Cr1)/rC^2r/3,`$ (27)
we can read off that the tangent vector of the deformed D3-brane is $`\stackrel{}{v}=(1,C^2/3+B)`$ and that of the worldsheet parameterization is $`\stackrel{}{w}=(1,B)`$ in the rotated coordinate system depicted in Fig. 3. Therefore the single-valuedness condition is expressed as the positivity of the inner product of these two vectors:

$`\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{w}=1C^2B/3+B^2>0.`$ (28)
This implies that at some value of NS 2-form even the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole is not single-valued, which is something we have never experienced in the usual field-theoretical solitons.

Finally, we would like to comment on the small $`B`$ expansion (24). Unlike our experience of the non-commutative monopole in the flat space  where the only parameter is $`\theta `$, at $`O(B^2)`$ of (24) we find terms proportional to $`r^1`$ as well as $`r^5`$, which implies the parameter $`2\pi \alpha ^{}`$ also appears. If we expect the present result is transformed to the non-commutative monopole by the Seiberg-Witten map, this kind of double expansion seems impossible.

The resolution to this paradox is given by considering the moduli of the open string metric $`G`$ and the non-commutativity parameter $`\theta `$. When we relate the non-commutative gauge theory to its commutative counterpart, we should also relate the moduli by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{G}}+\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g+B}}.`$ (29)
Since we set the metric in the commutative space to the flat one $`g_{ij}=\delta _{ij}`$ and turn on only the spatial NS 2-form $`B_i`$, our moduli are

$`G_{ij}=(1+𝑩^2)\delta _{ij}B_iB_j,\theta ^{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{ijk}B_k}{1+𝑩^2}},`$ (30)
with a necessarily non-trivial open string metric. Using these open string moduli we can construct several kinds of scalars:

$`R^2`$ $``$ $`G_{ij}x^ix^j=(1+B^2)\rho ^2+z^2,`$ (31)
$`\theta x`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{G}ϵ_{ijk}\theta ^{jk}x^i=Bz,`$ (32)
$`\theta ^2`$ $``$ $`G^{ij}\sqrt{G}ϵ_{ikl}\theta ^{kl}\sqrt{G}ϵ_{jmn}\theta ^{mn}=B^2.`$ (33)
Note that in the case of a non-trivial metric the $`ϵ`$ tensor should always be accompanied with $`\sqrt{G}`$. In terms of these scalars our result (22) can be rewritten into an expression with only one parameter $`\theta `$:

$`\left(R^2+2\theta x\mathrm{\Phi }+\theta ^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^2=q^2.`$ (34)
Note that from the dimensional ground there can appear no $`2\pi \alpha ^{}`$ in (34). Our observation here shows that we have two viewpoints for the non-linear monopole. One is with the flat space and a NS 2-form and the other is with the non-trivial metric and the non-commutativity parameter. Similarly if we rewrite the magnetic field (26) into the covariant field strength, we will also find an expression without $`2\pi \alpha ^{}`$:

$`F_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{G}ϵ_{ijk}(x^k2\mathrm{\Phi }\theta ^k)\mathrm{\Phi }}{R^2+3\theta x\mathrm{\Phi }+2\theta ^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2}}.`$ (35)
Similar expression for the gauge field is difficult to find because of the existence of the Dirac string.

Our analysis so far is believed to be related to the non-commutative monopole by the Seiberg-Witten map . In the case of a constant non-trivial metric the BPS equation in the non-commutative space should be given by

$`\widehat{F}_{ij}=\sqrt{G}ϵ_{ijm}G^{mn}\widehat{D}_n\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }},`$ (36)
as can be seen from the BPS bound arguments . However since the non-trivial metric is constant, we can always orthonormalize it globally by the vielbein:

$`E_\alpha ^iE_\beta ^jG_{ij}=\delta _{\alpha \beta }.`$ (37)
Therefore if we would like to find the non-commutative monopole in the flat space we have to collect all our results of the non-linear BPS equation, rewrite them in the covariant form, make a coordinate transformation $`x^iE_i^\alpha x^i`$ into the flat space, and transform them into the non-commutative space by the Seiberg-Witten map. Our result in the flat space up to $`O(\theta ^2)`$ for the Higgs field is

$`\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{q}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2\theta x}{r^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^3\theta ^2}{2r^5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5q^3(\theta x)^2}{2r^7}},`$ (38)
where we have rewritten $`R`$ into $`r`$ because now we are in the flat space. And the gauge field corresponding to the field strength (35) is given by

$`A_i=A_i^0+A_i^1,`$ (39)
with

$`A_1^0={\displaystyle \frac{qy}{r(r+z)}},A_2^0={\displaystyle \frac{qx}{r(r+z)}},A_3^0=0,`$ (40)
$`A_i^1={\displaystyle \frac{q^2ϵ_{ijk}\theta _jx_k}{r^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{5q^3ϵ_{ijk}\theta _jx_k\theta _mx_m}{2r^7}}.`$ (41)
Note that due to the presence of the Dirac string the solution in the zero-th order in $`\theta `$ cannot be written in a spherically symmetric form. We have explicitly transformed this result into the non-commutative space by the Seiberg-Witten map

$`\widehat{A}_i`$ $`=`$ $`A_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{kl}A_k(_lA_i+F_{li})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{kl}\theta ^{mn}A_k(_lA_m_nA_i_lF_{mi}A_n+F_{lm}F_{ni}),`$ (42)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{kl}A_k(2_l\mathrm{\Phi })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{kl}\theta ^{mn}A_k(_lA_m_n\mathrm{\Phi }_l_m\mathrm{\Phi }A_n+F_{lm}_n\mathrm{\Phi }),`$ (43)
and checked that it indeed satisfies the non-commutative BPS equation by using a symbolic manipulation software. However due to the Dirac string the covariant form is not available and the result is too complicated and not suitable to be written here.

## 4 Summary and further directions

In this paper we extended the earlier idea of rotating the system to solve the non-linear BPS equation without any approximation. Since we solved it exactly, the multi-valuedness problem appeared. We also pointed out the open string metric is in general non-trivial and a careful treatment is necessary. Finally we transformed our result into the non-commutative space by the Seiberg-Witten map and confirmed it satisfies the non-commutative BPS equation.

In our exact manipulation we clarified the physical meaning of the Higgs field in the non-linear BPS equation. Hence in the non-Abelian case, even though we do not know the non-linear BPS equation, we expect the solution for the Higgs field related to the non-commutative monopole is that obtained by rotating the solution of the linear BPS equation in the target space. However the meaning of the gauge field is still unclear. So we do not know what to expect for the gauge field. To understand it is an interesting subject.

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank K. Hashimoto, H. Hata and T. Hirayama for valuable discussions and comments and H. Hata for careful reading of the present manuscript. This work is supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan (#04633). The author is supported in part by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science under the Predoctoral Research Program.