text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Noncommutative geometry  has been applied to string theory in several different aspects -. In particular, Connes, Douglas and Schwarz  found that in the matrix theory a constant $`C_{ij}`$ field background results in a gauge field theory living on a noncommutative space. It was also found that the low energy effective theory for D-branes in the NS-NS $`B`$ field background is also given by the same noncommutative gauge theory (NCGT) . We feel that it is important to understand the physics of noncommutative field theories.

The purpose of this paper is to understand better twisted bundles on noncommutative space. A noncommutative space is defined by the algebra $`𝒜`$ of functions on the space, and the Hilbert space on which $`𝒜`$ is realized as operators. According to Connes, vector bundles on a noncommutative space are defined as projective modules of $`𝒜`$ . In other words, a twisted bundle can be understood as a projection $`P`$ from a trivial bundle. Classically we restrict ourselves to bundles with fibers all of the same dimension at every point. This means that the projection $`P`$ is of constant rank. However, due to the existence of projective operators in $`𝒜`$, one can extend the definition of bundles to projective modules for which $`P`$ has non-constant rank. The $`U(1)`$ instanton solution of Nekrasov and Schwarz  is found to be such an example .

In sec.2 we review the noncommutative algebra $`𝒜`$ of functions on a quantum plane, and its realization on Hilbert spaces. In sec.3, we find projective operators in $`𝒜`$ constructed out of operators $`U`$ which has right inverse but no left inverse. Formal gauge transformations by $`U`$ bring a bundle of constant dimension to a bundle with non-constant dimension. This can be viewed as a mathematical motivation for us not to exclude bundles with non-constant dimension. We review the notion of twisted bundles in sec.4, with special care to projective modules with non-constant rank . As an example we review the ADHM construction of $`U(1)`$ instantons  in sec.5.

## 2 Quantum Plane

In Connes’ formulation of noncommutative geometry , a noncommutative space is specified by the spectral triple $`(𝒜,,𝒟)`$, where $`𝒜`$ is the noncommutative algebra of functions on the space, $``$ is the Hilbert space on which $`𝒜`$ is realized as an operator algebra, and $`𝒟`$ is the so-called Dirac operator which defines the metric and differential calculus. 111 For a short introduction to the role $`𝒟`$ plays in noncommutative geometry please see .  In this paper, we will not use $`𝒟`$, but instead we will directly define the differential calculus for the nonocommutative space under consideration.

For the noncommutative space we are interested in, the coordinates $`x^i`$ satisfy

$$[x_i,x_j]=i\theta _{ij},$$
(1)
where $`þ_{ij}𝐑`$ are constant real numbers. The algebra $`𝒜`$ is defined by this relation and elements in $`𝒜`$ are functions of $`x_i`$.

There are two different Hilbert spaces that are often used in the literature for our $`𝒜`$. The first is the Hilbert space of simple harmonic oscillators (SHO), on which complex coordinates act as creation and annihilation operators. The second is the phase space of one particle on a classical space, on which the noncommutative coordinates are linear combinations of coordinates and momenta in quantum mechanics. We discuss these Hilbert spaces in the following two subsection.

For simplicity, we will consider a two dimensional noncommutative space, which is also called a quantum plane, with coordinates $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{y}`$ satisfying

$$[\widehat{x},\widehat{y}]=iþ.$$
(2)
This relation is invariant under translation and rotation on the two dimensional plane. There is an anti-involution denoted by $``$ which is identified with Hermitian conjugation when $`𝒜`$ is realized as operators on a Hilbert space. We assume that $`þ`$ is a real number and

$$\widehat{x}^{}=\widehat{x},\widehat{y}^{}=\widehat{y}.$$
(3)
The algebra $`𝒜`$ is generated by $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{y}`$. As a convention we choose the coordinates such that

$$þ0.$$
(4)
It follows that the commutation relation of the complex coordinates

$$\widehat{z}=\frac{\widehat{x}+i\widehat{y}}{2},\widehat{\overline{z}}\widehat{z}^{}=\frac{\widehat{x}i\widehat{y}}{2}$$
(5)
is similar to that of the creation and annihilation operators for a simple harmonic oscillator:

$$[\widehat{z},\widehat{\overline{z}}]=\frac{þ}{2}.$$
(6)
One can therefore use the SHO Hilbert space as a representation of $`𝒜`$.

One can adjoin differential one-forms $`(d\widehat{z})`$ and $`(d\widehat{\overline{z}})`$ to this algebra and generate the differential calculus. By definition, $`(d\widehat{z})`$ and $`(d\widehat{\overline{z}})`$ commute with $`\widehat{z}`$ and $`\widehat{\overline{z}}`$, and satisfy the anticommuting relations

$$(d\widehat{z})(d\widehat{\overline{z}})=(d\widehat{\overline{z}})(d\widehat{z}),(d\widehat{z})^2=(d\widehat{\overline{z}})^2=0.$$
(7)
One can also define the derivatives $`\widehat{}_i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) which satisfy

$`\widehat{}_i\widehat{x}_j=\widehat{x}_j\widehat{}_i+\delta _{ij},`$ (8)
$`[\widehat{}_1,\widehat{}_2]=0.`$ (9)
The action of a derivative on a function is

$$(\widehat{}_if)[\widehat{}_i,f].$$
(10)
When acting on functions, $`\widehat{}_iþ_{ij}^1\widehat{x}_j`$.

### 2.1 SHO Hilbert Space

The algebra $`𝒜`$ can be realized as an operator algebra according to

$$\widehat{z}|n=\sqrt{\frac{þn}{2}}|n1,\widehat{\overline{z}}|n=\sqrt{\frac{þ(n+1)}{2}}|n+1$$
(11)
on the SHO Hilbert space $`_{\text{SHO}}=\{|n,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$.

This realization of $`𝒜`$ is not a one-to-one map. Any smooth function of

$$\widehat{n}=\frac{2}{þ}\widehat{\overline{z}}\widehat{z},$$
(12)
such as $`\mathrm{sin}\pi \widehat{n}`$, which vanishes for all $`\widehat{n}𝐙`$ is identical to zero. Similarly, a smooth function of $`\widehat{n}`$ which vanishes at all integers except $`\widehat{n}=n`$ is equivalent to the projective operator $`P_n=|nn|`$.

Intuitively, points on the noncommutative space correspond to states in the Hilbert space. The existence of these projective operators suggests that in some sense the noncommutative space is a disconnected space. Classically, the step function is a projective operator, but it is not a smooth function.

In general, a necessary condition for a Hilbert space $``$ to respect a symmetry $`\widehat{x}\widehat{x}^{}=\widehat{x}^{}(\widehat{x})`$ is that

$$Tr(f(\widehat{x}^{}))=Tr(f(\widehat{x}))$$
(13)
for the trace on $``$. Note that the natural notion for intergration on a quantum space is just the trace over its Hilbert space. 222To be more precise one should use the Dixmier trace.

Denoting the trace of $`f𝒜`$ on a Hilbert space for the quantum plane by $`f(\widehat{x},\widehat{y})`$, one can check whether it is true that

$$f(\widehat{x}+a,\widehat{y}+b)=f(\widehat{x},\widehat{y})$$
(14)
for arbitrary real constants $`a,b`$ whenever $`f`$ is well defined. This requirement is equivalent to

$$(\widehat{}_if)=0,$$
(15)
which is the quantum analogue of the Stokes’ theorem. It can be checked that the trace over $`_{\text{SHO}}`$ respects both the rotational and the translational symmetry.

### 2.2 GNS Construction

The problem here is generic. Given a noncommutative algebra of functions $`𝒜`$, how do we define its Hilbert space such that certain symmetries of the algebra are respected? The natural solution is the following. First define the integration $``$ on the noncommutative space as a functional invariant under all required symmetries, then use the Gel’fand-Naǐmark-Siegel (GNS) construction to build the Hilbert space from this functional. In the GNS construction, the Hilbert space $`_{\text{GNS}}`$ is roughly speaking the set of all functions $`\{|f(\widehat{x})\}`$, where the inner product is defined by

$$f(\widehat{x})|g(\widehat{x})=f(\widehat{x})^{}g(\widehat{x}).$$
(16)
However, only normalizable states should be considered, and two states are viewed equivalent if they have the same inner product with all other states.

Let $`\widehat{x}_1=\widehat{x},\widehat{x}_2=\widehat{y}`$. The operators $`\widehat{x}_i`$ can be realized in terms of the coordinates $`x_i`$ and derivatives $`_i`$ on a classical plane as

$$\widehat{x}_i=x_i+\frac{i}{2}þ_{ij}_j,$$
(17)
where $`þ_{ij}=þϵ_{ij}`$. Define the “vacuum” $``$ which is annihilated by the derivatives

$$_i=0.$$
(18)
The vacuum correpsonds to the identity function $`1`$ and a classical function $`f`$ acts on it to give a new state $`f(x)`$. The vacuum may not be a state in $``$ and is simply a covenient notation.

For any function $`f`$ of $`\widehat{x}`$, there is a classical function $`f_c`$ of $`x`$ such that

$$f(\widehat{x})=f_c(x)$$
(19)
due to (18). The function $`f_c`$ is also the classical function corresponding to $`f(\widehat{x})`$ in the star product representation (see the next subsection). We can now define the integration $`f(\widehat{x})`$ on the quantum plane by the classical integration of $`f_c(x)`$. Since according to (17), the translation of $`\widehat{x}`$ is identical to the translation of $`x`$, this functional $``$ preserves translational symmetry.

This integral is different from the integral on $`_{\text{SHO}}`$. For instance, any function of $`\widehat{\overline{z}}\widehat{z}`$ which vanishes when $`(þ\widehat{\overline{z}}\widehat{z}/2)`$ is integer is always integrated to zero on $`_{\text{SHO}}`$, but not necessarily zero on $`_{\text{GNS}}`$.

Following the GNS construction with this invariant functional, we obtain the Hilbert space $`_{\text{GNS}}`$ which is the same as the Hilbert space of one-particle quantum mechanics on a classical space.

$`_{\text{GNS}}`$ is not an irreducible representation of $`𝒜`$, and $`_{\text{SHO}}`$ is a subset of this Hilbert space corresponding to picking up only the states $`\{|nH_n(x/\sqrt{þ})e^{x^2/þ}\}`$ where the $`H_n`$’s are the Hermite polynomials.

Due to (18), the requirement (15) is consistent with viewing the functional as the “vacuum expectation value”, with the assumption that

$$\widehat{}_i=0.$$
(20)
It seems that $`_{\text{GNS}}`$ is the correct choice to be used in matrix theory with $`C`$ field background or for D-branes in a $`B`$ field background. In the derivation of the noncommutative relations (1) via open string quantization , the noncommutativity comes from a mixing of classical coordinates and momenta due to mixed boundary conditions for the open string. This is very much like what eq.(17) represents.

### 2.3 Star Product Representation

It is well known that the quantum plane can be described by commutative functions with a star product. Let $`x`$ and $`y`$ be the coordinates over a classical plane. The star product is defined by

$$fg=\left(e^{i\frac{þ}{2}(_x_y_y_x)}(fg)\right),$$
(21)
where $`(AB)`$ is the ordinary commutative product of $`A`$ and $`B`$.

For each classical function $`f(x)`$ we associate a pseudo-differential operator

$$\widehat{f}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}i^n\frac{þ_{i_1j_1}}{2}\mathrm{}\frac{þ_{i_nj_n}}{2}\left(_{i_1}\mathrm{}_{i_n}f(x)\right)_{j_1}\mathrm{}_{j_n},$$
(22)
which can be written as

$$\widehat{f}=\left(e^{i\frac{þ}{2}(_x_y_y_x)}(f)\right).$$
(23)
It can be shown that in general

$$\widehat{f}\widehat{g}=\widehat{h},\text{where}h=fg.$$
(24)
Let the Fourier transform of $`f`$ be denoted $`\stackrel{~}{f}_k`$:

$$f(x)=𝑑k\stackrel{~}{f}_ke^{ikx},$$
(25)
then one finds

$$\widehat{f}=𝑑k\stackrel{~}{f}_ke^{ik\widehat{x}},$$
(26)
where $`\widehat{x}`$ is defined in (17). Thus $`\widehat{f}`$ is a function of $`\widehat{x}`$, and the algebra of classical functions with the star product is equivalent to $`𝒜`$. It is straightforward to check from (26) that

$$\widehat{f}(\widehat{x})=f(x).$$
(27)
Comparing this with (19), one sees that $`f=f_c`$.

## 3 An Algebraic Problem

Consider the standard algebraic problem of finding all solutions of $`\psi `$ from an equation like

$$f\psi =0$$
(28)
for given $`f(x)`$. Given a special example of (28), one can obtain other examples by replacing $`f`$ by $`f^{}f`$ and $`\psi `$ by $`\psi g`$ with arbitrary functions $`f^{}`$ and $`g`$.

In noncommutative algebra, an element $`f`$ may not have a left inverse $`f^{}`$ such that $`f^{}f=1`$, or a right inverse $`f^{}`$ such that $`ff^{}=1`$. If $`f`$ has a left inverse, then the unique solution of $`\psi `$ is zero. Conversely, if $`\psi `$ has a trivial solution, it means that $`f`$ can not have a left inverse.

Because the star product involves derivatives, the equation (28) is not really an algebraic relation but rather a differential equation. Differential equations are uniquely solved only if sufficient initial or boundary conditions are specified, so we should expect that there are generically more than one solution to the equation (28).

Consider the example of $`f=z`$:

$$z\psi =z\psi +\frac{þ}{4}\overline{}\psi =0.$$
(29)
It can be easily solved by

$$\psi =e^{\frac{4z\overline{z}}{þ}+h(z)},$$
(30)
where $`h(z)`$ is an arbitrary function of $`z`$. The special case of $`h`$ equal to a constant gives the Gaussian distribution

$$\psi =\psi _0e^{\pm \frac{x^2+y^2}{þ}}.$$
(31)
This function corresponds to the operator $`|00|`$ on $`_{\text{SHO}}`$.

There are also examples of $`f`$ for which the solution of $`\psi `$ in (28) is unique ($`\psi =0`$). An example is given by $`f=e^{ikx}`$.

It is easy to see that if $`f`$ is a polynomial of degree $`k`$ then (28) is a differential equation of order $`k`$, and one needs the appropriate initial or boundary condition for the given differential equation.

In terms of the operator algebra on $`_{\text{SHO}}`$, the fact that (28) has many solutions for $`f=z^k`$ is related to the fact that $`\widehat{z}^k`$ annihilates all states $`|n`$ with $`n<k`$. Instead of using $`\widehat{z}`$ in this discussion, let us normalize it and define

$$u=(\widehat{\overline{z}}\widehat{z}+þ/2)^{1/2}\widehat{z}.$$
(32)
One can check that

$$uu^{}=1,\text{but}u^{}u=1|00|.$$
(33)
Thus

$$p=u^{}u$$
(34)
is a projective operator on $`_{\text{SHO}}`$, i.e., $`pp=p`$. This is because $`u`$ has the annihilation operator $`\widehat{z}`$ on the right to annihilate $`|0`$. Thus $`u`$ has a right inverse $`u^{}`$ and one can prove that it has no left inverse. The existence of this kind of operators $`u`$ is not a special feature of the SHO Hilbert space. The operator $`u`$ has the same properties on $`_{\text{GNS}}`$. In general, $`(u^{})^ku^k`$ for positive integer $`k`$ is a projective operator which annihilates all $`|n`$ with $`n<k`$.

In general, we are interested in operators $`U`$ which satisfy

$$UU^{}=1,\text{but}U^{}U1.$$
(35)
As above, $`U^{}U`$ is always a projective operator. Since $`U`$ does not have a left inverse, a formal gauge transformation of the gauge potential $`A`$ by $`U`$

$$AA^{}=UAU^{}+U(dU^{})$$
(36)
is not really a gauge transformation. We can not transform $`A^{}`$ back to $`A`$ by any transformation. It follows that a transformation by $`U^{}`$ also should not be viewed as a true gauge transformation. However we will show in sec.4.2 that $`U`$ still defines an equivalence relation by modifying the bundle at the same time.

## 4 Projective Module as Twisted Bundle

In noncommutative geometry, vector bundles are defined as projective modules of the algebra $`𝒜`$ of functions on the base space. In this section we review the notion of twisted bundles as projective modules and derive some formulas to be used latter for the ADHM construction.

For a trivial vector bundle of $`N`$ dimensional fibers, a section of the bundle is a vector of $`N`$ entries in $`𝒜`$. The set of sections is a free module $`𝒜^N`$.

To motivate the definition of twisted bundles, we recall the example of the tangent bundle on $`S^2`$. This tangent bundle is nontrivial, but the direct sum of the tangent space and the normal vector space constitute a trivial bundle of three dimensions. One can choose a projective operator acting on this trivial bundle which is the $`3\times 3`$ matrix that projects any 3-vector on a fiber of the trivial bundle to the tangent space. Explicitly, the projection is given by $`P=1|nn|`$, where $`|n`$ is the normal vector on $`S^2`$. Thus sections of the tangent bundle on $`S^2`$ form a projective module, since the definition of a projective module is just that it is a direct summand of a free module $`𝒜^N`$ with finite $`N`$.

Classically all bundles are projective modules and vise versa due to a theorem by Serre and Swan. 333 The theorem of Serre and Swan states that all locally trivial finite-dimensional complex vector bundles over a compact space $`X`$ are one-to-one corresponding to all finite projective modules over the algebra $`𝒜=C(X)`$.  The natural definition of bundles on noncommutative spaces is thus just projective modules . Given a bundle, one can always find an $`N\times N`$ matrix $`P`$ with elements in $`𝒜`$ which satisfies $`PP=P`$, such that the set of sections on the bundle is the projective module $`P𝒜^N`$ for some integer $`N`$. 444 $`P𝒜^N`$ is a projective module because its direct sum with $`(1P)𝒜^N`$ is a free module.  An obvious property of projective modules is that since the projection is taken from the left by convention, it is a right $`𝒜`$ module because one can multiply elements in $`𝒜`$ from the right, to each copy of $`𝒜`$ in $`𝒜^N`$.

In practice it is not always necessary to define a bundle in terms of the projection $`P`$ and free module $`𝒜^N`$. For instance the $`U(N)`$ twisted bundles on a noncommutative torus are constructed in  directly without referring to $`P`$ or the trivial bundle.

### 4.1 Connection From Projection

Any connection on the trivial bundle induces a connection on the twisted bundle via this projection. A familiar example is how the tangent bundle of a curved space gets its connection from its embedding in a flat space. We will give explicit expressions for the covariant derivative on the twisted bundle, provided that the projection and free module are given.

A section on a trivial bundle $`_0`$ of dimension $`N_0`$ can be denoted as $`|s(x)=|as_a(x)`$, $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},N_0`$, where $`s_a(x)𝒜`$ are functions on the base space. A section is an element of the free module $`𝒜^{N_0}`$. Let the covariant derivative on $`_0`$ be $`D=d+A`$, where $`A`$ is an $`N_0\times N_0`$ matrix of elements in $`𝒜`$. For simplicity, we first assume that the basis $`\{|a\}`$ is orthonormal and covariantly constant. That is, it satisfies

$`a|b=\delta _{ab},a,b=1,2,\mathrm{},N_0,`$ (37)
$`(D|a)(d|a)+|bA_{ba}(x)=0,`$ (38)
where $`A_{ba}=b|A|a`$. The action of $`D`$ should satisfy the Leibniz rule

$$(D|sf)=(D|s)f+|s(df)$$
(39)
for any section $`|s`$ and function $`f`$. It follows from (38) that

$$(D|s(x))=|a(ds_a(x)).$$
(40)
Consider an arbitrary projection $`P`$ which can be “locally” 555 What is meant by “locally” is not obvious for noncommutative spaces in general. A special technique is developed in . For the case of instantons it is clear that by this we mean the quantum $`𝐑^4`$, which is a local patch of $`S^4`$.  expressed as

$$P=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}|\psi _i(x)\psi _i(x)|,$$
(41)
where $`N`$ is the rank of the projector ($`NN_0`$), and

$$|\psi _i(x)=|a\psi _{ai}(x)$$
(42)
are sections of $`_0`$. Until the next subsection we assume that

$$\psi _i|\psi _j=\underset{a}{}\psi _{ai}^{}(x)\psi _{aj}(x)=\delta _{ij}$$
(43)
so that

$$PP=P.$$
(44)
The projection $`P`$ defines a projective module $`P𝒜^{N_0}`$ which corresponds to a new bundle $``$. Sections on $``$ are of the form

$$|u(x)=|\psi _iu_i(x)$$
(45)
for $`u_i(x)𝒜`$ ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$).

The induced covariant derivative on $``$ is

$$D_P=PD.$$
(46)
When acting on $``$,

$`(D_P|u(x))`$ $`=`$ $`(PD|\psi _iu_i)`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`(PD|a\psi _{ai}u_i)`$
$`=`$ $`P|a(d\psi _{ai}u_i)`$
$`=`$ $`|\psi _j\psi _{aj}^{}(d\psi _{ai}u_i)`$
$`=`$ $`|\psi _i(D_Pu)_i,`$
where

$`(D_Pu)_i(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(du_i(x))+(A_P)_{ij}u_j(x),`$ (48)
$`(A_P)_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{ai}^{}(x)(d\psi _{aj}(x))=\psi _i|d|\psi _j.`$ (49)
This is the connection on a twisted bundle obtained as a projection from a free module. Eq.(49) is reminisent of the Berry phase.

If the orthonormal basis $`\{|a\}`$ does not satisfy (38), but rather $`D|a=|bA_{ab}^{}`$, then (49) will be modified by an additional term $`A_{ij}^{}u_j`$ where $`A_{ij}^{}=i|A^{}|j=\psi _{ai}^{}A_{ab}^{}\psi _{bj}`$.

The field strength is by definition

$$F=(dA)+AA$$
(50)
for a given gauge potential $`A`$. Using (41) and (43), the field strength of (49) is

$`(F_P)_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(d\psi _{ai}^{})(d\psi _{aj})+\psi _{ai}^{}(d\psi _{ak})\psi _{bk}^{}(d\psi _{bj})`$ (51)
$`=`$ $`(d\psi _{ai}^{})(d\psi _{aj})(d\psi _{ai}^{})\psi _{ak}\psi _{bk}^{}(d\psi _{bj})`$
$`=`$ $`(d\psi _{ai}^{})(\delta _{ab}P_{ab})(d\psi _{bj}),`$
where $`P_{ab}=a|P|b=\psi _{ak}\psi _{bk}^{}`$.

The projective operator $`(1P)`$ in (51) can be written in terms of a basis of vectors as

$$(1P)=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N_0N}{}}|\varphi _\alpha \varphi _\alpha |,$$
(52)
where $`|\varphi _\alpha =|a\varphi _{a\alpha }(x)`$ satisfy

$`\varphi _\alpha |\psi _i=0,`$ (53)
$`\varphi _\alpha |\varphi _\beta =\delta _{\alpha \beta },`$ (54)
for all $`\alpha ,\beta =1,2,\mathrm{},(N_0N)`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$. So $`\{|\psi _i\}`$ is a basis for $``$, and together with $`\{|\varphi _\alpha \}`$ they give a complete basis for $`_0`$. Using (52) and (53), the field strength (51) can be written as

$$(F_P)_{ij}=\psi _{ai}^{}(d\varphi _{a\alpha })(d\varphi _{b\alpha }^{})\psi _{bj}.$$
(55)
In the ADHM construction of instanton solutions, we are given conditions of the form

$$\xi _{a\alpha }^{}\psi _a=0,$$
(56)
where $`\xi _\alpha `$ may not be orthonormal, but can be related to the orthonormal basis $`\varphi _\alpha `$ by a linear transformation

$$\xi _{a\alpha }=\varphi _{a\beta }M_{\beta \alpha },$$
(57)
where $`M`$ satisfies

$$\xi _{a\alpha }^{}\xi _{a\beta }=M_{\alpha \gamma }^{}M_{\gamma \beta }$$
(58)
as a result of (54). The solutions of $`\psi `$ for (56) are labelled as $`\psi _i`$, which defines a projective operator as (41). Thus eq.(56) can be viewed as defining equations for a twisted bundle. Using (56) and (58), we derive the expression for $`F`$ as

$$(F_P)_{ij}=\psi _{ai}^{}(d\xi _{a\alpha })(\xi ^{}\xi )_{\alpha \beta }^1(d\xi _{b\beta }^{})\psi _{bj}.$$
(59)
The expression (59) is particularly useful for the ADHM construction of instanton solutions.

The calculations above are valid even for noncommutative algebras because we have only assumed associativity of the algebra $`𝒜`$.

### 4.2 Projections of Non-Constant Rank

There are two kinds of projective operators depending on whether they have a constant rank through out the space. For instance, for the free module $`𝒜`$ ($`N=1`$) on a classical space which has disconnected pieces, one can define a projection which equals $`1`$ on one piece and equals $`0`$ on another. This projection is a smooth function in $`𝒜`$, so it defines a projective module. However, the corresponding bundle does not have a constant dimension everywhere on the space. It is of one dimension on one piece and zero dimension (no bundle at all) on another. As we have seen in sec.3, for a noncommutative space there can be elements in $`𝒜`$ which are projective even though the classical limit of this space is simply connected. The question is: whether projective modules associated with these projections should be forbidden, or how different they are from others. In this subsection we first give a description of bundles with non-constant dimension, and then show that some of these bundles may be related to bundles with constant dimension via gauge transformations. This suggests that one should not exclude these bundles in noncommutative gauge theories. The appropriate formulation for these bundles is given by Furuuchi , where it is also noted that the $`U(1)`$ instanton solution discovered by Nekrasov and Schwarz in  is of this kind. We will have more discussions on it in sec.5.1.

In the previous subsection, we have assumed that the rank of the projection $`P`$ is constant in (43). To be more precise about what we mean, recall that a state in the Hilbert space $``$ can be roughly speaking viewed as a fuzzy point on the noncommutative space. One can evaluate a function in $`𝒜`$ at a fuzzy point by taking the expectation value of it for the corresponding state. If (43) is satisfied, $`|\psi _i`$ is nonzero everywhere, and the rank of $`P`$ is $`N`$ everywhere.

To include the projections with non-constant rank, we have to replace the condition (43) by a weaker one in the derivation above. To simplify our notation, we will omit all indices on matrices. In the following $`\psi `$ represents an $`N_0\times N`$ matrix, and $`\varphi `$ represents an $`N_0\times N^{}`$ matrix. $`N^{}`$ is not smaller than $`(N_0N)`$. Assume that we are given $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ satisfying

$`\varphi \varphi ^{}+\psi \psi ^{}=1,`$ (60)
$`\varphi ^{}\psi =0,`$ (61)
$`\psi ^{}\psi \psi ^{}=\psi ^{},\psi \psi ^{}\psi =\psi .`$ (62)
The first two conditions are the same as (52) and (53) which were used before. The condition (62) insures that

$$p\psi ^{}\psi $$
(63)
is projective, i.e. $`pp=p`$. It is weaker than (43).

Now consider the bundle $``$ composed of sections $`|u=|\psi _iu_i`$ with $`u_i𝒜`$ satisfying

$$pu_i=u_i.$$
(64)
Let $`D=d+A`$ with

$$A=\psi ^{}(d\psi )$$
(65)
as in (49), and define the covariant derivative on $``$ by

$`D_p`$ $``$ $`pDp`$ (66)
$`=`$ $`\psi ^{}d\psi ,`$
where we have used (62). In the above we have used the notation that the action of the exterior derivative is denoted by parentheses, so that $`df=(df)+fd`$ for a function or even differential form $`f`$, and $`dA=(dA)Ad`$ for an odd differential form $`A`$. When acting on sections of the bundle,

$$(D_p|u)=(du)+A_pu,$$
(67)
where

$$A_p=(d\psi ^{})\psi .$$
(68)
Note that we have to define the bundle by (64) in order for the action of $`D_p`$ to be decomposed as $`(d+A_p)`$. This in general will not be possible if one defines the bundle by all sections of the form (45). By imposing (64), the bundle has zero dimension at states which is projected out by $`p`$, so the bundle has non-constant dimension.

The field strength can be calculated as

$`F_p`$ $``$ $`D_p^2`$ (69)
$`=`$ $`\psi ^{}d\psi \psi ^{}d\psi `$
$`=`$ $`\psi ^{}d\psi \psi ^{}((d\psi )+\psi d)`$
$`=`$ $`\psi ^{}((d\psi \psi ^{}(d\psi ))(d\psi )d)+d\psi d`$
$`=`$ $`\psi ^{}((d\psi \psi ^{})(d\psi )+\psi dd)`$
$`=`$ $`((d\psi ^{})(d\psi ^{})\psi \psi ^{})(d\psi )`$
$`=`$ $`\psi ^{}(d\varphi )(d\varphi ^{})\psi ,`$
where we used (60)-(62) and $`dd=0`$. This expression for the field strength is exactly the same as (55). It follows that (59) is also valid when a linear combination of $`\varphi `$ is used.

Suppose we are given $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ satisfying (60)-(62), then we can find new sets of $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ by the formal gauge transformation

$$\psi \psi U,\varphi \varphi ,$$
(70)
where $`U`$ is an $`N\times N`$ matrix of elements in $`𝒜`$ satisfying

$$UU^{}=1.$$
(71)
It follows that all three conditions are still valid, and so by (66) and (69)

$$D_pU^{}D_pU,F_pU^{}F_pU.$$
(72)
If $`U^{}U`$ is not $`1`$, the derivation still goes through, and it means that the $`U`$ transforms sections on the bundle $``$ to the bundle $`p`$. By $`U^{}`$ one can transform sections on $`p`$ back to $``$.

For the special case where $`U`$ is given by the unit $`N\times N`$ matrix times $`u^k`$ with $`u`$ defined in (32), it transforms a bundle of constant dimension to another bundle of dimension zero at $`|n`$ for all $`n<k`$, and dimension $`N`$ everywhere else. This can be viewed as a motivation why one should not exclude bundles of non-constant dimension. However, there are also bundles of non-constant dimension which can not be transformed to those with constant dimension. The $`U(1)`$ instanton discussed below may be such an example. It can be interpreted as a D0-brane on a D4-brane in a constant B field background. Since there are no smooth projective functions on a connected classical space, these bundles can not have a smooth classical limit. For the case of $`U(1)`$ instanton it is suggested that its classical interpretation via the Seiberg-Witten map  is a bundle on a Kähler manifold which is a blowup of $`𝐂^2`$ at a finite number of points . It would be interesting to see whether such a correspondence can be established on general grounds, not only for anti-self dual configurations.

For a matter field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the adjoint representation, $`\mathrm{\Phi }U^{}\mathrm{\Phi }U`$. For any state $`|n`$, it is always possible to find $`U`$ such that after the transformation by $`U`$ the expectation value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ at $`|n`$ is zero. This means that one can choose a gauge such that the field is trivial within any given radius around the origin. This may be a hint of holography in noncommutative gauge theories.

## 5 ADHM Construction

For completeness we review the ADHM construction of instantons on noncommutative space  in this section. Explicit expressions for some instanton configurations are given in .

Instantons are defined as anti-self dual configurations of the gauge field. We consider the case where the spacetime coordinates are two commuting copies of (6):

$$[\widehat{z}_A,\widehat{\overline{z}}_B]=\delta _{AB}þ/2,[\widehat{z}_A,\widehat{z}_B]=0,A,B=1,2.$$
(73)
This can always be achieved by linear transformations on the coordinates if $`þ`$ is of maximal rank.

The ADHM construction is a prescription for finding the conditions (56) defining the projective module. For the $`U(N)`$ instanton solution of charge $`k`$, the condition (56) is of the form

$$D_z^{}\psi =0,$$
(74)
where

$$D_z=(\tau _z^{},\sigma _z),$$
(75)
with

$$\tau _z=(B_0\widehat{\overline{z}}_0,B_1+\widehat{\overline{z}}_1,I),\sigma _z^{}=(B_1^{}\widehat{z}_1,B_0^{}\widehat{z}_0,J^{}).$$
(76)
$`D_z`$ plays the role of $`\xi `$ in sec.4. In order to give instanton solutions, the constant matrices $`B_0`$, $`B_1`$, $`I`$ and $`J`$ should be solutions of

$`[B_0,B_0^{}]+[B_1,B_1^{}]+II^{}J^{}J=þ,`$ (77)
$`[B_0,B_1]+IJ=0,`$ (78)
where $`B_0,B_1`$ are $`k\times k`$ matrices and $`I,J^{}`$ are $`k\times N`$ matrices. We can write $`\psi `$ as

$$\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _0\\ \psi _1\\ \xi \end{array}\right),$$
(79)
where $`\psi _0,\psi _1`$ are $`k`$-vectors and $`\xi `$ is an $`N`$-vector.

Eq.(74) imposes $`2k`$ constraints on $`\psi `$, which is a $`(2k+N)`$-vector, so there are $`N`$ independent solutions for $`\psi `$, and the projective matrix defined by solutions of $`\psi `$ is a $`(2k+N)\times (2k+N)`$ matrix of rank $`N`$. Hence we can think of the ADHM construction as a recipe to define the $`U(N)`$ instanton bundle as a rank $`N`$ projection from a trivial bundle of dimension $`(2k+N)`$.

In the case of $`U(1)`$ instantons, it is impossible to find $`\psi `$ such that both (60) and (43) hold. In order to use (59), which guarantees that the solution is anti-self dual, one has to choose $`\psi `$ which satisfies (60-62).

### 5.1 $`U(1)`$ Instanton Solution

Following , we consider the $`U(1)`$ instanton solution for the SHO Hilbert space.

For $`N=k=1`$, there is no regular classical instanton solution. On the noncommutative space (73), we can first choose $`B_0=B_1=0`$ by translation, and a solution of (77), (78) is

$$I=\sqrt{þ},J=0.$$
(80)
From (74), one can easily find a solution of this form

$$\psi _0=\widehat{z}_0f,\psi _1=\widehat{z}_1f,\xi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{þ}}(\widehat{\overline{z}}\widehat{z})f,$$
(81)
where the function $`f`$ is arbitrary, and

$$\widehat{\overline{z}}\widehat{z}\widehat{\overline{z}}_0\widehat{z}_0+\widehat{\overline{z}}_1\widehat{z}_1.$$
(82)
The operator $`\widehat{\overline{z}}\widehat{z}`$ has eigenvalue $`\frac{þ}{2}(n_0+n_1)`$ on the state $`|n_0,n_1`$.

In order to use $`\psi `$ to define the projection $`P`$ (41), naively the function $`f`$ should be determined by (43)

$`\psi ^{}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (83)
$`=`$ $`f^{}[(\widehat{\overline{z}}\widehat{z}+þ)\widehat{\overline{z}}\widehat{z}/þ]f.`$
In  a formal solution of $`f`$ is given as

$$f=f_0\left((\widehat{\overline{z}}\widehat{z}+þ)\widehat{\overline{z}}\widehat{z}/þ\right)^{1/2}.$$
(84)
This expression is in fact ill defined since it diverges on the state $`|0,0`$. However, $`\psi `$ is well defined according to (81) if the factors of $`\widehat{z}_0,\widehat{z}_1`$ are ordered to the right of $`f`$ so that the state $`|0,0`$ is annihilated before it causes any trouble. It is pointed out in  that this projective module is the kind that is related to a projection $`p`$ in $`𝒜`$. It is

$$\psi ^{}\psi =p1|0,00,0|$$
(85)
on the SHO Hilbert space, and (83) does not hold. Another way to interpret this is that one needs to make a further projection by $`p`$ to get a new projective module on which (85) is equivalent to (83). As we have mentioned in sec. 4.2, the rank of the gauge group is not a constant on the whole space. It has rank zero at $`|0,0`$ and rank one everywhere else. This special property may be related to its classical interpretation as a bundle on a blowup of $`𝐑^4`$  via the Seiberg-Witten map.

As a generalization of (32), let

$$u_A=(\widehat{\overline{z}}_A\widehat{z}_A+þ/2)^{1/2}\widehat{z}_A,A=0,1,$$
(86)
which are well defined operators satisfying

$$u_Au_A^{}=1.$$
(87)
(Note here that the index $`A`$ is not summed over.) But $`u_A^{}u_A`$ is not equal to $`1`$. The $`þ0`$ limit of $`u_A`$ is the phase factor of $`z_A`$, which is ill-defined on $`𝐂`$. When we try to solve (83), we can also choose $`f`$ to be

$$f=f_0U,U=u_0^mu_1^n$$
(88)
for non-negative integers $`m,n`$. This results in a change of $`\psi `$ by $`\psi \psi U`$, and is thus an example of the situation discussed in sec.4.2.

On the other hand, if we choose $`U`$ to be given by products of $`u_A^{}`$, eq.(43) is satisfied, but the condition (60) is not satisfied for $`\xi =D_z`$. ($`\xi `$ is related to $`\varphi `$ by a linear transformation.) In order to use (59), one has to adjoin new vectors to $`\varphi `$, making it an $`N_0\times (N_0N+1)`$ matrix, and the result is not anti-self dual anymore.

## Acknowledgment

I would like to thank Keun-Young Kim, Bum-Hoon Lee, Kimyeong Lee, Miao Li, Hyun Seok Yang and Piljin Yi for discussions. I also thank APCTP and KIAS where part of this work is done for hospitality. This work is supported in part by the National Science Council, Taiwan, R.O.C. and the Center for Theoretical Physics at National Taiwan University.


format: text

text:
# Study of pseudogap in underdoped cuprate

## Abstract

A mean field SDW analysis of pseudogap in the underdoped cuprates is proposed on the basis of the $`tt^{}U`$ Hubbard model. The prediction of our theory is consistent with the experiment quite well within the uncertainty of the present experimental measurement. Therefore we argue that the pseudogap phenomenon in the underdoped cuprates can be well explained within the mean field approximation.

1. Introduction

A large body of experimental investigations have indicated that underdoped high-temperature superconductors exhibit intriguing properties at temperatures above the superconducting transition temperature $`T_c`$. Most notably, the underdoped cuprates exhibit a pseudogap behavior below a characteristic temperature $`T^{}`$ which can be well above the superconducting transition temperature $`T_c`$. The so-called “pseudogap” means a partial gap. “An example of such a partial gap would be a situation where, within the band theory approximation, some regions of the Fermi surface become gapped while other parts retain their conducting prope rties and with increased doping the gapped portion diminishes and the materials become more metallic”(quoted from Ref. ). What is the origin behind it? A number of scenarios like pair formation well above $`T_c`$ , spin–charge separation , spin-density wave (SDW) or antiferromagnetic fluctuations  have been proposed as possible origins of these pseudogap phenomena. However, no consensus has been reached so far, which one is correct in these microscopic theories. It should be noted that these theories of the pseudogap are all beyond the mean-field approximation.

In present paper, we propose a mean field SDW analysis for understanding the pseudogap phenomena in the underdoped cuprates. Our aim is to examine to what extend can we interpret this phenomenon within mean field theory.

2. Electronic band structure

Soon after the discovery of the cuprate superconductors, the electronic band structure of the cuprates has been calculated by the local density approximation (LDA) band calculation . The result of the electronic band structure of the cuprates of the LDA band calculation is consistent with the later angle resolved photoemission experiment . The electronic band structure of the cuprates can be well fitted by a tight-binding model, which is written as

$$\overline{\epsilon }_𝐤=2t(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)4t^{}\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y.$$
(1)
Where $`t`$ is nearest-neighbor, $`t^{}`$ is next-to-nearest-neighbor. In this paper we consider $`t>0`$ and $`t^{}<0`$ only. Energy contour lines for the electronic band structure (1) are shown in Fig. 1. There are two different saddle points locate at the $`\overline{M}`$ points \[($`\pm \pi `$, 0) and (0, $`\pm \pi `$)\] of the Brillouin zone. The energy contour line with energy $`\overline{\epsilon }_s=4t^{}`$ pass through the saddle points.

For convenience, we choice $`\overline{M}`$ as the new origin of the $`𝐤`$-space and take the energy $`\overline{\epsilon }_s=4t^{}`$ at the saddle point $`\overline{M}`$ as zero. Then the dispersion (1) is reexpressed in the form

$`\epsilon _𝐤`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\epsilon }_𝐤4t^{}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`2t(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)+4t^{}(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y1).`$ (3)
If without specific statement, we keep this usage later.

We replot in the period Brillouin zone the energy contour lines passing through the saddle points. As shown in Fig. 2, there are two different regions: $`𝐈+𝐈^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}`$. In the region $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}`$, $`\epsilon _𝐤<0`$, in the regions $`𝐈+𝐈^{}`$, $`\epsilon _𝐤>0`$. The area of the region $`𝐈+𝐈^{}`$ is larger than that of the region $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}`$. When the region $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}`$ is shifted by the vector $`𝐐=(\pi ,\pi )`$, it coincides with the region $`𝐈`$. The region $`𝐈^{}`$ is called as the necklace region, which has following features. Firstly, when $`𝐤`$ locates in a bubble, $`𝐤+𝐐`$ will locate in another one, both $`\epsilon _𝐤`$ and $`\epsilon _{𝐤+𝐐}`$ are larger then zero. On the other hand, in the regions outside the necklace region $`𝐈^{}`$, both sign of the $`\epsilon _𝐤`$ and $`\epsilon _{𝐤+𝐐}`$ are always opposite. For example, when $`𝐤`$ locates in $`𝐈`$, $`\epsilon _𝐤>0`$, then $`𝐤+𝐐`$ will locate in $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}`$, $`\epsilon _{𝐤+𝐐}<0`$. Secondly, in the overdoping regime, the Fermi surface entirely lies outside the necklace region (as shown in Fig. 3). But for the underdoping case, only part of the Fermi surface lies outside the necklace region, and further, with decreased doping the portion outside the necklace region increases (as shown in Fig. 3).

It is interest to note the fact that when $`t^{}=0`$, the necklace region and said peculiarity of the band structure of the cuprates disappears.

3. Mean-field theory

The starting point of our calculation is the Hubbard model. In the momentum representation, the $`tt^{}U`$ Hubbard model can be written as

$$H=\underset{𝐤\sigma }{}(\epsilon _𝐤\mu )a_{𝐤\sigma }^{}a_{𝐤\sigma }\frac{U}{2N}\underset{𝐪}{}\underset{𝐤\sigma 𝐤^{}\sigma ^{}}{}a_{𝐤+𝐪\sigma }^{}\sigma a_{𝐤\sigma }a_{𝐤^{}\sigma ^{}}^{}\sigma ^{}a_{𝐤^{}+𝐪\sigma ^{}}.$$
(4)
Here a term $`\frac{1}{2}NU`$ has been omitted. $`U`$ is the local Coulomb repulsion. $`a_{𝐤\sigma }(a_{𝐤\sigma }^{})`$ is the annihilation (creation) operator for the electron with momentum $`𝐤`$ and spin $`\sigma `$. $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. $`\epsilon _𝐤`$ is given by Eq. (3). All the momentum summations extend over the Brillouin zone. Considering commensurate SDW state and using the mean-field approximation, the Hamiltonian reduces

$$H=\underset{𝐤\sigma }{}^{}(\epsilon _𝐤\mu )a_{𝐤\sigma }^{}a_{𝐤\sigma }+\underset{𝐤\sigma }{}^{}(\epsilon _{𝐤+𝐐}\mu )a_{𝐤+𝐐\sigma }^{}a_{𝐤+𝐐\sigma }\mathrm{\Delta }\underset{𝐤\sigma }{}^{}(a_{𝐤+𝐐\sigma }^{}\sigma a_{𝐤\sigma }+h.c).$$
(5)
Here $`_𝐤^{}`$ means that the sum extends over the magnetic Brillouin zone (shown in Fig. 4 by the thick square). The term $`\frac{N}{2U}\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ has been omitted. The order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{2U}{N}\underset{𝐤\sigma }{}^{}<a_{𝐤+𝐐\sigma }^{}\sigma a_{𝐤\sigma }>.$$
(6)
By the following canonical transformation

$`\alpha _{𝐤\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`u_𝐤a_{𝐤\sigma }v_𝐤\sigma a_{𝐤+𝐐\sigma },`$ (7)
$`\gamma _{𝐤\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`v_𝐤\sigma a_{𝐤\sigma }+u_𝐤\sigma a_{𝐤+𝐐\sigma },`$ (8)
the Hamiltonian (5) is diagonalised as

$$H=\underset{𝐤\sigma }{}^{}(\epsilon _1(𝐤)\alpha _{𝐤\sigma }^{}\alpha _{𝐤\sigma }+\epsilon _2(𝐤)\gamma _{𝐤\sigma }^{}\gamma _{𝐤\sigma }),$$
(9)
in which,

$$\epsilon _1(𝐤)=\frac{\epsilon _𝐤+\epsilon _{𝐤+𝐐}}{2}\mu +\sqrt{(\frac{\epsilon _𝐤\epsilon _{𝐤+𝐐}}{2})^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2},$$
(10)
$$\epsilon _2(𝐤)=\frac{\epsilon _𝐤+\epsilon _{𝐤+𝐐}}{2}\mu \sqrt{(\frac{\epsilon _𝐤\epsilon _{𝐤+𝐐}}{2})^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2},$$
(11)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{U}{N}\underset{𝐤}{}^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{E(𝐤)}(\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\epsilon _1(𝐤)}{2T})\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\epsilon _2(𝐤)}{2T}))$$
(12)
and

$$E(𝐤)=\sqrt{(\frac{\epsilon _𝐤\epsilon _{𝐤+𝐐}}{2})^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}.$$
(13)
Here $`\epsilon _1(𝐤)`$ and $`\epsilon _2(𝐤)`$ are energy dispersions of the quasiparticles. For the hole doping system, the Fermi surface lies inside the lower band ($`\epsilon _2(𝐤)`$). The pseudogap is given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PS}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`|\epsilon _2(𝐤)|`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\mu 4t^{}(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y1)+\sqrt{4t^2(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}.`$ (15)
In Fig. 5 we plot the part of the magnetic Brillouin zone of the Fig. 4. The light curve represents the Fermi surface. $`k_x`$\- and $`k_y`$-axis are parallel with $`\overline{M}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\overline{M}`$X, respectively. In Eq. (15), $`𝐤=(k_x,k_y)`$ is the wave vector of the Fermi surface, i.e. $`\epsilon _𝐤\mu =0`$. $`\varphi =\mathrm{arctan}(k_x/k_y)`$ is polar angle of the wave vector $`𝐤`$. For convenience, we take $`\varphi ^{}=\mathrm{arctan}(k_x/(\pi k_y))`$ as variable instead of the $`\varphi `$ in the following calculations.

4. Results

In this section, we analyse the angular dependence of the pseudogap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PS}(\varphi ^{})`$ along the Fermi surface. Ouing to the symmetry of the energy spectrum $`\epsilon _2(𝐤)`$, our analysis can be limited only in the interval $`0\varphi ^{}45^{}`$.

By solving Eqs. (10), (11), (12), (13) and (15) numerically, we compute $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PS}(\varphi ^{})`$ at $`T=0`$ K in the underdoping regime ($`\mu >0`$). In the computation, we choose $`t=430`$ meV, $`t^{}/t=0.18`$, $`U/t=0.8`$ and the hole doping concentration x=0.13. The results are plotted as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PS}(\varphi ^{})`$ versus $`\varphi ^{}`$ curve in Fig. 6. It shows that there is strong angular dependence of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PS}(\varphi ^{})`$, as one moves along the Fermi surface from $`\varphi ^{}=0`$ (i.e. near the saddle point $`\overline{M}`$, or at the hot spot) to $`\varphi ^{}=45^{}`$ (i.e. cold spot). At first, we see the maximum pseudogap at $`\varphi ^{}=0`$. As we go into the necklace region, the pseudogap drops quickly and, at approximately $`18^{}`$, drops down to 2 meV. And then, the pseudogap decreases monotonously to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PS}(45^{})`$. Experimental measurement reveals that only a portion of the Fermi surface near the saddle point $`\overline{M}`$ becomes gapped while in other parts, the pseudogap is equal to zero . However, the error-bar of the pseudogap data is rather larger***)See, for example, Fig. 8 of paper ). It is impossible to say certainly that along the part of the Fermi surface near the cold point, the pseudogap is real zero or only a small quantity. Keeping this fact in mind, we conclude that the general structure of the pseudogap along the Fermi surface, shown in Fig. 6, captures the main feature of experiment )Ref. also the review article  and the papers listing in it).

The dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PS}(0)`$ on the hole doping concentration is shown in Fig. 7. It shows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PS}(0)`$ increase with the decrease of hole doping. In Fig. 8, we plot $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ^{}`$ versus the hole doping concentration curve. Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ^{}`$ is the interval $`\varphi ^{}`$ (measured from $`\varphi ^{}=45^{}`$), defined by the requirement that the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PS}(\varphi ^{})`$ is less than a proper chosen value (say, 2 meV in Fig. 6 and 8). It can be seen from Fig. 8 that the length of the Fermi arc, along which the pseudogap less than 2 meV, increase with the increase of doping. It implies that as doping increase, the portion of the Fermi surface destroyed by the pseudogap decreases. The prediction discribed above is consistent with the experiment 2).

5. Concluding remarks

It is of interest to note that the situation is entirely different if $`t^{}=0`$. For in this case, Eq. (15) reduces to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{PS}(\varphi ^{})=\mu +\sqrt{\mu ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}.$$
(16)
It is in contradiction with the experiment , for the pseudogap along the Fermi surface, according to (16), is constant.

Now, it is clearly that the peculiarity of the band structure of the cuprate plays an important role in understanding the pseudogap phenomenon in underdoped cuprate. This is the reason why our mean field SDW analysis of the pseudogap, based on the $`tt^{}U`$ Hubbard model, meets with success.

The mean-field solution has an antiferromagnetic long-range order. At sufficient doping concentration, the spin long-range order will be removed by fluctuations but there are still short-range orderings. We assume implicitly in our theory that the pseudogap structure, at least near the saddle point ($`\pi ,0`$), is not sensitive to the long-range order and will survive in underdoped region, leading to the pseudogap phenomenon.

Acknowledgments

One of the authors (H. S. Wu) would like to thank Prof. Z. Y. Weng for very valuable discussion.

Figure Captions:

Fig. 1. The Brillouin zone and energy contour lines: The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point is at the middle of the Brillouin zone and the $`\overline{M}`$ points \[($`\pm \pi `$, 0) and (0, $`\pm \pi `$)\] are midway along the edges. The curves are the energy contour lines ($`t^{}/t=0.16`$) with energy $`\overline{\epsilon }_𝐤/t=1.59,0.64,0.49`$ and $`0.4`$, which are from inside to outside.

Fig. 2. The period Brillouin zone: The solid curves are the energy contour lines with $`\epsilon _𝐤=0`$. When the region $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}`$ is shifted by the vector $`𝐐=(\pi ,\pi )`$, it coincides with the region $`𝐈`$. In regions $`𝐈+𝐈^{}`$, $`\epsilon _𝐤>0`$. In the region $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}`$, $`\epsilon _𝐤<0`$. The region $`𝐈^{}`$ is called as the necklace region.

Fig. 3. The Fermi surfaces ($`t^{}/t=0.16`$) in the quarter of Brillouin zone: The light curve represents the Fermi surface. 1 and 2 for the overdoping. 3 and 4 for the underdoping. The heavy dashed and the solid curve represent the necklace region boundary.

Fig. 4. Our choice of the Brillouin zone. The heavy rectangle is our choice of the Brillouin zone boundary and the origin is at the $`\overline{M}`$. The heavy square is the magnetic Brillouin zone boundary.

Fig. 5. This figure is the part of the magnetic Brillouin zone of the Fig. 4. The light curve represents the Fermi surface for the underdoping region ($`t^{}/t=0.16`$). The dashed and the solid curve represent the necklace region boundary. The heavy solid lines are the magnetic Brillouin zone boundary. $`k_x`$\- and $`k_y`$-axis are parallel with $`\overline{M}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\overline{M}`$X, respectively. $`\varphi =\mathrm{arctan}(k_x/k_y)`$. $`\varphi ^{}=\mathrm{arctan}(k_x/(\pi k_y))`$.

Fig. 6. The angle dependence of the pseudogap located at $`\varphi ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PS}(\varphi ^{})`$, for the hole doping concentration x=0.13 ($`t^{}/t=0.18`$ and $`U/t=0.8`$). The $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ^{}`$ is the region where the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PS}(\varphi ^{})`$ are all smaller than 2 meV.

Fig. 7. The hole doping concentration dependence of the pseudogap located at $`\varphi ^{}=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PS}(0)`$, for $`t^{}/t=0.18`$ and $`U/t=0.8`$. The x indicates the hole doping concentration. The solid curve represents the pseudogap in the underdoping region.

Fig. 8. The hole doping concentration dependence of the region where the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{PS}(\varphi ^{})`$ are all smaller than 2 meV, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ^{}`$, for the underdoping region ($`t^{}/t=0.18`$ and $`U/t=0.8`$). The x indicates the hole doping concentration.


text:
# Neutrinoless double beta decay with and without Majoron-like boson emission in a 3-3-1 model

## I Introduction

The issue of neutrino masses continues to be a golden plate in elementary particle physics. Although data coming from solar , atmospheric , and the accelerator LSND  neutrino experiments strongly suggest that neutrinos must be massive particles, direct measurements did not obtain any positive result .

It is a very well known fact that if neutrinos are massive Majorana particles it should exist the neutrinoless double beta $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$ decay . If the neutrino mass is the main effect that triggers this decay, the decay lifetime is proportional to (for the case of light neutrinos)

$$M_\nu =\underset{i}{}U_{ei}^2m_{\nu _i},$$
(1)
where $`U_{ei};i=1,2,3`$ denote the elements of a mixing matrix that relates symmetry $`\nu _\alpha ;\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$ and mass eigenstates $`\nu _i`$ through the relation $`\nu _\alpha =_iU_{\alpha i}\nu _i`$; and $`m_{\nu _i}`$ are the neutrino masses. Experimentally a half life limit $`T_{1/2}^{0\nu }>1.8\times 10^{25}`$ yr implies

$$M_\nu <0.2\text{eV}.$$
(2)
The important point is that the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$ decay probes the physics beyond the standard model. In particular the observation of this decay would be an evidence for a massive Majorana neutrino although it could say nothing about the value of the mass. This is because although right-handed currents and/or scalar-bosons may affect the decay rate, it has been shown that whatever the mechanism of this decay is, a nonvanishing neutrino mass is required for the decay to take place . However, this does not mean that the neutrino mass is necessarily the main factor triggering this decay. In some models the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$ decay can proceed with arbitrary small neutrino mass via scalar boson exchange . The mechanism involving a trilinear interaction of the scalar bosons was proposed in Ref.  in the context of a model with $`SU(2)U(1)`$ symmetry with doublets and a triplet of scalar bosons. However, since in this type of models there is no large mass scale, it was shown in Refs.  that the contribution of the trilinear interactions are in fact negligible. In general, in models with that symmetry, a fine tuning is needed if we want that the trilinear terms give important contributions to the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$ decay .

Here we will show that in a model with gauge symmetry $`SU(3)_cSU(3)_LU(1)_N`$ (3-3-1 model by short) , which has a rich Higgs bosons sector as in the multi-Higgs extensions of the standard model, there are new contributions to the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$ decay. However, unlike the latest sort of models, a fine tuning of the parameters of the 3-3-1 model is not necessary since some trilinear couplings, which have mass dimension, could imply an enhancement of the respective amplitudes (See. Sec. III).

We will use the following strategy: First, we consider the several new contributions to the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$ decay introduced by the 3-3-1 model. Next, once this decay has not experimentally been seen, we will consider the usual standard model amplitude (that would arise with massive Majorana neutrinos) as the reference one and make the assumption that all the new amplitudes are at most as contributing as this one. Hence, we can obtain constraints on some typical mass scale 3-3-1 parameters. The new contributions to the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$ decay are of the short range type . Since the respective matrix elements are different from those of the long range contributions (the exchange of a light-Majorana neutrino) our results should be considered only as an indication of the possible large contributions to this decay in the context of the 3-3-1 model.

The outline of the paper is the following. In Sec. II we introduce the interactions which are relevant to the present study. The model with $`\sigma _1^00`$, which is some cases it has a Majoron-like Goldstone boson, is also discussed. In Sec. III we consider the more important contributions to the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$ decay and the constraints upon some masses of the model. In Sec. IV we show that if we add a neutral scalar singlet to the minimal model a Majoron-like Goldstone boson is consistent with the $`Z^0`$ invisible width and we also discuss briefly the Majoron emission process $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu M}`$ comparing the relative strength of two amplitudes. Our conclusions remain in the last section.

## II The model

Here we will consider the 3-3-1 model with the leptons belonging to triplets $`(\nu _lll^c)^T;l=e,\mu ,\tau `$ and in which a sextet of scalar bosons

$$S=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\sigma _1^0& \frac{h_2^{}}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{h_1^+}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{h_2^{}}{\sqrt{2}}& H_1^{}& \frac{\sigma _2^0}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{h_1^+}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{\sigma _2^0}{\sqrt{2}}& H_2^{++}\end{array}\right)(\mathrm{𝟔},\mathrm{𝟎}).$$
(3)
is necessary to give to the charged leptons a mass if $`\sigma _2^0v_{\sigma _2}0`$ .

Most of the phenomenological studies of the model has been done by considering $`\sigma _1^0v_{\sigma _1}=0`$. The case when $`\sigma _1^00`$ it was considered in Ref. , where the other scalar multiplets are explicitly given. The main difference in the latter case with respect to the former one is that there is a mixing between the vector bosons $`W^+`$ and $`V^+`$:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}W_\mu ^+& V_\mu ^+\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_W^2& \delta \\ \delta & M_V^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}W_\mu ^{}\\ V_\mu ^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
where $`\delta =(g^2/2)(2v_{\sigma _1}v_{\sigma _2})`$, $`M_W^2`$ and $`M_V^2`$ are the mass eigenvalues when $`\delta =0`$; if $`\delta 0`$ (i.e. when $`v_{\sigma _1}0)`$ the mass of the physical fields are now

$$2M_{1,2}=(M_W^2+M_V^2)\pm \left[(M_W^2M_V^2)^2+4\delta ^2\right]^{1/2}$$
(5)
and we have defined $`M_W^2=(g^2/2)(v_\eta ^2+v_\rho ^2+v_{\sigma _2}^2+v_{\sigma _1}^2)`$, $`M_V^2=(g^2/2)(v_\eta ^2+v_\chi ^2+v_{\sigma _2}^2+v_{\sigma _1}^2)`$ and $`g`$ is the $`SU(3)_L`$ coupling constant which is numerically equal to the coupling of $`SU(2)_L`$ i.e., $`g^2=8M_W^2G_F/\sqrt{2}`$. We have denoted by $`v_\eta `$, $`v_\rho `$ and $`v_\chi `$ the vacuum expectation values of the neutral components of the triplets. Notice that $`M_1M_W`$ and $`M_2M_V`$ when $`\delta 0`$. The vector bosons $`W_\mu ^+`$ and $`V_\mu ^+`$ are related to the new mass eigenstates $`W_{1\mu }^+`$ and $`W_{2\mu }^+`$ as

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}W^+\\ V^+\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}c_\theta & s_\theta \\ s_\theta & c_\theta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}W_1^+\\ W_2^+\end{array}\right)$$
(6)
with $`\mathrm{tan}2\theta =2\delta /(M_W^2M_V^2)`$. We can obtain an upper bound on $`\delta `$ by assuming that the main contribution to the $`M_W^2`$ mass is given by $`v_{\sigma _2}246`$ GeV and that $`v_{\sigma _1}`$ has its maximum value 3.89 GeV allowed by the value of the $`\rho `$-parameter . In fact if $`v_{\sigma _2}`$ were the main contribution to the $`M_W`$ mass we would have $`\delta /M_W^2(2v_{\sigma _1}/v_{\sigma _2})<0.032`$. The constraint on the mixing angle $`\theta `$ is:

$$0s_\theta ^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\frac{M_V^2M_W^2}{[4\delta ^2+(M_V^2M_W^2)^2]^{1/2}}\right)<\frac{1}{2}.$$
(7)
Some illustrative values for $`s_\theta `$ are obtained by using typical values for the parameters. For instance, for $`v_{\sigma _1}=3.89`$ GeV; $`v_{\sigma _2}=10`$ GeV, $`M_W=80.41`$ GeV and $`M_V=100(300)`$ GeV we get $`s_\theta ^2=1.9\times 10^5(3.4\times 10^8)`$; or if $`M_V=100`$ GeV and if $`v_{\sigma _2}`$ has its maximal value $`v_{\sigma _2}=246`$ GeV we have $`s_\theta ^2=1.1\times 10^2`$. We see that only for values of $`M_VM_W`$ the $`s_\theta ^2`$ is almost 0.5 but this light vector boson may be not phenomenologically safe. However if $`v_{\sigma _1}`$ is of the same order of magnitude of the neutrino mass smaller values for the mixing angle are obtained. Hence, it may be no relevant for the collider physics and low energy processes like the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$ decay at all and in practice $`W_1^+W^+`$, $`W_2^+V^+`$; but this could not be the case in astrophysical processes .

Next, we consider the several interactions that are present in this model. The scalar-quark interactions are

$`_Y^{ud}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{|v_\rho |}}\overline{D}_LV_{\mathrm{CKM}}^{}M^uU_R\rho ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{|v_\eta |}}\overline{U}_LV_{\mathrm{CKM}}M^dD_R\eta _1^+`$ (10)
$`+\overline{D}_L\left(V_L^d\right)^T\mathrm{}\text{ }V_L^uM^uU_R\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{|v_\eta |}}\eta _1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{|v_\rho |}}\rho ^{}\right]`$
$`+\overline{U}_L\left(V_L^u\right)^T\mathrm{}\text{ }V_L^dM^dD_R\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{|v_\rho |}}\rho ^+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{|v_\eta |}}\eta _1^+\right]`$
$`+`$ $`H.c.,`$ (11)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(12)
and $`V_L^{u,d}`$ are unitary mixing matrices, and $`M^{u,d}`$ are the diagonal mass matrices of the $`u`$-like and $`d`$-like quark sectors, and $`V_{\mathrm{CKM}}`$ denotes the usual mixing matrix of Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa.

The Yukawa interactions in the lepton sector are

$`_Y^l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{\nu _L}𝒦_1l_RH_1^++{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{l}_L𝒦_2\nu _R^cH_2^{}`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{l_L}𝒦_3(l_L)^cH_1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{(l^c)_L}𝒦_4l_RH_2^{++}`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`2\overline{\nu _L}𝒦_1^{}l_R\eta _1^+2\overline{l_L}𝒦_2^{}\nu _R^c\eta _2^{}+H.c.,`$ (15)
where $`𝒦_1=E_L^\nu GE_R`$, $`𝒦_2=E_L^{}GE_L^\nu `$; $`𝒦_3=E_L^{}GE_L`$, $`𝒦_4=E_R^TGE_R`$; $`𝒦_1^{}=E_L^\nu G^{}E_R`$, $`𝒦_2^{}=E_L^{}G^{}E_L^\nu `$; $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$ are symmetric and antisymmetric (they can be complex) matrices, respectively. $`E_R,E_L,E_L^\nu `$ are the right- and left-handed mixing unitary matrices in the lepton sector relating symmetry eigenstates (primed fields) with mass eigenstates (unprimed fields) :

$$l_R^{}=E_Rl_R,l_L^{}=E_Ll_L,\nu _L^{}=E_L^\nu \nu _L,$$
(16)
Some of the couplings in Eq. (15) do not depend on the charged lepton masses and since all matrices in Eq. (15) are not unitary, the model breaks the lepton universality but it can be shown that, for the massless neutrino case no strong constraints arise from exotic muon and tau decays .

In the scalar sector we have also mixing angles. In the singly charged sector we have $`\varphi _i^{}=_lO_{ij}H_j^{}`$, where $`\varphi _i^{}=\eta _1^{},\eta _2^{},\rho ^{},\chi ^{},h_1^{},h_2^{}`$ and $`H_j^{},j=1,\mathrm{},6`$ denotes the respective mass eigenstate field; similarly in the doubly charged sector we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}=_l𝒪_{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}`$, with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}=\rho ^{},\chi ^{},H_1^{},H_2^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{},j=1,..,4`$ the respective mass eigenstate fields. However, in the following we will use $`H^{}`$ and $`H^{}`$ as typical mass eigenstates of the respective charged fields and omit the scalar mixing parameters.

We recall that the model conserves the $`=L+B`$ quantum number; $`L`$ is the total lepton number and $`B`$ is the baryon number. The assignments are:

$`(U^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(V^{})=(\rho ^{})=(\chi ^{})=(\eta _2^{})`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`(\chi ^{})=(\sigma _1^0)=(h_2^{})=(H_1^{})`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`(H_2^{})=2,`$ (19)
and all other scalar fields with $`=0`$.

The charged currents coupled to the vector bosons are given by

$`^{CC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}(\overline{U}_L\gamma ^uV_{\mathrm{CKM}}D_LW_\mu ^+\overline{\nu }_L\gamma ^\mu V_Wl_LW_\mu ^+`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`\overline{l_L^c}\gamma ^\mu V_UV_W^{}\nu _LV_\mu ^+\overline{l_L^c}\gamma ^\mu V_Ul_LU_\mu ^{++})+H.c,`$ (21)
with the mixing matrices defined as $`V_{\mathrm{CKM}}=\left(V_L^u\right)^{}V_L^d`$ in the quark sector; and $`V_W=E_{L}^{\nu }{}_{}{}^{}E_L`$, $`V_U=E_R^TE_L^\nu `$ in the leptonic sectors.

We have the trilinear interactions involving one vector- and two scalar-bosons which are of the form (up to a $`ig/\sqrt{2}`$ factor):

$`^{V2S}`$ $`=`$ $`^\mu \chi ^+\chi ^{}W_\mu ^++\chi ^{}^\mu \chi ^{++}W_\mu ^{}+^\mu h_2^+H_1^{}W_\mu ^+`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`^\mu H_1^{++}h_2^{}W_\mu ^{}+^\mu \rho ^{}\rho ^{++}V_\mu ^{}+^\mu \rho ^{}\rho ^+V_\mu ^+`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`h_1^+^\mu H_2^{}V_\mu ^++^\mu h_1^{}H_2^{++}V_\mu ^{}+(\eta _2^+^\mu \eta _1^+`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`\eta _1^+^\mu \eta _2^++h_2^+^\mu h_1^++h_1^+^\mu h_2^+)U^{}_\mu +H.c..`$ (25)
There are also trilinear interactions involving two vector- and one scalar-bosons (the $`\chi ^{}`$ scalar couples to ordinary and exotic quarks and for this reason it is not of our concern here). They are given by (up to a $`g^2/2`$ factor)

$`^{2VS}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_{\sigma _1}}{2}}H_1^{++}W^{}W^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{v_{\sigma _1}}{2}}H_2^{++}V^{}V^{}`$ (26)
$`+`$ $`\left(v_\rho \rho ^{++}+v_\chi \chi ^{++}+{\displaystyle \frac{v_{\sigma _2}}{2}}(H_1^{++}+H_2^{++})\right)`$ (28)
$`W^{}V^{}.`$
Notice that there is a coupling which is proportional to $`v_\chi `$ and hence it will be the dominant one.

Next, we write down the trilinear interactions among three vector bosons

$`^{3V}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}(W_{\mu \nu }^+V^{\nu +}U^\nu +V_{\mu \nu }^+V^{\nu +}U^\mu `$ (29)
$`+`$ $`W^{\nu +}V^{\mu +}U_{\mu \nu }^{})`$ (30)
where $`W_{\mu \nu }=_\mu W_\nu _\nu W_\mu `$ and so on.

Finally, we have trilinear interactions among scalar-bosons only

$$^{3S}=\frac{f_1}{2}ϵ^{ijk}\eta _i\rho _j\chi _k+\frac{f_2}{2}\chi ^TS^{}\rho +H.c..$$
(31)
The couplings $`f_{1,2}`$ have dimension of mass but are both of them arbitrary parameters (see next section). Other terms like the trilinears $`f_3\eta ^TS^{}\eta `$ and $`f_4ϵSSS`$ and the quartic interactions $`ϵ\chi (S\eta ^{})\rho `$, $`\chi ^{}\eta \rho ^{}\eta `$ and $`ϵ\chi \rho SS`$ violate the conservation of $``$.

However, as we will show in Sec. IV, when discussing the Majoron emission, the model must be modified by adding a scalar singlet in order to be consistent with the LEP data.

## III The neutrinoless double beta decay

Some of the more relevant diagrams of the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$ decay in the present model are shown in Figs. 1-6. Our goal is to analyze the order of magnitude of each diagram and to obtain constraints on some mass scales of the model. We will consider the diagram in Fig. 1 as the reference one, i.e., it is the diagram that already exist in the standard model framework with massive Majorana neutrinos and which is parameterized by two effective four-fermion interactions. The other contributions will be considered as been at most equally important than the standard one.

The strength of the diagram in Fig. 1 is given by

$$A(1)\frac{g^4M_\nu }{M_W^4p^2}c_\theta ^4=\frac{32G_F^2M_\nu }{p^2}c_\theta ^4,$$
(32)
where $`M_\nu `$ is the effective mass defined in Eq. (1) and $`p^2`$ is the average of the four-momentum transfer squared, which is of the order of $`(100\text{MeV})^2`$. Below we will use a small $`\delta `$ so that $`M_1M_W`$ and $`M_2M_V`$.

In Eq. (32) and hereafter we will omit for simplicity the mixing parameters. Only in the vertices we will take care about the mixing between $`W`$ and $`V`$ defined in Eq. (6) but in the propagator we will use the masses of $`W`$ and $`V`$.

Next, let us consider the diagram in Fig. 2 which has the strength given by

$$A(2)32G_F^2\left(\frac{M_W}{M_V}\right)^2\frac{c_\theta ^3s_\theta }{\sqrt{p^2}},$$
(33)
and we have the ratio

$$\frac{A(2)}{A(1)}=\left(\frac{M_W}{M_V}\right)^2\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{M_\nu }\mathrm{tan}\theta ,$$
(34)
and if $`A(2)/A(1)<1`$ we have that

$$M_V>2.2\times 10^4M_W\sqrt{\mathrm{tan}_\theta }=1.79\times 10^6\sqrt{\mathrm{tan}_\theta }\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(35)
We recall that a lower limit of 440 GeV is obtained for $`M_V`$ from the muon decays but when only the bilepton contributions to those decays are considered . However, in the minimal 3-3-1 model the scalar-boson contributions cannot be negligible since some of the charged scalar-bosons can be lighter than the vector bilepton boson $`V^{}`$. Hence, a lighter vector boson $`V`$ may still be possible but this subject deserves a more detailed study of the muon decay considering both vector and scalar contributions. A contribution similar to that in Fig. 1 but with two $`V^{}`$ bosons instead of two $`W^{}`$ bosons may be not negligible but it does not constraint the mass $`M_V`$ as much as those in Eq. (35) since the condition that its ratio to the $`A(1)`$ amplitude be less than one gives the condition $`M_V>M_W\sqrt{\mathrm{tan}\theta }`$.

All the Lagrangian interactions in Eqs. (11), (15), (21), (25), (28) and (30) are written in terms of symmetry eigenstates. We have assumed Yukawa couplings of the order of unity. As we are not considering the mixing among the scalar fields our constraints are valid only for the main component of the symmetry eigenstate scalar fields. It means that $`H^{}`$ and $`H^{}`$ denote the dominant mass eigenstates of the singly and doubly charged scalar fields, respectively.

The amplitude of the diagram in Fig. 3 is

$$A(3)\frac{M_\nu }{p^2M_H^{}^4}.$$
(36)
The scalar contribution in Fig. 3 can be as important as the standard one in Fig. 1. We have

$$\frac{A(3)}{A(1)}=\frac{1}{32G_F^2M_H^{}^4c_\theta ^4},$$
(37)
and assuming that $`A(3)/A(1)<1`$ and $`c_\theta =1`$ we get

$$M_H^{}>124\text{GeV}.$$
(38)
From Eq. (28) we see that the contribution $`v_\chi \chi ^{++}W_\mu ^{}V^\mu `$ is the dominant one in diagrams like that in Fig. 4. As we said before we will omit the mixing angles, i.e., assuming $`\chi ^{}H^{}`$. Hence we have

$$A(4)\frac{v_\chi }{M_W^2M_V^2M_H^{}^2}c_\theta ^2s_\theta ^2.$$
(39)
Next, we note that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A(4)}{A(1)}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_\chi }{M_\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{32G_F^2M_W^2M_V^2M_H^{}^2}}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta ,`$ (41)
$`5.33\times 10^{15}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta {\displaystyle \frac{(1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^4}{M_V^2M_H^{}^2}},`$
where we used $`M_\nu =0.2`$ eV , $`v_\chi =3`$ TeV and $`p^2=(100\text{MeV})^2`$. If $`A(4)/A(1)<1`$ it implies

$$M_V>7.3\times 10^7\mathrm{tan}\theta \frac{(1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^2}{M_H^{}}.$$
(42)
Similar analysis arises by considering Fig. 5, however it is less enhanced than the contribution of Fig. 4 because instead of $`v_\chi `$ it appears the momentum of one of the vector bosons, $`p\sqrt{p^2}`$.

More interesting are the contributions involving trilinear scalar interactions given in Eq. (31) like that of the diagram in Fig. 6. We have in this case

$$A(6)\frac{f}{M_H^{}^4M_H^{}^2},$$
(43)
where $`M_H^{}`$ represents a typical mass of the singly charged scalar bosons, say 124 GeV; $`M_H^{}`$ is the mass of the doubly charged scalar boson and $`f`$ is the trilinear coupling $`f_1`$ or $`f_2`$ in Eq. (31) with dimension of mass. The ratio of these amplitudes is:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A(6)}{A(1)}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{fp^2}{32G_F^2M_H^{}^4M_H^{}^2M_\nu c_\theta ^4}}`$ (44)
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{f/\text{GeV}}{M_H^{}^2/\text{GeV}^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{4.8\times 10^7}{c_\theta ^4}},`$ (45)
If $`A(6)/A(1)<1`$, and assuming $`c_\theta =1`$ and $`M_H^{}=124`$ GeV, we obtain the constraint

$$\frac{f}{M_H^{}^2}<2.1\times 10^8\text{GeV}^1.$$
(46)
For arbitrary $`U(1)_N`$ charge for the scalar multiplets the symmetry of the potential is $`SU(3)_L[U(1)]^2`$. If the triplet $`\eta `$ and the sextet $`S`$ have both $`N=0`$, as it is the case for the present model, the trilinear couplings $`f_{1,2}`$ break the extra $`U(1)`$ symmetry. We have verify that if both $`f_{1,2}=0`$ there is indeed a pseudo-Goldstone boson . It means that $`f_{1,2}`$ are arbitrary parameters and in principle they can be small (say 1 GeV), or large (say 1 TeV) mass scales.

We see that if $`f=1`$ ($`10^3`$) TeV then $`M_H^{}`$ is greater or of the order of 300 (10) TeV. For this value for the mass of the doubly charged scalar field and $`\theta `$ small the constraint given in Eq. (35) is stronger than that of Eq. (42). For instance if $`\mathrm{tan}\theta =10^8`$ we have from Eq. (35) that $`M_V179`$ GeV.

There is also a diagram in which the doubly charged scalar field in Fig. 6 is substituted by a vector boson $`U^{}`$. Although the interactions in Eq. (25) are proportional to $`g`$ they are also derivative and proportional to the momentum $`p\sqrt{p^2}`$; hence it is suppressed with respect to the diagram in Fig. 6.

## IV Majoron emission

If the $``$ quantum number is spontaneously broken as in the present model, it means that a Majoron-like bosons does exist. Since the scalar field that is responsible for the breakdown of that continuous symmetry is $`\sigma _1^0`$, and it belongs to a triplet of the subgroup $`SU(2)U(1)`$, this Majoron-like Goldstone has similar couplings that the triplet Majoron model of Ref. . It is well known that this sort of Majoron model has been ruled out by the LEP data . Apparently, since the Higgs sector of the present model is rather complicated having a neutral scalar singlet (under $`SU(2)U(1)`$), $`\chi ^0`$, it seems that the Majoron-like Goldstone in this case it will be able to avoid the LEP constraints as claimed in Refs. . However, we will show that this is not indeed the case.

The mass matrices of the scalar and pseudoscalar in this model have been given in Ref. . Here we will only give the results of the mass eigenvalues and the respective mixing matrix in the CP-even scalar sector. The argument in Ref.  was the following. Let us begin with the relation $`R_4^0=_j𝒪_{4j}^oH_j^0`$, where $`H_j^0,j=1,\mathrm{}5,`$ denotes the mass scalar eigenstates and $`R_4`$ the real component of the scalar field $`\sigma _1^0`$ according to the general shifting of the neutral scalar fields in the scalar potential of the form $`X_i^0(1/\sqrt{2})(v_{X_i}+R_i+iI_i),i=1,2,3,4,5`$ where $`X_i^0=\eta ,\rho ,\chi ,\sigma _1,\sigma _2`$ respectively. In this case if $`H_1^0`$ denotes the lightest scalar boson ($`M_{H_1}<M_Z`$, we are assuming a mass spectrum where $`M_{H_i}<M_{H_j}`$ if $`i<j`$), the contribution to the decay mode $`Z^0H_1^0M^0`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H_1^0M^0}^Z=2|𝒪_{41}^o|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \overline{\nu }}^Z`$. Hence, if $`|𝒪_{41}^o|<10^2`$ the model would be consistent with the LEP data i.e., now $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H_1^0M^0}^Z`$ would be reduced to an acceptable level.

First of all recall that as shown in Ref.  the Majoron-like boson decouples from the other pseudoscalar fields i.e., $`\mathrm{Im}\sigma _1^0I_4=M^0`$. For instance, using the same values of the VEV and $`f_{1,2}=1`$ TeV and with the dimensionless constant of the scalar potential given in Ref.  with $`\lambda _k=0.1`$ for $`k=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,18,20`$, $`\lambda _m=0.01`$ for $`m=13,14,16,17`$, $`\lambda _n=0.001`$ for $`n=10,11,12,19`$ and $`\lambda _{15}=0.05`$ we obtain the following masses in the scalar sector $`(0.056,102,1342,3626,4325)`$ GeV and the mixing matrix (up to three decimal places)

$$O^o=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0.0& 0.081& 0.010& 0.996& 0.021\\ 0.0& 0.995& 0.029& 0.082& 0.039\\ 0.0& 0.030& 0.999& 0.008& 0.004\\ 1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ 0.0& 0.040& 0.005& 0.017& 0.999\end{array}\right)$$
(47)
This pattern of mixing matrix remains the same for several values of the parameters provided that $`v_{\sigma _1}`$ is a small VEV restricted to the condition that it has to be smaller than 3.89 GeV . From Eq. (47) it can be seen that the scalar partner of the Majoron is always mainly the lightest scalar i.e., $`|𝒪_{41}^o|1`$ and it would be always produced at LEP. We see that the Majoron in the minimal 3-3-1 model has been also ruled out by the LEP data.

One possibility to recover consistency with the LEP data is to break explicitly the $``$ symmetry by adding trilinear terms like $`f_3\eta ^TS\eta ,f_4\chi ^TS^{}\rho `$ in the scalar potential, see Eq. (31). In this case there is no Majoron at all and although $`v_{\sigma _1}`$ still has a small value, due to $`f_3`$ all scalars are heavy enough to not be produced at the LEP energies . Of course, in this case there is no contribution to Majoron emission in the neutrinoless double beta decay. However, our results in Sec. III are still valid since they depend only on the small value of $`v_{\sigma _1}`$.

Another possibility which we will consider here is to modify the model by introducing a scalar singlet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$, which carries $`=2`$ (or $`L=2`$), in the same way as considered in Ref.  in the context of a $`SU(2)U(1)`$ model. In this case we have to add the following terms to the scalar potential in Ref.

$`V(X_i,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _5^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+\lambda _{21}\mathrm{\Sigma }^4+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[\lambda _{X_i}Tr(X_i^{}X_i)\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ (48)
$``$ $`\kappa \eta ^TS^{}\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }+H.c.]`$ (49)
where $`X_i`$ denotes any triplet $`\eta ,\rho ,\chi `$ or the sextet $`S`$, and we will denote $`\lambda _{X_i}`$ as $`\lambda _{22,23,24,25}`$ respectively and $`\kappa >0`$. The neutral Higgs sector contains six CP-even scalars and three massive CP-odd pseudoscalar beside the massless CP-odd Majoron. The neutral scalar singlet also gains a VEV, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=(v_\mathrm{\Sigma }+R_6+iI_6)/\sqrt{2}`$, and the mass term is given by $`M^2/2`$, where $`M^2`$ in the pseudoscalar sector in the basis $`I_1,I_2,I_3,I_4,I_5,I_6`$ is given by (the constraints equation appear in the Appendix)

$`M_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{16}}{2\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_\rho ^2v_{\sigma _2}}{v_\eta }}+2\lambda _{17}v_{\sigma _2}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}(\lambda _{15}v_\chi v_{\sigma _2}`$ (50)
$``$ $`f_1v_\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{v_\chi }{v_\eta }}+2\kappa v_{\sigma _1}v_\mathrm{\Sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{t_\eta }{v_\eta }},`$ (55)
$`M_{22}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\sqrt{2}f_1v_\eta +f_2v_{\sigma _2}){\displaystyle \frac{v_\chi }{v_\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{t_\rho }{v_\rho }},`$
$`M_{33}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\sqrt{2}f_1v_\eta +f_2v_{\sigma _2}){\displaystyle \frac{v_\rho }{v_\chi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{t_\chi }{v_\chi }},`$
$`M_{44}=\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{v_\eta ^2v_\mathrm{\Sigma }}{2v_{\sigma _1}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{t_{\sigma _1}}{v_{\sigma _1}}},`$
$`M_{55}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}(\lambda _{15}v_\chi ^2\lambda _{16}v_\rho ^2){\displaystyle \frac{v_\eta }{v_{\sigma _2}}}+2\lambda _{17}v_\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{f_2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_\rho v_\chi }{v_{\sigma _2}}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t_{\sigma _2}}{v_{\sigma _2}}},M_{66}=\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{v_\eta ^2v_{\sigma _1}}{2v_\mathrm{\Sigma }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{t_\mathrm{\Sigma }}{v_\mathrm{\Sigma }}},`$ (61)
$`M_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{2\sqrt{2}}}v_\chi ,M_{13}={\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{2\sqrt{2}}}v_\rho ,M_{14}=\kappa v_\eta v_\mathrm{\Sigma },`$
$`M_{15}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}(\lambda _{15}v_\chi ^2\lambda _{16}v_\rho ^2)+2\lambda _{17}v_\eta v_{\sigma _2},M_{16}=\kappa v_\eta v_{\sigma _1},`$
$`M_{23}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\sqrt{2}f_1v_\eta +f_2v_{\sigma _2}),M_{24}=0,M_{25}={\displaystyle \frac{f_2}{4}}v_\chi ,`$
$`M_{26}=0,M_{34}=0,M_{35}={\displaystyle \frac{f_2}{4}}v_\rho ,M_{36}=0,`$
$`M_{45}=0,M_{46}=\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{v_\eta ^2}{2}},M_{56}=0.`$
The mass matrix above has two true Goldstone bosons $`G_{1,2}^0`$ and the Majoron-like one, $`M^0`$, and three massive CP-odd pseudoscalar bosons. The massless ones are given by

$`G_1^0`$ $`=`$ $`(0,v_\rho /v_\chi ,1,0,0,0)/(1+v_\rho ^2/v_\chi ^2)^{1/2}`$ (62)
$`G_2^0`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{v_\eta }{v_{\sigma _2}}},{\displaystyle \frac{v_\rho v_\chi ^2}{V_1}},{\displaystyle \frac{v_\rho ^2v_\chi }{V_1}},{\displaystyle \frac{2v_{\sigma _1}v_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}{V_2}},1,{\displaystyle \frac{2v_{\sigma _1}^2v_\mathrm{\Sigma }}{V_2}})/N`$ (63)
$`M^0`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,v_{\sigma _1}/v_\mathrm{\Sigma },0,1)/(1+v_{\sigma _1}^2/v_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)^{1/2}`$ (64)
where $`V_1=v_{\sigma _2}(v_\rho ^2+v_\chi ^2)`$, $`V_2=v_{\sigma _2}(v_{\sigma _1}^2+v_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)`$; $`N`$ is the normalization factor that we will omit here. We have verify that $`M^0`$ in Eq. (64) is in fact the Majoron: by adding an explicit $``$-violating term, like $`f_3\eta ^TS\eta `$, it gets a mass while the other two $`G_{1,2}`$ remain massless. The massive pseudoscalars, for the parameters used before have the following masses (in GeV): 174, 3625 and 4325. On the other hand, if $`v_{\sigma _1}=0`$, which forces $`\kappa =0`$, the Majoron is purely singlet and the real and imaginary parts of $`\sigma _1^0`$ are mass degenerate, i.e., form a complex field, with mass

$`m_{\sigma _1}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _4^2+\lambda _{10}v_{\sigma _2}^2+(\lambda _{12}+\lambda _{19}){\displaystyle \frac{v_\eta ^2}{2}}+\lambda _{13}{\displaystyle \frac{v_\chi ^2}{2}}`$ (65)
$`+`$ $`\lambda _{14}{\displaystyle \frac{v_\rho ^2}{2}}+\lambda _{25}{\displaystyle \frac{v_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}{2}}.`$ (66)
We see that in this case the Majoron has not doublet components at all and it is mainly singlet. Hence it is possible to keep consistence with LEP data. Although there are astrophysical constraints (the Majoron emission implies a different rate for the stellar cooling) that have to be taken into account , in the basis we have chosen they are less severe since we have avoided the doublet component of the Majoron. Any way, since these constraints have been already considered in Ref.  and they imply that $`v_{\sigma _1}<0.33`$ GeV if $`v_\mathrm{\Sigma }=1`$ TeV, we will use these values for $`v_{\sigma _1},v_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Once we have shown in what situation there is a safe Majoron-like boson in the present model we can consider the emission of this Goldstone boson in the neutrinoless double beta decay. In fact, as in the triplet Majoron model, in the present model it is possible to have the neutrinoless double beta decay with Majoron emission: $`2n2p+2e^{}+M^0`$ , denoted here by $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu M}`$. We will denote the strength of the amplitude of the diagram $`i`$ of the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu M}`$ decay by $`B(i)`$. This decay proceeds via the diagram in Fig. 7 and it has an strength proportional to

$$B(7)\frac{m_\nu (v_{\sigma _1}/v_\mathrm{\Sigma })}{M_X^{}^4p^2v_{\sigma _1}},$$
(67)
where $`X^{}`$ can be an scalar or a vector boson, i.e., the diagram in Fig. 7 can be formed with anyone of Figs.1, 2 or 3 with a Majoron attached to the neutrinos. The couplings between neutrinos and the Majoron are diagonal and given by $`m_\nu /v_{\sigma _1}`$. Notice that in Eq. (67) it appears the truly neutrino mass instead of the effective mass $`M_\nu `$ defined in Eq. (1). However we still can assume that neutrinos have small masses and numerically $`m_\nu M_\nu `$. We will assume also that the contribution to the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu M}`$-decay in Fig. 7 with $`X^{}=W^{}`$ is the reference one. This diagram depends only on the neutrino masses and mixing angles, and we will compare it with other contributions like the one in Fig. 8. The couplings of the Majoron to the vector bosons are proportional to $`v_{\sigma _1}`$ and so they are negligible. We will consider only the diagram with the Majoron coupled to the scalar $`H^{}`$ since it is proportional to the trilinear $`f_2`$ shown in Eq. (31). We have

$$B(8)\frac{ff_2}{M_H^{}^6M_H^{}^2},$$
(68)
with $`f`$ can be $`f_1`$ or $`f_2`$.

Let us consider the ratio

$$\frac{B(7)}{A(1)}\frac{m_\nu Q}{32G_F^2M_X^4M_\nu c_\theta ^4v_\mathrm{\Sigma }},$$
(69)
where we have introduced the factor $`Q`$ which denotes the available energy. It implies that the diagram in Fig. 7 is a potentially important contribution when $`X`$ is the $`W`$ vector boson since for $`Q3`$ MeV  the suppression of $`B(7)`$ will depend mainly on the value of $`v_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. If $`B(7)/A(1)<1`$ we obtain that $`v_\mathrm{\Sigma }>1.65\times 10^2`$ GeV which is automatically satisfied.

On the other hand, comparing the amplitudes of the diagrams in Figs. 7 and 8 we have

$$\frac{B(8)}{B(7)}\frac{ff_2p^2M_X^4v_\mathrm{\Sigma }}{M_H^{}^6M_H^{}^2m_\nu },$$
(70)
and for $`M_X=M_V=400`$ GeV and $`v_\mathrm{\Sigma }=1`$ TeV, using typical values as $`f=f_1=f_2=1`$ TeV, $`M_H^{}=124`$ GeV and $`M_H^{}=500`$ GeV, and the other parameters in Eq. (70), we have that $`B(8)/B(7)1.3\times 10^9`$ or; $`B(8)/B(7)1.5\times 10^3`$ if $`f_1=f_2=f=10^3`$ TeV. The relative importance of the processes in Fig. 7 and 8 will depend on the values of the trilinear parameters and on the value of $`v_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

## V Conclusions

We see that in the 3-3-1 model, like in other models with complicated Higgs sector , besides the well known mechanism of exchanging massive Majorana neutrinos between two standard model $`VA`$ vertices, there are new contributions involving the exchange of scalar bosons. However, unlike similar mechanism in the context of extensions of the standard model there is no need of fine tuning in order to have trilinear scalar couplings giving large contributions to the several neutrinoless double beta decay modes. Notice that effective interactions from diagrams like those in Fig. 3 are still parameterized in the form of two general four-fermion effective interactions (they are point-like at the Fermi scale) exchanging a light neutrino in between . However, contributions involving trilinear interactions like those in Figs. 4, 5 and 6 necessarily need a six-fermion effective interaction parameterization.

Another important point to be stressed here is that in the present model the double Majoron emission: $`2d2p+2e^{}+2M^0`$ may be as contributing as the decay with only one Majoron boson. This decay is expected to be important in supersymmetric models . In the present model it can occur because in diagrams like that in Fig. 8 a second Majoron can be attached to the scalar lines. Since this coupling is proportional to the trilinear $`f_2`$ it is still possible that the suppression coming from the mass square in the denominator do not sufficiently suppresses this process (there is also an important contribution coming from the vertex $`v_\chi \chi ^{}\eta _1^+M^0`$). There are also contributions similar to the one in Fig. 8 but now with the scalar-Majoron vertex above being substituted by the vertex $`W^{}V^+M^0`$ which is proportional to $`g^2v_{\sigma _2}`$ and for this reason it is not necessarily suppressed. It is interesting to note that this sort of contribution to the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu MM}`$ decay, coming from adding another trilinear coupling in the diagram in Fig. 8, which is not derivatively suppressed, was not considered in Ref. . Recent experimental data on Majoron emission decays have been constrained only the effective Majoron-neutrino coupling constant . Other processes like the double $`K`$ capture  can also be important in the present model.

Some comments are now in order. i) We have not considered possible cancellations among several contributions to each diagram. It means that our constraints are valid, as we said in Sec. III, for the main component of each scalar field of the singly and doubly charged scalar sectors.

ii) Our results were obtained assuming that all new contributions, say to the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$ decay, are at most as important as the contribution due to a light massive Majorana neutrino exchange which is proportional to $`M_\nu `$. However, we can wonder what would be the value of the effective mass $`M_\nu `$ if we use the oscillation data and direct measurements on neutrino masses. Recent analysis shown that assuming a normal mass hierarchy the effective mass parameter can take any value from zero to the present upper limit . In fact, if the data on oscillation is put together with that from $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$ decay and tritium beta decay, it was shown that if the minimum of $`M_\nu `$ with respect to the mixing angles is greater than the present bound of 0.2 eV, then neutrinos are quasi-Dirac particles . As discussed previously, the black box of Ref.  may induce a negligible Majorana mass to the neutrinos and in the context of the present model we must interpret this situation as an indication of the fact that the main contribution to the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$ decay is not the diagram in Fig. 1. In this case the neutrinos would be almost Dirac particles and the constraints on the several mass scales of the model should be obtained by comparing directly these contributions with the lower bound on the half life $`T_{1/2}^{0\nu }>1.8\times 10^{25}`$ yr .

iii) In the basis we have chosen, see Eq. (64), the Majoron couples at the tree level only to neutrinos, and hence the constraints on the $`\nu `$-$`\nu `$-$`M`$ vertex, coming from muon ($`\mu e\nu \nu M`$), pion and kaon $`\pi ^+(K^+)l\overline{\nu }M`$ decays, are the same as in Ref. . The existence of the vertex $`\nu e^{}V^+`$, which is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ and for this reason is not relevant for laboratory processes, may have, as we said before, important astrophysical consequences .

iv) phenomenology of non-zero initial electric charge processes, like $`e^{}e^{}`$ and hadronic ones, will furnish constraints on the trilinear vertices appearing in Figs. 4, 5 and 6 but this will be considered elsewhere. The 3-3-1 model has a rich scalar sector indeed. This implies that it may be, in principle, difficult to separate, in a given process, the contributions of all fields belonging to a charged sector. However, it has been shown that in lepton-lepton colliders the left-right asymmetries are not sensible to the scalar contributions. It means that those asymmetries are the appropriate observable for the doubly charged vector bilepton discovery . We see that the opposite occurs in the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$ decay: it is possible that the main contribution comes from the doubly charged scalar boson, through the diagram in Fig. 6, while the respective vector boson contribution seems to be negligible.

Finally we would like to compare our Majoron model with that of Schechter and Valle . Firstly, we notice that although our model has two singlet, three doublets and a triplet of scalars under the subgroup $`SU(2)U(1)`$, the respective scalar potential is not reduced to the scalar potential invariant under the standard $`SU(2)U(1)`$ symmetry, involving the same multiplets. For instance in our model there are cubic invariants which are not present in the former. Secondly, we have not introduced right-handed neutrinos and for this reason we have only light neutrinos. It means that the singlet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ does not couple to the leptons and that the coupling of neutrinos to Majoron and $`Z^0`$ are diagonal. Thus, the decays $`\nu _H\nu _L+M^0`$ and $`\nu _H\nu _L+\nu _L^{}+\nu _L^{}`$, are not induced at the tree level, where $`\nu _H`$, although light, is heavier that $`\nu _L`$. The decay $`\nu _H\nu _L^c+M^0`$ is produced at the one loop level due to the mixing between $`W`$ and $`V`$. The vertex is proportional to $`(g^2/\sqrt{2})(v_{\sigma _2}v_{\sigma _1}/v_\mathrm{\Sigma })`$; then even with $`v_{\sigma _2}`$ of the order of 10 GeV and $`v_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the order of 1 TeV the lifetime is of the order of the age of the universe. (The decay $`\nu _H\nu _L+M^0`$ also occurs but the vertex involved is proportional to $`(g^2/\sqrt{2})(v_{\sigma _1}^2/v_\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.) Notice also that in the basis given in Eq. (64) the Majoron does not couple to the charged leptons so there is not the process $`\gamma +eM^0+e`$ at the tree level which imposes severe astrophysical constraints in $`v_{\sigma _1}`$ as has been noted in Ref. .

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), Conselho Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia (CNPq) and by Programa de Apoio a Núcleos de Excelência (PRONEX).

## A Contraints equation of the scalar potential

Here we show the constraints equation that must be satisfied by the scalar potential

$`t_\eta =\mu _1^2v_\eta +\lambda _1v_\eta ^3+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _4}{2}}v_\rho ^2v_\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _5}{2}}v_\chi ^2v_\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{12}}{2}}(v_{\sigma _1}^2+v_{\sigma _2}^2)v_\eta `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{15}}{2\sqrt{2}}}v_\chi ^2v_{\sigma _2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{16}}{2\sqrt{2}}}v_\rho ^2v_{\sigma _2}\lambda _{17}v_{\sigma _2}^2v_\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{19}}{2}}v_{\sigma _1}^2v_\eta `$
$``$ $`\kappa v_\eta v_{\sigma _1}v_\mathrm{\Sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{2\sqrt{2}}}v_\rho v_\chi ,`$
$`t_\rho =\mu _2^2v_\rho +\lambda _2v_\rho ^3+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _4}{2}}v_\eta ^2v_\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _6}{2}}v_\chi ^2v_\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{14}}{2}}(v_{\sigma _1}^2+v_{\sigma _2}^2)v_\rho `$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{16}}{\sqrt{2}}}v_{\sigma _2}v_\eta v_\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{20}}{4}}v_{\sigma _2}^2v_\rho +\lambda _{23}{\displaystyle \frac{v_\rho v_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}{2}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{2\sqrt{2}}}v_\eta v_\chi +{\displaystyle \frac{f_2}{4}}v_{\sigma _2}v_\chi ,`$
$`t_\chi =\mu _3^2v_\chi +\lambda _3v_\chi ^3+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _5}{2}}v_\eta ^2v_\chi +{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _6}{2}}v_\rho ^2v_\chi +{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{13}}{2}}(v_{\sigma _1}^2+v_{\sigma _2}^2)v_\chi `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{15}}{\sqrt{2}}}v_{\sigma _2}v_\eta v_\chi +{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{18}}{4}}v_{\sigma _2}^2v_\chi +\lambda _{24}{\displaystyle \frac{v_\chi v_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}{2}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{2\sqrt{2}}}v_\eta v_\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{f_2}{4}}v_{\sigma _2}v_\rho ,`$
$`t_{\sigma _1}=\mu _4^2v_{\sigma _1}+\lambda _{10}(v_{\sigma _1}^2+v_{\sigma _2}^2)v_{\sigma _1}+\lambda _{11}v_{\sigma _1}^3+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{12}}{2}}v_\eta ^2v_{\sigma _1}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{13}}{2}}v_\chi ^2v_{\sigma _1}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{14}}{2}}v_\rho ^2v_{\sigma _1}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{19}}{2}}v_\eta ^2v_{\sigma _1}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{25}}{2}}v_{\sigma _1}v_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}v_\eta ^2v_\mathrm{\Sigma },`$
$`t_{\sigma _2}=\mu _4^2v_{\sigma _2}+\lambda _{10}(v_{\sigma _2}^2+v_{\sigma _1}^2)v_{\sigma _2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{11}}{2}}v_{\sigma _2}^3+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{12}}{2}}v_\eta ^2v_{\sigma _2}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{13}}{2}}v_\chi ^2v_{\sigma _2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{14}}{2}}v_\rho ^2v_{\sigma _2}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{15}}{2\sqrt{2}}}v_\chi ^2v_\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{16}}{2\sqrt{2}}}v_\rho ^2v_\eta \lambda _{17}v_\eta ^2v_{\sigma _2}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{18}}{4}}v_\chi ^2v_{\sigma _2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{20}}{4}}v_\rho ^2v_{\sigma _2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{25}}{2}}v_{\sigma _2}v_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{f_2}{4}}v_\rho v_\chi ,`$
$`t_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mu _5^2v_\mathrm{\Sigma }+\lambda _{21}v_\mathrm{\Sigma }^3+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda 22}{2}}v_\eta ^2v_\mathrm{\Sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{23}}{2}}v_\rho ^2v_\mathrm{\Sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{24}}{2}}v_\chi ^2v_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{25}}{2}}(v_{\sigma _1}^2+v_{\sigma _2}^2)v_\mathrm{\Sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}v_\eta ^2v_\sigma .`$