text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Maximally symmetric spaces play an important role in supergravity  and in superstring theory , and they naturally arise as the near-horizon region of black brane geometries . Maximally symmetric spaces (with no more than one time dimension) are the de Sitter $`dS_p`$ and anti de Sitter $`AdS_p`$ spaces, $`n`$-spheres $`S^n`$ and $`r`$-dimensional hyperboloids $`H_r`$. Although supergravity solutions describing spheres and $`AdS`$ spaces have been extensively investigated , not much has been done for solutions involving the de Sitter and hyperbolic geometries. There are several obvious reasons for this. De Sitter spaces always break supersymmetry, and they do not describe universes with zero cosmological constant. Hyperbolic spaces, such as the upper half $`r`$-plane, admit Killing spinors  but they have infinite volume. Therefore, they do not seem useful for describing internal spaces in string compactifications. Finite volume examples can be constructed by cosets of the form $`H_r/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a discrete subgroup of the isometry group of $`H_r`$ . However, dividing by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ breaks all supersymmetries (see sect. 3).

We shall show that there is a large class of new string compactifications involving $`H_r`$ or cosets $`H_r/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which are regular (away possible orbifold points), where $`\alpha ^{}`$ string corrections can be made very small for a sufficiently large radius of $`H_r`$. Among the possible applications of these solutions, we explore: a) the definition of new $`𝒩=0`$ conformal field theories in four dimensions via holography (see also ); b) obtaining new models for dimensional reduction in non-compact spaces.

This paper is organized as follows. In sect. 2, we describe solutions of eleven-dimensional supergravity representing spaces which are direct products containing $`H_r`$ factors and discuss the supersymmetry. Analogous solutions in type II supergravity are also given. In sect. 3, we discuss finite-volume compactifications. In sect. 4 we compute the Newton gravitational potential for spaces having the hyperbolic 3-manifold $`H_3`$ as internal space. Because the Kaluza-Klein eigenvalue spectrum on $`H_3`$ is continuous with a mass gap, the Newton potential has a Yukawa-type behavior at large distances. Hyperbolic spaces naturally appear in theories with other spacetime signatures  (e.g. by Wick rotating $`AdS`$ solutions to Euclidean space) or in solutions with imaginary gauge fields, which can be interpreted as solutions with real gauge fields in new type II\* theories , where the signs of kinetic terms of RR gauge fields are reversed. In sect. 5, we consider two different approaches for obtaining new solutions in these theories. One of them consists in writing $`AdS_{2p+1}`$ as a $`U(1)`$ fibration and performing T-duality in a time-like direction. In sect. 6, we discuss the dual conformal field theories in compactifications that are direct product of anti de Sitter, hyperbolic manifolds of finite volume and spheres. Finally, we calculate in the appendix the Euler number of the space $`SU(2,1)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$.

## 2 Hyperbolic manifolds in Supergravity

### 2.1 Eleven-dimensional Supergravity

The eleven-dimensional graviton multiplet contains the graviton $`g_{MN}`$, the antisymmetric three-form $`A_{MNK}`$ and the gravitino $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M`$ ($`M,N,\mathrm{}=0,\mathrm{},10`$). The bosonic part of the eleven-dimensional supergravity Lagrangian is

$$=\frac{1}{2\kappa _{11}^2}\sqrt{g}\left(R\frac{1}{24!}F_{MNPQ}F^{MNPQ}\right)\frac{1}{12^4}ϵ^{M_1\mathrm{}M_{11}}A_{M_1M_2M_3}F_{M_4\mathrm{}M_7}F_{M_8\mathrm{}M_{11}}.$$
(1)
A well-known solution to the equations of motions

$`R_{MN}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\left(F_{MPQR}F_{N}^{}{}_{}{}^{PQR}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}g_{MN}F^2\right),`$ (2)
$`_MF^{MNPQ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1152}}ϵ^{NPQR_1\mathrm{}R_8}F_{R_1\mathrm{}R_4}F_{R_5\mathrm{}R_8},`$ (3)
is provided by the Freund-Rubin ansatz for the antisymmetric field strength

$`F_{mnpq}`$ $`=`$ $`6m_0ϵ_{mnpq}\text{for}m,n,\mathrm{}=7,\mathrm{},10,`$
$`F_{MNPQ}`$ $`=`$ $`0,\text{otherwise.}`$ (4)
By substituting this ansatz into the field equations (2) we get

$`R_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`6m_0^2g_{\mu \nu },\mu ,\nu =0,\mathrm{}6,`$
$`R_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`12m_0^2g_{mn}.`$ (5)
The requirement of unbroken supersymmetry, i.e., the vanishing of the gravitino transformation

$$\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_M=_Mϵ\frac{1}{288}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M}^{}{}_{}{}^{PQRS}8\delta _{M}^{}{}_{}{}^{P}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{QRS}\right)ϵF_{PQRS},$$
(6)
for the ansatz (4), is equivalent to the existence of $`SO(1,6)`$ and $`SO(4)`$ Killing spinors $`\theta `$ and $`\eta `$, respectively, which satisfy

$`_\mu \theta `$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\gamma _\mu \theta ,`$ (7)
$`_m\eta `$ $`=`$ $`\pm m_0\gamma _m\eta ,`$ (8)
where $`\gamma _\mu (\gamma _m)`$ are $`SO(1,6)(SO(4))`$ $`\gamma `$-matrices. Thus, although eq. (5) is solved for $`Y^7\times X^4`$ where $`Y^7`$ and $`X^4`$ are Einstein spaces of negative and positive curvature, respectively, only those spaces that admit Killing spinors obeying eqs. (7), (8) are supersymmetric. The integrability condition of eqs.(7), (8) are

$$W_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\gamma ^{\rho \sigma }\theta =0,W_{mnpq}\gamma ^{pq}\eta =0,$$
(9)
where $`W_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma },W_{mnpq}`$ are the Weyl tensors of $`Y^7,X^4`$, respectively. Thus, obvious supersymmetric examples for $`X^4`$ include the round four-sphere $`S^4`$ and its orbifolds $`S^4/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an appropriate discrete group . For the $`Y^7`$ space one can take the anti-de Sitter space $`AdS_7`$, which preserves supersymmetry as well, and leads to the $`AdS_7\times S^4`$ vacuum of eleven-dimensional supergravity.

In addition to solutions of the form $`AdS_7\times X^4`$, there are other solutions to eq. (5) involving hyperbolic manifolds. The spaces $`AdS_{7r}\times H_r\times S^4`$, where $`H_r,r2`$ is the $`r`$-dimensional upper-half space with metric:

$$ds^2=dH_r^2\frac{R_0^2}{x_0^2}\left(dx_0^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_r^2\right),R_0^2=\frac{r}{6m_0^2},$$
(10)
solve eqs. (2), (3). Thus, the following backgrounds are all vacua of eleven-dimensional supergravity:

i) $`AdS_2\times H_5\times S^4`$ ;

ii) $`AdS_2\times H_2\times H_3\times S^4`$ ;

iii) $`AdS_3\times H_2\times H_2\times S^4`$ ;

iv) $`AdS_3\times H_4\times S^4`$ ;

v) $`AdS_4\times H_3\times S^4`$ ;

vi) $`AdS_5\times H_2\times S^4`$ .

Neither of these backgrounds are supersymmetric. Indeed, they do not satisfy eq. (9). \[Note that the product-space of conformally flat spaces is not conformally flat\]. However, although supersymmetry automatically guarantees the stability of the background, its absence does not necessarily implies instability. We recall for example the cases of $`AdS_4\times M^{pqr}`$  and $`AdS_4\times Q^{pqr}`$  compactifications of eleven-dimensional supergravity, which are stable for a certain range of $`p,q`$ . A general result of the stability analysis in  was that, a generic $`AdS_4\times M_7`$ compactification, where the Einstein space is a product of an $`n`$-dimensional manifold $`M_{(1)}^n`$ and a $`7n`$-dimensional one $`M_{(2)}^{7n}`$, $`M_7=M_{(1)}^n\times M_{(2)}^{7n}`$, is unstable. This is due to the fact that the stability of the $`AdS_4`$ vacuum depends on the eigenvalues of the Lichnerowicz operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ in the internal space $`M_7`$ acting on transverse, tracefree symmetric tensors $`h_{mn}`$. The background is supersymmetric if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ is strictly positive (in fact $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ should be bigger than a multiple of $`m_0^2`$). However, for product spaces, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ has a zero eigenvalue with eigenfunction $`h_{mn}=diag(g_{m_1n_1},\frac{n}{(7n)}g_{m_2n_2})`$, where $`g_{m_1n_1},g_{m_2n_2}`$ are the metrics on $`M_{(1)}^n,M_{(2)}^{7n}`$, respectively. Clearly, this eigenfunction corresponds to an expanding $`M_{(1)}^n`$ and a contracting $`M_{(2)}^{7n}`$ with constant total volume of $`M_{(1)}^n\times M_{(2)}^{7n}`$. Thus, the instability is due to volume-preserving metric deformations of the internal space.

All the (i)-(vi) vacua are clearly of the form described above, so it may appear that they are unstable if $`H_r`$ is replaced by a finite volume coset $`H_r/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, as it will be described in the next section. However, this is not the case. Let us consider for example the case (v) involving $`AdS_4`$. Fixing the $`AdS`$ radius, the corresponding radius of $`H_r`$ is also fixed and instabilities can only be produced by metric perturbations on $`S^4`$ which preserve the Einstein metric. Such perturbations do not exist and although the background is of product form, it is stable. Of course, a definite statement for the stability of (i)-(vi) needs a case-by-case study of the spectrum. However, as the latter has not been studied yet, at least the potentially dangerous volume-preserving metric deformations of the internal space are absent.

Other non-supersymmetric compactifications can be obtained by replacing $`H_r`$ in the spaces i) – vi) by any Einstein space of the same negative curvature. In particular, one has the solution

vii) $`AdS_3\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_4\times S^4`$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_4`$ is the coset space $`SU(2,1)/\left(SU(2)\times U(1)\right)`$. This space will appear again in sect. 5.1 (see also the appendix).

### 2.2 Hyperbolic manifolds in type II supergravity

Simple type IIB supergravity backgrounds with D3 brane charge and constant dilaton are the following ones:

i) $`AdS_3\times H_2\times S^5`$ ;

ii) $`AdS_2\times H_3\times S^5`$ .

Like $`AdS_5\times S^2\times S^3`$, these spaces have no Killing spinors. In particular, in the case ii), the metric is given by

$$ds_{10B}^2=\frac{R^2}{4z^2}(dt^2+dz^2)+\frac{R^2}{2v^2}(dx^2+dy^2+dv^2)+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2.$$
(11)
The 5-form self-dual field strength is the same as in the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ solution. The isometry group is $`SO(1,2)\times SO(1,3)\times SO(6)`$. Although the solution is not supersymmetric, it is regular everywhere (being a direct product of Einstein spaces), and $`\alpha ^{}`$ corrections can be made very small for sufficiently large radius $`R`$.

## 3 Finite volume cosets $`H_r/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

In the previous section we have seen some supergravity solutions involving factors $`AdS_p`$ and $`H_r`$. The space $`H_r`$ has infinite volume (with respect to the Poincaré metric). Thus there are no normalizable modes for any field in $`H_r`$, and the bulk as well as the boundary theories are both empty. Non-empty bulk and boundary field theories can be obtained by forming the coset $`H_r/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a discrete subgroup of the isometry group of the upper-half plane. We shall now discuss some specific examples.

### 3.1  Killing spinors

The supergravity solutions involving the $`H_r`$ manifolds discussed in sect. 2 are not supersymmetric. However, our analysis does not exclude that there could be more complicated backgrounds involving $`H_r`$, where some supersymmetries are unbroken. The Poincaré manifolds $`H_r`$ admit Killing spinors (explicit expressions can be found in ), and a question of general interest is whether they survive under the orbifolding by the discrete group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For this we may describe the upper-half space $`H_r`$ as the hypersurface (taken for simplicity to be of constant curvature $`1`$)

$$X_0^2+X_1^2+\mathrm{}+X_r^2=1.$$
(12)
The isometry group of $`H_r`$ is then clearly $`SO(1,r)`$ and the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is in general a subgroup of $`SO(1,r)`$, which may or may not have fixed points. There are two cases to be discussed. If $`r=even`$, then a Killing spinor is in the spinorial representation of $`SO(1,r1)`$. Then, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a subgroup of $`SO(1,r1)`$, but it is not a subgroup of $`SO(1,r3)`$, then there are no surviving Killing spinors. The latter exist if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SO(1,r3)`$. However, in this case $`H_r/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will still be of infinite volume. Thus there are no finite volume cosets $`H_r/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, with $`r=even`$, with unbroken supersymmetries. In particular, any supergravity compactification involving finite volume cosets $`H_2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`H_4/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will not preserve any supersymmetry.

The second case is when $`r=odd`$. In this case, there are two Killing spinors on $`H_r`$ in the spinorial representation of $`SO(1,r1)`$. These two Killing spinors are also Weyl spinors of the isometry group $`SO(1,r)`$, so that they form an irreducible Dirac spinor of $`SO(1,r)`$. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not a subgroup $`SO(1,r1)`$, then all supersymmetries are broken, while if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a subgroup $`SO(1,r1)`$, then half of the supersymmetries survive. 111The $`r=odd`$ case may be compared to the coset $`S^{2n+1}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ . $`S^5/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is supersymmetric if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(3),SU(2)`$, while is not supersymmetric if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a maximal subgroup of $`SU(4)`$. In this case, it may seem that the space $`H_r/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be of finite volume. In the particular case of $`H_3`$, we will explicitly see below that there is no choice of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that lead to a finite volume supersymmetric space.

### 3.2 Solutions of the form $`AdS^5\times H_2/\mathrm{\Gamma }\times S^4`$

Let us consider in first place the $`AdS^5\times H_2/\mathrm{\Gamma }\times S^4`$ solution of eleven-dimensional supergravity. The metric and four-form field strength are given by

$$ds_{11}^2=\frac{2R_0^2}{3z^2}(dt^2+dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2+dz^2)+\frac{R_0^2}{6v^2}(dx^2+dv^2)+\frac{R_0^2}{4}d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2,$$
(13)
$$\widehat{F}_4=6R_0^3\mathrm{\Omega }_4,$$
(14)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2`$ is the metric on $`S^4`$ and we have taken the Poincaré metric for the upper half-plane $`H_2`$ ($`v>0`$). A finite volume hyperbolic space can be obtained by forming the coset $`H_2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a discrete subgroup of the isometry group $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ of the upper-half plane. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ must be a Fuchsian group, and the requirement of finiteness of the volume of $`H_2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is equivalent to the Fuchsian group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to be of the first kind. Examples are compact hyperbolic manifolds representing genus 2 Riemann surfaces.

A non-compact space of finite volume can be constructed by taking $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=SL(2,𝐙)`$, so that $`H_2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the fundamental domain $`F_2`$ of $`SL(2,𝐙)`$. This case provides a rather simple setup for dimensional reduction, since there are no Kaluza-Klein modes associated with non-trivial quantum numbers in $`F_2`$. Modular functions which are eigenstates of the Laplacian cannot be square-integrable, excepting the constant mode. Indeed, for a square-integrable wave function obeying $`\mathrm{}\psi =\lambda \psi `$, one can drop a boundary term in the following integration by parts

$$0_{F_2}𝑑\mu \psi ^{}\psi =_{F_2}𝑑\mu \psi ^{}\mathrm{}\psi =\lambda _{F_2}𝑑\mu \psi ^{}\psi ,d\mu =\frac{dvdx}{v^2},$$

which implies $`\lambda 0`$. But this contradicts the fact that the Laplace operator is negative in the fundamental domain (i.e. all eigenfunctions have $`\lambda 0`$). Thus, scalar modes in $`AdS_5\times F_2\times S^4`$ will be of the form $`\psi =\varphi (AdS)Y(S^4)`$, with no dependence on the $`F_2`$ coordinates.

### 3.3 The $`AdS_4\times F_3\times S^4`$ model

Let us now consider the $`AdS_4\times H_3/\mathrm{\Gamma }\times S^4`$ background. Here the supergravity solution is given by

$$ds_{11}^2=\frac{R_0^2}{2z^2}(dt^2+dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dz^2)+\frac{R_0^2}{3v^2}(dx^2+dy^2+dv^2)+\frac{R_0^2}{4}d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2,$$
(15)
$$\widehat{F}_4=6R_0^3\mathrm{\Omega }_4,$$
(16)
In ref. , it was considered the case when $`H_3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the hyperbolic dodecahedron space, which is a compact hyperbolic manifold obtained by identifying opposite faces of a dodecahedron after a $`3\pi /5`$ rotation. More generally, we will show below that any finite volume space of the form $`H_3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not admit Killing spinors. We will mainly be interested in the case when $`H_3`$ is a non-compact hyperbolic manifold given by the fundamental region of the Picard group, which we describe next.

The space $`H_3`$ finds its natural description in terms of the quaternionic upper half 3-space (further details can be found in ). To define it, it is useful to recall a few known facts about quaternions, which are objects of the form

$$q=x+iy+ju+kv,$$

with $`x,y,u,v`$ real, where

$$ij=k=ji,jk=i=kj,ki=j=ik,i^2=j^2=k^2=1$$

The norm of a quaternion is given by $`q=\sqrt{x^2+y^2+u^2+v^2}.`$ Quaternions can be represented in terms of Pauli matrices, so that $`SU(2)`$ can be viewed as the unit quaternion.

The quaternionic upper half 3-plane is defined as follows:

$$H_3=\{x+iy+kv|x,y,v𝐑,v>0\}$$
(17)
Thus the elements of $`H_3`$ are quaternions with $`j`$-coordinate equal to zero. It can be identified with the symmetric space $`SL(2,𝐂)/SU(2)`$. A matrix $`gSL(2,𝐂)`$ acts on an element $`q`$ of the quaternionic upper half plane in the following way:

$$q^{}g(q)=(aq+b)(cq+d)^1,g=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)$$
(18)
with $`v^{}=vcq+d^2`$. The metric, volume element, and Laplacian on $`H_3`$ are given by

$`ds^2=(dx^2+dy^2+dv^2)v^2,`$ (19)
$`d\mu =v^3dxdydv,`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }=v^2(^2/x^2+^2/y^2+^2/v^2)v/v.`$ (21)
The Picard group is defined to be

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=SL(2,𝐙[i])=\{g=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)|a,b,c,d𝐙[i],detg=1\},$$
(22)
with

$$𝐙[i]=\{x+iy|x,y𝐙\}$$

A fundamental domain for $`SL(2,𝐙[i])H_3`$ in the quaternionic upper half plane is then

$$F_3=\{x+iy+kv||x|1/2,0y1/2,x^2+y^2+v^21,v>0\}.$$
(23)
The volume of the fundamental domain $`F_3`$ is

$$\mathrm{Vol}(F_3)=_{F_3}𝑑\mu =\frac{|D|^{3/2}\zeta _K(2)}{4\pi ^2},$$
(24)
where $`\zeta _K(2)`$ is the Dedekind zeta function of the number field $`𝐐(i)`$.

Although non-supersymmetric, the space $`AdS_4\times F_3\times S^4`$ is an interesting setup for string compactification, in particular, for the construction of conformal field theories in $`2+1`$ dimensions (see sect. 6).

One can show that there is no supersymmetric compactification in supergravity involving $`F_3`$. Indeed, it is easy to see that no Killing spinor survives after dividing $`H_3`$ by $`SL(2,𝐙[i])`$. The isometry group of $`H_3`$ is $`SO(1,3)SL(2,𝐑)\times SL(2,𝐑)`$. There are two Killing spinors which are Weyl spinors of each $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ factor. The Picard group $`SL(2,𝐙[i])`$ is essentially given by the subgroup $`SL(2,𝐙)\times SL(2,𝐙)`$ of $`SL(2,𝐑)\times SL(2,𝐑)`$. Therefore it does not leave invariant any of the Killing spinors. More generally, any finite volume example of the form $`H_3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will not have Killing spinors, since the finite-volume condition implies that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ must contain elements of both factors in $`SL(2,𝐑)\times SL(2,𝐑)`$.

## 4 Newton’s law on $`H_3`$

Having described a number of string compactifications containing hyperbolic spaces, a question of interest (in view of the recent results of  for Newton’s law in certain non-compact spaces) is whether such compactifications may be compatible with the observed Newton’s law. In the case of compactification on a compact space $`X`$, there exist massive Kaluza-Klein modes of the four-dimensional graviton associated with the eigenvalues of the Laplace operator on $`X`$. In the static limit, these modes contribute to the Newton’s law giving, in addition to the standard $`1/r`$ behavior of the massless graviton, Yukawa-type corrections. In particular, these are the expected corrections if the internal space is a compact hyperbolic manifold of the form $`H_r/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. What is the form of the corrections if the internal space is the non-compact, infinite volume hyperbolic manifold $`H_r`$? For non-compact spaces, the spectrum of the Laplace operator is continuous. For a continuum spectrum of eigenvalues, the gravitational potential is given by

$$V(r)\frac{1}{r}f(r),$$

where

$$f(r)=𝑑qe^{qr}|\mathrm{\Psi }_q(0)|^2,$$

and

$$^2\mathrm{\Psi }_q(\rho )=q^2\mathrm{\Psi }_q(\rho ).$$

The standard $`1/r`$ behavior can still be recovered in some non-compact spaces .

Let us consider for simplicity $`M^4\times H_3`$, where $`M^4`$ is the four-dimensional Minkowski space. Then, in “spherical” coordinates $`(\rho ,\theta ,\varphi )`$ for $`H_3`$ and metric

$$ds^2(H_3)=d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho \left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right),$$
(25)
the eigenmodes are

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{q\mathrm{}m}(\rho ,\theta ,\varphi )=R_q^{\mathrm{}}(\rho )Y_\mathrm{}m(\theta ,\varphi ),$$
(26)
with a continuous spectrum of eigenvalues $`q^2=[1,\mathrm{})`$. The functions $`Y_\mathrm{}m`$ are spherical harmonics, and the radial eigenfunctions are the hyperspherical Bessel functions

$$R_q^{\mathrm{}}(\rho )=\frac{(1)^{\mathrm{}+1}\mathrm{sinh}^{\mathrm{}}\rho }{\left(_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}(n^2+k^2)\right)^{1/2}}\frac{d^{\mathrm{}+1}\mathrm{cos}(k\rho )}{d(\mathrm{cosh}\rho )^{\mathrm{}+1}},k^2=q^21.$$
(27)
In the $`\mathrm{}=0`$ sector (i.e. spherical modes with radial dependence only), we obtain

$$f(r)=_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑q\sqrt{q^21}e^{qr}=\frac{K_1(r)}{r},$$
(28)
where $`K_1(r)`$ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind. The gravitational potential in four dimensions is then

$$V(r)\frac{K_1(r)}{r^2}.$$
(29)
At distances $`r`$ much smaller than the radius of the hyperboloid (here taken to be 1 for simplicity), one has $`V(r)1/r^3`$. At large distances $`r1`$, the potential falls off exponentially, $`V(r)=\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2r^5}}e^r`$. This is expected, since there is a gap in the spectrum. As there is no any local minimum of $`K_1(r)/r`$, a $`1/r`$ approximated behavior cannot be obtained at any scale.

## 5 Hyperbolic spaces in type IIA\*/IIB\* supergravities

### 5.1 $`AdS_{2p+1}`$ as a $`U(1)`$ fibration and untwisting

In ref. , a type IIA solution of the form $`AdS_5\times CP_2\times S^1`$ was obtained by starting with $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, writing the 5-sphere as a U(1) bundle over $`CP_2`$ (Hopf fibration) and performing T-duality along $`S^1`$. Now we make an analogous formal construction of a new type IIA solution containing a hyperbolic space, by starting with a type IIB solution describing $`AdS_3`$ or $`AdS_5`$, and performing a similar operation on the $`AdS`$ part of the space. One can write $`AdS_{2n+1}`$ as a $`U(1)`$ bundle over a $`2n`$-dimensional base space, and then perform T-duality in the time direction, which untwists the fibration. As pointed out in , T-duality in a time-like direction does not connect type IIA/IIB theory, but rather relates type IIA to a type IIB\* and type IIB to type IIA\*, obtained by reversing the signs of RR kinetic terms.

Let us illustrate this by first considering the case of the $`AdS_3\times S^3\times T^4`$ vacuum of type IIB superstring theory, representing the geometry of the near-horizon D1-D5 brane system. The $`AdS_3`$ space is the hyperboloid

$$X_0^2+X_1^2+X_2^2X_3^2=R^2,$$
(30)
or,

$$W\overline{W}+Z\overline{Z}=1Z=X_1+iX_2,W=X_0+iX_3.$$
(31)
For simplicity, we have set the radius equal to one. The extension to an arbitrary radius is straightforward. By writing

$$Z=\frac{R}{(\frac{r^2}{R^2}1)^{1/2}}e^{it},W=\frac{r}{(\frac{r^2}{R^2}1)^{1/2}}e^{i(t+\phi )},$$

one obtains the $`AdS_3`$ metric in the following form

$$ds^2=\frac{dr^2+r^2d\phi ^2}{(1\frac{r^2}{R^2})^2}R^2\left(dt+\frac{r^2}{R^2r^2}d\phi \right)^2.$$
(32)
The existence of a $`U(1)`$ symmetry and a $`U(1)`$ fibration over a base $`H_2`$ is manifest in these coordinates. The fibration is trivial and can be turned into a non-trivial one after dividing $`H_2`$ by a discrete $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SL(2,𝐑)`$. The form of the metric eq. (32) makes also manifest the appearance of closed time-like curves. These can be avoided by unwrapping the time direction or, equivalently, by considering the universal covering space of $`AdS_3`$, which does not have any closed time-like curve. For the purpose of obtaining a new solution of type II supergravity, we can formally perform a T-duality transformation along the $`S^1`$ compactified time direction in eq. (32). By using the standard T-duality transformation rules , we get the dual solution

$$d\widehat{s}^2=\frac{dr^2}{(1\frac{r^2}{R^2})^2}+\frac{r^2}{(1\frac{r^2}{R^2})^2}d\phi ^2R^2dt^2,B_{t\phi }=\frac{r^2}{1\frac{r^2}{R^2}},e^{2\varphi }=g^2=\mathrm{const}..$$
(33)
There are also components of the 2-form and 4-form field strength tensors given by

$$\widehat{F}_2=\frac{R^2r}{(1\frac{r^2}{R^2})^2}drd\phi ,\widehat{F}_4=2R^2dt\mathrm{\Omega }_3.$$
(34)
Remarkably enough, the metric

$$d\sigma ^2=\frac{dr^2}{(1\frac{r^2}{R^2})^2}+\frac{r^2}{(1\frac{r^2}{R^2})^2}d\varphi ^2,$$
(35)
is the metric of the upper-half plane $`H_2`$. Thus, the T-dual of the $`AdS_3\times S^3`$ vacuum is the space $`𝐑\times H_2\times S^3`$, where we have unwrapped the time direction.

Let us now consider the anti de Sitter space $`AdS_5`$. In terms of complex coordinates, it is the hyperboloid:

$$W\overline{W}+Z_1\overline{Z}_1+Z_2\overline{Z}_2=R^2.$$

Write

$$W=\frac{Re^{it}}{(1\frac{r^2}{R^2})^{1/2}},Z_1=\frac{r}{(1\frac{r^2}{R^2})^{1/2}}e^{i(t+\frac{\chi +\phi }{2})}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2},$$

$$Z_2=\frac{r}{(1\frac{r^2}{R^2})^{1/2}}e^{i(t+\frac{\chi \phi }{2})}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}.$$

The metric becomes

$$ds^2(AdS_5)=d\mathrm{\Sigma }_4^2R^2(dtA)^2,$$
(36)
where

$$d\mathrm{\Sigma }_4^2=\frac{dr^2}{(1\frac{r^2}{R^2})^2}+\frac{1}{4}\frac{r^2}{(1\frac{r^2}{R^2})}\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2\right)+\frac{1}{4}\frac{r^2}{(1\frac{r^2}{R^2})^2}\left(d\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta d\phi \right)^2,$$
(37)
$$A=\frac{r^2}{2(R^2r^2)}\left(d\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta d\phi \right).$$
(38)
Now we make T-duality in time direction. This gives a new type IIA\* supergravity solution. After T-duality, we get

$$ds_{10A}^2=d\mathrm{\Sigma }_4^2R^2dt^2+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2,B_2=R^2dtA,e^{2\varphi }=g^2.$$
(39)
There is also the 4-form field strength $`dA_3`$ with components in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_4`$ implied by the T-duality rules. Thus $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ gets untwisted to a space $`𝐑\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_4\times S^5`$. The space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^4`$ has self-dual Weyl tensor and, in fact, it is the constant negative-curvature partner of $`CP_2`$, with Ricci tensor

$$_{\mu \nu }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_4)=\frac{6}{R^2}g_{\mu \nu }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_4).$$

Indeed, after $`rir`$, we find that $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_4^2ds^2(CP_2)`$. It is not difficult to see that the space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_4`$ is the coset space $`SU(2,1)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$. In general, the $`AdS_{2n+1}`$ can be untwisted to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2n}\times S^1`$ where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2n}`$ is the constant negative-curvature partner of $`CP_n`$ with metric obtained from the latter after $`rir`$ in the Fubini-Study metric of $`CP_n`$. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2n}`$ is in fact the coset space $`SU(n,1)/SU(n)\times U(1)`$. In the appendix we calculate the Euler number of this space.

### 5.2 Solutions with fluxes on $`H_r`$

A conformal field theory involving the upper half 3-space $`H_3`$ can be constructed as a WZW model based on the coset $`SL(2,𝐂)/SU(2)`$. This can be combined with another CFT by direct product. In particular, it can be combined with the NS5-brane by summing both conformal sigma models (similar constructions have been done in ). To saturate the central charge, one needs to add a linear dilaton in the time direction. The construction leads to an NS-NS 2-form gauge field with imaginary components. By S-duality, one can convert it into a R-R 2-form with imaginary components, and thus into a solution of type IIB\* theory. The resulting conformal model is an exact solution of string theory to all orders in the $`\alpha ^{}`$-expansion.

These sigma models can also be constructed directly by brane intersections (the basic rules for constructing intersecting branes are in ). We first describe simpler string solutions based on the embedding $`H_3`$ in $`𝐑^{10}`$ (the extension to other $`H_r`$ is straightforward). Let us consider spaces of the form $`X_4\times M_6`$, with metric:

$$ds^2=dt^2+t^2dH_3^2+ds_6^2,dH_3^2=\frac{1}{z^2}(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2),$$
(40)
where $`ds_6^2`$ describes the six-dimensional compact manifold $`M_6`$. The hyperbolic 3-manifold $`H_3`$ arises as constant time slices of $`X_4`$. The Riemann tensor for $`X_4`$ vanishes identically. To see this, one introduces new coordinates

$$U=t/z,X=tx/z,Y=ty/z,V=tz+\frac{t}{z}(x^2+y^2),$$
(41)
so that the metric for $`X_4`$ takes the form

$$ds_4^2=dUdV+dX^2+dY^2.$$
(42)
Thus eq. (41) provides the embedding of $`H_3`$ in a four-dimensional space-time. If $`M_6=T^6`$, then the metric (40) is an exact solution of string theory, since the Riemann tensor identically vanishes. To leading order in $`\alpha ^{}`$, one can take any Ricci-flat space $`M_6`$. From eq. (41) one gets

$$t^2=UVX^2Y^2.$$
(43)
The condition that $`t^20`$ implies that the physical space-time is in the region $`UVX^2+Y^2`$.

To construct solutions with brane charges, a natural starting point is the NS5 brane, with flux on $`H_3`$. It is given by

$$ds_{10}^2=dx_i^2+f(t)\left(dt^2+t^2dH_3^2\right),dH_3^2=\frac{1}{z^2}(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2),i=1,\mathrm{},6$$
(44)
$$e^{2\varphi }=f(t),idB=df,f(t)=1+\frac{R^2}{t^2}.$$
(45)
This is a formal analog of the NS five brane solution, in which the 3-sphere has been replaced by a hyperbolic space. Note that the gauge field $`dB`$ is imaginary. By S-duality, and redefining the RR 2-form by a factor $`i`$, this is converted into a solution of type IIB\* supergravity.

To have finite flux, the space $`H_3`$ can be replaced by the finite volume $`F_3`$ space, representing the fundamental region of the Picard group, as described previously (or by any coset $`H_3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of finite volume).

By an appropriate rescaling of variables, one finds the “near horizon” solution:

$$ds_{10}^2=dx_i^2d\tau ^2+R^2dH_3^2,\varphi =R^1\tau ,\tau =\mathrm{ln}t.$$
(46)
This is a direct product of flat space with linear dilaton and a $`SL(2,𝐂)/SU(2)`$ WZW model.

We now generalize the solution (44) by considering the intersection with an NS5 brane

$$ds_{10}^2=dx_1^2+dx_2^2+f(t)\left(dt^2+t^2dH_3^2\right)+g(r)\left(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right),$$
(47)
$$e^{2\varphi }=f(t)g(r),idB=df(t)+dg(r),g(r)=1+\frac{R_0^2}{r^2}.$$
(48)
Similarly, the NS5-brane can be combined with the solution (46), giving

$$ds_{10}^2=d\tau ^2+dx_1^2+dx_2^2+R^2dH_3^2+g(r)\left(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right)$$
(49)
$$e^{2\varphi }=e^{\frac{2\tau }{R}}g(r).$$
(50)
One can also add a fundamental string in the direction $`x_1`$ as follows:

$$ds_{10}^2=h^1(r)\left[d\tau ^2+dx_1^2\right]+dx_2^2+R^2dH_3^2+g(r)\left(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right),$$
(51)
$$e^{2\varphi }=e^{\frac{2\tau }{R}}\frac{g(r)}{h(r)},h(r)=1+\frac{R_1^2}{r^2}.$$
(52)
The near-horizon geometry is given by

$$ds_{10}^2=\frac{r^2}{R_1^2}\left[d\tau ^2+dx_1^2\right]+R_0^2\frac{dr^2}{r^2}+R^2dH_3^2+R_0^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2,$$
(53)
$$e^\varphi =e^{\frac{\tau }{R}}\frac{R_0}{R_1}.$$
(54)
This describes a background $`AdS_3\times S^3\times H_3\times S^1`$, with a linear dilaton in the time direction.

By U-duality, one can construct different D-brane solutions with time dependence. In particular, starting with (44) and making S and T-dualities, one obtains solutions with D$`p`$ brane charge, with $`p>3`$:

$$ds_{10B}^2=f^{1/2}(t)\left(dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_{p+1}^2\right)+f^{1/2}(t)\left[dt^2+t^2dH_{8p}^2\right]$$
(55)
$$e^{2\varphi }=f^{(3p)/2},\widehat{F}_{8p}=iR^{7p}\widehat{H}_{8p},f=1+\frac{R^{7p}}{t^{7p}},$$
(56)
where $`\widehat{H}_r`$ is the volume form of $`H_r`$. In the case of $`p=3`$, one gets near $`t=0`$ a direct product of de Sitter space-time and the hyperboloid $`H_5`$, i.e. $`dS_5\times H_5`$ (which can also be obtained from the $`S^5\times AdS_5`$ solution by Wick rotation).

## 6 Discussion

The backgrounds described in sect. 2 can be used for the construction of new $`𝒩=0`$ conformal field theories by holography. A version of the Maldacena dualities states that string/M theory on any space of the form $`AdS_{d+1}\times X`$ is equivalent to a conformal field theory in $`d`$ dimensions. In particular, in the case of the $`AdS_7\times S^4`$ compactification, the boundary theory is a CFT for the six-dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ tensor multiplet , or a CFT for the six-dimensional $`𝒩=1`$ vector multiplet in the $`AdS_7\times S^4/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ background . According to this, string (or M) theory compactified on spaces of the form $`AdS_{d+1}\times (H_r/\mathrm{\Gamma })\times S^n`$ defines a $`d`$ dimensional conformal field theory with $`SO(n+1)`$ global symmetry. The correlation functions of the CFT are defined by the prescription

$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^dx\varphi _0(x)𝒪(x)}}_{\mathrm{CFT}}Z_{\mathrm{string}}(\varphi (\mathrm{boundary})=\varphi _0(x)),$$
(57)
where $`Z_{\mathrm{string}}`$ is the string theory partition function computed with boundary values $`\varphi _0(x)`$ of the string theory fields, which act as sources of CFT operators. As usual, in the classical supergravity approximation, it can be evaluated as $`Z_{\mathrm{string}}\mathrm{exp}[I_{SG}(\varphi )]`$, by solving the equations of motion of $`\varphi `$ in the background for $`AdS_{d+1}\times (H_r/\mathrm{\Gamma })\times S^n`$, with the boundary condition $`\varphi (\mathrm{boundary})=\varphi _0(x)`$. Consider, in particular, the $`d=11`$ supergravity solution $`AdS_5\times F_2\times S^4`$. This should be dual to a $`d=4`$ non-supersymmetric CFT with $`SO(5)`$ global symmetry group. Because the supergravity solution has M5-brane charge, one may expect the CFT to be related to the six-dimensional $`(2,0)`$ or $`(1,0)`$ conformal field theories. As explained in sect. 3, eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator on $`F_2`$ are not square-integrable, barring the constant mode. Thus Kaluza-Klein modes obeying the Laplace equation are constant in $`F_2`$. In the absence of supersymmetry, finding the field theory degrees of freedom is nevertheless difficult because the field theory is expected to be strongly coupled in the regime the supergravity description is valid.

Other interesting cases are the eleven-dimensional supergravity solution $`AdS_4\times F_3\times S^4`$, and the type IIB solution $`AdS_3\times F_2\times S^5`$. Since the latter has D3 brane charge, it should be dual to some $`𝒩=0`$ $`d=1+1`$ conformal field theory related to $`𝒩=4`$ $`d=3+1`$ super Yang-Mills theory. The $`AdS_4\times F_3\times S^4`$ solution has M5 brane charge. The dual field theory should be a $`d=2+1`$ conformal field theory related to the $`6d`$ $`(2,0)`$ CFT, with an internal global symmetry group given by $`SO(5)`$.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank A. Tseytlin for useful comments, and S. Randjbar-Daemi for an important remark. A.K. is supported by a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.E.T. grant No. 97/$`E\mathrm{\Lambda }`$/71. J.R. would like to thank the support of UBA, Conicet and Fundación Antorchas.

APPENDIX

In sect. 5 we have seen that the anti de Sitter spacetime $`AdS_{2p+1}`$ can be represented as a $`U(1)`$ fibration over a base space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2p}=SU(p,1)/(SU(p)\times U(1))`$. Here we present the calculation of the Euler number of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_4`$, which we expect will be of use for future applications. The space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_4`$ is a homogeneous space of the group $`SU(2,1)`$ and it is diffeomorphic to $`SU(2,1)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$. Its metric is given in eq. (37) and by using the standard $`SU(2)`$ left-invariant one-forms $`\sigma _i,i=1,2,3,(d\sigma _1=2\sigma _2\sigma _3,\mathrm{})`$ on the $`S^3`$, we may express eq. (37) as

$$d\mathrm{\Sigma }_4^2=\frac{dr^2+r^2\sigma _3^2}{(1r^2)^2}+\frac{r^2(\sigma _1^2+\sigma _2^2)}{(1r^2)},$$
(58)
where we have put $`R=1`$. Recalling that the metric on $`CP_2`$ is

$$dCP_2^2=\frac{dr^2+r^2\sigma _3^2}{(1+r^2)^2}+\frac{r^2(\sigma _1^2+\sigma _2^2)}{(1+r^2)},$$
(59)
we see that the above metrics eqs.(58,59) on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_4=SU(2,1)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$ and $`CP_2=SU(3)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$ are related by $`rir`$. Note that although $`CP_2`$ is compact, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_4`$ is not and it has a boundary at $`r=1`$.

The Euler number $`\chi (\mathrm{\Sigma }_4)`$ is calculated by the formula

$$\chi (M)=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}_Mϵ^{abcd}R_{ab}R_{cd}\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}_Mϵ^{abcd}\left(2\theta _{ab}R_{cd}\frac{4}{3}\theta _{ab}\theta _{ce}\theta _{ed}\right).$$
(60)
The first term is the standard bulk contribution whereas the last term is for the boundary corrections. A straightforward calculation for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_4`$ gives

$$\chi (\mathrm{\Sigma }_4)=3\left(1\frac{12r_0}{(1r_0^2)^2}\right)\frac{3r_0^2+2r_0^4}{(1r_0^2)^2}+\frac{1+2r_0^2}{(1r_0^2)^2}=1.$$
(61)
On the other hand, the Euler number of $`CP_2`$ is $`\chi (CP_2)=3`$ so the Euler numbers of $`CP_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ differ by two units. This difference is due to the bold singularity that exists in the $`CP_2`$ space and it is absence in the case of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_4`$. Indeed, the $`CP_2`$ metric for $`r>>1`$ turns out to be

$$dCP_2^2\rho ^4\left(dr^2+r^2\sigma _3^2\right)+\sigma _1^2+\sigma _2^2,$$
(62)
and the surface $`r\mathrm{}`$ is a removable bolt singularity. The space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ does not have any bolt. Since each bolt contributes two units to the Euler number, the Euler number of $`CP_2`$ will exceed the corresponding one of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_4`$ by two, as indeed happens.


format: text

text:
# Three-Body-Cluster Effects on 𝛬 Single-Particle Energies in ¹⁷{_𝛬}O and ⁴¹{_𝛬}Ca

## 1 Introduction

Much attention has been paid to the study of hypernuclear physics in recent years. One of the fundamental problems in hypernuclear physics is to understand properties of hypernuclei starting from the basic interaction between two kinds of constituent particles, nucleon ($`N`$) and hyperon ($`Y`$). Our knowledge on the $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ interaction is, however, quite inadequate because of the very limited experimental information on the $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ scattering. In such a situation many-body theoretical studies of the hypernuclear structure could provide alternative information on the $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ interaction. For this purpose, it would be desirable to have a theoretical method which enables us to make a high-precision calculation.

In many of microscopic structure calculations of hypernuclei, the $`G`$-matrix has been introduced as a $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ effective interaction. The $`G`$-matrix approach has been widely applied, and the use of this type of effective interaction has made important contributions to the description of hypernuclei.$`^{\text{ -}}`$ However, we may say from a formal point of view that the $`G`$-matrix is energy-dependent and non-hermitian, and does not have the property of decoupling between a model space of low-lying two-particle states and its complement. The $`G`$-matrix itself is not considered to be an effective interaction in a formal sense of the effective interaction theory because it does not have the property of decoupling. In order to derive such an effective interaction we should add some higher-order corrections such as folded diagrams. It would be desirable if we could have a theory to describe many-body systems in terms of an energy-independent and hermitian effective interaction with the property of decoupling.

We have been proposed a many-body theory, the unitary-model-operator approach (UMOA), that was formulated on the basis of such an effective interaction. The UMOA was applied to finite nuclei 16O and 40Ca, and some encouraging results were obtained. Furthermore, in the previous work, we extended the formulation of the UMOA to a description of $`\Lambda `$ hypernuclei and made calculations of properties of $`{}_{}{}^{17}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$O which is a typical closed-shell nucleus plus one $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system, using some realistic $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ interactions.

The formulation of the UMOA is based essentially on a cluster expansion of a unitarily transformed hamiltonian in terms of a two-body correlation operator. In the previous work we gave a method of treating correlations within the two-body-cluster term, and the three-or-more-body-cluster terms remain to be evaluated. It has been known that the expansion of the unitarily transformed hamiltonian does not, in principle, terminate in finite order. Therefore, it needs to give a method of evaluating the three-or-more-body-cluster terms and confirm numerically convergence of the cluster expansion. It is of high interest to investigate to what extent the three-body-cluster term would affect the $`\Lambda `$ single-particle energy, especially, the $`\Lambda `$ spin-orbit splitting. The calculation of the $`\Lambda `$ spin-orbit splitting is one of the important tasks in hypernuclear physics because it has a possibility of providing information to the determination of some parameters in the $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ interaction such as the strengths of the spin-orbit and antisymmetric spin-orbit components.

The purposes of this work are to formulate a method of evaluating the three-body-cluster effect in the framework of the UMOA, and apply it to $`{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{17}`$O and $`{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{41}`$Ca by employing various realistic $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ interactions. This paper is organized as follows: In §2 we present a formulation of the UMOA to treat the three-body-cluster term. In §3 we apply the UMOA to $`{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{17}`$O and $`{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{41}`$Ca by employing the Nijmegen soft-core (NSC), NSC97a-f, the Jülich Ã (JÃ) and JB̃ $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ potentials. In §4 we make some concluding remarks.

## 2 Formulation

### 2.1 Cluster expansion of the unitarily transformed hamiltonian

We first consider a hamiltonian of a hypernuclear system consisting of nucleons and one $`\Lambda `$ (or $`\Sigma `$) in the second-quantization form as

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}\alpha |t_{N_1}|\beta c_\alpha ^{}c_\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }{}}\alpha \beta |v_{N_1N_2}|\gamma \delta c_\alpha ^{}c_\beta ^{}c_\delta c_\gamma `$ (2.1)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\mu \nu }{Y=\Lambda ,\Sigma }}{}}\mu |t_Y+\mathrm{\Delta }m_Y|\nu d_\mu ^{}d_\nu +{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }{Y=\Lambda ,\Sigma }}{}}\mu \alpha |v_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1}|\nu \beta d_\mu ^{}c_\alpha ^{}c_\beta d_\nu ,`$
where $`c^{}`$ ($`c`$) is the creation (annihilation) operator for a nucleon in the usual notation, and $`d^{}`$ $`(d)`$ is the creation (annihilation) operator for a hyperon, $`\Lambda `$ or $`\Sigma `$. The kinetic energies of a nucleon and a hyperon are denoted by $`t_{N_1}`$ and $`t_Y`$, respectively. The $`v_{N_1N_2}`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1}`$ represent the nucleon-nucleon ($`\mathrm{𝑁𝑁}`$) and hyperon-nucleon ($`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$) interactions, respectively. The notations $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ are used for the sets of quantum numbers of nucleon states, and $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ for those of hyperon states. We note here that $`|\alpha \beta `$ is the antisymmetrized and normalized two-body $`\mathrm{𝑁𝑁}`$ state. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_Y`$ denotes the difference between the rest masses of $`\Lambda `$ and $`\Sigma `$.

In nuclear many-body problems, it is important to treat properly the short-range two-body correlation because realistic $`\mathrm{𝑁𝑁}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ interactions have strongly repulsive cores at short distance. For this purpose, we introduce a unitary transformation of the hamiltonian as

$`\overline{H}=e^SHe^S,`$ (2.2)
where $`S`$ is the sum of anti-hermitian two-body operators for $`\mathrm{𝑁𝑁}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ systems defined as

$`S=S^{(\mathrm{𝑁𝑁})}+S^{(\mathrm{𝑌𝑁})}`$ (2.3)
with

$`S^{(\mathrm{𝑁𝑁})}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }{}}\alpha \beta |S_{N_1N_2}|\gamma \delta c_\alpha ^{}c_\beta ^{}c_\delta c_\gamma ,`$ (2.4)
$`S^{(\mathrm{𝑌𝑁})}={\displaystyle \underset{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }{}}\mu \alpha |S_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1}|\nu \beta d_\mu ^{}c_\alpha ^{}c_\beta d_\nu .`$ (2.5)
According to Providência and Shakin, we make cluster expansion of the unitarily transformed hamiltonian as

$`\overline{H}=\overline{H}^{(1)}+\overline{H}^{(2)}+\overline{H}^{(3)}+\mathrm{},`$ (2.6)
where the first three terms are written explicitly as

$`\overline{H}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}\alpha |h_{N_1}|\beta c_\alpha ^{}c_\beta +{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\mu \nu }{Y=\Lambda ,\Sigma }}{}}\mu |h_Y|\nu d_\mu ^{}d_\nu ,`$ (2.7)
$`\overline{H}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }{}}\alpha \beta |\stackrel{~}{v}_{N_1N_2}|\gamma \delta c_\alpha ^{}c_\beta ^{}c_\delta c_\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}\alpha |u_{N_1}|\beta c_\alpha ^{}c_\beta `$ (2.8)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }{Y=\Lambda ,\Sigma }}{}}\mu \alpha |\stackrel{~}{v}_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1}|\nu \beta d_\mu ^{}c_\alpha ^{}c_\beta d_\nu {\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\mu \nu }{Y=\Lambda ,\Sigma }}{}}\mu |u_Y|\nu d_\mu ^{}d_\nu `$
and

$`\overline{H}^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \epsilon \zeta }{}}\alpha \beta \gamma |\stackrel{~}{v}_{N_1N_2N_3}|\delta \epsilon \zeta c_\alpha ^{}c_\beta ^{}c_\gamma ^{}c_\zeta c_\epsilon c_\delta `$ (2.9)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }{}}\alpha \beta |\stackrel{~}{u}_{N_1N_2}|\gamma \delta c_\alpha ^{}c_\beta ^{}c_\delta c_\gamma `$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\mu \alpha \beta \nu \gamma \delta }{Y=\Lambda ,\Sigma }}{}}\mu \alpha \beta |\stackrel{~}{v}_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1N_2}|\nu \gamma \delta d_\mu ^{}c_\alpha ^{}c_\beta ^{}c_\delta c_\gamma d_\nu `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }{Y=\Lambda ,\Sigma }}{}}\mu \alpha |\stackrel{~}{u}_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1}|\nu \beta d_\mu ^{}c_\alpha ^{}c_\beta d_\nu .`$
Here $`|\alpha \beta \gamma `$ is the antisymmetrized and normalized three-body $`\mathrm{𝑁𝑁𝑁}`$ state, and the $`\mathrm{𝑁𝑁}`$ part of $`|\mu \alpha \beta `$ is antisymmetrized and normalized. In the above, we have used the notations given as follows: Since the exponent $`S`$ is a two-body operator, the one-body operators $`h_k`$ for $`k=N_1`$ and $`Y`$ in $`\overline{H}`$ are unchanged and given by

$`h_{N_1}=t_{N_1}+u_{N_1},`$ (2.10)
$`h_Y=t_Y+u_Y+\mathrm{\Delta }m_Y.`$ (2.11)
The terms $`u_k`$ for $`k=N_1`$ and $`Y`$ are the auxiliary single-particle potentials of a nucleon and a hyperon, respectively, and in this stage they are arbitrary. The $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{kl}`$ for $`\{kl\}=\{N_1N_2\}`$ and $`\{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1\}`$ are the transformed two-body interactions for $`\mathrm{𝑁𝑁}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ systems, and they are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{N_1N_2}=e^{S_{N_1N_2}}(h_{N_1}+h_{N_2}+v_{N_1N_2})e^{S_{N_1N_2}}(h_{N_1}+h_{N_2}),`$ (2.12)
$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1}=e^{S_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1}}(h_Y+h_{N_1}+v_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1})e^{S_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1}}(h_Y+h_{N_1}).`$ (2.13)
The transformed hamiltonian $`\overline{H}`$ contains, in general, three-or-more-body interactions even if the starting hamiltonian $`H`$ in Eq. (2.1) does not include three-or-more-body interactions. The transformed three-body interactions $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{klm}`$ for $`\{klm\}=\{N_1N_2N_3\}`$ and $`\{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1N_2\}`$ are given, respectively, by

$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{N_1N_2N_3}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{S_{N_1N_2N_3}}(h_{N_1}+h_{N_2}+h_{N_3}+v_{N_1N_2}+v_{N_2N_3}+v_{N_3N_1})e^{S_{N_1N_2N_3}}`$ (2.14)
$`(h_{N_1}+h_{N_2}+h_{N_3}+\stackrel{~}{v}_{N_1N_2}+\stackrel{~}{v}_{N_2N_3}+\stackrel{~}{v}_{N_3N_1}),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1N_2}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{S_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1N_2}}(h_Y+h_{N_1}+h_{N_2}+v_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1}+v_{N_1N_2}+v_{N_2Y})e^{S_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1N_2}}`$ (2.15)
$`(h_Y+h_{N_1}+h_{N_2}+\stackrel{~}{v}_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1}+\stackrel{~}{v}_{N_1N_2}+\stackrel{~}{v}_{N_2Y}),`$
where the operators $`S_{klm}`$ for $`\{klm\}=\{N_1N_2N_3\}`$ and $`\{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1N_2\}`$ denote the sum of the two-body correlation operators defined as

$`S_{N_1N_2N_3}=S_{N_1N_2}+S_{N_2N_3}+S_{N_3N_1},`$ (2.16)
$`S_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1N_2}=S_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1}+S_{N_1N_2}+S_{N_2Y}.`$ (2.17)
We here note that the unitary transformation of the auxiliary potentials $`u_k`$ for $`k=N_1`$ ($`N_2`$) and $`Y`$ generates two-body operators written as

$`\stackrel{~}{u}_{N_1N_2}=e^{S_{N_1N_2}}(u_{N_1}+u_{N_2})e^{S_{N_1N_2}}(u_{N_1}+u_{N_2}),`$ (2.18)
$`\stackrel{~}{u}_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1}=e^{S_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1}}(u_Y+u_{N_1})e^{S_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1}}(u_Y+u_{N_1}).`$ (2.19)
In nuclear many-body problems, it is important how to choose the auxiliary potential $`u_k`$. In general, it is useful to introduce $`u_{N_1}`$ ($`u_{N_2}`$) and $`u_Y`$ as self-consistent potentials defined with the transformed two-body interactions $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{N_1N_2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1}`$ as

$`\alpha |u_{N_1}|\beta ={\displaystyle \underset{\xi \rho _\mathrm{F}}{}}\alpha \xi |\stackrel{~}{v}_{N_1N_2}|\beta \xi ,`$ (2.20)
$`\mu |u_Y|\nu ={\displaystyle \underset{\xi \rho _\mathrm{F}}{}}\mu \xi |\stackrel{~}{v}_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1}|\nu \xi ,`$ (2.21)
where $`\rho _\mathrm{F}`$ is the uppermost occupied level, and the notation $`\xi `$ means an occupied state for nucleons. If $`u_{N_1}`$ and $`u_Y`$ are defined as given in Eqs. (2.20) and (2.21), one can prove that the second and fourth terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (2.8) are cancelled by the contributions of the bubble diagrams of the first and third terms, respectively. In the same way, the second and fourth terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (2.9) are also cancelled by the bubble-diagram contributions of the first and third terms, respectively. Therefore, the cluster terms $`\overline{H}^{(1)}`$, $`\overline{H}^{(2)}`$ and $`\overline{H}^{(3)}`$ include only the one-, two- and three-body operators, respectively, if we write them in the normal-product form with respect to particles and holes as discussed in Ref. ?. As has been well known, this cancellation mechanism is advantageous in perturbative calculations, because there is no need of evaluating $`u`$-insertion diagrams and bubble diagrams.

An important problem in the present approach is how to determine the two-body correlation operators $`S_{kl}`$ for {$`kl`$} $`=`$ {$`N_1N_2`$} and {$`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1`$}. These operators are given as solutions to equations of decoupling as

$`Q_{kl}e^{S_{kl}}(h_k+h_l+\stackrel{~}{v}_{kl})e^{S_{kl}}P_{kl}=0,`$ (2.22)
where $`P_{kl}`$ and $`Q_{kl}`$ for {$`kl`$} $`=`$ {$`N_1N_2`$} and {$`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1`$} are projection operators which act in the space of two-body states and project a two-body state onto the low-momentum model space and the high-momentum space, respectively. It has been proved that Eq. (2.22) for $`S_{kl}`$ can be solved in a nonperturbative way under the restrictive conditions

$`P_{kl}S_{kl}P_{kl}=Q_{kl}S_{kl}Q_{kl}=0.`$ (2.23)
In the previous work the structure of the two-body-cluster term for the $`\Lambda `$ single-particle energy was studied, and three-or-more-body cluster terms were not considered. After the evaluation of the two-body-cluster term, the next important term will be the three-body-cluster (TBC) term. The significance of studying the TBC term may be understood from the following two reasons: The first is to examine whether the TBC effect is large or not in comparison with the one- and two-body-cluster effects, in other words, whether the cluster expansion of $`\overline{H}`$ is convergent so fast or not as to be useful in a practical application. The second is that, when we investigate effects of the $`\mathrm{𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙}`$ three-body force, we must be careful of the possibility that such three-body-force effects may interfere with effects of the $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒}`$ three-body force.

### 2.2 Structure of the three-body-cluster term

We here discuss general structure of the TBC term $`\overline{H}^{(3)}`$ in Eq. (2.9). The TBC term $`\overline{H}^{(3)}`$ contains the transformed three-body $`\mathrm{𝑁𝑁𝑁}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁𝑁}`$ interactions. These interactions include the bare two-body $`\mathrm{𝑁𝑁}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ interactions which have strongly repulsive cores. Therefore, we represent the transformed three-body interactions in terms of the transformed two-body $`\mathrm{𝑁𝑁}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ interactions $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{N_1N_2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1}`$ which are well-behaved in the actual calculation.

Using a factorization formula of Campbel and Hausdorf, we have for exp($`S_{ijk}`$)

$`e^{S_{ijk}}=e^{S_{ij}}e^{S_{(ij)k}}=e^{S_{jk}}e^{S_{(jk)i}}=e^{S_{ki}}e^{S_{(ki)j}}`$ (2.24)
with

$`S_{(ij)k}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{jk}+S_{ki}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[S_{ij},S_{jk}+S_{ki}]`$ (2.25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}[[S_{ij},S_{jk}+S_{ki}],S_{ijk}+S_{ij}]+\mathrm{}.`$
Hereafter, a set {$`ijk`$} denotes that of {$`N_1N_2N_3`$} or {$`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}_1N_2`$}. The correlation operators $`S_{(jk)i}`$ and $`S_{(ki)j}`$ are also written in a similar way. Substituting exp($`S_{ijk}`$) in Eq. (2.24) into Eqs. (2.14) and (2.15), we have

$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}=\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}^{(v)}+\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}^{(h)}`$ (2.26)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}^{(v)}={\displaystyle \underset{(ijk)}{}}(e^{S_{(ij)k}}\stackrel{~}{v}_{ij}e^{S_{(ij)k}}\stackrel{~}{v}_{ij})`$ (2.27)
and

$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}^{(h)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{(ijk)}{}}[e^{S_{(ij)k}}(h_i+h_j)e^{S_{(ij)k}}(h_i+h_j)]`$ (2.28)
$`+(h_i+h_j+h_k)e^{S_{ijk}}(h_i+h_j+h_k)e^{S_{ijk}},`$
where $`_{(ijk)}`$ denotes the summation of exchange terms defined for an arbitrary function $`f(ijk)`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{(ijk)}{}}f(ijk)=f(ijk)+f(jki)+f(kij).`$ (2.29)
The terms $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}^{(v)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}^{(h)}`$ can be expanded into series in powers of $`S_{ij}`$, $`S_{jk}`$ and $`S_{ki}`$. The term $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}^{(v)}`$ is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}^{(v)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{(ijk)}{}}\{[\stackrel{~}{v}_{ij},S_{jk}+S_{ki}]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\stackrel{~}{v}_{ij},[S_{ij},S_{jk}+S_{ki}]]`$ (2.30)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[[\stackrel{~}{v}_{ij},S_{jk}+S_{ki}],S_{jk}+S_{ki}]\}+\mathrm{}.`$
Similarly, $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}^{(h)}`$ is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}^{(h)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{(ijk)}{}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[[h_i+h_j,S_{ij}],S_{jk}+S_{ki}]`$ (2.31)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}[[[h_i+h_j,S_{ij}],S_{ij}],S_{jk}+S_{ki}]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}[[[h_i+h_j,S_{ij}],S_{jk}+S_{ki}],S_{ijk}]\}+\mathrm{}.`$
The expressions of $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}^{(v)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}^{(h)}`$ give us desirable forms for the calculation of the TBC terms because they do not include the bare interaction $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ij}`$ and are written in terms of only the terms $`h_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ij}`$ and $`S_{ij}`$. The TBC effect on the ground-state and one-body energies for ordinary nuclei such as 16O and 40Ca has already been studied. In the present work we study the effect of the TBC term on the energy of $`\Lambda `$.

### 2.3 Derivation of the three-body-cluster contribution to the $`\Lambda `$ single-particle energy

The contribution of the TBC term to a $`\Lambda `$ single-particle energy in a state $`\lambda _\Lambda `$ is derived from Eq. (2.9) by making the summation of diagonal occupied states of nucleons $`\mu _N`$ and $`\nu _N`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\lambda _\Lambda }^{(\mathrm{TBC})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu _N\nu _N\rho _\mathrm{F}}{}}\lambda _\Lambda \mu _N\nu _N|\stackrel{~}{v}_{\Lambda N_1N_2}|\lambda _\Lambda \mu _N\nu _N`$ (2.32)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu _N\rho _\mathrm{F}}{}}\lambda _\Lambda \mu _N|\stackrel{~}{u}_{\Lambda N_1}|\lambda _\Lambda \mu _N,`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\Lambda N_1N_2}`$ is the transformed three-body $`\Lambda \mathrm{𝑁𝑁}`$ interaction $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}`$ for $`\{ijk\}=\{\Lambda N_1N_2\}`$ in Eq. (2.26), and $`\stackrel{~}{u}_{\Lambda N_1}`$ is the transformed operator of the one-body potential defined for $`Y=\Lambda `$ in Eq. (2.19).

In order to obtain the TBC effect in Eq. (2.32), we need to calculate the matrix element of the two-body correlation operator $`S_{ij}`$, the two-body effective interaction $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ij}`$ and the single-particle potential $`u_k`$. The calculation procedure for these quantities has already been given in Refs. ? and ? in detail. Therefore, we here present only the outline of the calculation procedure. In an actual calculation for the $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ system, we employ a two-step procedure by introducing two kinds of model spaces, namely, large and small model spaces as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. We here use the harmonic oscillator wave functions as basis states. The numbers $`\rho _\mathrm{F}`$, $`\rho _\mathrm{X}`$, $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ in Figs. 1 and 2 are defined as

$`\rho _\mathrm{F}=2n_N+l_N,`$ (2.33)
$`\rho _2=2n_\Lambda +l_\Lambda ,`$ (2.34)
$`\rho _\mathrm{X}=2n_Y+l_Y+2n_N+l_N,(Y=\Lambda ,\Sigma )`$ (2.35)
and

$`\rho _1=2n_\Lambda +l_\Lambda +2n_N+l_N,`$ (2.36)
where $`n_k`$ and $`l_k`$ for $`k=\Lambda `$, $`\Sigma `$ and $`N`$ are the harmonic oscillator quantum numbers. The number $`\rho _2`$ is introduced so as to specify the uppermost bound state of $`\Lambda `$.

In the first-step calculation, we calculate the $`\Lambda N`$ effective interaction $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\Lambda N}^{(1)}`$ acting in the large model space $`P_{\Lambda N}^{(1)}`$ by solving the equation of decoupling between the $`P_{\Lambda N}^{(1)}`$ and the $`\{(Q_{\Lambda N}^{(1)}Q_{\Lambda N}^{(\mathrm{X})})+(Q_{\Sigma N}^{(1)}Q_{\Sigma N}^{(\mathrm{X})})\}`$ spaces in Eq. (2.22). It is noted here that the $`Q_{\Lambda N}^{(\mathrm{X})}`$ and $`Q_{\Sigma N}^{(\mathrm{X})}`$ spaces are the excluded spaces due to the Pauli principle for nucleons. The $`\Lambda `$ potential energy $`u_\Lambda ^{(1)}`$ in the first step is calculated as given in Eq. (2.21), using the $`\Lambda N`$ effective interaction $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\Lambda N}^{(1)}`$.

In the second-step calculation, the $`\Lambda N`$ effective interaction $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\Lambda N}^{(2)}`$ acting in the $`P_{\Lambda N}^{(2)}`$ space and the correlation operator $`S_{\Lambda N}^{(2)}`$ are obtained by solving the equation of decoupling between the $`P_{\Lambda N}^{(2)}`$ and the $`Q_{\Lambda N}^{(2)}`$ spaces, using $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\Lambda N}^{(1)}`$ and $`u_\Lambda ^{(1)}`$. The $`\Lambda `$ potential energy $`u_\Lambda ^{(2)}`$ is finally calculated in Eq. (2.21), using $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\Lambda N}^{(2)}`$. However, at this stage, we consider only the diagonal part of $`h_\Lambda ^{(2)}=t_\Lambda +u_\Lambda ^{(2)}`$ as the unperturbed one-body hamiltonian. Therefore, we evaluate perturbation corrections arising from the non-diagonal terms of $`h_\Lambda ^{(2)}`$ as shown in diagram (a) of Fig. 3. Furthermore, the effective interaction between $`\Lambda N`$ states in the $`P_{\Lambda N}^{(2)}`$ and $`P_{\Lambda N}^{(\mathrm{Y})}`$ spaces induces core polarization in the closed-shell nucleus. We take account of this effect by calculating diagrams (b) and (c) of Fig. 3, using the $`\Lambda N`$ effective interaction $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\Lambda N}^{(1)}`$ determined in the first step. The validity of this two-step calculation procedure is confirmed numerically in the previous work.

In order to calculate the TBC effect on the $`\Lambda `$ single-particle energy, we need the effective interaction and the correlation operator for the $`\mathrm{𝑁𝑁}`$ system which are determined by solving the equation of decoupling in Eq. (2.22). Using the two-body effective interactions and the two-body correlation operators for the $`\Lambda N`$ and $`\mathrm{𝑁𝑁}`$ systems, one can derive that an approximate expression of the TBC terms from Eq. (2.32) as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\lambda _\Lambda }^{(\mathrm{TBC})}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\mu _N\nu _N\rho _\mathrm{F}}{(\Lambda N_1N_2)}}{}}\lambda _\Lambda \mu _N\nu _N|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[[\stackrel{~}{v}_{\Lambda N_1},S_{N_1N_2}+S_{N_2\Lambda }],S_{N_1N_2}+S_{N_2\Lambda }]|\lambda _\Lambda \mu _N\nu _N`$ (2.37)
$`=`$ $`(a_\mathrm{T})+(b_\mathrm{T})+(c_\mathrm{T})+(d_\mathrm{T})+(e_\mathrm{T})+(f_\mathrm{T}),`$
where

$`(a_\mathrm{T})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\mu _N\nu _N\rho _\mathrm{F}}{\nu _\Lambda \rho _2}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\alpha _N>\rho _\mathrm{F}}{\alpha _\Lambda >\rho _2}}{}}\stackrel{~}{v}_{\lambda _\Lambda \nu _N\nu _\Lambda \mu _N}^{(\Lambda N)}S_{\nu _\Lambda \mu _N\alpha _\Lambda \alpha _N}^{(\Lambda N)}S_{\alpha _\Lambda \alpha _N\lambda _\Lambda \nu _N}^{(\Lambda N)},`$
$`(b_\mathrm{T})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu _N\nu _N\rho _N\rho _\mathrm{F}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _N\beta _N>\rho _\mathrm{F}}{}}\stackrel{~}{v}_{\lambda _\Lambda \mu _N\lambda _\Lambda \rho _N}^{(\Lambda N)}S_{\rho _N\nu _N\alpha _N\beta _N}^{(\mathrm{𝑁𝑁})}S_{\alpha _N\beta _N\mu _N\nu _N}^{(\mathrm{𝑁𝑁})},`$
$`(c_\mathrm{T})`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{\mu _N\nu _N\rho _\mathrm{F}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\alpha _N\beta _N>\rho _\mathrm{F}}{\alpha _\Lambda >\rho _2}}{}}\stackrel{~}{v}_{\lambda _\Lambda \alpha _N\alpha _\Lambda \mu _N}^{(\Lambda N)}S_{\mu _N\nu _N\alpha _N\beta _N}^{(\mathrm{𝑁𝑁})}S_{\alpha _\Lambda \beta _N\lambda _\Lambda \nu _N}^{(\Lambda N)},`$
$`(d_\mathrm{T})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu _N\nu _N\rho _\mathrm{F}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\alpha _N\beta _N>\rho _\mathrm{F}}{\alpha _\Lambda >\rho _2}}{}}\stackrel{~}{v}_{\mu _N\alpha _N\nu _N\beta _N}^{(\mathrm{𝑁𝑁})}S_{\lambda _\Lambda \nu _N\alpha _\Lambda \alpha _N}^{(\Lambda N)}S_{\alpha _\Lambda \beta _N\lambda _\Lambda \mu _N}^{(\Lambda N)},`$
$`(e_\mathrm{T})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu _N\nu _N\rho _\mathrm{F}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\alpha _N>\rho _\mathrm{F}}{\alpha _\Lambda \beta _\Lambda >\rho _2}}{}}\stackrel{~}{v}_{\alpha _\Lambda \nu _N\beta _\Lambda \mu _N}^{(\Lambda N)}S_{\lambda _\Lambda \mu _N\alpha _\Lambda \alpha _N}^{(\Lambda N)}S_{\beta _\Lambda \alpha _N\lambda _\Lambda \nu _N}^{(\Lambda N)},`$
$`(f_\mathrm{T})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu _N\nu _N\rho _\mathrm{F}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _N\beta _N\gamma _N>\rho _\mathrm{F}}{}}\stackrel{~}{v}_{\lambda _\Lambda \alpha _N\lambda _\Lambda \gamma _N}^{(\Lambda N)}S_{\mu _N\nu _N\alpha _N\beta _N}^{(\mathrm{𝑁𝑁})}S_{\gamma _N\beta _N\mu _N\nu _N}^{(\mathrm{𝑁𝑁})}.`$ (2.38)
In the above, we have used the notations defined by

$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\alpha _\Lambda \beta _N\gamma _\Lambda \delta _N}^{(\Lambda N)}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _\Lambda \beta _N|\stackrel{~}{v}_{\Lambda N_1}|\gamma _\Lambda \delta _N,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\alpha _N\beta _N\gamma _N\delta _N}^{(\mathrm{𝑁𝑁})}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _N\beta _N|\stackrel{~}{v}_{N_1N_2}|\gamma _N\delta _N`$ (2.39)
and

$`S_{\alpha _\Lambda \beta _N\gamma _\Lambda \delta _N}^{(\Lambda N)}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _\Lambda \beta _N|S_{\Lambda N_1}|\gamma _\Lambda \delta _N,`$
$`S_{\alpha _N\beta _N\gamma _N\delta _N}^{(\mathrm{𝑁𝑁})}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _N\beta _N|S_{N_1N_2}|\gamma _N\delta _N.`$ (2.40)
The contributions of the TBC terms to $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\lambda _\Lambda }^{(\mathrm{TBC})}`$ come from the effective three-body interactions $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}^{(v)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}^{(h)}`$. We here note that the first and second terms of $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}^{(v)}`$ in Eq. (2.30) do not bring about non-zero contributions to the $`\Lambda `$ single-particle potential. On the other hand, the contributions of $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}^{(h)}`$ in Eq. (2.31) vanish up to second order in $`S_{ij}`$. Therefore, the contributions of $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}^{(v)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}^{(h)}`$ start with the second and third order terms in $`S_{ij}`$, respectively. These facts concerning the TBC terms can be proved by using the property of decoupling of $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ij}`$ and the restrictive conditions for $`S_{ij}`$ in Eq. (2.23) as discussed in Ref. ?. On the assumption that the matrix elements of $`S_{ij}`$ are sufficiently small, we neglect the contribution of $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ijk}^{(h)}`$. The validity of this assumption will be confirmed numerically in §3.

The $`\Lambda `$ single-particle energy is given finally by

$$E_{\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }|t_\mathrm{\Lambda }|\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }+\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }|u_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}|\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(\mathrm{p})}+\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\lambda _\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(\mathrm{TBC})},$$
(2.41)
where the first term is the kinetic energy, the second the first-order potential energy, the third the sum of the perturbation corrections given in Fig. 3 and the last the sum of the TBC contributions given in Eq. (2.37).

### 2.4 Diagrammatical expression of the three-body-cluster term

We here make some discussions on the relation between the UMOA and the $`G`$-matrix theory in the calculation of the $`\Lambda `$ single-particle energy in order to clarify the physical meaning of the TBC effect. The formal relation between the effective interaction in the UMOA and the $`G`$-matrix has been discussed in Refs. ? and ?. The $`\Lambda N`$ effective interaction $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\Lambda N}`$ in the UMOA in the calculation of the first-order $`\Lambda `$ potential energy $`u_\Lambda `$ can be given in an expansion form in terms of the $`G`$-matrix as shown diagrammatically in Fig. 4. The second diagram on the right-hand side in Fig. 4 is a kind of folded diagram. The leading contributions of the TBC terms in Eq. (2.3) can also be given diagrammatically in terms of the $`G`$-matrix as shown in Fig. 5. It is noted that the second diagram on the right-hand side in Fig. 4 has a minus sign which is against the diagram rule. However, this diagram is just cancelled by diagram (aT) in Fig. 5. It should be noted that such a folded diagram emerges again as one of higher-order corrections with the vertices of the transformed interaction $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{ij}`$.

## 3 Numerical results for $`{}_{}{}^{17}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$O and $`{}_{}{}^{41}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$Ca using the Nijmegen and the Jülich $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ potentials

We performed calculations employing the Nijmegen soft-core (NSC), NSC97a-f, the Jülich Ã (JÃ) and JB̃ potentials for the $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ interaction. We used the harmonic oscillator basis states and took a common $`\mathrm{}\Omega `$ to single-particle states of $`\Lambda `$, $`\Sigma `$ and $`N`$. We used the values $`\mathrm{}\Omega =14`$MeV for $`{}_{}{}^{17}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$O and $`12`$MeV for $`{}_{}{}^{41}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$Ca. The dependence of the calculated effective interaction and the single-particle energy on the value $`\mathrm{}\Omega `$ has already been examined, and we confirmed that the dependence was quite small around $`\mathrm{}\Omega =14`$MeV in 16O if perturbation corrections were included. As for the nucleon single-particle potential $`u_N`$, we used the fixed data calculated using the Paris potential, and we have assumed that $`u_\Sigma =0`$. The angular momentum $`l`$ of the partial wave of the $`\mathrm{𝑁𝑁}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ interactions is taken into account up to $`l=4`$. The numbers $`\rho _2`$, $`\rho _\mathrm{F}`$, $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{X}`$ are taken as $`\rho _2=1`$, $`\rho _\mathrm{F}=1`$, $`\rho _1=8`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{X}=12`$ for $`{}_{}{}^{17}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$O, and $`\rho _2=2`$, $`\rho _\mathrm{F}=2`$, $`\rho _1=10`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{X}=12`$ for $`{}_{}{}^{41}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$Ca.

The formulae for calculating the TBC contributions to the $`\Lambda `$ single-particle energy have been derived in Eq. (2.3). The TBC terms are given in powers of the two-body correlation operator $`S_{ij}`$ as given in Eqs. (2.30) and (2.31). In the UMOA, it is necessary that the matrix element of the correlation operator is sufficiently small in the sense of cluster expansion. In Table I typical matrix elements of $`S_{ij}`$ for the $`\mathrm{𝑁𝑁}`$ and $`\Lambda N`$ systems are given. We present only the matrix elements of $`S_{ij}`$ of comparatively large magnitudes among all the matrix elements of $`S_{ij}`$. The magnitudes of the matrix elements are at most of the order of $`10^2`$. Besides, the TBC effect yields the contributions of the order of the square of $`S_{ij}`$ as shown in Eq. (2.3). Thus, we expect that the TBC contribution is considerably small compared with the contribution from the one- and two-body-cluster terms.

We calculated the $`\Lambda `$ single-particle energies with the correction terms (a), (b) and (c) given in Fig. 3 and the TBC terms (aT)-(fT) in Eq. (2.3) for $`{}_{}{}^{17}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$O using the NSC97f potential as shown in Table II.))) The mark \*** in Tables II and III means that the calculated absolute value is less than 0.01MeV. One see that the TBC contributions are considerably small in comparison with the contributions from the one- and two-body-cluster terms. This ensures that the cluster expansion method in powers of the correlation operator $`S_{ij}`$ may be justified in the calculation of the $`\Lambda `$ single-particle energy.

One also see that two of the TBC terms, (bT) and (fT), have dominant contributions among the six TBC terms. It may be clear from Fig. 5 that these two TBC terms include the vertices inducing typical two-particle two-hole excitations of the core nucleus in intermediate states. On the other hand, the TBC terms (aT) and (cT)-(eT) do not include this type of excitations. The two terms (bT) and (fT), however, give the contributions of the opposite sign. Therefore, the sum of the TBC terms becomes rather small. The effect of the TBC terms is, on the whole, repulsive and at most about 3-4% of the $`\Lambda `$ one-body potential energies of the one- and two-body-cluster terms for the 0$`p`$ and 0$`s`$ states in $`{}_{}{}^{17}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$O as given in Table II.

The calculated value of the spin-orbit splitting of the $`\Lambda `$ single-particle energies for the 0$`p`$ orbits in $`{}_{}{}^{17}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$O is $`1.11`$MeV for the first-order potential energy. Corrections (a), (b) and (c) in Fig. 3 yield the contribution of $`0.11`$MeV to the $`\Lambda `$ spin-orbit splitting. The sum of the TBC terms for the $`\Lambda `$ spin-orbit splitting is only $`0.06`$MeV. We may conclude from the present calculation that the magnitude of the $`\Lambda `$ spin-orbit splitting is determined dominantly by the contribution of the one- and two-body-cluster terms, and the polarization of the core nucleus does not play an important role. This trend is also confirmed for the other $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ interactions used in this study.

The calculated result in $`{}_{}{}^{41}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$Ca for the NSC97f is shown in Table III. The effects of the second-order and the TBC correction terms on the $`\Lambda `$ single-particle energy are not so different from those in $`{}_{}{}^{17}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$O. The magnitude of the TBC terms is at most 3% of the $`\Lambda `$ one-body potential energy of the one- and two-body-cluster terms for the 0$`s`$ state in $`{}_{}{}^{41}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$Ca. We note here that the $`\Lambda `$ spin-orbit splittings are calculated for both the 0$`p`$ and 0$`d`$ states in $`{}_{}{}^{41}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$Ca. The values of the $`\Lambda `$ spin-orbit splittings for the 0$`p`$ and 0$`d`$ states are $`0.79`$MeV and $`1.11`$MeV, respectively. The net contribution of core polarizations to the $`\Lambda `$ spin-orbit splittings is very small for both the 0$`p`$ and 0$`d`$ states. This situation is quite different from that in the ordinary nucleus 40Ca, as well as in 16O. It has been observed that many-body correlations bring about corrections of more than $`30`$% for the spin-orbit splittings of nucleon states.

It might be of interest to compare the results obtained in this study with those in other many-body methods. Recently, the $`\Lambda `$ spin-orbit splittings in $`{}_{}{}^{17}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$O were calculated on another method by Motoba in which configuration mixing of the $`\Lambda `$ single-particle states is taken into account, using the YNG interaction  derived from the NSC97 potentials. The result for the NSC97f was almost $`1`$MeV for the 0$`p`$ states. This value is consistent with our result of $`0.95`$MeV for the NSC97f as given in Table II.

We now discuss the results obtained for various $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ interactions. The partial-wave contributions of the $`\Lambda N`$ effective interactions to the first-order $`\Lambda `$ potential energy are given for various $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ potentials, namely, the JÃ, JB̃, the NSC)))The mark (\*) for the NSC in Table V and Fig. 6 means that the antisymmetric spin-orbit force is not included. This potential was also used in the calculation of properties in $`{}_{}{}^{17}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$O in the previous work. On the other hand, the NSC newly used in the present study is the complete version of the NSC potential code which includes the antisymmetric spin-orbit force. and NSC97a-f potentials for the 0$`s_{1/2}`$ state, in Table IV for $`{}_{}{}^{17}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$O, and in Table V for $`{}_{}{}^{41}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$Ca. It is seen that the partial-wave contributions are very different, especially in the spin singlet and triplet states, dependently on the $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ potentials employed. It is noted, however, that the ratios of the contributions of the spin singlet and triplet states vary smoothly from the NSC97a to the NSC97f. This variation is caused mainly by the difference in the strength of the spin-spin interaction of the NSC97 potentials. The similar tendency was observed in the calculation of the potential energy of $`\Lambda `$ contained in nuclear matter.

One of the features of the NSC97 model for the $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ interaction is that the NSC97a-f potentials are given by varying smoothly the magnetic $`F/(F+D)`$ ratio $`\alpha _V^m`$ for the vector mesons in the NSC97a-f potentials. This change in the magnetic ratio yields the variation of the strength of not only the spin-spin interaction but also other components including the spin-orbit interaction. According to the variation of the $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ interactions, the calculated result of the $`\Lambda `$ single-particle potential energies vary, dependently on the $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ potentials employed as seen in Tables IV and V. It is important to investigate the difference among the NSC97 potentials quantitatively in the calculation of properties in finite $`\Lambda `$ hypernuclei. This quantitative study would help to improve the $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ interaction, complementarily to the progress in relevant experiments of $`\Lambda `$ hypernuclei.

In Figs. 6 and 7 we show the calculated $`\Lambda `$ single-particle energies including the second-order perturbation corrections and the TBC terms for the JÃ, JB̃, the NSC and NSC97 interactions. It is noted here that the calculated results for the NSC97f potential are, on the whole, fairly good in comparison with the empirical values for $`{}_{}{}^{16}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$O and $`{}_{}{}^{40}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$Ca. Our result for the NSC97f is consistent with the fact that the calculations of few-body $`\Lambda `$ hypernuclei such as $`{}_{}{}^{3}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$H and $`{}_{}{}^{4}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$He using the NSC97f can reproduce successfully experimental energy levels.

The calculated $`\Lambda `$ spin-orbit splittings of the 0$`p`$ states vary in the range of $`0.49`$-$`1.31`$MeV from the NSC97a to the NSC in $`{}_{}{}^{17}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$O as shown in Fig. 6. Similarly, the $`\Lambda `$ spin-orbit splittings of the 0$`p`$ and 0$`d`$ states vary in the range of $`0.35`$-$`1.08`$MeV and $`0.61`$-$`1.55`$MeV, respectively, in $`{}_{}{}^{41}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$Ca as shown in Fig. 7. The experimental values of the spin-orbit splitting of a nucleon are known as 6.20MeV for the 0$`p`$ states in 16O and 6.75MeV for the 0$`d`$ states in 40Ca. Therefore, the obtained values of the $`\Lambda `$ spin-orbit splitting are considerably smaller than those of a nucleon. Recently, some experiments in connection with the $`\Lambda `$ spin-orbit splittings have been performed at KEK for $`{}_{}{}^{89}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$Y and $`{}_{}{}^{51}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$V and at BNL for $`{}_{}{}^{13}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$C and $`{}_{}{}^{9}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$Be. Higher resolution has been attained in these experiments than that in old experiments though the analysis of these new experiments are still being in progress. Therefore, it will be highly desirable that the magnitude of the $`\Lambda `$ spin-orbit splitting is established experimentally.

## 4 Concluding remarks

A method of evaluating the three-body-cluster (TBC) effect was presented for the calculation of $`\Lambda `$ single-particle energies. The TBC terms were generated as the transformed three-body interactions among the $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁𝑁}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝑁𝑁𝑁}`$ systems. The transformed three-body interactions were given in the cluster expansion form in powers of two-body correlation operators of the $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝑁𝑁}`$ systems. Therefore, it is necessary for fast convergence of the cluster expansion that the matrix elements of the correlation operator should be sufficiently small. In our calculations, it was made sure that the matrix elements of the correlation operator were quite small, and thus the TBC contributions to the $`\Lambda `$ single-particle energies were considerably small in comparison with the contributions from the one- and two-body-cluster terms. This ensured that the cluster expansion method in terms of the correlation operator was acceptable in the calculation of $`\Lambda `$ single-particle energies.

The present results showed that $`\Lambda `$ in the 0$`p_{1/2}`$ state in $`{}_{}{}^{17}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$O was not bound for the JÃ and the NSC potentials but bound for the JB̃ and the NSC97a-f potentials. The spin-orbit splittings of the $`\Lambda `$ single-particle orbits in the 0$`p`$ states, including the TBC contributions, were given by $`1.35`$, $`1.49`$, $`1.31`$ and $`0.49`$-$`0.95`$MeV for the JÃ, JB̃, the NSC and NSC97a-f potentials, respectively. The value of 1.49MeV for the JB̃ potential is very large compared with that given in Ref. ?. On the other hand, the value 0.95MeV for the NSC97f potential is consistent with that given in Ref. ?. The calculated $`\Lambda `$ spin-orbit splittings depend largely on the $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ interactions employed. The dependence of the calculated results on the $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ interactions was also examined for $`{}_{}{}^{41}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$Ca. It seemed that the NSC97f potential yielded better results for $`{}_{}{}^{17}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$O and $`{}_{}{}^{41}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$Ca in comparison with the relevant experimental values. The present results were consistent with those obtained in the calculation of few-body $`\Lambda `$ hypernuclei.

In the application of the UMOA to $`\Lambda `$ hypernuclei, some problems still remain. First, in the present calculation, single-particle energies of $`\Sigma `$ in intermediate states were neglected. However, the single-particle spectrum of $`\Sigma `$ has a possibility of bringing about some contributions to the $`\Lambda N`$ effective interaction. Although single-particle energies of $`\Sigma `$ has not yet been known well, it would be important to investigate how much the spectrum of $`\Sigma `$ affects the determination of the $`\Lambda N`$ effective interaction. Second, there would be some relativistic effect for the $`\Lambda `$ single-particle energy as well as in calculations of ordinary nuclei. In the present approach, the relativistic effect has not yet been considered in studies of ordinary nuclei and hypernuclei. On the other hand, the relativistic many-body approach such as the Dirac-Brueckner-Hartree-Fock approach does not fully take account of the effect of three-or-more-body correlations. Therefore, it would be of great importance for the understanding of nuclear properties from the many-body theoretical point of view that the relativistic effect is incorporated in the framework of the UMOA. This problem, which would be closely related to the treatment of the three-body force, is also a remaining task in the UMOA.

## Acknowledgements

One of the authors (S. F.) would like to thank Prof. K. Takada, Prof. M. Kamimura and Prof. Y. R. Shimizu for their continuous encouragement and instructive discussions at Kyushu University. We are grateful to Prof. T. Motoba for stimulating and helpful discussions on $`{}_{}{}^{17}{}_{\Lambda }{}^{}`$O which is one of the main interests in this study. We also thank Prof. Y. Akaishi, Prof. Y. Yamamoto, Prof. Th. A. Rijken and Prof. K. Miyagawa for useful discussions and their help for using the Nijmegen and the Jülich $`\mathrm{𝑌𝑁}`$ potential codes.