text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Superalgebras were discovered in the context of hadronic physics, first as a generalization of the $`SU(6)`$ symmetry mixing states of different spin$`^{\text{[1]}}`$ and then by Ramond$`^{\text{[2]}}`$, Neveu and Schwarz$`^{\text{[3]}}`$ in the construction of dual resonance models that accounted for parallel mesonic and baryonic Regge trajectories. Finally a class of supersymmetric relativistic field theories were discovered by Wess and Zumino$`^{\text{[4]}}`$ following initial examples by Gol’fand and Likthman$`^{\text{[5]}}`$, and Akulov and Volkov$`^{\text{[6]}}`$. Hadronic supersymmetry had two offshoots. One was a fundamental superstring theory of particles$`^{\text{[7]}}`$, the other was the approximate supersymmetry between even and odd nuclei developed as a model for nuclear structure, generalizing the $`SU(6)`$ interacting boson model$`^{\text{[8]}}`$, by Balantekin, Bars and Iachello$`^{\text{[9]}}`$.

In this paper we shall deal with a totally different application of superalgebras to the quantization of Hamiltonian systems with first class constraints, following along the lines first introduced by Bowick and Gürsey$`^{\text{[10]}}`$. We shall show that with every classical system possessing first class constraints that form a natural Lie algebra, we can associate a superalgebra that admits the constraint Lie algebra as a subalgebra. An odd generator of this superalgebra that is invariant under the subalgebra of first class constraints is the BRST operator that was introduced in physics by Becchi, Rouet and Stora and also independently by Tyutin in the context of the covariant quantization of gauge theories$`^{\text{[11]}}`$. The remaining odd operators that transform like the adjoint representation of the Lie superalgebra are the Faddeev-Popov ghost operators$`^{\text{[12]}}`$. The BRST operator Q can also be expressed in terms of the first class constraints $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, the ghost operators $`c^i`$ and their canonical conjugate antighost operators $`b_i`$. The resulting expression is a cubic function of those operators. It was first written explicitly by Koszul$`^{\text{[13]}}`$ as the form of the cohomology operator of Lie groups as a step in Cartan’s program for a complete differential geometric interpretation of Lie groups. This was the same year in which Dirac$`^{\text{[14]}}`$ had formulated his theory of constrained Hamiltonian systems and their quantization. Later on physicists rediscovered Koszul’s formula. The connection between the cohomology approach and the quantization of constrained systems approach was realized gradually during the seventies$`^{\text{[15]}}`$. Looking back we see the simultaneous discovery of the two theories as yet another example of a happy conjuncture of great physical and mathematical ideas.

In physics Dirac’s method was applied with the greatest success to the covariant quantization of non-abelian gauge theories$`^{\text{[16]}}`$ and string theories$`^{\text{[17]}}`$. The algebraic structure of the constraint-ghost system was analyzed by many authors, including Fradkin, Vilkovisky and their collaborators$`^{\text{[18]}}`$, Marnelius$`^{\text{[19]}}`$, Schwarz$`^{\text{[20]}}`$, Baulieau$`^{\text{[21]}}`$, and Aldaya and collaborators$`^{\text{[22]}}`$. Recently there has been a flood of papers dealing with the BRST formalism in string theory and string field theories that will not be the object of our main concern. We shall concentrate on the imbedding of the constraint Lie algebra in a superalgebra and give some applications. For some applications of the superalgebra method introduced in reference  to string field theory we refer to articles in cited in reference  among many others.

## 2 The BRST Operator and the Superalgebra of Constraints

Following Dirac$`^{\text{[14]}}`$, let us consider a Hamiltonian system with $`H(p_\alpha ,q^\alpha )`$, where $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},M`$, as Hamiltonian and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i(p_\alpha ,q^\alpha )`$ as first class constraints, such that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i(p_\alpha ,q^\alpha )=0,(i=1,\mathrm{},N),$$
(1)
and the Poisson bracket relations

$$[\mathrm{\Phi }_i,\mathrm{\Phi }_j]_{P.B}=f_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}\mathrm{\Phi }_k,[H,\mathrm{\Phi }_i]_{P.B}=\omega _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}\mathrm{\Phi }_j.$$
(2)
Here $`q^\alpha `$ and $`p_\alpha `$ denote respectively the generalized coordinates and their canonical moments, such that

$$[q^\alpha ,q^\beta ]_{P.B}=[p_\alpha ,p_\beta ]_{P.B}=0,[q^\alpha ,p_\beta ]_{P.B.}=\delta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\beta }{}^{}.$$
(3)
For a conservative system with total energy E we may introduce

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=HE,$$
(4)
and regard $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ as an additional first class constraint. Defining

$$f_{oj}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}=\omega _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}$$
(5)
we can combine the two sets of Eq.(2) into a single set with structure constants $`f_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}`$ antisymmetric in $`a`$ and $`b`$.

We quantize this system by turning functions of $`p_\alpha `$, $`q^\alpha `$ into hermitian operators and replacing Poisson brackets by $`(i)`$ times commutators. The generalized coordinates satisfy

$$[q^\alpha ,p_\beta ]=i\delta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\beta }{}^{},$$
(6)
and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ become elements of the Lie algebra defined by

$$[\mathrm{\Phi }_a,\mathrm{\Phi }_b]=f_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_c,(a=0,1,\mathrm{},N).$$
(7)
When $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ are hermitian, the structure constants are purely imaginary. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ are taken to be antihermitian, then $`f_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}`$ are real. They also satisfy the Jacobi identity

$$f_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}f_{k\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}+f_{bk}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}f_{a\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}+f_{ka}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}f_{b\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}=0.$$
(8)
Note that we have not required the existence of a Killing metric. Hence indices cannot be raised or lowered and no antisymmetry of $`f_{abd}`$ in three lower indices is required. In other words, the Lie algebra of constraints does not have to be semi-simple. Moreover, the number $`N`$ of original constraints can be infinite as in the case of gauge theories and string theories.

In the quantized theory we require the vanishing of the matrix elements of the constraints between physical states $`|\mu >`$ and $`|\nu >`$, so that

$$<\mu |\mathrm{\Phi }_a|\nu >=0.$$
(9)
This means that the constraints vanish weakly. The strong condition requires the vanishing of the operators themselves.

At this point we introduce Grassmann numbers $`c^a`$ as odd operators as well as their canonical conjugates $`b_a`$ such that, in analogy to the Heisenberg relations Eq.(3) we have the anticommutator relations

$$\{c^m,c^n\}=\{b_m,b_n\}=0,\{c^m,b_n\}=\delta _n^m.$$
(10)
$`c^m`$ are ghost creation operators, equal in number to the constraints $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m`$. Out of these fermionic Heisenberg operators which commute with the constraints we can construct another copy of the constraint Lie algebra by defining

$$S_k=f_{k\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}c^{\mathrm{}}b_m=c^{\mathrm{}}f_{\mathrm{}k}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}b_m.$$
(11)
Using Eqs.(7),(8) and (10) we obtain

$$[S_k,S_r]=f_{kr}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}S_m.$$
(12)
Since $`b_l`$ and $`c^m`$ can be represented by matrices, the operators $`S_k`$ form a matrix representation of the constraint Lie algebra. We also have

$$[\mathrm{\Phi }_m,S_n]=0.$$
(13)
It follows that the modified constraints

$$J_k=\mathrm{\Phi }_k+S_k=\mathrm{\Phi }_kf_{k\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}c^{\mathrm{}}b_m,$$
(14)
also obey the same Lie algebra as the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$. The original constraints $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ and the bilinear $`S_k`$ are the analogs of the orbital angular momenta $`L_i`$ and the spin angular momenta $`s_i`$ when the constraint Lie algebra $`G`$ reduces to the rotation group $`O(3)SU(2)`$. We have

$$[J_k,J_{\mathrm{}}]=f_{k\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}J_m,$$
(15)
$$[J_k,\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}]=f_{k\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}\mathrm{\Phi }_m,[J_k,S_{\mathrm{}}]=f_{k\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}S_m.$$
(16)
Eq.(15) tell us that the modified constraints $`J_k`$ act like total angular momentum operators, while Eq.(16) express the fact that the original constraints and the ”spin” operators transform like the adjoint representation of the group $`G`$ generated by $`J_k`$. In the case of the $`SU(2)`$ group this means simply that $`𝑳`$ and $`𝑺`$ are vectors. We also find

$$[J_k,c^{\mathrm{}}]=f_{kr}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}c^r=c^rf_{rk}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}.$$
(17)
Hence the ghosts also transform like the dual of the adjoint representation of $`G`$. A mirror property holds for the antighosts $`b_m`$ which transform like the adjoint representation of $`G`$, so that

$$[J_k,b_m]=f_{km}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}b_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(18)
We are now ready to introduce the BRST charge operator $`Q`$ with the following properties

(a) - $`Q`$ is an odd nilpotent operator:

$$Q^2=\frac{1}{2}\{Q,Q\}=0.$$
(19)
(b) - $`Q`$ is invariant under the group $`G`$:

$$[J_k,Q]=0.$$
(20)
(c) - $`Q`$ together with the modified constraints $`J_k`$ and the antighosts forms a superalgebra $`S`$. Hence the anticommutator of $`Q`$ with the antighosts must be proportional to the modified constraints. Normalizing $`Q`$ so that the proportionality constant is unity, we obtain

$$\{Q,b_m\}=J_m.$$
(21)
(d) - We shall often use a supplementary condition that $`Q`$ be hermitian with respect to an appropriate scalar product. This means that we shall restrict ourselves to the unitary representations of the supergroup associated with $`S`$, or the representations of the superalgebra $`S`$ by hermitian operators acting on the states of a definite Hilbert space.

If we assume $`Q`$ to be a function of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$, $`c^m`$ and $`b_n`$ we can write

$$Q=Ac^m\mathrm{\Phi }_m+Bc^nS_n,$$
(22)
since $`Q`$ must be odd and a scalar under $`G`$. $`A`$ and $`B`$ are invariant coefficients that commute with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$, $`c^m`$ and $`b_n`$. We can take them as numerical coefficients. Nilpotency gives

$$Q^2=Ac^mc^nf_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}\mathrm{\Phi }_r(\frac{1}{2}AB)\frac{1}{2}B^2c^mc^nf_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}S_r=0.$$
(23)
On the other hand, using the expression Eq.(11) we can write

$$f_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}c^mc^nS_r=f_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}f_{kr}^{}{}_{}{}^{s}c^mc^nc^kb_s,$$
(24)
so that, the Jacobi identity Eq.(8) yields

$$f_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}c^mc^nS_r=0.$$
(25)
Substitution of this result in Eq.(23) shows that the condition for $`Q`$ to be nilpotent is given by

$$Q=Ac^m(\mathrm{\Phi }_m+\frac{1}{2}S_m).$$
(26)
In order to satisfy condition (c) we calculate

$`\{Q,b_r\}`$ $`=`$ $`A\{c^m,b_r\}(\mathrm{\Phi }_m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S_m)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Ac^m[S_m,b_r]`$
$`=A(\mathrm{\Phi }_r+S_r)=AJ_r,`$
where we have used Eqs.(10), (14) and (17). Hence the superalgebra closes if $`A=1`$. We also note the relation

$$\{Q,c^r\}=\frac{1}{2}f_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}c^mc^n.$$
(28)
To summarize, we have succeeded in embedding the group $`G`$ in a superalgebra $`S`$ given by

$`\{Q,Q\}=0,\{b_m,b_n\}=0,\{Q,b_m\}=J_m,`$
$`[J_m,Q]=0,[J_m,b_n]=f_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}b_k,`$
$$[J_m,J_n]=f_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}J_k.$$
(29)
A realization of this superalgebra is obtained by taking $`J_m`$ to be given by Eq.(14) and $`Q`$ by

$$Q=c^n(\mathrm{\Phi }_n+\frac{1}{2}S_n)=c^n\mathrm{\Phi }_n+\frac{1}{2}f_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}c^nc^mb_r.$$
(30)
Comparing with the expression Eq.(14) for the modified constraints $`J_m`$, note the occurrence of the factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$ in front of the spin operator in Eq.(30).

Another peculiarity of the operator $`Q`$ is its non symmetrical appearance. A more symmetrical form can be given if we remember that the constraints $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ are the analogs of the orbital angular momenta. They are also functions of the canonical variables $`q^\alpha `$ and $`p_\beta `$. Let us introduce $`(N+1)`$ new collective coordinates $`C^r`$ and their canonical conjugates $`B_r`$, both functions of $`q^\alpha `$ and $`p_\beta `$, that satisfy the Heisenberg relations

$$[B_r,B_s]=[C^r,C^s]=0,[B_s,C^r]=\delta _s^r,$$
(31)
and are chosen such that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_m=f_{km}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}C^kB_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(32)
Then we find that Eq.(6) is satisfied. In terms of the bosonic canonical pair $`(B_m,C^n)`$ and the fermionic canonical pair $`(b_m,c^n)`$ we find

$$J_r=f_{mr}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}(C^mB_n+c^mb_n),$$
(33)
$$Q=f_{mr}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}c^r(C^mB_n+\frac{1}{2}c^mb_n).$$
(34)
These operators form a superalgebra together with $`b_r`$. The generators of $`S`$ are then functions of the coordinates $`(C^n,c^n)`$ of a superspace point and their canonical conjugate momenta $`(B_m,b_m)`$ that label a point in the super-momentum space.

The constraint superalgebra can be enlarged through the introduction of the ghost number operator

$$N_g=c^kb_k.$$
(35)
Its eigenvalues give the ghost numbers. We have

$`[N_g,J_r]=0,[N_g,c^r]=c^r,[N_g,b_r]=b_r,`$
$$[N_g,Q]=Q.$$
(36)
Hence the constraints and modified constraints have ghost number zero. It is $`+1`$ for ghosts and the BRST operator, while it is $`1`$ for the antighosts $`b_r`$.

If the superspace formulation is used we can also introduce the bosonic number operator $`N_B`$

$$N_B=C^kB_k$$
(37)
with the properties

$`[N_B,c^r]=[N_B,N_g]=0,[N_B,C^r]=C^r,[N_B,B_s]=B_s,`$
$$[N_B,J_r]=0,[N_B,b_r]=0,[N_B,Q]=0.$$
(38)
Finally we note that the superalgebra $`(J_r,b_r,Q)`$ is not semi-simple even if the group $`G`$ of the constraints is semi-simple. The hermiticity of $`Q`$ poses also a delicate problem. Since $`Q`$ is nilpotent it can only be hermitian with respect to a scalar product with an indefinite metric. This is often the case in relativistic theories. The infinite dimensional constraints bring additional convergence problems for the existence of $`Q`$. We shall illustrate these points by some concrete examples.

In the case of infinite algebras another difficulty may arise in the form of a central extension of the algebra. The disappearance of the central term occurs if certain restrictions are met, like the critical dimensions of strings or superstrings associated with the infinite Virasoro or super-Virasoro algebras. In our construction the BRST charge is a nilpotent element of a super-algebra that by definition has no central extension.

## 3 Properties of Physical States

In the BRST formalism one considers BRST invariant states $`|n,\alpha >`$ annihilated by the operator $`Q`$, that are simultaneously eigenstates of the ghost number operator $`N_g`$ with eigenvalue $`n`$,

$$Q|n,\alpha >=0,$$
(39)
$$N_g|n,\alpha >=n|n,\alpha >.$$
(40)
Such states form the sector with ghost number $`n`$. The property that $`Q`$ increases the ghost number of a state by one, coupled with its nilpotency yields a trivial solution to Eqs.(39), (40) of the form

$$|n,\gamma >_{\mathrm{triv}.}=Q|n1,\gamma >.$$
(41)
Two solutions $`|n,\alpha _1>`$ and $`|n,\alpha _2>`$ of the same equations are equivalent if they differ by a trivial solution. Thus

$$|n,\alpha _1>=|n,\alpha _2>+Q|n1,\gamma >.$$
(42)
Such a pair of states are regarded as belonging to the n’th cohomology class of the group $`G`$.

Physical states are those that belong to the zeroth cohomology class. They are annihilated by both $`Q`$ and $`N_g`$. We shall write $`|\alpha >_{\mathrm{ph}.}`$ instead of $`|0,\alpha >`$.

$$N_g|0,\alpha >=\underset{n}{}c^nb_n|\alpha >_{\mathrm{ph}.}=0.$$
(43)
Since $`c^n`$ and $`b^n`$ are canonically conjugate such a state cannot be annihilated by both ghosts and antighost operators. Hence, instead of Eq.(43) we can write

$$b_n|\alpha >_{\mathrm{ph}.}=0,$$
(44)
together with

$$Q|\alpha >_{\mathrm{ph}.}=0.$$
(45)
These two equations lead to

$$\{Q,b_n\}|\alpha >_{\mathrm{ph}.}=J_n|\alpha >_{\mathrm{ph}.}=0,$$
(46)
as well as

$$c^mf_{mr}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}b_n|\alpha >_{\mathrm{ph}.}=S_n|\alpha >_{\mathrm{ph}.}=0,$$
(47)
and consequently

$$(J_nS_n)|\alpha >_{\mathrm{ph}.}=\mathrm{\Phi }_n|\alpha >_{\mathrm{ph}.}=0,$$
(48)
which is the quantum version of the original classical constraints given by the vanishing of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$.

Eqs.(44)-(48) tell us that the physical states are invariant under the whole constraint superalgebra that we have introduced.

From a more general point of view we may consider the case of a BRST operator $`Q`$ that is hermitian with respect to a scalar product defined in the vector space $`|n,\alpha >`$. The metric in such a space must be indefinite, otherwise a hermitian $`Q`$ could not be simultaneously nilpotent. When these two conditions are realized, taking the hermitian conjugate of Eq.(39) with respect to the metric, we obtain

$$<\alpha ,n|Q=0,$$
(49)
so that $`Q`$ also annihilates bra states belonging to the sector with ghost number $`n`$. It follows that

$$<\alpha ,n|(Qb_m+b_mQ)|n,\beta >=<\alpha ,n|J_m|n,\beta >=0.$$
(50)
Hence the matrix elements of the modified constraints between BRST invariant states are seen to vanish. For $`n=0`$ this leads to

$${}_{\mathrm{ph}.}{}^{}<\alpha |\mathrm{\Phi }_m|\beta >_{\mathrm{ph}.}=0,$$
(51)
meaning that the quantum constraints vanish weakly according to Dirac’s definition.

Because the eigenvalues of $`N_g`$ are non negative integers there is no trivial physical state. If such a state existed, it would have been generated by $`Q`$ from a state $`|1,\alpha >`$ with negative ghost number, but we have seen that such states are not part of our vector space. It follows that BRST invariant states of ghost number zero are invariant under the superalgebra $`S`$ as well as under its Lie subgroup $`G`$. For positive ghost number there will be trivial BRST invariant states and the cohomology class has to be determined at each level of ghost number $`n`$.

## 4 Linear and Nonlinear Representations of the Constraint Superalqebra

We start by giving a linear regular representation of the constraint superalgebra $`S`$. It will be constructed out of the adjoint representation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_a`$ of the constraint Lie algebra $`G`$. We have

$$(\mathrm{\Sigma }_a)_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}=f_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c},(a=0,\mathrm{},N),$$
(52)
where the coefficients $`f`$ are the structure constants of $`G`$ given by Eq.(7). $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_a`$ are then $`(N+1)\times (N+1)`$ matrices. We now consider the $`(2N+2)\times (2N+2)`$ matrices

$$F_a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Sigma }_a& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Sigma }_a\end{array}\right),$$
(53)
which form a linear representation of $`G`$, so that

$$[F_a,F_b]=f_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}F_c.$$
(54)
Let us introduce at this point the odd operators

$$\beta _a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \gamma \mathrm{\Sigma }_a\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(55)
where $`\gamma ^2=1`$, $`\gamma `$ commutes with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_a`$, but anticommutes with all odd parameters that enter in the definition of an element of the supergroup. The inclusion of $`\gamma `$ is necessary for the generators $`\beta _a`$ to anticommute with odd parameters of the group. Finally, by means of the $`(N+1)\times (N+1)`$ unit matrix $`I`$, we define

$$q=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ \gamma I& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(56)
These operators obey the relations

$`\{\beta _a,\beta _b\}=0,`$
$`[F_a,\beta _b]=f_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}\beta _c,`$
$`\{q,q\}=0,`$
$`[q,F_a]=0,`$
$$\{q,\beta _a\}=F_a,$$
(57)
showing that $`F_a`$, $`\beta _a`$ and $`q`$ form a linear $`(2N+2)\times (2N+2)`$ matrix representation of the constraint superalgebra, with $`\beta _a`$ representing the antighosts and $`q`$ the BRST operator.

An element of the supergroup is now given by

$$K=\mathrm{exp}(F_ah^a+\beta _a\theta ^a+q\epsilon ).$$
(58)
The ghost number operator $`N_g`$ is represented by the matrix

$$N=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}I& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}I\end{array}\right).$$
(59)
Indeed we have

$$[N,F_a]=0,[N,\beta _a]=\beta _a,[N,q]=q.$$
(60)
We can obtain more general matrix representations of $`S`$ if we represent $`G`$ by $`k\times k`$ matrices $`T_a`$. Then, replacing $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_a`$ by $`T_a`$ and $`I`$ by $`I_k`$ the $`k\times k`$ unit matrix in Eq.(53) and Eq.(59), we immediately find a $`2k\times 2k`$ representation of the same superalgebra, including the ghost number.

As an example, if $`G=SU(2)`$ and $`T_a=\tau _a`$ $`(a=1,2,3)`$, the $`2\times 2`$ Pauli matrices, the $`4\times 4`$ matrix representation of $`S`$ that we obtain is a $`8`$-dimensional ($`4`$ even, $`4`$ odd) superalgebra which is a subalgebra of the matrix algebra generated by the $`4\times 4`$ matrix representation of the conformal group in $`(3+1)`$ dimensions. The three operators $`F_a`$ generate $`3`$-dimensional rotations. The BRST operator $`q`$ is $`\gamma `$ times the time translation (energy) operator, $`\beta _a`$ are given by $`\gamma `$ times the three special space-like conformal transformations (generators of constant accelerations) and finally the ghost number operator $`N`$ is proportional to the generator of space-time dilatation.

We now turn to a non-linear realization of $`S`$ in the superspace with even coordinates $`C^a`$ and odd coordinates $`c^a`$ for a point $`Z`$. An infinitesimal nonlinear transformation $`T_sZ=Z^{}`$ of the superpoint $`Z`$ induces a change $`\delta F`$ in a function of $`Z`$, so that

$$T_sF(Z)=F(Z^{})=F(Z+\delta Z)=F(Z)+\delta F,$$
(61)
where, in terms of the infinitesimal parameters $`h^a`$, $`\theta ^a`$, $`\epsilon `$ of $`T_s`$ we have

$$\delta F=(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_ah^a+\widehat{b}_a\theta ^a+\widehat{q}\epsilon )F(C^a,c^a).$$
(62)
Here $`\widehat{\varphi }_a`$, $`\widehat{b}_a`$, $`\widehat{q}`$ are differential operators linear in $`/C^a`$ and $`/c^a`$.

The non-linear representation will be obtained from the action of the super group on the coset of $`S`$ with respect to the sub-supergroup generated by the constraints $`\varphi _a`$ and the antighosts $`b_a`$ that act linearly on $`Z`$. The one odd-parameter BRST transformation that is in the coset will then have a non-linear action on $`Z`$. To this end let us start from the following decomposition of a group element of $`S`$ in a given matrix representation

$$W=T(\theta ^a)R(h^a)V(\epsilon ),$$
(63)
where

$$T(\theta ^a)=e^{\beta _a\theta ^a}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& \gamma \mathrm{\Sigma }_a\theta ^a\\ 0& I\end{array}\right),$$
(64)
$$R(h^a)=e^{F_ah^a}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}U(h)& 0\\ 0& U(h)\end{array}\right),(U=e^{_ah^a}),$$
(65)
$$V(\epsilon )=e^{q\epsilon }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ \gamma \epsilon I& I\end{array}\right).$$
(66)
The group will act on a module $`M`$ that depends only on the parameters $`C^a`$ and $`c^a`$.

Let $`m`$ be a diagonal matrix that commutes with $`V(\epsilon )`$. We define $`M`$ as the matrix obtained from $`m`$ through the adjoint action of the group element $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=T(c^a)R(\omega ^a)V(\zeta ),$$
(67)
giving

$$M(Z)=\mathrm{\Gamma }Z\mathrm{\Gamma }^1=T(c^a)R(\omega ^a)mR^1(\omega ^a)T^1(c^a).$$
(68)
The coset element $`V(\zeta )`$ has disappeared because it commutes with $`m`$. Putting

$$m=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_0& 0\\ 0& m_0\end{array}\right),$$
(69)
where $`m_0`$ does not commute with any of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_a`$, we find

$$M(C^a,c^a)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& \gamma \mathrm{\Sigma }_ac^a\\ 0& I\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Sigma }_aC^a& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Sigma }_ac^a\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& \gamma \mathrm{\Sigma }_ac^a\\ 0& I\end{array}\right),$$
(70)
where

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_aC^a=R(\omega ^a)m_oR^1(\omega ^a).$$
(71)
Thus, to each point $`Z`$ of the superspace $`(C^a,c^a)`$ corresponds a module $`M(Z)`$ given by the matrix Eq.(70) that can also be written in the form

$$M(Z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Sigma }_aC^a& [\gamma \mathrm{\Sigma }_ac^a,\mathrm{\Sigma }_bC^b]\\ 0& \mathrm{\Sigma }_aC^a\end{array}\right).$$
(72)
This superspace element belongs to the coset of $`S`$ with respect to the BRST subsupergroup $`V(\zeta )`$.

Under the left action of the group element $`W`$ given by Eq.(63) on the group element $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ given by Eq.(67), we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=W\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(73)
This induces the transformation

$$M^{}=M(Z^{})=WM(Z)W^1$$
(74)
on the module $`M`$. In turn, the superspace point $`Z`$ is transformed into $`Z^{}`$ by the group action. Let us consider the action of the various sub-transformations on $`Z`$. First, we can work out the action of the subgroup $`G`$. We have

$$T_GM=R(h^a)MR(h^a),$$
(75)
which, on using Eq.(65) leads to

$`M(C^a,c^a)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& \gamma U\mathrm{\Sigma }_ac^aU^1\\ 0& I\end{array}\right)\times `$
$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}U\mathrm{\Sigma }_aC^aU^1& 0\\ 0& U\mathrm{\Sigma }_aC^aU^1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& \gamma U\mathrm{\Sigma }_ac^aU^1\\ 0& I\end{array}\right)`$
or

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_aC^a=U\mathrm{\Sigma }_aC^aU^1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_ac^a=U\mathrm{\Sigma }_ac^aU^1.$$
(77)
This means that both $`C^a`$ and $`c^a`$ transform under $`G`$ like the dual of its adjoint representation. Hence, we have, from Eq.(17)

$$\delta _hC^a=C^bf_{bm}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}h^m,\delta c^a=c^bf_{bm}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}h^m.$$
(78)
Under the subsupergroup with parameters $`\theta ^a`$ we have

$$M(C^a,c^a)=T(\theta ^a)MT(\theta ^a).$$
(79)
By means of Eq.(64), we find

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_ac^a=\mathrm{\Sigma }_ac^a+\mathrm{\Sigma }_a\theta ^a,\mathrm{\Sigma }_aC^a=\mathrm{\Sigma }_aC^a,$$
(80)
so that

$$\delta _\theta C^a=0,\delta _\theta c^a=\theta ^a.$$
(81)
The effect of $`T(\theta )`$ is to translate the odd coordinates and leave the even coordinates invariant in superspace. Hence $`G`$ acts linearly on $`Z`$.

Turning now to the BRST transformation, we find

$$M^{}=V(\epsilon )MV(\epsilon )=VT(c)V^1(VF_aC^aV^1)VT^1(c)V^1.$$
(82)
Using the expression Eq.(66) for $`V`$, we can write

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_bC^b=(1\epsilon \mathrm{\Sigma }_ac^a)(\mathrm{\Sigma }_bC^b)(1\epsilon \mathrm{\Sigma }_ac^a)^1,`$
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_bc^b=(\mathrm{\Sigma }_bc^b)(1\epsilon \mathrm{\Sigma }_ac^a)^1.$$
(83)
The transformation induced by the BRST operator in superspace is thus displayed to be nonlinear. Since $`\epsilon `$ is nilpotent, we obtain

$$\delta _\epsilon C^a=\epsilon C^mf_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}c^n,$$
(84)
$$\delta _\epsilon c^a=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon f_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}c^mc^n.$$
(85)
The last formula is seen to be the standard transformation formula for ghosts. The even coordinates in superspace also transform non-linearly according to Eq.(84).

The differential form $`\widehat{q}`$ of the operator $`Q`$ is now obtained through the use of Eq.(62) in the form

$`\delta _\epsilon F`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{q}\epsilon F=\epsilon \widehat{q}F(C^a,c^a)=(\delta _\epsilon C^a{\displaystyle \frac{}{C^a}}+\delta _\epsilon c^a{\displaystyle \frac{}{c^a}})F`$
$`=(\epsilon C^mf_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}B_ac^n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon f_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}c^mc^nb_a)`$
where we have used $`B_a`$ for $`/C^a`$ and $`/c^a`$to satisfy Eqs.(31) and (10). Finally we get

$$\widehat{q}=c^n(C^mf_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}B_a+\frac{1}{2}c^mf_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}b_a),$$
(87)
which is exactly the same formula as Eq.(34) and is equivalent to the standard form given by Eq.(30).

## 5 Example from Gauge Theories

In this section we shall illustrate our general procedure by an example from a non-Abelian gauge field theory. Let us start by reviewing the well established BRST method for an action involving gauge fixing and ghost terms. Consider the Yang-Mills Lagrangian based on the compact group $`G`$:

$$_{YM}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}F_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}(_\mu A_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{c}_\nu A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{c}+\phi _{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}A_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{b})F_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu },$$
(88)
where $`\phi _{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}`$ are the structure constants of $`G`$ and the coupling constant $`g`$ is taken to be unity. The Lorentz metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ has been chosen such that

$$\eta _{00}=\eta _{11}=\eta _{22}=\eta _{33}=1,\eta _{\mu \nu }=0\mathrm{for}\mu \nu .$$
(89)
Here $`F_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}`$ is an auxiliary tensor field. The variation of the action with respect to this antisymmetrical tensor gives

$$F_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{c}=F_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{c}(A)=_\mu A_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{c}_\nu A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{c}+\phi _{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}A_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{b}.$$
(90)
Inserting this in the Lagrangian we get the usual Lagrangian

$$_{YM}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}(A)F_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }(A)$$
(91)
which is invariant under the infinitesimal gauge transformation

$`A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{{}_{}{}^{}c}=A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{c}+\delta A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{c},`$
$$\delta A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{c}=_\mu \omega ^c+\phi _{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\omega ^b=D_\mu \omega ^c,$$
(92)
where $`D_\mu `$ denotes the covariant derivative.

Variation of the action with respect to the potential yields the equation of motion

$$D_\mu F_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }=_\mu F_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }+\phi _{ca}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}F_b^{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(93)
When $`G`$ is compact, the structure constants are totally antisymmetrical in their three indices and we recover the usual formula for the covariant derivative

$$D_\mu F_c^{\mu \nu }=_\mu F_c^{\mu \nu }+\phi _{abc}A_\mu ^aF^{\mu \nu b}.$$
(94)
Under a gauge transformation the change in the field is given by

$$\delta F_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{c}=\varphi _{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}F_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\omega ^b,$$
(95)
so that it transforms homogeneously.

For canonical quantization we must find the canonical conjugates to the potentials $`A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}`$. We have

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_c^n=\frac{}{(_0A_n^c)}=F_c^{n0}=E^n,$$
(96)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_c^0=0.$$
(97)
A covariant gauge fixing term $`_{GF}`$ is added to the Lagrangian in order to allow for covariant quantization. In terms of the auxiliary scalar fields $`B_c`$, the usual form is

$$_{GF}=\frac{\alpha }{2}B_cB^cB_c^\mu A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{c}.$$
(98)
This term breaks the local gauge invariance but allows a non vanishing conjugate to $`A_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}`$. We have

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_c^0=\frac{}{(_0A_0^c)}=B_c.$$
(99)
Thus, $`B^c`$ plays a role similar to $`F_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{c}`$. The variation with respect to it gives

$$\alpha B^c=^\mu A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{c},$$
(100)
so that when these values of $`B^c`$ are inserted in $`_{GF}`$ we obtain

$$_{GF}=\frac{1}{2\alpha }(^\mu A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{c})(^\nu A_{\nu c}),$$
(101)
which is the standard fixing term for Lorentz gauge. The equation of motion Eq.(93) is now modified to

$$D_\mu F_c^{\mu \nu }+^\nu B_c=0.$$
(102)
Since covariant quantization introduces negative probabilities and negative energies due to the presence of $`A_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^0`$, these unphysical effects must be compensated by Faddeev-Popov ghost fields $`c^a(x)`$ and $`\overline{c}_a(x)`$ which are fermionic scalar fields and occur in the Lagrangian in the combination

$$_{\mathrm{gh}.}=^\mu \overline{c}_aD_\mu c^a=^\mu \overline{c}_a(_\mu c^a+\phi _{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{r}c^s).$$
(103)
The total Lagrangian is now

$$=_{YM}+_{GF}+_{\mathrm{gh}}.$$
(104)
Varying with respect to $`\overline{c}_a`$ we get the equation of motion

$$^\mu D_\mu c^a=0.$$
(105)
Varying with respect to $`c^a`$ we have

$$D_\mu ^\mu \overline{c}_a=_\mu ^\mu \overline{c}_a+\phi _{rsa}A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{r}^\mu \overline{c}^s=0.$$
(106)
The equation of motion Eq.(102) now takes its final form

$$D_\mu F_c^{\mu \nu }+^\nu B_c+\phi _{abc}(^\nu \overline{c}^a)c^b=0.$$
(107)
Calling $`\pi _a`$ and $`\overline{\pi }_a`$ the canonical conjugates of $`c^a`$ and $`\overline{c}^a`$ respectively, we find

$$\pi _a=^0\overline{c}_a=_0\overline{c}_a,$$
(108)
$$\overline{\pi }^a=^0c^a\phi _{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}A^{0r}c^s=D_0c^a.$$
(109)
It is well known that $`L`$ is invariant under the BRST transformation obtained by replacing the gauge functions $`W^a(x)`$ by $`\epsilon c^a(x)`$ so that Eq.(92) takes the form

$$\delta _\epsilon A_\mu ^a=\epsilon D_\mu c^a,$$
(110)
where $`\epsilon `$ is a constant Grassmann variable anticommuting with $`c^a`$ and $`\overline{c}_a`$. Then $`_{YM}`$ is invariant under this transformation. The BRST transformation leaves the auxiliary field B invariant

$$\delta _\epsilon B^a=0,$$
(111)
and the transformation laws for the ghosts and antighosts are

$$\delta _\epsilon \overline{c}_a=\epsilon B_a,$$
(112)
$$\delta _\epsilon c^r=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon \phi _{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}c^ac^b.$$
(113)
Since the term $`\frac{1}{2}\alpha B^2`$ is BRST invariant, we find

$`\delta _\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\epsilon (B_a^\mu A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}^\mu \overline{c}_aD_\mu c^a)`$
$`=`$ $`\epsilon (B_a^\mu D_\mu c^a+^\mu B_aD_\mu c^a)^\mu \overline{c}_a\delta _\epsilon D_\mu c^a.`$
Now

$`\delta _\epsilon D_\mu c^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon _\mu (\phi _{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}c^rc^s)+\phi _{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\delta _\epsilon A_\mu ^rc^s+\phi _{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}A_\mu ^r\delta _\epsilon c^s`$
$`=`$ $`\epsilon \{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi _{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}(_\mu c^r)c^s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi _{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}c^r_\mu c^s+\phi _{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}(_\mu c^r)c^s\}`$
$`+\epsilon (\phi _{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\phi _{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{m}c^nc^s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi _{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}A_\mu ^r\phi _{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{s}c^mc^n)`$
$`=`$ $`\epsilon (\phi _{sm}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\phi _{rn}^{}{}_{}{}^{s}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi _{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\phi _{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{s})A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{r}c^nc^m`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon (\phi _{sm}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\phi _{rn}^{}{}_{}{}^{s}+\phi _{sn}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\phi _{mr}^{}{}_{}{}^{s}+\phi _{sr}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\phi _{nm}^{}{}_{}{}^{s})A_\mu ^rc^nc^m,`$
or

$$\delta _\epsilon D_\mu c^a=0,$$
(116)
because of the Jacobi identity. Hence we obtain

$$\delta _\epsilon =\epsilon ^\mu (B_aD_\mu c^a)=\epsilon ^\mu \kappa _\mu .$$
(117)
The Lagrangian changes by a total divergence, so that the action is BRST invariant.

Let us find the corresponding conserved Noether current. We have

$$\epsilon j^\mu =\delta A_\nu ^a\frac{}{(_\mu A_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{a})}+\delta c^a\frac{}{(_\mu c^a)}+\delta \overline{c}_a\frac{}{(_\mu \overline{c}_a)}$$
(118)
where we have used Eq.(111). The other equations Eq.(110)-Eq.(113) give

$$j^\mu =(D_\nu c^a)(F_a^{\mu \nu }+B_a\eta ^{\mu \nu })\frac{1}{2}\phi _{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}c^mc^n^\mu \overline{c}_aB_aD^\mu c^a,$$
(119)
$$\epsilon _\mu j^\mu =\delta _\epsilon =\epsilon _\mu \kappa ^\mu .$$
(120)
It follows that the conserved Noether current is given by

$$J^\mu =j^\mu +\kappa ^\mu $$
(121)
or, using Eq.(117) through Eq.(120)

$$J^\mu =D_\nu c^a(F_a^{\mu \nu }+B_a\eta ^{\mu \nu })\frac{1}{2}\phi _{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}c^ac^b^\mu \overline{c}_k.$$
(122)
We shall define the corresponding conserved charge $`Q`$ by

$$Q=d^3xJ^0,$$
(123)
where, using Eqs.(96),(108) and Eq.(109) we find

$`J^0`$ $`=`$ $`(D_nc^a)F_a^{0n}B_aD^0c^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi _{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}c^ac^b^0\overline{c}_k`$
$`=`$ $`(D_nc^a)\mathrm{\Pi }^n+B_a\overline{\pi }^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi _{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}c^ac^b\pi _k.`$
Doing a partial integration, we can also write

$$Q=d^3x\{c^a(D_n\mathrm{\Pi }_a^n\frac{1}{2}\phi _{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}c^b\pi _k)+\overline{\pi }^aB_a\}.$$
(125)
This is the final form of the BRST operator. Now the classical constraints which generate gauge transformations are

$$L_a=D_n\mathrm{\Pi }_a^n,\lambda _a=B_a.$$
(126)
The $`L_a`$ do not commute but generate a current algebra. The $`B_a`$ do commute. $`L_a`$ and $`B_a`$ form an infinite Lie algebra of first class constraints. The corresponding ghost variables are respectively $`c^a`$ and $`\overline{\pi }_a`$. Since they are functions of position we must sum over the index and integrate over $`𝒙`$. Thus the formula Eq.(125) is identical with the general formula Eq.(30). Using the canonical commutation relations it can be checked easily that $`Q`$ generates the transformation laws Eq.(110)- Eq.(113). On the other hand, because $`Q`$ has the standard form its square must also vanish. The physical states of Yang-Mills theories are therefore annihilated by $`Q`$. The ghost number is given by

$$g=d_3xg^0=d_3x(\pi _ac^a+\overline{c}_a\overline{\pi }^a),$$
(127)
which is constant in time owing to the conservation of the ghost current

$$g^\mu =(^\mu \overline{c}_a)c^a\overline{c}_aD^\mu c^a,$$
(128)
which follows from the equations of motion Eq.(105) and Eq.(106). Then, for the zero ghost number sector the modified constraints $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ coincide with the classical constraints and the usual physical states are annihilated by $`Q`$ and $`g`$. The modified constraints $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ are given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_a=D_n\mathrm{\Pi }_a^n\phi _{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}c^b\pi _k.$$
(129)
More details about the BRST treatment of Yang-Mills theories with applications to their renormalizability and unitarity can be found in the excellent reviews by Baulieu$`^{\text{[25]}}`$ and Henneaux$`^{\text{[26]}}`$. What we have just shown here is that the constraint superalgebra with even elements that represent the modified constraints $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ and $`B_a`$ as well as ghost number $`g`$, and with odd elements $`\pi ^a`$, $`\overline{c}_a`$ and the BRST charge $`Q`$, leaves the physical states invariant. Actually, the Lagrangian $``$ given by Eq.(104) is invariant under a larger superalgebra that includes the anti-BRST operator $`\overline{Q}`$ which generates non trivial transformations for the fields $`B^a`$. This larger invariance was discovered by Gurci and Ferrari$`^{\text{[27]}}`$, and Ojima and further developed and formalized by Baulieu and Thierry-Mieg$`^{\text{[29]}}`$ and Alvarez-Gaumé and Baulieu$`^{\text{[30]}}`$.

## 6 Example from String Theories

As a last example we shall display the infinite constraint superalgebra for a bosonic string. Consider the loop algebra generated by the differential operators

$$L_m=z^{m+1}\frac{d}{dz},$$
(130)
which obey the infinite Lie algebra

$$[L_m,L_n]=(mn)L_{m+n}=(mn)\delta _{m+n}^rL_r.$$
(131)
This is a Virasoro algebra without central extension, also called a loop algebra. Its structure constants are given by

$$f_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}=(mn)\delta _{}^{r}{}_{m+n}{}^{}=f_{nm}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}.$$
(132)
Introduce conjugate Grassmann numbers $`c^m`$ and $`b_n`$ such that

$$\{c^m,c^n\}=\{b_m,b_n\}=0,\{c^m,b_n\}=\delta _n^m.$$
(133)
A finite subalgebra consists of the dilation operator

$$L_0=z\frac{d}{dz},$$
(134)
the translation operator

$$L_1=\frac{d}{dz},$$
(135)
and the translation operator for the inverse $`z^1`$, namely

$$L_1=z^2\frac{d}{dz}.$$
(136)
$`L_0`$, $`L_{\pm 1}`$ generate the group $`SL(2,R)`$ and the Virasoro algebra may be regarded as its affine extension.

A more general form of the Virasoro algebra without central extension can be constructed by means of the harmonic oscillator operators $`a`$ (multiplication by $`z`$) and $`a^{}`$ (represented by the differential operator $`d/dz`$)

$$L_m=a^{m+1}a^{}+h(m+1)a^m,$$
(137)
which also obey Eq.(131). Then $`L_0`$ and $`L_{\pm 1}`$ correspond to the well known Dyson representation$`^{\text{[31]}}`$ of $`SL(2,R)`$ with Casimir invariant

$$C=L_0^2\frac{1}{2}\{L_1,L_1\}$$
(138)
equal to $`h(h+1)`$.

Now, construct the ”spin” operators

$$S_n=c^mf_{mn}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}b_r=(mn)c^mb_{m+n}.$$
(139)
The modified constraints are

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_n=L_n+S_n=L_n+(mn)c^mb_{m+n},$$
(140)
while the BRST operator is given by

$$Q=c^m(L_n+\frac{1}{2}S_n)=c^nL_n+\frac{1}{2}(mn)c^nc^mb_{m+n}.$$
(141)
The associated superalgebra is again given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$, $`b_n`$ and $`Q`$. The ghost number operator is

$$g=c^nb_n.$$
(142)
Note that for the representation Eq.(137) $`L_n`$ is different than $`L_n^{}`$. If we have a representation for which

$$L_n=L_n^{},L_0=L_0^{},$$
(143)
then the Virasoro algebra Eq.(131) defined for $`L_0`$ and $`L_n`$ ($`n>0`$) defines the whole algebra. In that case it is enough to impose constraints for $`n0`$ only. When ghost variables $`c^n`$ and $`b_m`$ are introduced, we must also require

$$c^m=(c^m)^{},b_m=b_m^{}.$$
(144)
These conditions lead to the hermiticity of $`Q`$.

In string theory the Virasoro operators are the moments of the two-dimensional energy-momentum tensor. They can be expressed in terms of oscillator mode operators $`\alpha _n`$ in the form$`^{\text{[32]}}`$

$$L_m=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _{mn}^\mu \alpha _{n\mu },(\mu =0,1,\mathrm{},D1),$$
(145)
where

$$\alpha _m^\mu =\alpha _m^\mu ,[\alpha _m^\mu ,\alpha _n^\nu ]=m\delta _{m+n}^0\eta ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(146)
Physical states are annihilated by $`L_m`$ ($`m>0`$) and $`L_{0\gamma }`$ with $`\gamma `$ being a constant and $`L_0`$ normal ordered:

$$L_0=\frac{1}{2}\alpha _0^2+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _n^\mu \alpha _{n\mu }.$$
(147)
The hermiticity conditions are now satisfied, but there is a price: for this string representation the Virasoro algebra develops a well known anomaly term and takes the form

$$[L_m,L_n]=(mn)L_{m+n}+\frac{D}{12}m(m^21)\delta _{m+n}^0.$$
(148)
This modified algebra has the same $`SL(2,R)`$ subalgebra generated by $`L_0`$ and $`L_{\pm 1}`$.

The spin algebra develops a different anomaly term, namely

$$[S_m,S_n]=(mn)S_{m+n}+\frac{1}{6}m(113m^2)\delta _{m+n}^0.$$
(149)
The modified constraints $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in Eq.(140) will then satisfy the anomaly free algebra

$$[\mathrm{\Phi }_m,\mathrm{\Phi }_n]=(mn)\mathrm{\Phi }_{m+n},$$
(150)
provided that the total anomaly vanishes. This anomaly must include an additional term $`2\lambda m\delta _{m+n}`$ induced in $`L_0`$ by normal ordering. Hence we must have

$$\frac{D}{12}m(m^21)+\frac{1}{6}m(113m^2)+2\lambda m=0,$$
(151)
which gives

$$D=26,\lambda =1.$$
(152)
Thus in the string representation of the Virasoro algebra the modified constraints form a Lie algebra embedded in the superalgebra generated by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m`$, $`b_m`$ and $`Q`$, only if the string is in 26 dimensions with intercept $`\lambda `$ equal to one. The physical states are invariant under this constraint superalgebra which fails to exist in other dimensions for the bosonic string.

In mathematical terms, the cohomology for the Virasoro algebra has been rigorously solved by Frenkel, Garland and Zuckerman$`^{\text{[33]}}`$. Hence, the ghost-free and manifestly unitary treatment of the bosonic string on the light cone is now fully justified.

## 7 Further Outlook

We have established the existence of a super algebra in which the Lie algebra of the first class constraints is embedded. The odd generator that commutes with the constraints is the BRST operator. Its form follows from a non linear coset representation of the superalgebra. The superalgebra exists for all Yang-Mills theories and for $`26`$-dimensional bosonic strings.

In Yang-Mills theories two BRST operators $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ can be introduced. This suggests that the constraints can be embedded in larger superalgebras. Such formal possibilities have already been explored$`^{\text{[10]}}`$. It remains to show their utility in the covariant quantization of gauge or string theories, especially when the superalgebra is a simple one.

When constraints are second class, Poisson brackets are replaced by Dirac brackets. Can such constraints be also embedded in a superalgebra? The resolution of the problem may have bearing on the covariant quantization of supergravity and super particle theories.

In the more general case of both bosonic and fermionic constraints that form a superalgebra, the latter can be regarded as a subalgebra of a larger superalgebra involving both bosonic and fermionic ghosts and BRST operators. This possibility is realized for the superstring. The embedding super algebra then exists only is the critical dimension $`D=10`$. A complete classification of all conditions under which the constraint superalgebra exists remains to be worked out.


format: text

text:
# Comparison of Temperature-Dependent Hadronic Current Correlation Functions Calculated in Lattice Simulations of QCD and with a Chiral Lagrangian Model

## I INTRODUCTION

Euclidean-time hadronic current correlation functions contain information about the hadronic spectrum, including information about the temperature dependence of hadronic masses, the widths of these states and the eventual disappearance of such status from the spectrum at sufficiently high temperature. We have been interested in recent calculations of spectral functions of hadronic current correlators \[ 1-3 \]. These calculations make use of lattice results for the Euclidean-time correlation functions, $`G_P(\tau ,T)`$ and $`G_V(\tau ,T)`$, of pseudoscalar and vector currents. For example, for the pseudoscalar correlator, one considers the equation

$`G_P(\tau ,T)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \sigma _P(\omega ,T)K(\tau ,\omega ,T),`$ (1.1)
with

$`K(\tau ,\omega ,T)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}[\omega (\tau 1/2T)]}{\mathrm{sinh}(\omega /2T)}},`$ (1.2)
and attempts to obtain values of the spectral function $`\sigma _P(\omega ,T)`$ by using the maximum-entropy-method (MEM) \[ 4, 5 \]. (A similar procedure is used to obtain $`\sigma _V(\omega ,T)`$.) The MEM method is used, since the inversion of Eq. (1.1) to obtain $`\sigma _P(\omega ,T)`$ is an ”ill-conditioned problem”\[ 2 \], given the limitations of the lattice data.

The necessity of using such advanced numerical procedures is discussed in Ref. \[ 2 \]. As stated there, one has to introduce assumptions as to the characteristics of the desired solutions when using the MEM analysis. At this point, the physical significance of the results for the spectral functions obtained with the MEM procedure is uncertain in the case of resonant structures with energies of several GeV found using that method.

Recently we have made some calculations of hadronic current correlators and their associated spectral functions \[ 6 \]. Once we calculate the spectral functions using the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model, we may obtain $`G_P(\tau ,T)`$ and $`G_V(\tau ,T)`$ by using Eqs. (1.1) and (1.2). We may then compare our results for these Euclidean-time correlators with those calculated using the data obtained in the lattice simulations of QCD.

Since we have described our method of calculation of the spectral functions in an earlier work \[ 6 \], we here relegate that material to the Appendix for ease of reference. A novel feature of our work is use of temperature-dependent coupling parameters for the NJL model. We have made use of such parameters in earlier studies of meson properties at finite temperature and have described the mesonic confinement-deconfinement transition \[ 7 \]. While the use of temperature-dependent coupling constants for the NJL model is novel, we may note that the QCD coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ has been made temperature-dependent in a study of the quark -gluon plasma equation of state in Ref. \[ 8 \] and \[ 9 \]. (See Fig. 1 of Ref. \[ 9 \].) Values of the pressure, energy density and baryon density were presented as a function of temperature and quite good fits to QCD lattice results were obtained in Refs. \[ 8 \] and \[ 9 \].

In Ref. \[ 6 \] we have introduced the spectral functions,

$`\sigma _P(\omega ,T)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\text{Im}C_P(\omega ,T),`$ (1.3)
and

$`\sigma _V(\omega ,T)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\text{Im}C_V(\omega ,T).`$ (1.4)
The relation between these functions and the ones that appear in the literature, $`\overline{\sigma }_P(\omega ,T)`$ and $`\overline{\sigma }_V(\omega ,T)`$ \[ 1-3 \], is given in the Appendix. \[ See Eqs. (A30) and (A31). \] In the Appendix we describe the procedures used in the calculation of $`\text{Im}C_P(\omega ,T)`$ and $`\text{Im}C_V(\omega ,T)`$.

The organization of our work is as follow. In Section II we present some of the results obtained for the functions $`\text{Im}C_P(P_0,T)/P_0^2`$ and $`\text{Im}C_V(P_0,T)/P_0^2`$. (We identify $`P_0`$ with $`\omega `$, which is used in the literature for the corresponding quantity.) In Section III and IV we compare the values of $`G_P(\tau ,T)`$ and $`G_V(\tau ,T)`$ obtained in our calculations and in the lattice simulations \[ 2 \]. In those sections we discuss the evidence for the temperature-dependent coupling parameters we have used in other works \[ 6, 7 \]. Finally, Section IV contains some additional discussion and conclusions.

## II Euclidean-time Correlators of Pseudoscalar Hadronic Currents

The formalism reviewed in the Appendix is used to obtain the results presented in this section. In Fig.1 we show the values of $`\text{Im}C_P(P_0,T)/P_0^2`$ that were first presented in Ref. \[ 6 \]. The large peak at $`T/T_c=1.2`$ has its origin in the properties of a pion-like mode that is present after deconfinement has taken place. We note that no resonance is seen for $`T/T_c=3.0`$ \[ dot-dashed line \], but resonance behavior is present for $`T/T_c=1.5`$ \[ dashed line \] and $`T/T_c=2.0`$ \[ dotted line \].

Before we proceed, it is useful to discuss the properties of the integral in Eq. (1.1). We wish to show that the calculation of $`G_P(\tau ,T)`$ is sensitive to the properties of $`\sigma _P(\omega ,T)`$ for relatively small $`\omega `$, when $`\tau T0.5`$. On the other hand, when $`\tau T`$ is small (or near 1), the integral is sensitive to the values of $`\sigma _P(\tau ,T)`$ for large $`\omega `$, where $`\sigma _P(\tau ,T)`$ increases as $`\omega ^2`$ and is largely model independent. These features may be seen in Fig.2, where the solid line represents our calculated values of $`\sigma _P(\tau ,T)=(1/\pi )\text{Im}C_P(\omega ,T)`$ for $`T=1.5T_c`$. The dashed line shows $`K(\omega ,\tau ,T)`$ for $`\tau T=0.5`$, while the dotted and dot-dashed lines show $`K(\omega ,\tau ,T)`$ for $`\tau T=0.05`$ and $`\tau T=0.10`$, respectively. We note that the $`1/\omega `$ singularity in $`K(\omega ,\tau ,T)`$ for small $`\omega `$ is compensated by the behavior of the spectral function at small $`\omega `$, $`\sigma _P(\omega ,T)\omega `$. These remarks also pertain to the calculation of $`G_V(\tau ,T)`$ made using $`\sigma _V(\omega ,T)`$.

In Fig. 3 we show the data we have taken from Ref. \[ 2 \] as squares. The solid line shows the result of our calculation of $`G_P(\tau ,T)/T^3`$, as obtained from our calculated values of $`\sigma _P(\omega ,T)`$ at $`T=1.5T_c`$. The deviation of our calculation from the data for $`\tau T0`$ or $`\tau T1`$ is inconsequential, given our remarks made in the previous paragraph. We also show the result for the case $`G_P(T)=G_P=13.49\text{GeV}^2`$ as a dotted curve. When comparing the solid curve and the dotted curve we see evidence for the temperature dependence we have used: $`G_P(T)=G_P[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}0.17(T/T_c)]`$. (We have obtained the value $`G_P=13.49\text{GeV}^2`$ by calculating the pion mass at $`T=0`$ in our model.)

In Fig. 4 we show, as a solid line, our result for $`G_P(\tau ,T)/T^3`$ at $`T=3.0T_c`$. In this case the fit to the data taken from Ref. \[ 2 \] is poor. Therefore, we have investigated the case in which $`G_P(T)=0`$ and show the result as a dashed line in Fig. 4. The fit to the data of Ref. \[ 2 \] is improved somewhat. We may suggest that the suppression of $`G_P(T)`$ at large temperatures may be greater than that given by the form we have used, $`G_P(T)=G_P[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}0.17(T/T_c)]`$.

In Fig. 5 we again consider the value $`T=3.0T_c`$. In this case, the solid line is the result obtained when $`G_P(T)=0`$, while the dotted line results when we use a constant value for $`G_P(T)=G_P=13.49\text{GeV}^2`$. We may compare our results for the spectral functions to those obtained using the MEM procedure and depicted in Ref. \[ 2 \]. One essential difference is that we do not see the resonant behavior reported there for $`T=3.0T_c`$ at a rather high energy of about 2.4 GeV. The peak in $`\overline{\sigma }_P(\omega ,T)/\omega ^2`$ for $`T=1.5T_c`$ is at about 1 GeV in Ref. \[ 2 \], while for $`T=1.5T_c`$ our peak in Fig. 1 is at about 0.55 GeV.

In estimating the energies of the peaks we have used $`T_c=150`$ MeV. However, if we use $`T_c=270`$ MeV, which is more appropriate for a lattice calculation without dynamical quarks, the resonant structures would appear at still higher energy.

## III Euclidean-time Correlators of Lorentz-vector Hadronic Currents

We again refer to the Appendix for a review of our procedures for the calculation of the spectral functions from which we may obtain the Euclidean-time correlator using Eq. (1.1), with $`\sigma _V(\omega ,T)`$ replacing $`\sigma _P(\omega ,T)`$. In Fig. 6 we present our values of $`\text{Im}C_V(P_0,T)/P_0^2`$, which may be compared to the values of $`\overline{\sigma }_V(\omega ,T)/\omega ^2`$ given in Fig. 1 of Ref. \[ 2 \]. In Ref. \[ 2 \] we find a peak at about 1 GeV for $`T=1.5T_c`$ and at about 2.5 GeV for $`T=3.0T_c`$. On the other hand, there is some weak resonant behavior seen for $`T=1.5T_c`$ \[ dashed line \] in our Fig. 6 at about 0.75 GeV which may reflect a residual enhancement due to a $`\rho `$-like mode that is present after the confinement-deconfinement transition has taken place. At $`T=3.0T_c`$ \[ dot-dashed line \], we see no resonance enhancement in our work, in contrast to what is obtained by the MEM analysis of Ref. \[ 2 \].

In Fig. 7 we show the data taken from Ref. \[ 2 \] as squares. Here, there is hardly any difference seen in the data reported for $`T=1.5T_c`$ and $`T=3.0T_c`$. In Fig. 7, the solid line represents our results for $`(3/4)G_V(\tau ,T)/T^3`$ at $`T=1.5T_c`$. We only achieve a fair fit to the data, but the fit is decidedly better than that obtained when a constant value of $`G_V(T)=G_V=11.46\text{GeV}^2`$ is used \[ dotted line \] (See the appendix for a discussion of the factor 3/4 used when making comparison to the data of Ref. \[ 2 \] in the case of vector current correlators.)

In Fig. 8 we compare our result for $`(3/4)G_V(\tau ,T)/T^3`$ at $`T=3.0T_c`$ \[ solid line \] with the data of Ref. \[ 2 \]. Here the fit is better than that of Fig. 4. Again, the use of a constant value of $`G_V(T)=G_V=11.46\text{GeV}^2`$ yields a poor result. We suggest that our analysis tends to support our choice of temperature-dependent coupling parameters for the NJL model.

## IV discussion

It is of interest to obtain further insight into the results shown in Figs. 4 and 5. To that end, we show various calculations made for $`\text{Im}C_P(P_0,T)/P_0^2`$ in Fig. 9. There, for $`T=3.0T_c`$, the solid line is the result of our model, the dotted curve corresponds to the use of a constant value of the coupling parameter $`G_P(T)=G_P=13.49\text{GeV}^2`$, while the dashed line is the result for $`G_P(T)=0`$. A comparison of the solid curve and the dashed curve leads to some understanding of the results shown in Fig. 4, while a comparison of the dotted curve and the dashed curve leads to further understanding of the results shown in Fig. 5. Similar results are given for $`\text{Im}C_V(P_0,T)/P_0^2`$ in Fig. 10. For that figure, a comparison of the solid curve and the dashed curve gives some insight into the results shown in Fig. 8, where the dotted line corresponds to $`G_V(T)=G_V=11.46\text{GeV}^2`$ and the solid curve represents the results of our model.

We now return to the pseudoscalar case for $`T=1.5T_c`$. In Fig. 11 we show $`\text{Im}C_P(P_0,T)/P_0^2`$ for our model \[ solid line \], for $`G_P(T)=0`$ \[dashed line\], and for the case $`G_P(T)=G_P=13.49\text{GeV}^2`$. We recall that our model, with the temperature-dependent coupling parameter, gave rise to a excellent fit to the data, as seen in Fig. 3. It is also of interest to present values of $`\sigma _P(\omega ,T)=(1/\pi )\text{Im}C_P(\omega ,T)/\omega ^2`$ for $`T=1.5T_c`$. In Fig. 12, the result of our model is shown as a solid line, the dot-dashed line is for $`G_P(T)=0`$, and the dotted line is obtained when $`G_P(T)=G_P=13.49\text{GeV}^2`$. It is seen, that for small values of $`P_0`$, on the whole, the dotted line lies below the other curves, giving rise to the behavior seen in Fig. 3 for $`\tau T0.5`$.

It is worth mentioning that we have some additional evidence of the utility of temperature-dependent coupling parameters for the NJL model. We note that the confinement-deconfinement transition takes place in the range $`150\text{MeV}T_c170\text{MeV}`$ for QCD with dynamical quarks. We then inspect Fig. 5 of Ref. \[ 10 \], where the constituent quark mass of the NJL model is presented as a function of temperature for the case of a temperature-independent coupling constant. The mass value is $`330\text{MeV}`$ at $`T=0`$ and is about $`260300\text{MeV}`$ when $`150\text{MeV}T170\text{MeV}`$. Thus, we do not see the (partial) restoration of the chiral symmetry that is expected for $`TT_c`$. On the other hand, we see in Fig. 1 of Ref. \[ 7 \], where we have used a temperature-dependent coupling parameter, that we have $`m_u=364\text{MeV}`$ at $`T=0`$ and $`m_u(T)`$ in the range of 50 to $`100\text{MeV}`$ for $`150\text{MeV}`$ $`T170\text{MeV}`$. That is much more in accord with the (partial) restoration of chiral symmetry when $`TT_c`$. If we wish to consider the NJL as a useful low-energy model of QCD, it is much easier to discuss the confinement-deconfinement transition if we use temperature-dependent coupling parameters.

For ease of reference,we have calculated the constituent mass of the up quark using the equation for the temperature-dependent constituent mass given in Ref. \[ 11 \]. We have used a current quark mass of $`m^0=5.5\text{MeV}`$ and a momentum cutoff of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.631\text{GeV}`$. In Fig. 13, the dotted curve shows the result obtained with $`G=5.691\text{GeV}^2`$ (in the notation of Ref. \[ 11 \]). From Fig. 13 we see that at $`T=0.150\text{GeV}`$, $`m_u=0.318\text{GeV}`$, while at $`T=0.170\text{GeV}`$, $`m_u=0.276\text{GeV}`$. The dashed and solid curves represent the result when $`G(T)=G[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}0.17(T/T_c)]`$. For the solid curve ($`T_c=0.170\text{GeV}`$), $`m_u=77\text{MeV}`$ at $`T=0.170\text{GeV}`$. For the dashed curve ($`T_c=0.150\text{GeV}`$), $`m_u=54\text{MeV}`$ at $`T=0.150\text{GeV}`$. Again, we see that it is much easier to discuss the (partial) restoration of chiral symmetry at the confinement-deconfinement transition when we use the temperature-dependent coupling parameters of our model.

It is also of interest to exhibit the role played by the current quark mass. In Fig. 14, the dashed curve, which was calculated for $`T_c=0.150\text{GeV}`$, is the same as the dashed curve in Fig. 13. In Fig. 14, the solid curve shows the result when $`m^0=0`$. Here, we see restoration of chiral symmetry at $`T=0.136\text{GeV}`$, when $`G(T)=G[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}0.17(T/T_c)]`$ with $`T_c=0.150\text{GeV}`$.

We note that the value of $`T_c=0.136\text{GeV}`$ is still within the uncertainty of the transition temperature for three-flavor QCD. For example, in Ref. \[ 12 \] the transition temperatures are given for two-flavor and three-flavor QCD. In the latter case, $`T_c=154\pm 8\text{MeV}`$, with a suggested systematic error similar to the statistical error, so that $`T_c=154\pm 8\pm 8\text{MeV}`$ \[ 12 \]. (We have used coupling constants determined in our studies of the three-flavor NJL model, so that consideration of the transition temperature for that case is appropriate.)

If we wish to assign a physical interpretation of the parameter $`T_c`$ in the expression for $`G(T)`$, we may use $`G(T)=G[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}0.135(T/T_c)]`$ with $`T_c=0.150\text{GeV}`$. That choice gives rise to restoration of chiral symmetry at $`T=T_c=0.150\text{GeV}`$ in the NJL model with $`m^0=0`$. If we maintain the value $`m^0=0`$, but use a constant value for $`G(T)=5.691\text{GeV}^2`$, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.631\text{GeV}`$, we find restoration of chiral symmetry at $`T_c=208\text{MeV}`$.

The calculations reported in Fig. 13 and 14 may also be made using our Gaussian cutoff, $`\text{exp}(\stackrel{}{k}^2/\alpha ^2)`$, with $`\alpha =0.605\text{GeV}`$. For example, we may consider the dashed curve of Fig. 14. If we use the Gaussian cutoff and use $`G=6.004\text{GeV}^2`$, instead of $`G=5.691\text{GeV}^2`$, we obtain a curve that is very close to the dashed curve of Fig. 14 for $`T>0.080\text{GeV}`$. However, the mass at $`T=0`$ is $`382\text{MeV}`$ instead of $`364\text{MeV}`$ which was the value obtained using the sharp cutoff of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.631\text{GeV}`$ and $`G=5.691\text{GeV}^2`$.

We have performed what are essentially parameter-free calculations of hadronic spectral functions and have computed the corresponding Euclidean-time correlation functions. The values of the coupling parameters, $`G_S`$ and $`G_V`$, were fixed in calculations of meson properties at $`T=0`$. We have used the temperature dependence, $`G(T)=G[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}0.17(T/T_c)]`$, which was introduced in earlier work in which we studied the (mesonic) confinement-deconfinement transition \[ 7 \]. We believe it is of interest to see that we obtain reasonable values for the Euclidean correlators. Of more importance, however, is our observation that we find some evidence for the temperature dependence of the NJL coupling parameters that we have used in other works. By analogy, we expect that the coupling parameters should also be density-dependent, and we have introduced such density dependence in earlier work \[ 13 \]. Density dependence of the coupling parameters may be particularly important, given the strong interest in diquark condensates and color superconductivity at high baryon density \[ 14 \].

## APPENDIX

For ease of reference, we present a discussion of our calculation of hadronic current correlators taken from Ref. \[ 6 \]. The procedure we adopt is based upon the real-time finite-temperature formalism, in which the imaginary part of the polarization function may be calculated. Then, the real part of the function is obtained using a dispersion relation. The result we need for this work has been already given in the work of Kobes and Semenoff \[ 15 \]. (In Ref. \[ 15 \] the quark momentum in Fig. 2 is $`k`$ and the antiquark momentum is $`kP`$. We will adopt that notation in this section for ease of reference to the results presented in Ref. \[ 15 \].) With reference to Eq. (5.4) of Ref. \[ 15 \], we write the imaginary part of the scalar polarization function as

$`\text{Im}J_S(\text{P}{}_{}{}^{2},T)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2N_c)\beta _Sϵ(\text{P}{}_{}{}^{0}){\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}}e^{\stackrel{}{k}{}_{}{}^{2}/\alpha ^2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{2E_1(k)2E_2(k)}}\right)`$ (A1)
$`\{(1n_1(k)n_2(k))\delta (\text{P}{}_{}{}^{0}E_1(k)E_2(k))`$
$`(n_1(k)n_2(k))\delta (\text{P}{}_{}{}^{0}+E_1(k)E_2(k))`$
$`(n_2(k)n_1(k))\delta (\text{P}{}_{}{}^{0}E_1(k)+E_2(k))`$
$`(1n_1(k)n_2(k))\delta (\text{P}{}_{}{}^{0}+E_1(k)+E_2(k))\}.`$
Here, $`E_1(k)=[\stackrel{}{k}{}_{}{}^{2}+m_1^2(T)]^{1/2}`$. Relative to Eq. (5.4) of Ref. \[ 15 \], we have changed the sign, removed a factor of $`g^2`$ and have included a statistical factor of $`2N_c`$, where the factor of 2 arises from the flavor trace. In addition, we have included a Gaussian regulator, $`\mathrm{exp}[\stackrel{}{k}{}_{}{}^{2}/\alpha ^2]`$, with $`\alpha =0.605`$ GeV, which is the same as that used in most of our applications of the NJL model in the calculation of meson properties. We also note that

$`n_1(k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta E_1(k)}+1}},`$ (A2)
and

$`n_2(k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta E_2(k)}+1}}.`$ (A3)
For the calculation of the imaginary part of the polarization function, we may put $`k^2=m_1^2(T)`$ and $`(kP)^2=m_2^2(T)`$, since in that calculation the quark and antiquark are on-mass-shell. In Eq. (A1) the factor $`\beta _S`$ arises from a trace involving Dirac matrices, such that

$`\beta _S`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}[(\text{ / }k+m_1)(\text{ / }k\text{ / }P+m_2)]`$ (A4)
$`=`$ $`2P^22(m_1+m_2)^2,`$ (A5)
where $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ depend upon temperature. In the frame where $`\stackrel{}{P}=0`$, and in the case $`m_1=m_2`$, we have $`\beta _S=2P_0^2(14m^2/P_0^2)`$. For the scalar case, with $`m_1=m_2`$, we find

$`\text{Im}J_S(P^2,T)={\displaystyle \frac{N_cP_0^2}{4\pi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2(T)}{P_0^2}}\right)^{3/2}e^{\stackrel{}{k}{}_{}{}^{2}/\alpha ^2}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}2n_1(k)],`$ (A6)
where

$`\stackrel{}{k}{}_{}{}^{2}={\displaystyle \frac{P_0^2}{4}}m^2(T).`$ (A7)
For pseudoscalar mesons, we replace $`\beta _S`$ by

$`\beta _P`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}[i\gamma _5(\text{ / }k+m_1)i\gamma _5(\text{ / }k\text{ / }P+m_2)]`$ (A8)
$`=`$ $`2P^22(m_1m_2)^2,`$ (A9)
which for $`m_1=m_2`$ is $`\beta _P=2P_0^2`$ in the frame where $`\stackrel{}{P}=0`$. We find, for the $`\pi `$ mesons,

$`\text{Im}J_P(P^2,T)={\displaystyle \frac{N_cP_0^2}{4\pi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2(T)}{P_0^2}}\right)^{1/2}e^{\stackrel{}{k}{}_{}{}^{2}/\alpha ^2}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}2n_1(k)],`$ (A10)
where $`\stackrel{}{k}{}_{}{}^{2}=P_0^2/4m_u^2(T)`$, as above. Thus, we see that, relative to the scalar case, the phase space factor has an exponent of 1/2 corresponding to a s-wave amplitude. For the scalars, the exponent of the phase-space factor is 3/2, as seen in Eq. (A6).

For a study of vector mesons we consider

$`\beta _{\mu \nu }^V=\text{Tr}[\gamma _\mu (\text{ / }k+m_1)\gamma _\nu (\text{ / }k\text{ / }P+m_2)],`$ (A11)
and calculate

$`g^{\mu \nu }\beta _{\mu \nu }^V=4[P^2m_1^2m_2^2+4m_1m_2],`$ (A12)
which, in the equal-mass case, is equal to $`4P_0^2+8m^2(T)`$, when $`m_1=m_2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}=0`$. This result will be needed when we calculate the correlator of vector currents in the next section. Note that, for the elevated temperatures considered in this work, $`m_u(T)=m_d(T)`$ is quite small, so that $`4P_0^2+8m_u^2(T)`$ can be approximated by $`4P_0^2`$, when we consider the vector current correlation functions. In that case, we have

$`\text{Im}J_V(P^2,T){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\text{Im}J_P(P^2,T).`$ (A13)
At this point it is useful to define functions that do not contain that Gaussian regulator:

$`\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P^2,T)={\displaystyle \frac{N_cP_0^2}{4\pi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2(T)}{P_0^2}}\right)^{1/2}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}2n_1(k)],`$ (A14)
and

$`\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{J}_V(P^2,T)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_cP_0^2}{4\pi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2(T)}{P_0^2}}\right)^{1/2}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}2n_1(k)],`$ (A15)
For the functions defined in Eq. (A14) and (A15) we need to use a twice-subtracted dispersion relation to obtain $`\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P^2,T)`$, or $`\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_V(P^2,T)`$. For example,

$`\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P^2,T)=\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(0,T)+{\displaystyle \frac{P^2}{P_0^2}}[\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P_0^2,T)\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(0,T)]+`$ (A16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{P^2(P^2P_0^2)}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{4m^2(T)}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(s,T)}{s(P^2s)(P_0^2s)}},`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2`$ can be quite large, since the integral over the imaginary part of the polarization function is now convergent. We may introduce $`\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P^2,T)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}_V(P^2,T)`$ as complex functions, since we now have both the real and imaginary parts of these functions. We note that the construction of either $`\text{Re}J_P(P^2,T)`$, or $`\text{Re}J_V(P^2,T)`$, by means of a dispersion relation does not require a subtraction. We use these functions to define the complex functions $`J_P(P^2,T)`$ and $`J_V(P^2,T)`$.

In order to make use of Eq. (A16), we need to specify $`\stackrel{~}{J}_P(0)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P_0^2)`$. We found it useful to take $`P_0^2=1.0`$ GeV<sup>2</sup> and to put $`\stackrel{~}{J}_P(0)=J_P(0)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P_0^2)=J_P(P_0^2)`$. The quantities $`\stackrel{~}{J}_V(0)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}_V(P_0^2)`$ are determined in an analogous function. This procedure in which we fix the behavior of a function such as $`\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_V(P^2)`$ or $`\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_V(P^2)`$ is quite analogous to the procedure used in Ref. \[ 16 \]. In that work we made use of dispersion relations to construct a continuous vector-isovector current correlation function which had the correct perturbative behavior for large $`P^2\mathrm{}`$ and also described that low-energy resonance present in the correlator due to the excitation of the $`\rho `$ meson. In Ref. \[ 16 \] the NJL model was shown to provide a quite satisfactory description of the low-energy resonant behavior of the vector-isovector correlation function.

We now consider the calculation of temperature-dependent hadronic current correlation functions. The general form of the correlator is a transform of a time-ordered product of currents,

$`iC(P^2,T)={\displaystyle d^4xe^{iPx}}<<T(j(x)j(0))>>,`$ (A17)
where the double bracket is a reminder that we are considering the finite temperature case.

For the study of pseudoscalar states, we may consider currents of the form $`j_{P,i}(x)=\stackrel{~}{q}(x)i\gamma _5\lambda ^iq(x)`$, where, in the case of the $`\pi `$ mesons, $`i=1,2`$ and $`3`$. For the study of scalar-isoscalar mesons, we introduce $`j_{S,i}(x)=\stackrel{~}{q}(x)\lambda ^iq(x)`$, where $`i=0`$ for the flavor-singlet current and $`i=8`$ for the flavor-octet current \[ 7 \].

In the case of the pseudoscalar-isovector mesons, the correlator may be expressed in terms of the basic vacuum polarization function of the NJL model, $`J_P(P^2,T)`$ \[ 11, 17, 18 \]. Thus,

$`C_P(P^2,T)=J_P(P^2,T){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1G_P(T)J_P(P^2,T)}},`$ (A18)
where $`G_P(T)`$ is the coupling constant appropriate for our study of $`\pi `$ mesons. We have found $`G_P(T)=13.49`$ GeV<sup>-2</sup> by fitting the pion mass in a calculation made at $`T=0`$, with $`m_u=m_d=0.364`$ GeV. The result given in Eq. (A18) is only expected to be useful for small $`P^2`$, since the Gaussian regulator strongly modifies the large $`P^2`$ behavior. Therefore, we suggest that the following form is useful, if we are to consider the larger values of $`P^2`$.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{C_P(P^2,T)}{P^2}}=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P^2,T)}{P^2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1G_P(T)J_P(P^2,T)}}.`$ (A19)
(As usual, we put $`\stackrel{}{P}=0`$.) This form has two important features. At large $`P_0^2`$, $`\text{Im}C_P(P_0,T)/P_0^2`$ is a constant, since $`\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P_0^2,T)`$ is proportional to $`P_0^2`$. Further, the denominator of Eq. (A19) goes to 1 for large $`P_0^2`$. On the other hand, at small $`P_0^2`$, the denominator is capable of describing resonant enhancement of the correlation function. As we will see, the results obtained when Eq. (A19) is used appear quite satisfactory. ( We may again refer to Ref. \[ 16 \], in which a similar approximation is described.)

For a study of the vector-isovector correlators, we introduce conserved vector currents $`j_{\mu ,i}(x)=\stackrel{~}{q}(x)\gamma _\mu \lambda _iq(x)`$ with i=1, 2 and 3. In this case we define

$`J_V^{\mu \nu }(P^2,T)=\left(g{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{P{}_{}{}^{\mu }P^\nu }{P^2}}\right)J_V(P^2,T)`$ (A20)
and

$`C_V^{\mu \nu }(P^2,T)=\left(g{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{P{}_{}{}^{\mu }P^\nu }{P^2}}\right)C_V(P^2,T),`$ (A21)
taking into account the fact that the current $`j_{\mu ,i}(x)`$ is conserved. We may then use the fact that

$`J_V(P^2,T)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g_{\mu \nu }J_V^{\mu \nu }(P^2,T)`$ (A22)
and

$`\text{Im}J_V(P^2,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{P_0^2+2m_u^2(T)}{4\pi }}\right]\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_u^2(T)}{P_0^2}}\right)^{1/2}e^{\stackrel{}{k}{}_{}{}^{2}/\alpha ^2}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}2n_1(k)]`$ (A23)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\text{Im}J_P(P^2,T).`$ (A24)
(See Eq. (A7) for the specification of $`k=|\stackrel{}{k}|`$.) We then have

$`C_V(P^2,T)=\stackrel{~}{J}_V(P^2,T){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1G_V(T)J_V(P^2,T)}},`$ (A25)
where we have introduced

$`\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{J}_V(P^2,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{P_0^2+2m_u^2(T)}{4\pi }}\right]\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_u^2(T)}{P_0^2}}\right)^{1/2}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}2n_1(k)]`$ (A26)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P^2,T).`$ (A27)
In the literature, $`\omega `$ is used instead of $`P_0`$ \[ 1-3 \]. We may define the spectral functions

$`\sigma _V(\omega ,T)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\text{Im}C_V(\omega ,T),`$ (A28)
and

$`\sigma _P(\omega ,T)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\text{Im}C_P(\omega ,T),`$ (A29)
Since different conventions are used in the literature \[ 1-3 \], we may use the notation $`\overline{\sigma }_P(\omega ,T)`$ and $`\overline{\sigma }_V(\omega ,T)`$ for the spectral functions given there. We have the following relations:

$`\overline{\sigma }_P(\omega ,T)=\sigma _P(\omega ,T),`$ (A30)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }_V(\omega ,T)}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\sigma _V(\omega ,T),`$ (A31)
where the factor 3/4 arises because, in Refs. \[ 1-3 \], there is a division by 4, while we have divided by 3, as in Eq. (A22).