text:
# Two flavors of dynamical quarks on anisotropic lattices

## I Introduction

In spite of recent progress in computer technology and numerical algorithms, extraction of continuum properties from lattice QCD remains to be challenging when dynamical quarks are included due to large computational demands. One of methods for alleviating the difficulty is to improve the lattice action for a faster approach to the continuum limit. This has enabled us to carry out the first systematic extrapolation to the chiral and continuum limits for the light hadron spectrum cppacs00 ; cppacs02 .

Another method which is effective for several quantities is to introduce a space-time anisotropy. In Ref. namekawa01 , we have shown that using anisotropic lattices with a larger temporal cutoff is efficient for reducing lattice artifacts in thermal QCD, and have carried out the first well-controlled continuum extrapolation of the equation of state in quenched QCD. In finite temperature QCD, anisotropic lattices have been employed in the quenched approximation also to study transport coefficients sakai00 , pole masses taro00 ; umeda01 , glueballs ishii02 , and spectral functions asakawa02 ; umeda02 , where anisotropy was introduced to obtain more data points for temporal correlation functions. At zero temperature, anisotropic lattices have been employed to study charmonium states klassen98 ; chen01 ; okamoto02 , glueballs morningstar99 , heavy hybrids manke99 ; harada02 , and also the pion scattering length liu02 .

In this paper, we calculate the anisotropy parameters for an improved full QCD action to contribute toward a systematic study of QCD with heavy quarks and at finite temperatures. The calculation of anisotropy parameters is not a simple task in full QCD because a couple of bare parameters have to be simultaneously adjusted to achieve a consistent renormalized anisotropy in physical observables for both quarks and gluons. This tuning of bare anisotropy parameters is called “calibration” hashimoto93 . We study two-flavor full QCD with an RG-improved gauge action and a clover-improved Wilson quark action, extending the combination of improved actions adopted by the CP-PACS Collaboration to anisotropic lattices. Carrying out simulations at several values of bare parameters, we perform the calibration to determine the bare anisotropy parameters for a given value of the renormalized anisotropy $`\xi =a_s/a_t`$ as functions of the gauge coupling and bare quark mass. We study the range of parameters corresponding to $`a_s0.28`$–0.16 fm for the spatial lattice spacing and $`m_{PS}/m_V0.6`$–0.9 for the ratio of pseudoscalar and vector meson masses. Based on our previous study of finite temperature QCD namekawa01 , we concentrate on the case $`\xi =2`$ in this paper.

Different choices of observables for the calibration will lead to $`O(a)`$ differences in the calibration results. We study this issue by comparing the results from two different observables — pseudoscalar and vector meson dispersion relations. We anticipate that the results of different calibrations will be useful for checking the stability of continuum extrapolations. As a test of the idea, we also perform a continuum extrapolation of the Sommer scale at $`\xi =2`$, by interpolating our measurement results to the calibrated points.

This paper is organized as follows: We define our anisotropic lattice action in Sec. II, and discuss our choice of $`\xi =2`$ and simulation parameters in Sec. III. The calibration procedure is described in Sec. IV. Results of two calibrations for $`\xi =2`$, using pseudoscalar and vector meson dispersion relations, are summarized in Sec. V. Finally, in Sect. VI, we interpolate the measurement results to $`\xi =2`$ to study basic properties of our lattices. We also test how the difference in the calibration affects physical observables. Sec. VII is devoted to conclusions and discussions. An appendix is added to compare our calibration procedure with another method based on the ratio of screening and temporal masses.

## II Anisotropic lattice action

We study full QCD with two flavors of degenerate light quarks. On isotropic lattices, we have made a series of systematic studies adopting a clover-improved quark action coupled with an RG-improved glue cppacs00 ; cppacs02 ; cppacs00PT ; cppacs01B ; cppacs01EOS ; cppacs01Topo ; cppacs03Flv . In these studies, the clover coefficient $`c_{SW}`$ was set to the tadpole- improved value using the plaquette in one-loop perturbation theory for the mean-field. This choice was based on the observations that the one-loop plaquette reproduces the actual plaquette expectation values within 8% for the range of parameters studied, and that the resulting value of the clover coefficient agrees well with actual one-loop value of it. This action was shown to give both a good rotational symmetry of the heavy quark potential and a small scale violations in the light hadron spectra at moderate lattice spacings comparative . At zero temperature, these good properties enabled us to carry out first systematic chiral and continuum extrapolations of light hadron spectra and light quark masses cppacs00 ; cppacs02 . At finite temperatures, this combination of actions was shown to reproduce the expected O(4) scaling around the two-flavor chiral transition point cppacs00PT ; tsukuba97 , and was adopted in the first systematic calculation of the equation of state in lattice QCD with Wilson-type quarks cppacs01EOS . Here, we extend the study to anisotropic lattices.

### II.1 RG-improved gauge action on anisotropic lattice

On isotropic lattices, the RG-improved gauge action by Iwasaki iwasaki85  consists of plaquettes and $`1\times 2`$ rectangular loops. Extending it to anisotropic lattices, the general form of the action is given by

$`S_G=\beta \{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _G}}{\displaystyle \underset{x,i>j}{}}\{c_0^sP_{ij}(x)+c_1^s(R_{ij}(x)+R_{ji}(x))\}`$
$`+\gamma _G{\displaystyle \underset{x,k}{}}(c_0^tP_{k4}(x)+c_1^tR_{k4}(x)+c_2^tR_{4k}(x))\},`$ (1)
where $`i`$, $`j`$, $`k`$ are for spatial directions and

$`P_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}ReTr\{U_\mu (x)U_\nu (x+\widehat{\mu })`$ (2)
$`\times U_\mu ^{}(x+\widehat{\nu })U_\nu ^{}(x)\},`$
$`R_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}ReTr\{U_\mu (x)U_\mu (x+\widehat{\mu })U_\nu (x+2\widehat{\mu })`$ (3)
$`\times U_\mu ^{}(x+\widehat{\mu }+\widehat{\nu })U_\mu ^{}(x+\widehat{\mu })U_\nu ^{}(x)\},`$
are plaquette and rectangular loop in the $`\mu `$-$`\nu `$ plane, respectively. The improvement coefficients $`c_i^{s/t}`$ satisfy the normalization conditions, $`c_0^s+8c_1^s=1`$ and $`c_0^t+4c_1^t+4c_2^t=1`$. The bare gauge coupling equals $`\beta =6/g^2`$, and $`\gamma _G`$ represents the bare anisotropy. We have three independent improvement parameters among $`c_i^{s/t}`$.

In principle, these improvement coefficients may have non-trivial $`\xi `$ dependences depending on the improvement conditions on the anisotropic lattice. In Ref. ejiri02 , we have repeated the improvement procedure of Iwasaki on anisotropic lattices, and found that, for small anisotropies $`\xi 1`$–4, the $`\xi `$-dependences in the improvement coefficients are weak, and a sufficient improvement is achieved just by fixing the coefficients to Iwasaki’s values for isotropic lattices, $`c_1^s=c_1^t=c_2^t=0.331`$. As explained in Sec. III, we are interested in the case $`\xi =2`$. Because $`\xi `$-dependences in the improvement coefficients require additional elaborations in numerical simulations, such as computation of $`\xi `$-derivative terms in the equation of state (EOS), we fix the improvement coefficients to their isotropic values in the following.

### II.2 Clover quark action on anisotropic lattice

We employ clover-improved Wilson quarks clover . On anisotropic lattices, the action is given by

$$S_F=\underset{x,y}{}\overline{q}(x)K(x,y)q(y),$$
(4)
$`K(x,y)=\delta _{x,y}`$
$`\kappa _t\left\{(1\gamma _4)U_4(x)\delta _{x+\widehat{4},y}+(1+\gamma _4)U_4^{}(x\widehat{4})\delta _{x\widehat{4},y}\right\}`$
$`\kappa _s{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left\{(r\gamma _i)U_i(x)\delta _{x+\widehat{i},y}+(r+\gamma _i)U_i^{}(x\widehat{i})\delta _{x\widehat{i},y}\right\}`$
$`\kappa _s\left\{c_t{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\sigma _{4i}F_{4i}(x)+rc_s{\displaystyle \underset{i>j}{}}\sigma _{ij}F_{ij}(x)\right\}\delta _{x,y}.`$ (5)
For the field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }`$, we use the standard clover-leaf definition. Following our previous studies at $`\xi =1`$, we apply a mean-field improvement for (4), $`U_i(x)U_i(x)/u_s`$ and $`U_4(x)U_4(x)/u_t`$, where $`u_s`$ and $`u_t`$ are mean links in the spatial and temporal directions. For the mean links, we adopt the value estimated from plaquette in one-loop perturbation theory as in our previous studies. At $`\xi =2`$, we obtain

$`W_{11}(ss)`$ $`=`$ $`11.154/\beta ,`$ (6)
$`W_{11}(st)`$ $`=`$ $`10.560/\beta ,`$ (7)
for spatial and temporal plaquettes. Therefore, we set $`u_s=(11.154/\beta )^{1/4}`$ for $`\xi =2`$. For the temporal meanfield, we adopt $`u_t=1`$ because a naively calculated value $`W_{11}(st)^{1/2}/W_{11}(ss)^{1/4}`$ exceeds 1 for $`\xi `$ $`>`$$``$1.6 at our values of $`\beta `$.

Following Refs. umeda01 ; taro00 , we set the spatial Wilson parameter to be $`r=1/\xi `$. In this case, the quark dispersion relation in physical units preserves the 4-dimensional rotation symmetry at the tree level, and the tree-level improvement coefficients are free from the terms linear in $`m_q`$ harada01 ; aoki01 ; okamoto02 . In a quenched study matsufuru01 , it was shown that the fermionic bare anisotropy parameter corresponding to a fixed $`\xi `$ is well fitted by a quadratic function of $`m_q`$ with this choice of $`r`$. With dynamical quarks, however, terms linear in $`m_q`$ may appear through quark loop corrections aoki01 .

The clover coefficients, $`c_s`$ and $`c_t`$, are functions of $`r`$. With our choice $`r=1/\xi `$, $`c_s`$ and $`c_t`$ are unity at the tree level and their mean-field improved values are given by

$$c_t=\frac{1}{u_su_t^2},c_s=\frac{1}{u_s^3}.$$
(8)
We define the bare anisotropy of the fermion field by

$$\gamma _F=\frac{\kappa _tu_t}{\kappa _su_s}.$$
(9)
The bare quark mass in units of $`a_s`$ is given by

$$m_q^0=\frac{1}{2\kappa _su_s}\gamma _F3r.$$
(10)
For later convenience, we define $`\kappa `$ which satisfy the same relation with $`m_q^0`$ as in the isotropic case:

$$\frac{1}{\kappa }=2(m_q^0+4)=\frac{1}{\kappa _su_s}2(\gamma _F+3r4).$$
(11)
We perform chiral extrapolations in terms of $`1/\kappa `$.

The relation $`r=1/\xi `$ suggests that spatial doublers may appear at large $`\xi `$. The free quark dispersion relation for our action is given by

$$\mathrm{cosh}E(\stackrel{}{p})=1+\frac{\overline{\stackrel{}{p}}^2+(\frac{m_q^0}{\gamma _F}+\frac{r}{2\gamma _F}\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}}^2)^2}{2(1+\frac{m_q^0}{\gamma _F}+\frac{r}{2\gamma _F}\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}}^2)},$$
(12)
where $`\overline{p_i}=(\mathrm{sin}p_i)/\gamma _F`$, $`\widehat{p_i}=2\mathrm{sin}(p_i/2)`$, and $`E`$ is in units of $`a_t`$ while $`p_i`$ is in units of $`a_s`$ matsufuru01 . In Fig. 1, we plot the energy $`E(\stackrel{}{p})/\xi `$ for $`\xi =1`$, 2 and 4 at $`m_q^0=0.1`$, 0.2 and 0.6, where $`\xi =\gamma _F`$ in this approximation. From this figure, we expect that doubler effects are weak at $`\xi =2`$ and $`m_q=(1/\kappa 1/\kappa _c)/2=0.07`$–0.8 we study (see Sec. VI).

## III Simulation parameters

In this paper, we focus on the case of the renormalized anisotropy $`\xi =2`$. We have shown for finite-temperature pure SU(3) gauge theory namekawa01  that this choice of $`\xi `$ is optimal to reduce scaling violations in equation of state both in the high temperature limit and at finite $`\beta `$; the latter is confirmed by a Monte Carlo simulation. It is straightforward to analyze the high temperature limit for full QCD. We have found that $`\xi =2`$ is optimal also with two flavors of dynamical quarks and improved glue.

We perform simulations at $`\beta =1.8`$, 1.9, 2.0, and 2.1 on $`8^3\times 24`$, $`8^3\times 24`$, $`10^3\times 30`$ and $`12^3\times 36`$ lattices, respectively. The lattice spacing is in the range $`a_s0.28`$–0.16 fm, and hence the spatial lattice size is fixed to be about 2 fm. See Sec. VI for details of the scale determination. At each $`\beta `$, six values of $`\kappa `$, corresponding to $`m_{PS}/m_V0.6`$, 0.7, 0.8, 0.85, 0.9, and 0.92, are simulated. To study lattice volume effects, we also perform additional simulations on $`8^3\times 24`$ and $`12^3\times 36`$ lattices at $`\beta =2.0`$. Our simulation parameters are summarized in Table 1.

We generate gauge configurations by the HMC algorithm with an even-odd preconditioned BiCGStab quark solver cppacs02 . The molecular dynamics time step $`dt`$ is adjusted to achieve an acceptance rate of about 70–80%. Measurements are performed at every 5 trajectories over 1000–1700 trajectories after 300 thermalization trajectories, where the length of one trajectory is set to unity. Statistical errors of the observables are estimated by the jackknife method at each $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$ with bins of 50 trajectories.

## IV Calibration procedure

At each $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$, we have to tune the bare anisotropy parameters $`\gamma _F`$ and $`\gamma _G`$ such that the renormalized anisotropies $`\xi _F`$ and $`\xi _G`$ for fermionic and gluonic observables coincide with each other:

$$\xi _F(\gamma _F,\gamma _G;\beta ,\kappa )=\xi _G(\gamma _F,\gamma _G;\beta ,\kappa )=\xi .$$
(13)
As discussed in the previous section, we study the case $`\xi =2`$. For this purpose, we measure $`\xi _F`$ and $`\xi _G`$ at several values of $`(\gamma _F,\gamma _G)`$ at fixed $`\kappa `$ and $`\beta `$, and determine the point where Eq. (13) is satisfied by an interpolation in $`\gamma _F`$ and $`\gamma _G`$. Let us denote the resulting values of $`\gamma _F`$ and $`\gamma _G`$ for $`\xi =2`$ as $`\gamma _F^{}(\beta ,\kappa )`$ and $`\gamma _G^{}(\beta ,\kappa )`$. Finally, we parametrize $`\gamma _F^{}`$ and $`\gamma _G^{}`$ as functions of $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$ for use in future studies of heavy quark systems and thermodynamics of QCD.

We measure $`\xi _G`$ by Klassen’s method klassen98 :

$$R_s(x,y)=R_t(x,\xi _Gy),$$
(14)
where

$`R_s(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{W_{ss}(x,y)}{W_{ss}(x+1,y)}},`$ (15)
$`R_t(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{W_{st}(x,t)}{W_{st}(x+1,t)}},`$ (16)
are the ratios of spatial-spatial and spatial-temporal Wilson loops, $`W_{ss}(x,y)`$ and $`W_{st}(x,t)`$, respectively. We determine $`\xi _G`$ by minimizing

$$L(\xi _G)=\underset{x,y}{}\frac{(R_s(x,y)R_t(x,\xi _Gy))^2}{(\mathrm{\Delta }R_s)^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }R_t)^2},$$
(17)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_t`$ the statistical errors of $`R_s`$ and $`R_t`$. To avoid short range lattice artifacts, $`x`$ and $`y`$ should not be too small. Practical range of $`x`$ and $`y`$ will be discussed later.

For $`\xi _F`$ we use the relativistic dispersion relation of mesons:

$$E(\stackrel{}{p})^2=m^2+\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{\xi _F^2}+O(\stackrel{}{p}^4),$$
(18)
where $`E`$ and $`m`$ are the energy and mass in units of $`a_t`$, and $`\stackrel{}{p}=2\pi \stackrel{}{n}/L_s`$, with $`L_s`$ the spatial lattice size, is the spatial momentum in units of $`a_s`$. We evaluate $`E`$ and $`m`$ from a cosh fit of the meson two-point correlation function,

$`C(\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{x}}{}}O(\stackrel{}{x},t)O^{}(\stackrel{}{0},0)e^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}}`$ (19)
$`O(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{z}}{}}\varphi (\stackrel{}{y})\varphi ^{}(\stackrel{}{z})\overline{q}(\stackrel{}{x}+\stackrel{}{y},t)\mathrm{\Gamma }q(\stackrel{}{x}+\stackrel{}{z},t)`$ (20)
In this paper, we study pseudoscalar (PS) and vector (V) mesons consisting of sea quarks only: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _5`$ for PS and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _i`$ for V. Quark fields are smeared by a function $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})`$ to enhance ground state signals at short distances. For the “smeared” quark field, we adopt an exponential smearing function of form

$`\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})=a\mathrm{exp}(p|\stackrel{}{x}|)\mathrm{for}\stackrel{}{x}0,\varphi (\stackrel{}{0})=1,`$ (21)
where the coefficients $`a`$ and $`p`$ are adopted from a previous study cppacs02 . The “point” quark field corresponds to $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})=\delta _{\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{0}}`$. In our calculation of meson two-point function, the sink operator is always the point-point type, while, for the source operator, we study point-point, point-smeared and smeared-smeared cases. We find that the smear-smear source operator leads to the earliest plateau with small errors. Therefore, we adopt the smear-smear source operator.

In principle, we may adopt different observables to define the renormalized anisotropies. Away from the continuum limit, different choices will lead to $`O(a)`$ differences in the calibration results. To study this problem, we compare the calibration results using $`\xi _F`$ from PS and V meson dispersion relations. We denote these results for the calibrated bare anisotropies as $`(\gamma _F^{}(PS),\gamma _G^{}(PS))`$ and $`(\gamma _F^{}(V),\gamma _G^{}(V))`$, respectively. In Sec. V.3, we show that they tend to converge together toward the continuum limit. In future applications of the present work, different sets of $`(\gamma _F^{},\gamma _G^{})`$ will be useful for estimating systematic errors due to the continuum extrapolation, in complicated physical observables, such as the equation of state.

In a previous study of quenched QCD taro00 , the ratio of temporal and screening masses of the PS meson was used to determine $`\xi _F`$. We study the difference between our procedure and the mass ratio method in Appendix A. We find that both methods give consistent values of $`\xi _F`$ when the quarks are not too heavy \[$`m_{PS}/m_V`$ $`<`$$``$0.75 (0.8) at $`\beta `$ $`>`$$``$2.0 (2.1)\].

## V Calibration results

### V.1 $`\xi _G`$ from matching of Wilson loop ratios

We determine the renormalized gauge anisotropy $`\xi _G`$ by minimizing the function $`L(\xi _G)`$ defined by Eq. (17). We interpolate $`R_t(x,t)`$ by a cubic spline in terms of $`t`$. To remove short range lattice artifacts, we evaluate $`L(\xi _G)`$ with $`x`$ and $`y`$ which satisfy $`x\times yM`$ and examine the $`M`$ dependence. The upper limit on $`x`$ and $`y`$ is set by requiring that the statistical error does not exceed the central value for the Wilson loop ratio. Varying the upper limit hardly changes results for $`\xi _G`$. Filled symbols in Fig. 2 show typical results of $`\xi _G`$ as a function of $`M=\mathrm{min}(x\times y)`$. We find that, at this simulation point, $`\xi _G`$ is reasonably stable when $`x\times y`$ is larger than about 4 .

Since the condition $`x\times yM`$ does not exclude small $`x`$ or $`y`$, which can be an additional origin of short distance effects, we study whether $`\xi _G`$ are affected by small values of $`x`$ or $`y`$ by removing them. The results of $`\xi _G`$ using $`L(\xi _G)`$ without data at $`y=1`$ are plotted with open symbols in Fig. 2. We find that, although clear deviations from the filled symbols are observed at small $`M`$, the effects of $`y=1`$ data are within 1% at $`M>4`$ where $`\xi _G`$ becomes stable. Therefore, placing a condition on $`\mathrm{min}(x\times y)`$ is sufficient to obtain a stable value for $`\xi _G`$. Similar results are obtained at other simulation points.

Results obtained on different lattice volumes ($`8^3\times 24`$, $`10^3\times 30`$ and $`12^2\times 36`$) are also shown in Fig. 2. With our lattices, no finite volume effects are visible in the values of $`\xi _G`$.

From these studies, we adopt $`\mathrm{min}(x\times y)=3`$, 3, 4, and 5 at $`\beta =1.8`$, 1.9, 2.0 and 2.1, respectively, in the subsequent analyses.

### V.2 $`\xi _F`$ from meson dispersion relations

We determine the renormalized quark anisotropy $`\xi _F`$ from the meson dispersion relation. We calculate the meson energy $`E(\stackrel{}{p})`$ at the spatial momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}=2\pi \stackrel{}{n}/L_s`$ with $`\stackrel{}{n}=(0,0,0)`$, (1,0,0), (1,1,0), (1,1,1), and their permutations. In Fig. 3 we plot typical data for effective energy defined by

$$\frac{C(\stackrel{}{p},t)}{C(\stackrel{}{p},t+1)}=\frac{\mathrm{cosh}[E_{\mathrm{eff}}(\stackrel{}{p},t)(N_t/2t)]}{\mathrm{cosh}[E_{\mathrm{eff}}(\stackrel{}{p},t)(N_t/2t1)]}.$$
(22)
obtained from the smear-smear correlators. Typical results for the energy $`E(\stackrel{}{p})`$ are shown in Fig. 4.

Using data at $`\stackrel{}{n}=(0,0,0)`$, (1,0,0) and its permutations, we fit $`E(\stackrel{}{p})`$ with the leading formula $`E(\stackrel{}{p})^2=m^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2/\xi _F^2`$ to determine $`\xi _F`$. The fits are shown by dotted lines in Fig. 4. In Fig. 5, data obtained on $`8^3\times 24`$ and $`12^2\times 36`$ lattices are compared with the fit results on the $`10^3\times 30`$ lattice. We find that the data are well explained by the fit results. Indeed, the slope obtained for the three lattice sizes are consistent: $`\xi _F=2.044(59)`$, 2.020(44) and 2.012(39) on $`8^3\times 24`$, $`10^3\times 30`$ and $`12^2\times 36`$ lattices, respectively. This confirms that the spatial lattice size $`>`$$``$1.6 fm is sufficiently large to suppress finite volume effects in $`\xi _F`$ in the range of quark masses we study.

### V.3 Bare anisotropies at $`\xi =2`$ ($`\gamma _G^{}`$ and $`\gamma _F^{}`$)

Figures 69 show typical results for bare anisotropies at each $`\beta `$, obtained at the third and fifth heaviest quark masses ($`m_{PS}/m_V0.85`$ and 0.70). We find that, for the range of parameters we study, we can fit the data assuming an ansatz linear in $`\gamma _F`$ and $`\gamma _G`$:

$`\xi _F`$ $`=`$ $`a_F+b_F\gamma _F+c_F\gamma _G,`$ (23)
$`\xi _G`$ $`=`$ $`a_G+b_G\gamma _F+c_G\gamma _G.`$ (24)
Results of the least $`\chi ^2`$ fits are also shown in Figs. 69.

From the condition $`\xi _F(\gamma _F^{},\gamma _G^{})=\xi _G(\gamma _F^{},\gamma _G^{})=2`$, we obtain $`\gamma _F^{}`$ and $`\gamma _G^{}`$ for $`\xi =2`$ as functions of the coefficients, $`a_F,\mathrm{},c_G`$. We determine their errors using the error propagation formula where the errors for $`a_F,\mathrm{},c_G`$ are estimated from the error matrix of the least $`\chi ^2`$ fits for $`\xi _F`$ and $`\xi _G`$. The results are summarized in Table 2.

To confirm the magnitude of errors, we study $`\chi _{total}^2/N_{df}(\chi _{F;2}^2+\chi _{G;2}^2)/2N_{df}`$, as a function of $`\gamma _F`$ and $`\gamma _G`$, where $`\chi _{F/G;2}^2`$ is the $`\chi ^2`$ value for a fit of $`\xi _{F/G}(\gamma _F^{},\gamma _G^{})`$ data to $`\xi _{F/G}=2+b(\gamma _F^{}\gamma _F)+c(\gamma _G^{}\gamma _G)`$ for given values of $`(\gamma _F,\gamma _G)`$. This quantity measures to which extent $`\xi =2`$ is achieved by Wilson loops and the meson correlation function at $`(\gamma _F,\gamma _G)`$. The minimum of $`\chi _{total}^2/N_{df}`$ locates at $`(\gamma _F^{},\gamma _G^{})`$. A typical result is plotted in Fig. 10. We find that errors estimated from a unit increase of $`\chi _{total}^2/N_{df}`$ are consistent with those listed in Table 2.

In later applications, it will be convenient to parametrize $`\gamma _F^{}`$ and $`\gamma _G^{}`$ as functions of $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$. Figures 11 and 12 show the parameter dependence of $`\gamma _F^{}`$ and $`\gamma _G^{}`$. We adopt the general quadratic ansatz in $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$,

$`\gamma _F^{}`$ $`=`$ $`A_F+B_F\beta ^{}+C_F\beta ^2`$ (25)
$`+D_F\beta ^{}\kappa ^{}+E_F\kappa ^{}+F_F\kappa ^2,`$
$`\gamma _G^{}`$ $`=`$ $`A_G+B_G\beta ^{}+C_G\beta ^2`$ (26)
$`+D_G\beta ^{}\kappa ^{}+E_G\kappa ^{}+F_G\kappa ^2,`$
where $`\beta ^{}=\beta 2.0`$ and $`\kappa ^{}=\kappa 0.12`$. For $`\gamma _F^{}`$(PS) and $`\gamma _G^{}`$(PS), we find

$`A_F`$ $`=`$ $`1.9097(41),B_F=0.746(38),`$
$`C_F`$ $`=`$ $`0.04(25),D_F=13.9(4.1),`$
$`E_F`$ $`=`$ $`20.14(75),F_F=1.(83.),`$ (27)
$`A_G`$ $`=`$ $`1.8210(28),B_G=0.435(22),`$
$`C_G`$ $`=`$ $`0.24(17),D_G=3.2(2.9),`$
$`E_G`$ $`=`$ $`1.69(44),F_G=69.(57.),`$ (28)
with $`\chi ^2/N_{df}=38.0/17`$ and $`\chi ^2/N_{df}=19.2/17`$, and, for $`\gamma _F^{}`$(V) and $`\gamma _G^{}`$(V),

$`A_F`$ $`=`$ $`1.8434(48),B_F=1.204(46),`$
$`C_F`$ $`=`$ $`0.93(29),D_F=21.9(4.7),`$
$`E_F`$ $`=`$ $`25.94(97),F_F=488.(92.),`$ (29)
$`A_G`$ $`=`$ $`1.8311(29),B_G=0.348(22),`$
$`C_G`$ $`=`$ $`0.14(20),D_G=0.5(2.9),`$
$`E_G`$ $`=`$ $`1.19(47),F_G=61.(58.),`$ (30)
with $`\chi ^2/N_{df}=76.0/17`$ and $`\chi ^2/N_{df}=14.6/17`$, using the values of $`\gamma _{F/G}^{}`$ and their errors listed in Table. 2. The errors for the coefficients are estimated from the $`\chi ^2`$ error matrix. These fits are shown in Figs. 11 and 12 by dotted lines.

In Fig. 13, we plot $`\gamma _F^{}`$ as a function of the dimensionless quark mass $`m_q=(1/\kappa 1/\kappa _c)/2`$ using $`\kappa _c`$ determined in Sec. VI. Although the range of $`m_q`$ is not quite close to the chiral limit, our values of $`\gamma _F^{}`$ suggest a strong linear dependence in $`m_q`$. This result is in clear contrast to the case of quenched QCD in which $`\gamma _F^{}`$ is well fitted by a quadratic ansatz in $`m_q`$ motivated from a tree level expression of $`\gamma _F^{}`$ matsufuru01 . As mentioned in Sec. II.2, we expect linear corrections from higher order quark loops even if the linear terms are removed at tree level aoki01 . Our result provides us with an example which confirms this expectation.

Finally, we study the $`O(a)`$ differences among the calibration results using PS and V mesons. We plot relative differences between $`\gamma _F^{}(\mathrm{PS})`$ and $`\gamma _F^{}(\mathrm{V})`$, and between $`\gamma _G^{}(\mathrm{PS})`$ and $`\gamma _G^{}(\mathrm{V})`$, in Fig. 14 as functions of $`\beta `$ and $`1/\kappa `$. Errors are estimated neglecting the correlation between PS and V determinations. We find that the differences tend to vanish as $`\beta `$ is increased. At $`\beta 2.0`$, the differences are less than 5% for $`\gamma _F^{}`$ and 1% for $`\gamma _G^{}`$.

## VI Physical quantities at $`\xi =2`$

In this section, we interpolate the measurement results to the calibration points corresponding to $`\xi =2`$ to estimate the scale and several other basic properties of our lattice. We also test the effects of the two calibration results using PS and V meson dispersion relations on the continuum extrapolation of physical quantities.

For the interpolations to $`(\gamma _F^{},\gamma _G^{})`$ at each $`(\beta ,\kappa )`$, we adopt a linear ansatz

$$y=a+b\gamma _G+c\gamma _F$$
(31)
when the range of $`\gamma _F`$ is less than 0.3. When $`\mathrm{max}(\gamma _F)\mathrm{min}(\gamma _F)0.3`$, we adopt a quadratic ansatz

$$y=a+b\gamma _G+c\gamma _F+d\gamma _F^2,$$
(32)
because, in this case, the linear ansatz sometimes fails to explain the data ($`\chi ^2/N_{df}O(10)`$$`O(100)`$). We find that terms quadratic in $`\gamma _G`$ do not improve the fits. We confirm that this quadratic ansatz leads to a result consistent with the linear ansatz if $`\mathrm{max}(\gamma _F)\mathrm{min}(\gamma _F)<0.3`$.

Several physical quantities thus interpolated to $`\xi =2`$ are summarized in Table. 3, where the results from the quadratic ansatz (32) are marked by “\*” on $`\kappa `$. The errors are estimated by quadratically averaging over the contributions from the $`\chi ^2`$ error matrix for the fits (31) or (32), and from the errors for $`\gamma _F^{}`$ and $`\gamma _G^{}`$. Results adopting two alternative choices for the $`\xi =2`$ point — $`\gamma _{F/G}^{}`$(PS) from the pseudo-scalar dispersion relation and $`\gamma _{F/G}^{}`$(V) from the vector dispersion relation — are labeled by (PS) and (V).

### VI.1 Plaquette

Figure 15 shows the plaquette expectation values $`W_{11}(ss)`$ and $`W_{11}(st)`$ at $`\xi =2`$ adopting $`\gamma _{F/G}^{}`$(PS). Results adopting $`\gamma _{F/G}^{}`$(V) are similar. As a reference point, plaquette values on an isotropic lattice using the same action are also plotted cppacs02 . Different points at the same $`\beta `$ with the same symbol represent the results obtained at different $`\kappa `$.

Numerical results of plaquettes are compared with their 1-loop values at $`\xi =2`$, Eqs. (6) and (7), shown by dashed lines in the Figure. For $`\beta `$ we adopt the bare value. We find that, as in the case of isotropic lattices, the plaquettes agree with the perturbative calculation within about 10% at this value of $`\beta `$. This confirms our choice of the clover coefficients $`c_t`$ and $`c_s`$ to this accuracy.

### VI.2 Light meson spectrum and the lattice scale

In Fig. 16, we summarize the values of $`m_{PS}^2`$ at $`\xi =2`$ adopting $`\gamma _{F/G}^{}`$(PS), as a function of $`1/\kappa `$. Carrying out chiral extrapolations in which the lightest four points are fitted to a quadratic ansatz, we obtain the chiral point $`\kappa _c`$(PS) listed in Table 4. The first errors are statistical, while the second ones are systematic errors estimated from the difference with the results of linear fits to the lightest three points. The values of $`\kappa _c`$(V) are obtained similarly, adopting $`\gamma _{F/G}^{}`$(V) as the point for $`\xi =2`$. We find that $`\kappa _c`$(PS) and $`\kappa _c`$(V) are consistent with each other within the present statistical accuracy.

We determine the scale of our lattices from the $`\rho `$ meson mass $`m_\rho =771.1`$ MeV at the physical point $`m_{PS}/m_V=m_\pi /m_\rho =135.0/771.1`$. Figure 17 shows $`m_V`$ as a function of $`m_{PS}^2`$ at $`\gamma _{F/G}^{}`$(PS) and $`\gamma _{F/G}^{}`$(V). We find that the masses at $`\gamma _{F/G}^{}`$(PS) and $`\gamma _{F/G}^{}`$(V) are slightly different on coarse lattices. The difference rapidly decreases with increasing $`\beta `$.

Extrapolation to the physical point is done adopting a quadratic ansatz to the lightest four data points at each $`\beta `$. We note that, with the present statistics, two results of $`m_V`$ at $`\gamma _{F/G}^{}`$(PS) and $`\gamma _{F/G}^{}`$(V), extrapolated to the physical point, are consistent with each other already on the coarsest lattice. High statistics simulations directly at $`\gamma _{F/G}^{}`$(PS) and $`\gamma _{F/G}^{}`$(V) may resolve the difference at the physical point.

The resulting lattice scale is summarized in Table 5. Systematic errors (second errors) in the table are estimated from a comparison with linear fits using the lightest three points.

### VI.3 Static quark potential and Sommer scale

We extract the static quark potential $`V(r)`$ from a fit

$$W(r,t)=C(r)\mathrm{exp}[V(r)t],$$
(33)
to temporal Wilson loops. In order to enhance the overlap $`C(r)`$ with the ground state, we smear spatial links bali92 . We fit the data at $`t0.450.90`$ fm where a large overlap is observed. As in previous studies on isotropic lattices, we find no apparent string breaking effects in $`V(r)`$. Therefore, we fit the potential with

$$V(r)=A+\frac{\alpha }{r}+\sigma r.$$
(34)
for the range $`r0.351.5`$ fm. Parameters for the potential calculations are summarized in Table 6.

With (34), the Sommer scale $`r_0`$ sommer82  defined by

$$r_0^2\frac{dV(r)}{dr}|_{r=r_0}=1.65$$
(35)
is given by

$$\frac{r_0}{a_s}=\sqrt{\frac{1.65+\alpha \xi }{\sigma \xi }}.$$
(36)
Results of $`r_0/a_s`$ interpolated to $`\xi =2`$ are listed in Table 3 and shown in Fig. 18. Extrapolating to the physical point, we obtain the values summarized in Table 7, where the central values are from quadratic fits in $`m_{PS}^2`$ using the lightest four $`\kappa `$’s and the systematic errors are estimated from the difference with a linear fit using the lightest three $`\kappa `$’s.

The Sommer scale at $`m_{PS}/m_V=0.7`$, 0.6 and 0.175 (the physical point) from a quadratic fit is plotted in Fig. 19 as a function of the lattice spacing. We find that the difference between the calibrations using the PS and V meson dispersion relations becomes smaller toward the continuum limit. For the Sommer scale at the physical point, a naive linear extrapolation to the continuum limit gives $`r_0=0.597`$(24)($`{}_{14}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+52}`$) and 0.612(33)($`{}_{37}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+79}`$) fm for $`\gamma _{F/G}^{}`$ using the PS and V meson dispersion relations, respectively. The systematic errors are estimated comparing the results of various combinations of chiral extrapolations (linear and quadratic fits for $`m_V`$ and $`r_0`$). We find that the results using $`\gamma _{F/G}^{}`$(PS) and $`\gamma _{F/G}^{}`$(V) are consistent in the continuum limit within the statistical errors. A constrained fit requiring the same continuum value, as shown in Fig. 20, leads to $`r_0=0.603(19)(_{22}^{+60})`$ fm, where the statistical error was estimated neglecting the correlation between the PS and V results and the systematic error was estimated from the results of constrained fits using various combinations of chiral extrapolations for $`m_V`$ and $`r_0`$.

### VI.4 Beta functions

Finally we attempt a rough estimation of beta functions

$$a_s\frac{\kappa }{a_s}|_{\frac{m_{PS}}{m_V}},a_s\frac{\beta }{a_s}|_{\frac{m_{PS}}{m_V}}$$
(37)
along lines of constant physics defined by $`m_{PS}/m_V=`$ constant. These quantities are required in a calculation of the equation of state in thermal QCD cppacs01EOS . We calculate the beta functions by

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\beta }{(m_Va_t)}& \frac{\kappa }{(m_Va_t)}\\ \frac{\beta }{(m_{PS}/m_V)}& \frac{\kappa }{(m_{PS}/m_V)}\end{array}\right)`$ (40)
$`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(m_Va_t)}{\beta }& \frac{(m_{PS}/m_V)}{\beta }\\ \frac{(m_Va_t)}{\kappa }& \frac{(m_{PS}/m_V)}{\kappa }\end{array}\right)^1`$ (43)
using the data for $`m_{PS}`$ and $`m_V`$ listed in Table 3. In Ref. cppacs01EOS , a slightly different method was adopted because the matrix in the right hand side of (43) sometimes becomes almost singular in the large quark mass region. Since quarks are not quite heavy in this study, we adopt the simpler method using (43). We fit $`m_{PS}`$ and $`m_V`$ to the general quadratic ansatz in $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$. Because the data noticeably deviates from the quadratic form when we include all values of $`\kappa `$, we restrict ourselves to three $`\kappa `$’s around the target $`m_{PS}/m_V`$ in the fit, while all four $`\beta `$’s are included. Our estimates for the beta functions are summarized in Figs. 21 and 22.

## VII Conclusions

In this article we initiated a systematic study of two-flavor full QCD on anisotropic lattices. We have determined, for the clover-improved Wilson quarks coupled to an RG-improved glue, the bare anisotropy parameters which realize a consistent renormalized anisotropy $`\xi =2`$ in both quark and gauge sectors. In the quark sector we employed both pseudo scalar and vector meson channels for calibration. The results for the bare anisotropy parameters are summarized in Eqs. (25)–(30) as functions of $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$ for the range $`a_s0.28`$–0.16 fm and $`m_{PS}/m_V0.6`$–0.9. The difference between the two calibration methods should be $`O(a)`$. We confirmed that the difference in the bare anisotropy parameters actually vanishes toward the continuum limit.

We have also attempted to calculate some basic quantities using data measured in the runs made for the calibration and interpolating them to the point corresponding to $`\xi =2`$. Although errors from interpolations are introduced, this enabled us to carry out an initial determination of the lattice scale and beta functions. For the Sommer scale $`r_0`$, we found that $`r_0`$ from different calibration methods led to a consistent value in the continuum limit.

We wish to apply our results to study of heavy quarks and thermal QCD, in which simulations can be directly made with $`\xi =2`$ anisotropic lattices using the parametrizations Eqs. (25)–(30). We hope to report on such studies in the near future.

This work is in part supported by the Large-Scale Numerical Simulation Project of the Science Information Processing Center (S.I.P.C) of the University of Tsukuba and by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research by the ministry of Education (Nos. 12304011, 12640253, 12740133, 13640259, 13640260, 13135204, 14046202, 11640294). Simulations are carried out on Fujitsu VPP5000 at S.I.P.C.

## Appendix A: $`\xi _F`$ from the ratio of screening and temporal masses

In this paper, we adopt the dispersion relation for mesons for defining the fermionic anisotropy $`\xi _F`$. An alternative definition of $`\xi _F`$ is given by the ratio of the masses measures in a spatial direction (screening mass $`m_s`$) and the temporal direction (temporal mass $`m_t`$),

$$\xi _F^{\mathrm{mass}\mathrm{ratio}}=m_s/m_t,$$
(44)
as adopted in a quenched study for PS mesons taro00 . For clarity, we denote $`\xi _F`$ defined by (18) using the dispersion relation as $`\xi _F^{\mathrm{disp}.}`$ in this appendix.

A disadvantage of the mass ratio method is that, to obtain reliable values of $`m_s`$ and $`m_t`$ suppressing contamination of excited states, we need to prepare well-tuned smeared sources both in the spatial and temporal directions, and/or carry out multi-pole fits, on sufficiently large lattices. In this paper, because we do not have propagators with temporally smeared sources, we study spatial propagators with point-point source and sink. We find that, when quarks are light, the effective mass of the spatial PS meson correlator does not show a clear plateau, and sometimes shows a decreasing tendency even at the maximum distance $`x=N_s/21`$. This means that our spatial lattice sizes 8–12 may not be large enough to suppress excited states. Unfortunately, the number of data points is also not sufficient to attempt a multi-pole fit. Therefore, in the following, we just adopt the value of effective mass at $`x=N_s/21`$ for $`m_s`$. Strictly speaking, this value gives an upper bound of $`m_s`$. Therefore, the resulting $`\xi _F^{\mathrm{mass}\mathrm{ratio}}`$ may be larger than the true value when quarks are light.

Because our temporal lattice sizes are sufficiently large, we do not encounter a similar problem in the calculations of $`m_t`$ and $`\xi _F^{\mathrm{disp}.}`$.

Figure 23 shows the difference of the two fermionic anisotropies $`\xi _F^{\mathrm{mass}\mathrm{ratio}}(\mathrm{PS})\xi _F^{\mathrm{disp}.}`$(PS) as a function of $`m_{PS}/m_V`$ at $`\beta =1.9`$, 2.0 and 2.1. We find that the difference is consistent with zero when $`m_{PS}/m_V`$ is small. A slight overshooting at $`m_{PS}/m_V`$ $`<`$$``$0.7 may be understood by the fact that our $`\xi _F^{\mathrm{mass}\mathrm{ratio}}`$ is an upper bound for the true value as discussed above. We also find that the difference at large quark masses decreases toward the continuum limit. At $`\beta `$ $`>`$$``$2.0 (2.1), two methods are consistent with each other at $`m_{PS}/m_V`$ $`<`$$``$0.75 (0.8).


format: text

text:
# String theory and the mapping of gravity into gauge theory

## I Introduction

One of the interesting aspects of modern string theory is that it enables the conjecturing of links of a deep and profound nature, between seemingly unrelated field theories.

Here the string relations, which factorizes any $`N`$ point scattering amplitude of a closed string mode into a product of $`N`$ point scattering amplitudes of left-right propagating modes of open strings, will be used to link gravity and gauge theory. The open-closed string relations discussed here are the Kawai-Lewellen-Tye relations KLT . As will be observed they impose a very non-trivial relationship between the coefficients of on one side the generic general relativity effective Lagrangian, and on the other side the general effective non-abelian Yang-Mills massless vector field Lagrangian. The lowest order terms were discussed previously in Bern3 .

Gravity and gauge theories are two fundamental theories in the understanding of high energy physics, both based on the principles of local gauge invariance, but despite that they have rather dissimilar field dynamics. While general relativity is only renormalizable in an effective manner Weinberg , including at each loop order new invariant field operators into the theory, a non-abelian Yang-Mills gauge theory is a completely renormalizable theory in four dimensions. Besides that, the theory of general relativity, being an infrared safe theory, does not share the UV asymptotic freedom associated with non-abelian Yang-Mills gauge theories. The KLT connections impose therefore a mysterious relationship between rather incongruent theories.

The KLT-relations can directly be used as an efficient way of calculating $`N`$ point gravity amplitudes from $`N`$ point gauge amplitudes at tree level Berends . By $`D`$-dimensional unitary cuts of loop diagrams, i.e. using the analytic properties of the S-matrix, also gravity loop amplitudes can be related to gauge theory ones, through the KLT-relations Bern11 ; Bern1 ; Bern2 . See also Bern0 ; Dunbar . For a recent detailed review of the applications of the KLT-relations, see Bern2b . The KLT-relations do not hold only for the pure fields of the two theories, but also in the presence of matter, as shown in Bern4 .

Evidently this emphasizes that the KLT-relations are a rather useful and labor conserving tool, which can be used in calculations of scattering amplitudes in gravity. This has been used, for example, to demonstrate that $`N=8`$ supergravity is less divergent in the ultraviolet than had been appreciated Bern1 . However the intriguing question naturally arises, if the KLT-relations have a role, in a deeper interplay between general relativity and and non-abelian Yang-Mills theory.

The KLT-relations provide a hope for a more general link between the two theories, than just for on-shell tree amplitudes. This can compliment the Maldecena conjecture Maldecena  which provides a relation between strong and weak phases of the theories. A natural place to begin such an investigation of the KLT-relations is obviously at the Lagrangian level. However comparison of the effective Lagrangians of the two theories, yields no immediate factorization of gravity into a “square” of an Yang-Mills theory 222Some initial steps in the quest for a factorization at the Lagrangian level has been made by Siegel . An obvious complication of such investigations is, that the S-matrix scattering amplitudes which go into the KLT-relations are on-shell. Furthermore, string theory does not contain a Lagrangian formalism. In Bern3  it was shown that the tree level properly regularized gravity vertices is reconstructible from the Yang-Mills amplitudes for certain choices of the non-abelian gauge.

In this letter the two field theories will be compared at the Lagrangian level. Through the comparison of the scattering amplitudes and use of the KLT-relations, it will be seen how the coefficients of the two effective Lagrangians have to be related. This does not solve the fundamental problem of understanding the interplay between gravity and gauge theory, seemingly given by the KLT-relations, but it provide means for further investigations, and presents some rather astonishing links between the field operators of non-abelian Yang-Mills theory and gravity.

The structure of this letter will be as follows. First it will be showed how to construct the effective Lagrangians in general relativity and Yang-Mills theory. Here it is very labor conserving to determine early which field operators are irrelevant in the process of comparing the scattering amplitudes. Only operators which do not vary under a general field redefinition will be included in the generic Lagrangians. Next the explicit scattering amplitudes for the two theories based on their respective generic Lagrangians will be presented. The coefficients on the gravity side will be compared with the coefficients on the Yang-Mills side, insisting that the field theory limit of the KLT-relations have to hold.

Throughout this paper, units $`c=\mathrm{}=1`$ and the metric convention $`(+)`$ will be employed.

## II Effective actions for gravity and Yang-Mills

Einstein’s theory of general relativity tells us that the pure Lagrangian for the gravitational field, in absence of a cosmological constant, has to take the form

$$=\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{2R}{\kappa ^2}\right]$$
(1)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the gravitational field, $`gdet(g_{\mu \nu })`$ and $`R`$ is the scalar curvature tensor. $`\kappa ^232\pi G`$, where $`G`$ is the gravitational constant. The convention, $`R_{\nu \alpha \beta }^\mu =_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \beta }^\mu _\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \alpha }^\mu +\mathrm{}`$ is followed.

The possibility of including higher derivative contributions into the action is not excluded by the principles of general relativity. The implications at the classical level by the addition of such terms into the action are very limited at low energies Stelle .

It is a well known fact that the pure theory of Einstein gravity is formally renormalizable at $`D=4`$ and one loop Veltman , but this is a coincidence. Trivially it happens because the Ricci-tensor vanishes on-shell for the pure theory. Already at 2-loop order the theory was shown to be truly a non-renormalizable theory by explicit calculations NON . Including any matter fields into the Lagrangian also yields a non-renormalizable theory Veltman ; matter . However, including the full set of gravitational field invariants into the Lagrangian, that is, by treating general relativity as an effective theory, where the Einstein term provides the lowest energy classical limit, the action is trivially renormalizable Weinberg .

The effective theory of general relativity provides a mean for calculating gravitational quantum corrections, see Donoghue:dn ; B1 ; B2 . The effective field theory approach is therefore at present the best candidate for a quantum field theory of gravitational interactions in four dimensions. The effective field theory will only work for energy scales below the Planck scale $`10^{19}`$ GeV, but this is still incredible good compared to the limiting scale of the Standard Model $`1001000`$ GeV. Treating general relativity as an effective field theory is hence the natural framework for the low energy limit of a gravitational quantum field theory.

For the theory of Yang-Mills non-abelian vector field theory, the pure Lagrangian for the non-abelian vector field can be written

$$=\frac{1}{8g^2}\mathrm{tr}F_{\mu \nu }^2$$
(2)
where $`A_\mu `$ is the vector field and $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu +g[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$. The trace in the Lagrangian is over the generators of the non-abelian Lie-algebra, e.g. $`\mathrm{tr}(T^aT^bT^c)F_{\mu \lambda }^aF_{\lambda \nu }^bF_{\nu \mu }^c`$, where the $`T^a`$’s are the generators of the algebra 333The notation for the Yang-Mills action i.e. the $`\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{}`$ follows the non-standard conventions of Tsey1 . Please note that in this letter the action is not multiplied with $`(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2`$.. The convention $`g=1`$ will also be employed, as this is convenient when working with the KLT-relations. The above non-abelian Yang-Mills action is of course renormalizable at $`D=4`$, but it still makes sense to treat it as the minimal Lagrangian in an effective field theory. In the modern view of field theory, any invariant obeying the underlying basic field symmetries, such as local gauge invariance, should in principle always be allowed into the Lagrangian.

Thus any gauge invariant operator in Yang-Mills and in general relativity is allowed in the effective actions in this approach. However, only operators that are non-vanishing on-shell, and which are invariant under a general local field redefinitions such as e.g.

$$\delta g_{\mu \nu }=a_1R_{\mu \nu }+a_2g_{\mu \nu }R\mathrm{}$$
(3)
$$\delta A_\mu =\stackrel{~}{a}_1𝒟_\nu F_{\nu \mu }+\mathrm{}$$
(4)
are unambiguous when comparing on-shell S-matrix elements Tsey1 ; Tsey2 , where $`𝒟`$ is the gauge theory covariant derivative. The ellipses in the above relations stand for possible other field redefinitions, such as higher derivative and other additional contributions. Excluding all such terms rules out all contributions containing e.g. the Ricci tensor, and reduce the possible invariants to include in the generic effective Lagrangians to a minimum.

Following Tsey1  the effective non-abelian Yang-Mills action for a massless vector field takes the generic form including all independent invariant field operators

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & =\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{tr}[F_{\mu \nu }^2+\alpha ^{}(a_1F_{\mu \lambda }F_{\lambda \nu }F_{\nu \mu }+a_2𝒟_\lambda F_{\lambda \mu }𝒟_\rho F_{\rho \mu })\hfill \\ & +(\alpha ^{})^2(a_3F_{\mu \lambda }F_{\nu \lambda }F_{\mu \rho }F_{\nu \rho }+a_4F_{\mu \lambda }F_{\nu \lambda }F_{\nu \rho }F_{\mu \rho }\hfill \\ & +a_5F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\lambda \rho }F_{\lambda \rho }+a_6F_{\mu \nu }F_{\lambda \rho }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\lambda \rho }\hfill \\ & +a_7F_{\mu \nu }𝒟_\lambda F_{\mu \nu }𝒟_\rho F_{\rho \lambda }+a_8𝒟_\lambda F_{\lambda \mu }𝒟_\rho F_{\rho \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\hfill \\ & +a_9𝒟_\rho 𝒟_\lambda F_{\lambda \mu }𝒟_\rho 𝒟_\sigma F_{\sigma \mu })+\mathrm{}]\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
where $`\alpha ^{}`$ is the string tension, $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu +[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$ and $`𝒟`$ is the non-abelian covariant derivative.

Excluding all but the on-shell non-vanishing and local field transformation invariant terms, one arrives at

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & =\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{tr}[F_{\mu \nu }^2+\alpha ^{}\left(a_1F_{\mu \lambda }F_{\lambda \nu }F_{\nu \mu }\right)\hfill \\ & +(\alpha ^{})^2(a_3F_{\mu \lambda }F_{\nu \lambda }F_{\mu \rho }F_{\nu \rho }+a_4F_{\mu \lambda }F_{\nu \lambda }F_{\nu \rho }F_{\mu \rho }\hfill \\ & +a_5F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\lambda \rho }F_{\lambda \rho }+a_6F_{\mu \nu }F_{\lambda \rho }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\lambda \rho })+\mathrm{}]\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
The general Lagrangian will be written separately for left and right non-interacting fields, with generically different left-right coefficients. So for, e.g., the left Lagrangian one has

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _{YM}^L& =\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{tr}[F_{\mu \nu }^LF_{\mu \nu }^L+\alpha ^{}\left(a_1^LF_{\mu \lambda }^LF_{\lambda \nu }^LF_{\nu \mu }^L\right)\hfill \\ & +(\alpha ^{})^2(a_3^LF_{\mu \lambda }^LF_{\nu \lambda }^LF_{\mu \rho }^LF_{\nu \rho }^L+a_4^LF_{\mu \lambda }^LF_{\nu \lambda }^LF_{\nu \rho }^LF_{\mu \rho }^L\hfill \\ & +a_5^LF_{\mu \nu }^LF_{\mu \nu }^LF_{\lambda \rho }^LF_{\lambda \rho }^L+a_6^LF_{\mu \nu }^LF_{\lambda \rho }^LF_{\mu \nu }^LF_{\lambda \rho }^L)+\mathrm{}]\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
The expression for the right Lagrangian is identical, but with everywhere $`F_{\mu \nu }^LF_{\mu \nu }^R`$ and e.g. $`a_1^La_1^R`$ etc.

The inclusion of independent left and right field invariants is important because the KLT-relations allow for different left and right scattering amplitudes. In order to include string solutions such as heterotic strings, the possibility for a generally different left and right scattering amplitude has to be included into the formalism. Heterotic string solutions will however not be considered explicitly here.

In general relativity a similar situation occurs for the effective action, following Tsey2  the most general Lagrangian one can consider is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & =\frac{2\sqrt{g}}{\kappa ^2}[R+\alpha ^{}(a_1R_{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }^2+a_2R_{\mu \nu }^2+a_3R^2)\hfill \\ & +(\alpha ^{})^2(b_1R_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }R_{\lambda \rho }^{\alpha \beta }R_{\mu \nu }^{\lambda \rho }+b_2(R_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }R_{\lambda \rho }^{\alpha \beta }R_{\mu \nu }^{\lambda \rho }\hfill \\ & 2R_\beta ^{\mu \nu \alpha }R_{\nu \lambda }^{\beta \gamma }R_{\mu \gamma \alpha }^\lambda )+b_3R_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }R^{\alpha \beta \gamma }_\nu R^{\mu \nu }+b_4R_{\mu \nu \rho \lambda }R^{\nu \lambda }R^{\mu \rho }\hfill \\ & +b_5R_{\mu \nu }R^{\nu \lambda }R_\lambda ^\mu +b_6R_{\mu \nu }𝒟^2R^{\mu \nu }+b_7R_{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }^2R\hfill \\ & +b_8R_{\mu \nu }^2R+b_9R^3+b_{10}R𝒟^2R)+\mathrm{}]\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
again most terms can be removed be a field redefinition. Here $`𝒟`$ denotes the gravitational covariant derivative. This leaves only the terms

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & =\frac{2\sqrt{g}}{\kappa ^2}[R+\alpha ^{}\left(a_1R_{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }^2\right)+(\alpha ^{})^2(b_1R_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }R_{\lambda \rho }^{\alpha \beta }R_{\mu \nu }^{\lambda \rho }\hfill \\ & +b_2(R_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }R_{\lambda \rho }^{\alpha \beta }R_{\mu \nu }^{\lambda \rho }2R_\beta ^{\mu \nu \alpha }R_{\nu \lambda }^{\beta \gamma }R_{\mu \gamma \alpha }^\lambda ))+\mathrm{}]\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
to be considered when comparing S-matrix elements. In the above form of the field redefinition invariant effective action the conventions of Tsey2  is followed.

## III Scattering amplitudes in Yang-Mills theory and gravity

In this section we check and review results contained already in refs. Tsey1 ; Tsey2 , for use in later sections. In order to calculate the scattering amplitudes from the effective actions, one must expand the gravity Lagrangian. The 3-point amplitudes in gravity is rather uncomplicated, as one can exclude all terms that vanish on-shell. The on-shell non-vanishing contributions in the effective gravitational action, can then be found as

$$R=\frac{\kappa ^3}{4}h_{\alpha \beta }(h_{\lambda \rho }_\alpha _\beta h_{\lambda \rho }+2_\alpha h_{\lambda \rho }_\rho h_{\beta \lambda })+\mathrm{},$$
(10)
$$R_{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }^24R_{\mu \nu }^2+R^2=\kappa ^3h_{\mu \nu }_\mu _\rho h_{\alpha \beta }_\alpha _\beta h_{\nu \rho }+\mathrm{},$$
(11)
$$R_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }R_{\lambda \rho }^{\alpha \beta }R_{\mu \nu }^{\lambda \rho }=\kappa ^3_\rho _\alpha h_{\beta \nu }_\beta _\lambda h_{\mu \alpha }_\mu _\nu h_{\lambda \rho }+\mathrm{}$$
(12)
Here $`g_{\mu \nu }\eta _{\mu \nu }+\kappa h_{\mu \nu }`$, where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the flat metric. Because of the flat background metric no distinctions are made of up and down indices on the right hand side of the equations, so indices can be put where convenient. The results are identical to these of ref. Tsey2 , and gives the following generic 3-point scattering amplitude for the effective action of general relativity

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill M_3& =\kappa [\zeta _2^{\mu \sigma }\zeta _3^{\mu \rho }(\zeta _1^{\alpha \beta }k_2^\alpha k_2^\beta \delta ^{\sigma \rho }+\zeta _1^{\sigma \alpha }k_2^\alpha k_1^\rho +\zeta _1^{\sigma \alpha }k_3^\alpha k_1^\rho )\hfill \\ & +\zeta _1^{\mu \sigma }\zeta _3^{\mu \rho }\left(\zeta _2^{\alpha \beta }k_3^\alpha k_3^\beta \delta ^{\sigma \rho }+\zeta _2^{\sigma \alpha }k_1^\alpha k_2^\rho +\zeta _2^{\sigma \alpha }k_3^\alpha k_2^\rho \right)\hfill \\ & +\zeta _1^{\mu \sigma }\zeta _2^{\mu \rho }\left(\zeta _3^{\alpha \beta }k_1^\alpha k_1^\beta \delta ^{\sigma \rho }+\zeta _3^{\sigma \alpha }k_1^\alpha k_3^\rho +\zeta _3^{\sigma \alpha }k_2^\alpha k_3^\rho \right)\hfill \\ & +\alpha ^{}[4a_1\zeta _2^{\mu \sigma }\zeta _3^{\mu \rho }\zeta _1^{\alpha \beta }k_2^\alpha k_2^\beta k_3^\sigma k_2^\rho \hfill \\ & +4a_1\zeta _1^{\mu \sigma }\zeta _3^{\mu \rho }\zeta _2^{\alpha \beta }k_3^\alpha k_3^\beta k_2^\sigma k_1^\rho +4a_1\zeta _1^{\mu \sigma }\zeta _2^{\mu \rho }\zeta _3^{\alpha \beta }k_1^\alpha k_1^\beta k_2^\sigma k_3^\rho ]\hfill \\ & +(\alpha ^{})^2[12b_1\zeta _1^{\alpha \beta }\zeta _2^{\gamma \delta }\zeta _3^{\tau \rho }k_1^\tau k_1^\rho k_2^\alpha k_2^\beta k_3^\gamma k_3^\delta ]]\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
where $`\zeta _i^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`k_i`$, $`i=1,..,3`$ denote the polarization tensors and momenta for the external graviton legs.

In the Yang-Mills case the following result for the generic 3-point amplitude can be worked out. Here it is written for e.g. the left vector fields

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A_{3L}& =[(\zeta _3k_1\zeta _1\zeta _2+\zeta _2k_3\zeta _3\zeta _1+\zeta _1k_2\zeta _2\zeta _3)\hfill \\ & +\frac{3}{4}\alpha ^{}a_1^L\zeta _1k_2\zeta _2k_3\zeta _3k_1]\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
This result is equivalent to that of ref. Tsey1 . With a similar notation as used above in the gravity case, $`\zeta _i^\mu `$, $`k_i`$, $`i=1,..,3`$ denotes the polarizations and momenta for the external vector lines. The on-shell 4-point amplitude is generically a rather complicated expression, as many terms are non-vanishing on-shell. But in order to match the amplitudes of the gauge theory with gravity, only certain specific parts of the amplitude need to be compared Tsey1 ; Tsey2 ; Deser ; shimada . Gauge invariance will dictate the remaining parts of the amplitude to go along. Using the part of the scattering amplitude where no momenta is contracted with an external polarization index, simplifies the calculations. Besides the 4-point contact vertices there are three different types of graviton exchanges to order $`\alpha ^2`$, these contributions have to be included too in the 4-point amplitude. The 3-point parts giving these contributions i.e. with one leg off-shell and the two other satisfying the on-shell external polarization index constraint can be found below. Expanding the Lagrangian, one finds the following contributions

$$R=\frac{\kappa ^3}{4}h_{\mu \nu }h_{\nu \rho }^2h_{\rho \mu }+\mathrm{},$$
(15)
$$R_{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }^24R_{\mu \nu }^2+R^2=\frac{\kappa ^3}{2}_\alpha h_{\mu \nu }_\alpha h_{\nu \rho }^2h_{\rho \mu }+\mathrm{},$$
(16)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill R_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }R_{\lambda \rho }^{\alpha \beta }R_{\mu \nu }^{\lambda \rho }& =\frac{3\kappa ^3}{2}_\alpha _\beta h_{\mu \nu }_\alpha _\beta h_{\nu \rho }^2h_{\rho \mu }\hfill \\ & +3\kappa ^4(h_{\mu \nu }_\alpha _\beta h_{\nu \rho }_\alpha _\gamma h_{\rho \sigma }_\beta _\gamma h_{\sigma \mu }\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{2}_\alpha h_{\mu \nu }_\beta h_{\nu \rho }_\alpha _\gamma h_{\rho \sigma }_\beta _\gamma h_{\sigma \mu })+\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill R_\beta ^{\mu \nu \alpha }R_{\nu \lambda }^{\beta \gamma }R_{\mu \gamma \alpha }^\lambda & =\frac{3\kappa ^4}{8}_\alpha h_{\mu \nu }_\beta h_{\nu \rho }_\beta _\gamma h_{\rho \sigma }_\alpha _\gamma h_{\sigma \mu }+\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
The same conventions as for 3-point terms are used in these equations. The above results simply verify ref. Tsey2 .

The 4-point gravity scattering amplitude can then be found to be Tsey2

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill M_4& =\frac{1}{2}\frac{\kappa ^2}{\alpha ^{}}[\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _3\zeta _4(z+a_1z^23b_1(z^34xyz)\hfill \\ & 3b_2(z^3\frac{7}{2}xyz)+(a_1^2+3b_1+3b_2)(z^33xyz))\hfill \\ & +\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _4\zeta _3(y+a_1y^23b_1(y^34xyz)\hfill \\ & 3b_2(y^3\frac{7}{2}xyz)+(a_1^2+3b_1+3b_2)(y^33xyz))\hfill \\ & +\zeta _1\zeta _3\zeta _2\zeta _4(x+a_1x^23b_1(x^34xyz)\hfill \\ & 3b_2(x^3\frac{7}{2}xyz)+(a_1^2+3b_1+3b_2)(x^33xyz))]\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
where $`\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _3\zeta _4=\zeta _1^{\alpha \beta }\zeta _2^{\beta \gamma }\zeta _3^{\gamma \delta }\zeta _4^{\delta \alpha }`$ and $`x=2\alpha ^{}(k_1k_2)`$, $`y=2\alpha ^{}(k_1k_4)`$ and $`z=2\alpha ^{}(k_1k_3)`$.

In the Yang-Mills case the corresponding left scattering amplitude reads

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A_{4L}& =[[\zeta _{1324}+\frac{z}{x}\zeta _{1234}+\frac{z}{y}\zeta _{1423}]\hfill \\ & +\left[\frac{3a_1^L}{8}z(\zeta _{1324}+\zeta _{1234}+\zeta _{1423})\right]\hfill \\ & +\left[\frac{9(a_1^L)^2}{128}(x(zy)\zeta _{1234}+y(zx)\zeta _{1423})\right]\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{4}[(\frac{1}{2}a_3^L)xy\zeta _{1324}(\frac{1}{4}a_3^L+2a_6^L)z^2\zeta _{1324}\hfill \\ & +(\frac{1}{4}a_3^L+\frac{1}{2}a_4^L)yz\zeta _{1234}\hfill \\ & +(\frac{1}{4}a_3^L+a_5^L)zx\zeta _{1234}+(\frac{1}{2}a_4^L+a_5^L)yx\zeta _{1234}\hfill \\ & +(\frac{1}{4}a_3^L+a_5^L)yz\zeta _{1423}\hfill \\ & +(\frac{1}{4}a_3^L+\frac{1}{2}a_4^L)xz\zeta _{1423}+(\frac{1}{2}a_4^L+a_5^L)xy\zeta _{1423}]]\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
where $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`z`$ is defined as above, and e.g. $`\zeta _{1234}=(\zeta _1\zeta _2)(\zeta _3\zeta _4)`$ and etc. Again we look only at the part where no polarization index is contracted with a momentum index. The contact terms in the above expression were calculated explicitly and the results agree with those of ref. Tsey2 . The non-contact terms were adapted from Tsey2 .

## IV The open-closed string relations

The relations between open and closed string dictates that the general $`M`$-particle function of the closed string is related to a product of open strings in the following manner. The conventions of GSW  are here followed and the relation is written as

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill A_{\mathrm{closed}}^M\underset{\mathrm{\Pi },\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}{}e^{i\pi \mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Pi },\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }})}A_M^{\text{left open}}(\mathrm{\Pi })A_M^{\text{right open}}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }})\end{array}$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ are particular cyclic orderings of the open-string external lines associated with the right and left moving modes. The function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Pi },\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }})`$ is the appropriate phase factor of the exponential associated with the explicit cyclic permutations. This open-closed string relation has been derived from string theory, but it holds as well in field theory.

For the 3- and 4-point amplitudes, the following specific KLT-relations are adapted 444The specific forms of the KLT-relations do not follow any specific convention e.g. Bern4 . In order the keep the conventions of Tsey1 ; Tsey2 , the employed relations are normalized to be consistent for the O(1) terms of the 3- and 4-point scattering amplitudes.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill M_{3\mathrm{gravity}}^{\mu \stackrel{~}{\mu }\nu \stackrel{~}{\nu }\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho }}& (1,2,3)=\kappa A_{\text{3 L-gauge}}^{\mu \nu \rho }(1,2,3)\times A_{\text{3 R-gauge}}^{\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\nu }\stackrel{~}{\rho }}(1,2,3)\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill M_{4\mathrm{gravity}}^{\mu \stackrel{~}{\mu }\nu \stackrel{~}{\nu }\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho }\sigma \stackrel{~}{\sigma }}& (1,2,3,4)=\frac{\kappa ^2}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}\mathrm{sin}(\pi x)\hfill \\ & \times A_{\text{4 L-gauge}}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(1,2,3,4)\times A_{\text{4 R-gauge}}^{\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\nu }\stackrel{~}{\rho }\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(1,2,4,3)\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
where $`M`$ is a gravity tree amplitude, and $`A`$ is the color ordered amplitude for the gauge theory with coupling constant $`g=1`$. As previously the definition $`x=2\alpha ^{}(k_1k_2),\mathrm{}`$ is employed, where $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ are particular momenta of the external lines.

## V Mapping operators via the KLT-relations

We now present the main results of this paper linking the general relativity operators to the Yang-Mills ones via the KLT-relations. This is done by demanding that the scattering amplitudes generated by the Yang-Mills effective Lagrangian in eq. (7) (and the corresponding ’R’ one) and the general relativity effective Lagrangian in eq. (9) satisfy the KLT-relations eq. (22) and eq. (23). In this way, the following equations are found to hold for the generic coefficients in the effective actions:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{3a_1^L}{16}+\frac{3a_1^R}{16}& =a_1,\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{3a_1^La_1^R}{64}& =b_1,\hfill \\ \hfill 6a_5^L+3a_4^L+\frac{27(a_1^L)^2}{16}& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill 6a_5^R+3a_4^R+\frac{27(a_1^R)^2}{16}& =0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
together with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 96a_1^2& =6a_3^L+3a_3^R+18a_4^L+12a_5^L+24a_6^R\hfill \\ & +\frac{81(a_1^L)^2}{8}16\pi ^2,\hfill \\ \hfill 96a_1^2& =3a_3^L+6a_3^R+18a_4^R+12a_5^R+24a_6^L\hfill \\ & +\frac{81(a_1^R)^2}{8}16\pi ^2,\hfill \\ \hfill 96a_1^2& =6a_3^L3a_3^R6a_4^L36a_5^L12a_5^R16\pi ^2\hfill \\ & \frac{27(a_1^L)^2}{8}+\frac{27(a_1^R)^2}{8},\hfill \\ \hfill 96a_1^2& =3a_3^L+6a_3^R6a_4^R12a_5^L36a_5^R16\pi ^2\hfill \\ & +\frac{27(a_1^L)^2}{8}\frac{27(a_1^R)^2}{8},\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 96b_1+48b_2& =4a_3^L+5a_3^R+2a_4^L+6a_4^R+8a_6^L\hfill \\ & +\frac{9(a_1^R)^2}{4}+\frac{9a_1^La_1^R}{2}16\pi ^2,\hfill \\ \hfill 96b_1+48b_2& =4a_3^R+5a_3^L+2a_4^R+6a_4^L+8a_6^R\hfill \\ & +\frac{9(a_1^L)^2}{4}+\frac{9a_1^La_1^R}{2}16\pi ^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 96a_1^296b_148b_2& =a_3^L+2a_4^R12a_5^L12a_5^R\hfill \\ & \frac{32\pi ^2}{3}\frac{9a_1^La_1^R}{2}+\frac{9(a_1^L)^2}{8}+\frac{9(a_1^R)^2}{8},\hfill \\ \hfill 96a_1^296b_148b_2& =2a_4^R4a_5^L12a_5^R+8a_6^L\hfill \\ & \frac{16\pi ^2}{3}\frac{9a_1^La_1^R}{2}+\frac{9(a_1^L)^2}{8}+\frac{9(a_1^R)^2}{8},\hfill \\ \hfill 96a_1^296b_148b_2& =2a_4^L12a_5^L4a_5^R+8a_6^R\hfill \\ & \frac{16\pi ^2}{3}\frac{9a_1^La_1^R}{2}+\frac{9(a_1^L)^2}{8}+\frac{9(a_1^R)^2}{8},\hfill \\ \hfill 96a_1^296b_148b_2& =a_3^R+2a_4^L12a_5^L12a_5^R\hfill \\ & \frac{32\pi ^2}{3}\frac{9a_1^La_1^R}{2}+\frac{9(a_1^L)^2}{8}+\frac{9(a_1^R)^2}{8}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
Solving these equations, one ends up with the following set of relations between the coefficients of the effective gravitational Lagrangian and the Yang-Mills vector Lagrangian:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_1^L& =a_1^R=\frac{8}{3}a_1,\hfill \\ \hfill a_3^L& =a_3^R=\frac{4\pi ^2}{3},\hfill \\ \hfill a_4^L& =a_4^R=\frac{2\pi ^2}{3},\hfill \\ \hfill a_5^L& =a_5^R=\frac{\pi ^2}{3}2a_1^2,\hfill \\ \hfill a_6^L& =a_6^R=\frac{\pi ^2}{6}+2a_1^2,\hfill \\ \hfill b_1& =\frac{1}{3}a_1^2,\hfill \\ \hfill b_2& =\frac{2}{3}a_1^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
Thus we see that in order for there to be a mapping at the order $`\alpha ^2`$, eq. (9) must take on particular values. As seen from the above solution the coefficients $`a_3^L`$, $`a_3^R`$ and $`a_4^L`$, $`a_4^R`$, are completely fixed by the KLT-relations for a given effective gravity Lagrangian satisfying the constraints on $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$. Thus the KLT-relations are rather constraining on the form of the general relativity Lagrangians that can be mapped into gauge theory.

This letter considers terms to order $`O(\alpha ^3)`$ in the effective Lagrangians and have dealt with 3- and 4-point amplitudes. Investigation of the mapping of operators between gravity and Yang-Mills theory can be carried out at higher orders of $`\alpha ^{}`$ and will possibly lead to further insight of the mapping process.

## VI Discussion

The solution space of the above equations suggest the following interpretation. For a given coefficient $`a_1`$ in the gravitational effective field theory action through order $`\alpha ^2`$, there is a set of unique (left-right) effective Yang-Mills Lagrangians, up to a field redefinition, that satisfies the constraint of the KLT-relations. The set of solutions span out a space of operator solutions, where the different types of strings correspond to certain points along the path. For string theories with similar left and right Lagrangians, one can find a bosonic string corresponding to the solution: $`a_1^L=a_1^R=\frac{8}{3}`$, $`a_3^L=a_3^R=\frac{4\pi ^2}{3}`$, $`a_4^L=a_4^R=\frac{3\pi ^2}{2}`$, $`a_5^L=a_5^R=\frac{\pi ^2}{3}2`$, and $`a_6^L=a_6^R=\frac{\pi ^2}{6}+2`$, on the open string side, and $`a_1=1`$, $`b_1=\frac{1}{3}`$ and $`b_2=\frac{2}{3}`$, on the closed string side, while the superstring correspond to: $`a_1^L=a_1^R=0`$, $`a_3^L=a_3^R=\frac{4\pi ^2}{3}`$, $`a_4^L=a_4^R=\frac{2\pi ^2}{3}`$, $`a_5^L=a_5^R=\frac{\pi ^2}{3}`$ and $`a_6^L=a_6^R=\frac{\pi ^2}{6}`$, for the open string, and $`a_1=b_1=b_2=0`$ for the closed string. Also the heterotic string can be fitted to the above solution space but here a Chern-Simons term is needed in the effective action, and the left and right coefficients in the action will be dissimilar and correspond respectively to a bosonic and a superstring solution.

Since $`a_1`$ are arbitrary in the above equations, the solution space of the amplitude matching is much larger than the traditional set of string solutions. That is, non-traditional string solutions are allowed by the KLT-relations.

The assumption of the KLT-relations provide us with a very detailed and constraining solution mapping operators of general relativity into corresponding non-abelian Yang-Mills operators. The $`R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^2`$ term of the effective action of general relativity is directly seen to correspond to vertex products of a $`\mathrm{tr}F_{\mu \nu }^2`$ term and a $`\mathrm{tr}F_{\mu \nu }^3`$ term of the non-abelian Yang-Mills effective action. The mapping of the higher order terms is more complicated, but still it is no problem to find the solution. It appears a priori rather surprising that an explicit mapping process is possible for such sets of dissimilar operators.

The results for the string solutions are identical to the results of Tsey1 ; Tsey2 ; Tsey3 , but the viewpoint here is very different. When one matches the coefficients of the effective Lagrangian to the traditional string solutions, only such solutions appear. Matching the effective Lagrangians through the KLT-relations leaves a broader solution space, where non-traditional string solutions are allowed too. The effective actions provide full and very general theories both for Yang-Mills and for gravity, at energy scales up to the Planck scale. Furthermore the link from the effective action to the low-energy Lagrangian is obvious. This is not the case in string theory where a Lagrangian formalism is not natural. String theory in itself is found not to be required for the mapping, only the KLT-relations which hold more generally. Still it is hard to see how the KLT-relationship would have been found without string theory, and furthermore it is very useful to know the string solutions, as a guide in the mapping process.

Only the pure gravity and Yang-Mills effective actions have been discussed in this letter, but clearly matter sources could also be included. This would introduce new aspects in the mapping process, and additional knowledge of the mapping of operators could possibly be extracted. Another starting point for further investigations is perhaps to look upon relaxed forms of the KLT-relations. That is: allowing for more general mappings of the operators, e.g. replacing the $`\mathrm{sin}(\pi x)`$ with a general series in $`\pi x`$. The possibility of a Chern-Simons term in the effective gravity action and the heterotic string solution is yet another issue.

At the present stage the KLT-relations point out some clues of non-trivial links between gauge theory and gravity, but still no full understanding of this has been extracted. Clearly future investigations should focus on this problem.

###### Acknowledgements.

I would like to thank Department of physics, UCLA, for its very kind hospitality and to express my gratitude towards Zvi Bern for his invaluable help during my stay at UCLA. I would like to thank him for suggesting to use the KLT-relations and the links between gauge theory and gravity and for his reading of the manuscript. I would also like to thank P. H. Damgaard for discussions.


text:
# Measures Invariant under the Geodesic Flow and their Projections

## 1 Introduction

The topological entropy, $`h_T(g)`$, of a Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$ is a geometric invariant which attempts to capture the complexity of the geodesic flow. In \[KKW91\] it was shown that for a metric $`g`$ of negative sectional curvature the function $`h_T(g_\lambda )`$ is $`C^1`$, where $`g_\lambda `$, $`ϵ<\lambda <ϵ`$, is a $`C^2`$-perturbation of $`g`$, and an explicit formula for the derivative was obtained. As an application of this formula they established the following interesting result.

###### Theorem 1.1.

(\[KKW91, p.21 and 28\]) Let $`M`$ be a compact surface and let $`(M)`$ denote the submanifold of negatively curved $`C^2`$ metrics on $`M`$ having area equal to 1. Then $`h_T:(M)`$ has a critical point at $`g_0`$ if and only if the Lebesgue measure $`l_{g_0}`$ and the Margulis measure $`\mu _{g_0}`$ with respect to $`g_0`$ have the same projection to $`M`$; that is, $`l_{g_0}`$ and $`\mu _{g_0}`$ agree on $`\pi ^1((M))=\{\pi ^1(A):A(M)\}`$, where $`(M)`$ is the $`\sigma `$-algebra of Borel subsets on $`M`$ and $`\pi :S(M)M`$ is the canonical projection.

Katok, Knieper and Weiss went on to conjecture that for an arbitrary compact manifold $`(M,g)`$ of negative sectional curvature the Margulis and Lebesgue measures with respect to $`g`$ coincide whenever they have the same projection to $`M`$. As they note, establishing this conjecture would then demonstrate Theorem 1.1 in arbitrary dimensions \[KKW91, p. 21\].

The above results led Flaminio to consider the general problem of determining the measures on the unit tangent bundle which are invariant under the geodesic flow and are determined by their projection to $`M`$. By restricting his attention to the class of even measures; that is, measures on $`S(M)`$ which are invariant under the flip map $`(x,v)\stackrel{\sigma }{}(x,v)`$ on $`S(M)`$, Flaminio obtained the following.

###### Theorem 1.2.

(\[Fla92\]) Let $`g`$ be a metric of positive sectional curvature on $`S^2`$. Then an even, $`G_t`$-invariant distribution $`T`$ is determined by its projection to $`S^2`$. That is, $`T`$ is determined by its values on the set

$$\pi ^{}(C^{\mathrm{}}(S^2))\{f\pi :fC^{\mathrm{}}(S^2)\},$$

where $`\pi :S(S^2)S^2`$ is the natural projection.

In particular, this result shows that for a closed surface $`(M,g)`$ of positive sectional curvature the even, $`G_t`$-invariant probability measures are determined by their projections to $`M`$. It is natural to wonder whether this result generalizes to all closed Riemannian manifolds of positive sectional curvature. By studying the right regular representation of $`SO(n)`$ we obtain the following negative answer.

###### Theorem 1.3.

Let $`(S^{2j},g)`$ be the standard sphere of constant curvature 1 with $`j2`$. Then even, $`G_t`$-invariant complex measures on $`S(S^{2j})`$ are not determined by their projection to $`S^{2j}`$. In particular, there are non-zero, even, $`G_t`$-invariant finite real measures on $`S(S^{2j})`$ which project to zero on $`S^{2j}`$.

## 2 Constructing the Measure

By the Riesz representation theorem there is an isomorphism between bounded linear functionals and complex meaures. For a linear functional $`F:L^2(S(M))`$ the notion of projecting to $`M`$ translates into restricting $`F`$ to the set $`\pi ^{}(L^2(M))\{f\pi :fL^2(M)\}`$. The notions of evenness and $`G_t`$-invariance are also defined in the obvious way for $`F`$. Consequently, we see that we can construct measures as in Theorem 1.3 by finding a linear functional with the corresponding properties. This will be carried out in the remainder of this paper.

For our discussion we fix the following notation.

1. $`G=\mathrm{SO}(n)`$
2. $`H=\mathrm{SO}(2)I_{n2}`$
3. $`K=I_2\mathrm{SO}(n2)`$
4. $`L=[1]\mathrm{SO}(n1)`$
5. $`L^2(G,dx)=\{f:G`$ measureable : $`_Gf^2dx<\mathrm{}\}`$; where $`dx`$ is Haar measure.
6. $`G`$ will act on $`L^2(G,dx)`$ via the right regular representation $`\mathrm{\Phi }:G\text{Aut}(L^2(G,dx))`$, which is given by $`(\mathrm{\Phi }(g).f)(x)=f(xg)`$.
7. For any representation $`(V,\tau )`$ of an arbitrary group $`B`$ we let $`V^S=\{vV:\tau (s).v=v`$  for all $`sS\}`$ for any $`SB`$.

We also note that for the sphere $`S^{n1}=G/L`$ of constant positive sectional curvature 1 the geodesic flow is given by the right action of $`H`$ on $`S(S^{n1})=G/K`$ and the flip map $`\sigma :S(S^{n1})S(S^{n1})`$ can be realized as the right action of $`[1]I_{n1}`$ on $`G/K`$ when $`n`$ is odd.

In constructing the desired measure we will find the following lemma to be useful.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`n=2j+15`$ and let $`S`$ be the subgroup of $`G`$ generated by $`H,KG`$ and $`\sigma G`$. Then there exists a finite dimensional unitary representation $`\tau :G\mathrm{GL}(W)`$ such that $`(W^L)^{}W^S\{0\}`$. In particular, we may take $`(W,\tau )`$ to be an irreducible representation of $`G`$.

Indeed, let $`(W,\tau )`$ be an irreducible representation of $`G`$ as in Lemma 2.1. Then $`W`$ can be thought of as a subrepresentation of $`L^2(G)`$. Using this identification and taking $`\theta (W^L)^{}W^S`$ we may define $`\stackrel{~}{F}:L^2(G)`$ by

$$f_Gf\overline{\theta }𝑑x.$$

It then follows from the Peter-Weyl theorem (see \[Kna86\]) and the way $`\theta `$ was chosen that $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ has the following properties.

1. $`\stackrel{~}{F}|L^2(G)^L0.`$
2. $`\stackrel{~}{F}|L^2(G)^S0`$. In paricular, $`\stackrel{~}{F}|L^2(G)^K0`$.

Now, since $`L^2(G)^K`$ can be indentified with $`L^2(G/K)`$ we see from Property 2 that $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ actually defines a nonzero bounded linear functional $`F:L^2(G/K)`$, which is even and invariant under the geodesic flow. Furthermore, it follows from Property 1 that the projection of $`F`$ to $`S^{n1}=G/L`$ is zero. Then as noted earlier the Riesz representation theorem provides us with a non-zero, even, $`G_t`$-invariant complex measure on $`S(S^{n1})`$ that projects to zero. Consequently, one of the real measures $`\mathrm{Re}(\mu )`$ or $`\mathrm{Im}(\mu )`$ also has these properties. All that remains is to prove is Lemma 2.1.

###### Proof of Lemma 2.1.

We let $`𝔤`$, $`𝔩`$, $`𝔥`$, $`𝔨`$ and $`𝔰`$ denote the Lie algebras of $`G`$, $`L`$, $`H`$, $`K`$, and $`S`$ respectively. Following an argument due to G. Prasad we will show that $`\mathrm{Ad}:G\mathrm{Aut}(\mathrm{Sym}^2(𝔤^{}))`$, where $`𝔤^{}=𝔤i𝔤`$ is the complexification of $`𝔤`$ and $`\mathrm{Ad}`$ is the natural linear extention of the adjoint representation of $`G`$, is a representation of $`G`$ which satisfies Lemma 2.1.

Upon inspection we can see that $`𝔰=𝔥𝔨`$ and $`𝔤=𝔩^{n1}=𝔰^{2n2}`$. From this we can see that

$$𝔤^{}=𝔩^{}(^{n1})^{}=𝔥^{}𝔨^{}(^{2n2})^{}.$$

Hence,

$`\mathrm{Sym}^2(𝔤^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Sym}^2(𝔩^{})\mathrm{Sym}^2((^{n1})^{})(𝔩^{}(^{n1})^{})`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Sym}^2(𝔩^{})\mathrm{Sym}^2((^{n1})^{})\mathrm{Hom}(𝔩^{},(^{n1})^{}),`$
and

$$\text{Sym}^2(𝔤^{})^L=\text{Sym}^2(𝔩^{})^L\text{Sym}^2((^{n1})^{})^L\mathrm{Hom}(𝔩^{},(^{n1})^{})^L.$$

Since $`(\mathrm{Ad}_L,𝔩^{})`$ and $`(\mathrm{Ad}_L,(^{n1})^{})`$ are inequivalent irreducible representations of $`L`$ we see that $`\mathrm{Hom}(𝔩^{},(^{n1})^{})^L=0`$. Otherwise we would have a non-zero, $``$-linear map $`T:𝔩^{}(^{n1})^{}`$ such that $`\mathrm{Ad}_L(x)T=T\mathrm{Ad}_L(x)`$ for all $`xL`$. It would then follow from Schur’s lemma that $`T`$ would have to be an isomorphism, which would contradict the non-equivalence of the representations. Therefore,

$$\text{Sym}^2(𝔤^{})^L=\text{Sym}^2(𝔩^{})^L\text{Sym}^2((^{n1})^{})^L.$$

We now recall the following well-known fact.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`G`$ be a compact toplogical group and $`(\tau ,V)`$ a finite dimensional irreducible $``$-representation. Then $`\mathrm{dim}_{}\text{Sym}^2(V)^G=1`$. That is, up to scalar multiple there is a unique Hermitian inner product $`\omega \text{Sym}^2(V)`$ on $`V`$ with respect to which $`(\tau ,V)`$ is unitary.

Hence, it follows that $`\mathrm{dim}(\text{Sym}^2(𝔤^{})^L)=2`$. Also, since

$`\text{Sym}^2(𝔤^{})^S`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Sym}^2(𝔥^{})^S\text{Sym}^2(𝔨^{})^S\mathrm{Sym}^2((^{2n2})^{})^S\mathrm{Hom}(𝔥^{},𝔨^{})^S`$
$`\mathrm{Hom}(𝔥^{},(^{2n2})^{})^S\mathrm{Hom}(𝔨^{},(^{2n2})^{})^S`$
a similar argument shows that $`\mathrm{dim}_{}\mathrm{Sym}^2(𝔤^{})^M=3`$. Putting all of this together we see that $`\mathrm{dim}_{}(\text{Sym}^2(𝔤^{})^L)^{})=\text{Sym}^2(𝔤^{})2`$ and $`\mathrm{dim}_{}\text{Sym}^2(𝔤^{})^S=3`$ , which implies

$$1\mathrm{dim}_{}(\text{Sym}^2(𝔤^{})^L)^{}\text{Sym}^2(𝔤^{})^S3,$$

which proves our lemma. ∎

We point out that our dimension argument fails when $`n=3`$—as it should by Theorem 1.2. In this case $`H=<I_3>`$ and $`L=[1]SO(2)`$. Hence, $`𝔰=𝔨𝔥=𝔨𝔰𝔬(2)𝔩`$, which implies that $`\mathrm{dim}_{}\text{Sym}^2(𝔤^{})^M=2=\mathrm{dim}_{}\text{Sym}^2(𝔤^{})^L`$. This prevents the last line of our argument from working.

Craig J. Sutton
Department of Mathematics
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6395
USA
e-mail: cjsutton@math.upenn.edu