text:
# Early Quintessence in Light of WMAP

## Abstract

We examine the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy for signatures of early quintessence dark energy – a non-negligible quintessence energy density during the recombination and structure formation eras. Only very recently does the quintessence overtake the dark matter and push the expansion into overdrive. Because the presence of early quintessence exerts an influence on the clustering of dark matter and the baryon-photon fluid, we may expect to find trace signals in the CMB and the mass fluctuation power spectrum. In detail, we demonstrate that suppressed clustering power on small length-scales, as suggested by the combined Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) / CMB / large scale structure data set, is characteristic of early quintessence. We identify a set of concordant models, and map out directions for further investigation of early quintessence.

There exists compelling evidence that the energy density of the Universe is dominated by dark energy. The evidence grows stronger with each successive experiment and observation of cosmic evolution and structure, as boldly reinforced by the recent high precision measurement of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) fluctuations by WMAP (Bennet et al., 2003; Spergel et al., 2003; Kogut et al., 2003; Hinshaw et al., 2003; Verde et al., 2003; Page et al., 2003). And yet, the nature of the dark energy remains elusive. A cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), providing a simple phenomenological fix in the absence of better information, is consistent with current data including the latest WMAP results. Lessons from particle physics and cosmology, however, suggest a more attractive solution in the form of a dynamical dark energy (Wetterich, 1988; Ratra & Peebles, 1988; Peebles & Ratra, 1988; Caldwell, Dave & Steinhardt, 1998) that continues to evolve in the present epoch — quintessence.

In the quintessence scenario the dark energy becomes dominant only at late times, as required for cosmic acceleration. However, the late appearance of the quintessence may not be the whole story. Scalar field models of quintessence with global attractor solutions (Wetterich, 1988; Ratra & Peebles, 1988; Zlatev,Wang & Steinhardt, 1998; Steinhardt,Wang & Zlatev, 1999) have been shown to “track” the dominant component of the cosmological fluid. One consequence is that just after inflation, the universe may contain a non-negligible fraction of the cosmic energy density. Through subsequent epochs, the quintessence energy density $`\rho _\mathrm{q}`$ lags behind the dominant component of the cosmological fluid with a slowly varying $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}`$, and an equation-of-state $`w_\mathrm{q}p_\mathrm{q}/\rho _\mathrm{q}`$ which is nearly constant. The field energy tracks the background until the current epoch, when the quintessence energy density crosses and overtakes the matter density. A non-negligible fraction of dark energy at last scattering, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{ls})}`$, and during structure formation, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{sf})}`$, then arises quite naturally. From the observational viewpoint, detection of any trace of “early quintessence” would give us a tremendous clue as to the physics of dark energy.

In this work we concentrate on “early quintessence”, characterized by non-negligible values $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{ls})},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{sf})}0.05`$. Typical scalar field models exhibit an exponential form of the scalar potential in the range of the field relevant for early cosmology, with special features in the potential or kinetic term in the range governing the present epoch (Hebecker & Wetterich, 2001; Albrecht & Skordis, 2000; Armendariz-Picon, Mukhanov & Steinhardt, 2000; Wetterich, 2003). We describe such models in more detail below. Our attention is drawn toward these models due to the recent claims of suppressed power on small scales in the combined WMAP / CMB / large scale structure data set. We are motivated precisely by the fact that the most prominent influence of a small amount of early dark energy is a suppression of the growth of dark matter fluctuations (Doran, Schwindt & Wetterich, 2001; Ferreira & Joyce, 1998). As we soon discuss, this influence can help to make the fluctuation amplitude extracted from galaxy catalogues or the Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest compatible with a relatively high amplitude CMB anisotropy.

The effect of early quintessence on the mass fluctuation power spectrum can be understood simply as a suppression of the growth function for dark matter and baryonic fluctuations. Just as fluctuation growth is suppressed at late times with the onset of dark energy, so is the growth of linear modes slowed at early times due to non-negligible $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{ls})},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{sf})}`$. For modes which enter the horizon before equality, $`k>k_{\mathrm{eq}}`$, the effect is an overall suppression. For $`k<k_{\mathrm{eq}}`$, the suppression only takes place after the mode enters the horizon. The consequence is that the smaller scale matter density perturbations are more suppressed, which ultimately appears as a scale-dependent red tilt for the $`k<k_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ modes and a flat suppression for the $`k>k_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ modes.

We can directly examine the effect on the mass power spectrum by comparing the $`\sigma _8`$ values of an early quintessence model with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model having the same amount of present-day dark energy. Fixing the amplitude of the CMB fluctuations over a range of angular multipoles corresponding to $`k(8\text{Mpc})^1`$, then

$$\frac{\sigma _8(Q)}{\sigma _8(\mathrm{\Lambda })}=(a_{eq})^{3\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{sf})}/5}(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(0)})^{(1+\stackrel{~}{w}^1)/5}\sqrt{\frac{\tau _0(Q)}{\tau _0(\mathrm{\Lambda })}}.$$
(1)
The dominant effect is the first factor with $`a_{eq}=\mathrm{\Omega }_r/\mathrm{\Omega }_m1/3230`$. This factor accounts for the slower growth of the cold dark matter fluctuations. The other kinematical factors involve a suitably-averaged quintessence equation-of-state in the recent epoch, $`\stackrel{~}{w}`$ (Doran et al., 2001; Huey et al., 1999; Perlmutter, Turner & White, 1999), and the present conformal time $`\tau _0`$ for the quintessence and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ models. We emphasize that eq.(1) results in a uniform suppression of the cold dark matter amplitudes for all modes that have entered the horizon since $`z_{eq}`$.

Now we turn to consider the implications of the CMB for quintessence. The temperature anisotropy power spectrum, from the plateau through the first two peaks, now has been measured with new accuracy. In the context of a spatially-flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model, this would tell us the Hubble constant, $`h`$, matter and baryon densities, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$, very precisely. For the case of quintessence, a degeneracy exists amongst these parameters, and the influence of the equation-of-state can play off the Hubble constant to achieve an otherwise indistinguishable anisotropy pattern out to small angular scales (Huey et al., 1999). Clearly, the CMB sky is consistent with a small amount of early quintessence in addition to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(0)}`$ insofar as the angular-diameter distance to the last scattering surface is preserved. As a means of proof by example, we identify a set of models in Table 1 with observationally indistinguishable CMB patterns, i.e. identical peak positions, but differing amounts of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{ls})},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{sf})}`$, shown as Models (A,B) in Figure 1. Model (C) is WMAP’s best fit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and Model (D) the best fit for an extended data set with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and running spectral index (Spergel et al., 2003). Our methodology, therefore, is to use the CMB data to guide our search for compatible quintessence models, rather than carrying out an exhaustive survey of parameter space. We choose models with present-day equation-of-state $`w_\mathrm{q}^{(0)}0.9`$ so as to focus attention on the early rather than late quintessence behavior, as compared to a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model. Because a significant parameter degeneracy between the primordial scalar spectral index $`n_s`$ and the optical depth to last scattering $`\tau `$ persists in the WMAP data, we explore different combinations of $`n_s,\tau `$.

In Fig.2 we compare the prediction of our models for the matter power spectrum with data extracted from galaxy catalogues (e.g. 2dFGRS (Percival et al., 2001; Verde et al., 2002; Peacock et al., 2001) or the Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest (Gnedin & Hamilton, 2002; Croft et al., 2002)). In view of the uncertainties from bias and nonlinearities, the agreement is good for all models (A-D).

Increasing the spectral index to $`n_s>1`$ induces more power for the fluctuation spectrum on small scales relative to large. We remark that this enhancement of small-scale power can be balanced by an increase in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{sf})}`$. Typically, for $`\sigma _8`$ to remain constant a 10% increase of $`n_s`$ is compensated by a 5% increase of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{sf})}`$. Consequently we find a degeneracy in the $`n_s\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{sf})}`$ plane for $`\sigma _8`$. (See Fig. 3d of (Doran, Schwindt & Wetterich, 2001).) The degeneracy may be broken once data for much larger $`k`$ is included, such as the Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest. Whereas $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{sf})}`$ leads to a uniform decrease of all mass fluctuations with $`k/h>0.064\text{Mpc}^1`$ by a constant factor, the increase of the small scale matter fluctuations due to $`n_s`$ depends on scale $`k^{n_s}`$.

An increase of $`n_s`$ also influences the detailed CMB spectrum in a number of ways. First, the spectral index influences the precise location of the first peak in angular momentum space $`l_1`$. Parametrizing the location of the peaks as $`l_m=l_A(m\phi _m)`$ (Hu et al., 2001), one observes that the shift $`\phi _1`$ decreases by 4.7% if $`n_s`$ increases by 10%. Keeping the well-measured position of $`l_1`$ fixed (Page et al., 2003), this results in a decrease of $`l_A`$ by 5%. As a consequence, the location of the second and third peak are shifted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }l_219`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }l_338`$ towards smaller $`l`$. Again, this effect can (partly) be compensated by an increase of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{ls})}`$ according to $`\phi _1[10.466(n_s1)][0.2604+0.291\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{ls})}]`$ (Doran & Lilley, 2002). Second, increasing $`n_s`$ lowers the amplitude ratio between the second and first peak. This can to be compensated by a larger fraction of baryons $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$. Third, larger $`n_s`$ adds power to the CMB spectrum at large $`l`$, or a lower relative power at low $`l`$. To the extent that WMAP and COBE (Wright et al., 1996; Hinshaw et al., 1996; Banday et al., 1997) observe a lack of power on large scales, $`l10`$, then a blue tilt is beneficial, as a 10% gain in $`n_s`$ lowers the quadrupole relative to $`l=40`$ by a factor of $`1.8`$, more in line with observations.

In the extended WMAP parameter analysis, combining CMB with non-CMB cosmological constraints, the running $`k`$-dependence in $`n_s`$ is shown to lower the matter power spectrum at $`\sigma _8`$ and smaller scales, as well as reduce the small-angle CMB fluctuation power, without touching the region of $`l`$ measured by WMAP (Spergel et al., 2003). In the case of early quintessence, the CMB power spectrum on small angular scales is only mildly lowered. However, the matter fluctuations turn out to be smaller for a given CMB amplitude. The net effect is a shift of the CMB power extrapolated from structure formation data towards larger values.

The models of early quintessence considered in this article can be described by a scalar field with a non-standard kinetic term evolving in an exponential potential. The field Lagrangian is

$$=\frac{1}{2}k^2(\phi )_\mu \phi ^\mu \phi +M^4\mathrm{exp}(\phi /M).$$
(2)
and corresponds to the case of a cosmon field with a leaping kinetic term Hebecker & Wetterich (2001). Many more models of early quintessence can be cast into the form (2) by an appropriate rescaling of the scalar field. Typically, the function $`k^2(\phi )`$ is nearly constant at early times, leading to the well known attractor dynamics of quintessence fields with exponential potentials Wetterich (1988); Ratra & Peebles (1988); Ferreira & Joyce (1998); Copeland, Liddle & Wands . Hence, in the early Universe one has $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}=𝒩k^2(\phi )`$ with $`𝒩=3,4`$ for matter and radiation domination, respectively. No tuning of parameters is required in order to explain why dark energy has been of a similar order of magnitude as radiation and matter in most cosmological epochs (albeit substantially smaller in early times, e.g. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{ls})}`$ a few percent). For a realistic model, however, $`k^2(\phi )`$ must grow in the late universe. The increased weight of the kinetic term in the Lagrangian due to this growth leads to a drain of kinetic energy $`T`$ into potential energy $`V`$, effectively “stopping” the field. As the pressure of quintessence is given by $`TV`$, this change in $`k^2(\phi )`$ leads to negative pressure accelerating the universe today. For a specific example, the recent increase of $`k^2(\phi )`$ is related to the renormalization group running of the wave function renomalization of a dilaton-type model (Wetterich, 2003). This needs a mild tuning of a parameter (0.1 % level) in order for the crossover to quintessence domination to happen now. Interestingly, this crossover in the dynamical behavior of the scalar field may also be observable as a jump in the rate of variation of the fine structure constant.

We have computed the spectra in Figures 1, 2 using CMBEASY (Doran, 2003) for a class of “leaping kinetic term quintessence” (Hebecker & Wetterich, 2001) models with early quintessence. In these models $`k(\phi )`$ makes a relatively rapid jump from a small to a large value at some approximately chosen value of $`\phi `$. The main features depend only on two parameters besides the present fraction of dark energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(0)}`$ and the present equation of state $`w_\mathrm{q}^{(0)}`$, namely the fraction of dark energy at last scattering, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{ls})}`$, and during structure formation, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{sf})}`$. In order to facilitate comparison with other effects of quintessence – for example the Hubble diagram $`H(z)`$ for supernovae – we present a useful parametrization of quintessence (Wetterich, 2003) rather than detailed models. For $`a>a_{eq}`$ and $`x\mathrm{ln}a=\mathrm{ln}(1+z)`$ we consider a quadratic approximation for the averaged equation-of-state $`(x_{ls}\mathrm{ln}(1100))`$

$`\overline{w}_\mathrm{q}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}{\displaystyle _x^0}𝑑x^{}w_\mathrm{q}(x^{})`$
$`=`$ $`w_\mathrm{q}^{(0)}+(\overline{w}_\mathrm{q}^{(ls)}w_\mathrm{q}^{(0)}){\displaystyle \frac{x}{x_{ls}}}+Ax(xx_{ls}).`$
The time-dependent average equation of state $`\overline{w}_\mathrm{q}(x)`$ is directly connected to the time history of the fraction in dark energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}(x)`$ according to

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}(x)}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}(x)}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(0)}(1+a_{eq})}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(0)}}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(3x\overline{w}_\mathrm{q}(x))}{1+a_{eq}\mathrm{exp}(x)}$$
(4)
which connects $`\overline{w}_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{ls})}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{ls})}`$. The parameter $`A`$ is related to the average fraction of dark energy during structure formation ($`a_{tr}1/3`$)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{sf})}=_{\mathrm{ln}a_{eq}}^{\mathrm{ln}a_{tr}}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}(a)\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{ln}(a_{tr}/a_{eq})}.$$
(5)
The parameters describing our models are (A): $`\overline{w}_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{ls})}=0.188`$, $`A=0.0091`$; (B): $`\overline{w}_\mathrm{q}^{(\mathrm{ls})}=0.172`$, $`A=0.015`$. The Hubble expansion has a simple expression in terms of $`\overline{w}_\mathrm{q}(x)`$

$`H^2(z)`$ $`=`$ $`H_0^2[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{q}^{(0)}(1+z)^{3(1+\overline{w}_\mathrm{q}(x))}+`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{(0)}((1+z)^3+a_{eq}(1+z)^4)].`$
Our models (A) and (B) are consistent with all present bounds for $`H(z)`$, including type 1a supernovae (Schmidt et al., 1998; Riess et al., 1998; Garnavich et al., 1998; Perlmutter et al., 1998; Perlmutter, Turner & White, 1999).

To summarize, we have demonstrated that models of early quintessence are compatible with the presently available data for a constant spectral index of primordial density perturbations. Parameter degeneracies in the angular-diameter distance to last scattering are consistent with a small abundance of early quintessence. In turn, the presence of early quintessence results in a differential reduction or scale-dependent tilt in the spectrum of matter fluctuations on scales $`k<k_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ and a uniform suppression of power for scales $`k>k_{\mathrm{eq}}`$, which may have significant consequences for the interpretation of combined CMB and large scale structure data. We note that special care must be taken now to interpret large scale structure observations in the context of early quintessence models. At the other end of the spectrum, the lack of very large scale power in the CMB can be compensated in part by increasing both the primordial spectra tilt and increasing the amount of early quintessence. We look ahead toward on-going and future tests which afford tighter measurements of small scale CMB and matter power spectra. A precision measurement of the position and height of the third peak could be extremely helpful for determining the fraction of early quintessence.

We thank E. Thommes, P. Butterworth, W. Percival and A. Hamilton for helpful discussions. R. Caldwell and M. Doran are supported by NSF grant PHY-0099543, C.M. Müller and G. Schäfer are supported by GRK grant 216/3-02.


format: text

text:
# On the uniform asymptotic expansion of the Legendre functions.

## I Introduction

An uniform expansion of special functions is very useful representation of them which is used in many branches of science. It is well-known, for example, the Debay uniform expansion of the Bessel functions AbrSte . To obtain the uniform expansion one usually uses the complicate calculations which exploit an contour integral representation of function (see for example BatErdV2 ). In this paper we use the WKB approach to obtain an uniform expansion for the Legendre functions. Previously, this question was analyzed by Thorne in Ref.Tho  by using different approach and in Ref.BarKamKar  for particular case of the Legendre equation. We would like to note that this special case of calculations plays an important role in the so called functional methods which are at present the most powerful method (see Kir01 ).

The organization of this article is as follows. First of all, in Sec.II we reobtain the Debay formulas for the uniform expansion of Bessel function by using the WKB approach. In Sec.III, we apply the same method to the Legendre functions and their derivative. The Appendix contains the list of the first four coefficients in manifest form.

## II Uniform expansion of the Bessel functions

In this section we reobtain the well-known AbrSte  uniform asymptotic expansion for the Bessel functions of second kind $`I_n(n\lambda )`$ and $`K_n(n\lambda )`$ for large value of $`n`$.

These functions obey to the following differential equation

$$W^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{\lambda }W^{}=n^2\left(1+\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\right)W,$$
(1)
where the prime is the derivative with respect $`\lambda `$.

Let us represent the solution of above equation as a series over small value of $`1/n`$:

$$W=Ce^{nS_1+S_0}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n^k\omega _k$$
(2)
with $`\omega _0=1`$. Using this expression in Eq. 1 we obtain the chain of equations

$`S_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon \sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^2}}},`$ (3a)
$`S_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2S_1^{}}}\left\{S_1^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}S_1^{}\right\},`$ (3b)
$`\omega _{k+1}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \omega _k^{}}{\sqrt{1+\lambda ^2}}}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (\lambda ^24)}{(1+\lambda ^2)^{5/2}}}\omega _k,`$ (3c)
where $`\epsilon =\pm 1`$ and $`k=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ . With new variable $`t=1/\sqrt{1+\lambda ^2}`$, the last equation may be rewritten in more simple form
$$\dot{\omega }_{k+1}=\frac{\epsilon }{2}\left(t^2(1t^2)\dot{\omega }_k\right)^{}+\frac{\epsilon }{8}(15t^2)\omega _k,$$
(3d)
where the dot denotes the derivative with respect $`t`$.

The first integral of the Eqs. 3 has the following form

$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon (\eta (\lambda )+C_1),`$
$`S_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{ln}(1+\lambda ^2)+C_0,`$ (4)
$`\omega _{k+1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}t^2(1t^2)\dot{\omega }_k+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{8}}{\displaystyle _0^t}(15t^2)\omega _k(t^{})𝑑t^{}+C_{k+1},`$
where

$$\eta (\lambda )=\sqrt{1+\lambda ^2}+\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda }{1+\sqrt{1+\lambda ^2}}.$$
(5)
To find the set of constants $`C_k,k=1,0,\mathrm{}`$ we take the limit $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ in our expressions 2, 4 and compare them with well-known asymptotic formulas AbrSte

$$I_n(n\lambda )\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi n\lambda }}e^{n\lambda }(1+O(\frac{1}{\lambda })),K_n(n\lambda )\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2n\lambda }}e^{n\lambda }(1+O(\frac{1}{\lambda })).$$
(6)
Because of the next term of expansion is $`O(1/\lambda )`$ we have to set $`C_k=0`$ for $`k1`$. Taking this into account we have the following expression for uniform expansion in the limit $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$:

$$W\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda }}e^{\epsilon n\lambda }Ce^{\epsilon nC_1+C_0}.$$
(7)
Therefore, $`\epsilon =1`$ corresponds to the uniform expansion of $`I_n(n\lambda )`$ and $`\epsilon =1`$ to the $`K_n(n\lambda )`$. For coincidence the expression 7 with the asymptotic expansions 6 we have to set $`C_1=C_0=0`$ and $`C=1/\sqrt{2\pi n}`$ for $`\epsilon =1`$, and $`C=\sqrt{\pi /2n}`$ for $`\epsilon =1`$.

Therefore, we arrive at the following well-known formulas for uniform expansion of the Bessel functions

$`I_n(n\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2\pi n}}}e^{n\eta (\lambda )}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n^k\omega _k(t),`$ (8)
$`K_n(n\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi t}{2n}}}e^{n\eta (\lambda )}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(n)^k\omega _k(t),`$
where

$$\omega _{k+1}=\frac{1}{2}t^2(1t^2)\dot{\omega }_k+\frac{1}{8}_0^t(15t^2)\omega _k(t^{})𝑑t^{}.$$
(9)
In order to find formulas for derivative of the Bessel functions we represent them in the form below

$$\frac{1}{n}W^{}=\stackrel{~}{C}e^{n\stackrel{~}{S}_1+\stackrel{~}{S}_0}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n^k\stackrel{~}{\omega }_k.$$
(10)
Comparing the derivative of Eq. 2 with respect $`\lambda `$ with above formula we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_1`$ $`=`$ $`S_1,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{S}_0`$ $`=`$ $`S_0+\mathrm{ln}(\epsilon S_1^{}),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon C,`$ (11)
$`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_k`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _k+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}t(t^21)\omega _{k1}+\epsilon t^2(t^21)\dot{\omega }_{k1}.`$
Therefore, with these expressions we arrive at the well-known formulas for uniform expansion of the derivative of the Bessel functions

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}I_n^{}(n\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi nt}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}e^{n\eta (\lambda )}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n^k\overline{\omega }_k(t),`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}K_n^{}(n\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2nt}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}e^{n\eta (\lambda )}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(n)^k\overline{\omega }_k(t),`$
where

$$\overline{\omega }_k=\omega _k+\frac{1}{2}t(t^21)\omega _{k1}+t^2(t^21)\dot{\omega }_{k1}.$$
(13)
## III Uniform expansion of the Legendre functions

In this section we employ the same approach for the Legendre functions. We consider the following equation

$$(1x^2)\mathrm{\Psi }^{\prime \prime }2x\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\left(n^2\gamma ^2+\frac{n^2}{1x^2}+2\xi \right)\mathrm{\Psi }=0,$$
(14)
which has appeared in context of quantum field theory in curved space-time KhuBor ; KhuBez . Here $`x(1,1)`$, $`n,\gamma `$ and $`\xi `$ are real numbers, and the prime is the derivative with respect $`x`$. The particular case of this equation for $`\xi =1/8`$ has been considered in Ref. BarKamKar .

The solutions of this equation are the Legendre functions first and second kind:

$$P_\mu ^n[x],Q_\mu ^n[x]$$
(15)
with index

$$\mu =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{18\xi 4n^2\gamma ^2}.$$
(16)
For $`\xi =1/8`$ these functions are called the cone functions AbrSte .

We assume $`n>0`$ and consider the following two independent solutions

$`p_\mu ^n[x]`$ $`=`$ $`P_\mu ^n[x],`$ (17)
$`q_\mu ^n[x]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{2}}(Q_\mu ^n[x]+Q_{\mu 1}^n[x])`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\mathrm{sin}\pi \mu }}P_\mu ^n[x].`$
They are real functions for arbitrary $`\mu `$ and obey the following Wronskian condition

$$W(p_\mu ^n,q_\mu ^n)=\frac{1}{1x^2}.$$

To obtain the uniform expansion of functions 17 for large number $`n`$ we represent the solution in the WKB form as below

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=Ce^{nS_1(x)+S_0(x)}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n^k\psi _k(x)$$
(18)
with $`\psi _0(x)=1`$. We would like to note the difference of the uniform expansion in form 18, which is over inverse degree of $`n`$, with that considered by Thorne in Ref.Tho . He obtained an expansion over inverse degree of $`\mu +1/2=\sqrt{18\xi 4n^2\gamma ^2}/2`$.

Substituting above expression in Eq. 14 we obtain the chain of equations

$`S_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1x^2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2}{1x^2}}},`$
$`S_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{S_1^{\prime \prime }}{S_1^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2x}{1x^2}}\right\},`$ (19)
$`\psi _1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2S_1^{}}}\left\{S_0^2+S_0^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{2x}{1x^2}}S_0^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2\xi }{1x^2}}\right\},`$
$`\psi _{k+1}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(1x^2)\psi _k^{}}{\sqrt{1+\gamma ^2(1x^2)}}}\right\}^{}+\psi _1^{}\psi _k,k1,`$
where $`\epsilon =\pm 1`$.

The first integral of this chain has the following form

$`S_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon [\gamma \mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma x}{\sqrt{1+\gamma ^2(1x^2)}}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+x)(1+\gamma ^2(1x)+\sqrt{1+\gamma ^2(1x^2)})}{(1x)(1+\gamma ^2(1+x)+\sqrt{1+\gamma ^2(1x^2)})}}+C_1]`$
$`S_0(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{ln}(1+\gamma ^2(1x^2))`$
$`\psi _{k+1}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{k+1}(\epsilon ){\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1x^2}{\sqrt{1+\gamma ^2(1x^2)}}}\psi _k^{}(x)`$
$`+`$ $`\epsilon {\displaystyle _0^x}({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2}{8}}[{\displaystyle \frac{2x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{(1+\gamma ^2(1x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}))^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{5x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{(1+\gamma ^2(1x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}))^{5/2}}}]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{(1+\gamma ^2(1x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}))^{1/2}}})\psi _k(x^{})dx^{}.`$
We have already set the constant $`C_0=0`$. This leads to redefinition the constant $`C`$, only.

The formulas look simpler in terms of new variable

$$v=\frac{x}{\sqrt{1+\gamma ^2(1x^2)}},$$
(21)
instead of $`x`$. This quantity obeys to inequality: $`|v||x|<1`$. In terms of this variable we have

$`S_1(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1v}{1+v}}+\gamma \mathrm{arctan}\gamma v+C_1\right\},`$ (22a)
$`S_0(v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^2v^2}{1+\gamma ^2}},`$ (22b)
$`\psi _{k+1}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{k+1}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1v^2)(1+\gamma ^2v^2)}{(1+\gamma ^2)}}\dot{\psi }_k(v)`$ (22c)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon \gamma ^2}{8(1+\gamma ^2)}}{\displaystyle _0^v}𝑑v^{}\left\{5v^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2}}1+(8\xi 1){\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^2}{\gamma ^2(1+\gamma ^2v^2)}}\right\}\psi _k(v^{}).`$
In above formulas the dot denotes the derivative with respect new variable $`v`$.

In order to find constants $`C_k`$ we have to compare our formulas with exact expressions for the Legendre functions at a fixed point. For this reason we take the limit $`x1`$ in our formulas

$$\mathrm{\Psi }C\left(\frac{1x}{2}\right)^{\epsilon n/2}\mathrm{exp}\left[n\epsilon \left(C_1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\gamma ^2+1)+\gamma \mathrm{arctan}\gamma \right)\right]$$
(23)
and compare them with well-known expressions BatErdV1  for the Legendre functions at point $`x=1`$:

$`p_\mu ^n[x]=P_\mu ^n[x]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1x}{2}}\right)^{n/2},`$ (24)
$`q_\mu ^n[x]={\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{2}}(Q_\mu ^n[x]+Q_{\mu 1}^n[x])`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)!}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1x}{2}}\right)^{n/2}.`$
Therefore, from Eqs. 23, 24 we observe that $`\epsilon =1`$ corresponds to $`p_\mu ^n[x]`$ with $`C=1/n!`$, and $`\epsilon =+1`$ corresponds to $`q_\mu ^n[x]`$ with $`C=(n1)!/2`$, and

$$C_1=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(1+\gamma ^2)\gamma \mathrm{arctan}\gamma $$
(25)
for both signs of $`\epsilon `$. Furthermore, the coefficients $`\psi _k(v)`$ must obey the following condition

$$\psi _k(1)=0.$$
(26)
Taking into account above formulas we arrive at the following expression for uniform expansion of the Legendre’s functions

$`p_\mu ^n[x]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^2v^2}{1+\gamma ^2}}\right]^{1/4}e^{nS_1(v)}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n^k\psi _k(v)`$ (27a)
$`q_\mu ^n[x]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)!}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^2v^2}{1+\gamma ^2}}\right]^{1/4}e^{nS_1(v)}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(n)^k\psi _k(v),`$ (27b)
where
$`S_1(v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1v}{(1+v)(1+\gamma ^2)}}\gamma \left[\mathrm{arctan}\gamma v\mathrm{arctan}\gamma \right],`$ (27c)
$`\psi _{k+1}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1v^2)(1+\gamma ^2v^2)}{2(1+\gamma ^2)}}\dot{\psi }_k(v)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2}{8(1+\gamma ^2)}}{\displaystyle _1^v}𝑑v^{}\left\{5v^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2}}1+(8\xi 1){\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^2}{\gamma ^2(1+\gamma ^2v^2)}}\right\}\psi _k(v^{}).`$
Taking into account the same procedure as we used above for the derivative of the Bessel functions we obtain the following formulas for uniform expansion of the derivative of functions $`p_\mu ^n`$ and $`q_\mu ^n`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}p_\mu ^n[x]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^2v^2}{1+\gamma ^2}}\right]^{3/4}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^2}{1v^2}}e^{nS_1(v)}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n^k\overline{\psi }_k(v)`$ (28a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}q_\mu ^n[x]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)!}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^2v^2}{1+\gamma ^2}}\right]^{3/4}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^2}{1v^2}}e^{nS_1(v)}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(n)^k\overline{\psi }_k(v)`$ (28b)
$`\overline{\psi }_k(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _k(v){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2v(1v^2)}{2(1+\gamma ^2)}}\psi _{k1}(v){\displaystyle \frac{(1v^2)(1+\gamma ^2v^2)}{1+\gamma ^2}}\dot{\psi }_{k1}(v).`$ (28c)
The first four coefficients $`\psi _k`$ and $`\overline{\psi }_k`$ are listed in Appendix.

From the recurrent formula 27 it is possible to find the value of the coefficients $`\psi (v)`$ for $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$. Indeed, comparing Eq. 27 in the limit $`v0`$ and Eq. 9 in the limit $`t1`$ we obtain the following relation

$$\psi _k(0)=(1)^{k+1}\omega _k(1).$$
(29)
Now we represent formulas obtained in slightly different form which is close to expansion the Bessel functions. We set $`x=\mathrm{cos}ϵ`$ and $`\gamma =\lambda /\mathrm{sin}ϵ`$ and use the asymptotic expansion for gamma function from Ref.BatErdV2

$`\mathrm{ln}n!`$ $`=`$ $`(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\mathrm{ln}nn+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}2\pi +{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_{2k}}{2k(2k1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^{2k1}}},`$
$`\mathrm{ln}(n1)!`$ $`=`$ $`(n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\mathrm{ln}nn+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}2\pi +{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_{2k}}{2k(2k1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^{2k1}}},`$
where $`B_k`$ are the Bernoulli numbers.

With these notations one has

$`p_\mu ^n[\mathrm{cos}ϵ]`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2\pi n}}}e^{n\stackrel{~}{\eta }}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n^k\psi _k^+(v)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}ϵ}{\lambda n}}\right)^n,`$
$`q_\mu ^n[\mathrm{cos}ϵ]`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi t}{2n}}}e^{n\stackrel{~}{\eta }}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(n)^k\psi _k^+(v)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}ϵ}{\lambda n}}\right)^n,`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp_\mu ^n[x]}{dx}}_{|x=\mathrm{cos}ϵ}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi nt}}}e^{n\stackrel{~}{\eta }}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n^k\overline{\psi }_k^+(v)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}ϵ}{\lambda n}}\right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2ϵ}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{dq_\mu ^n[x]}{dx}}_{|x=\mathrm{cos}ϵ}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2nt}}}e^{n\stackrel{~}{\eta }}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(n)^k\overline{\psi }_k^+(v)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}ϵ}{\lambda n}}\right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2ϵ}},`$
where

$`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{1+\lambda ^2}+\mathrm{cos}ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{sin}ϵ}}\left[\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}ϵ}{\lambda }}\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}ϵ}{\lambda t}}\right]+1,`$ (31a)
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\lambda ^2}}},v=t\mathrm{cos}ϵ,`$ (31b)
$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{18\xi {\displaystyle \frac{4n^2\lambda ^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2ϵ}}},`$ (31c)
and the coefficients $`\psi _k^+`$ are found from relation
$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n^k\psi _k^+(v)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{B_{2k}}{2k(2k1)n^{2k1}}\right)\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n^k\psi _k(v)$$
(31d)
by comparing the same degree of $`n`$ in the left and right hand sides.

The expressions 30 have the form similar to that for the Bessel functions expansion given by Eq. 8. Furthermore, it is easy to see that in the limit $`ϵ0`$ (argument of the Legendre functions tends to unit and lower index tends to infinity) the uniform expansion obtained is transformed to the uniform expansion of the Bessel functions below

$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\mu ^np_\mu ^n[\mathrm{cos}ϵ]`$ $`=`$ $`i^nI_n(n\lambda ),`$ (32)
$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\mu ^nq_\mu ^n[\mathrm{cos}ϵ]`$ $`=`$ $`i^nK_n(n\lambda )`$
as it should be according with well-known formulas BatErdV1

$`\underset{z\mathrm{}}{lim}z^nP_z^n\left[\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{z}}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`J_n(x),`$ (33)
$`\underset{z\mathrm{}}{lim}z^nQ_z^n\left[\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{z}}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}Y_n(x),`$
where $`x=in\lambda `$ and $`z=in\lambda /ϵ`$. In this limit the function $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ given by Eq. 31a coincides with function $`\eta `$ 5 in the uniform expansion of Bessel functions:

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\stackrel{~}{\eta }=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{1+\lambda ^2}+1}+\sqrt{1+\lambda ^2}.$$
(34)
The numerical calculation of the relative errors $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_m=(p_\mu ^n(p_\mu ^n)_m)/p_\mu ^n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_m=(q_\mu ^n(q_\mu ^n)_m)/q_\mu ^n`$ are plotted in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 for different $`m=0,1,2,3`$ as function $`\lambda `$, where $`(p_\mu ^n)_m`$ and $`(q_\mu ^n)_m`$ are the uniform expansions of the Legendre functions $`p_\mu ^n`$ and $`q_\mu ^n`$ up to degree $`n^m`$. The difference is smaller the greater $`\lambda `$.

In conclusion we would like to summarize the results. In this paper we obtain the uniform expansion for the Legendre functions $`p_\mu ^n[x]`$ and $`q_\mu ^n[x]`$ given by Eq. 17 for large indices $`n`$ and $`\mu =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{18\xi 4n^2\gamma ^2}`$ as a series over inverse degree on $`n`$. These expansions of the functions are given by Eq. 27 and by Eq. 28 for their derivatives with respect of argument $`x`$. The coefficients of expansion may be found from recurrent chain of equations 27 and 28c. The first four coefficients are listed in Appendix.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to thank Dr. M. Bordag for stimulation of this work and for reading this manuscript. The work was supported by part the Russian Foundation for Basic Research grant N 02-02-17177.

*

## Appendix A Manifest form of first four coefficients.

Below are the expressions for first four coefficients $`\psi _k`$ and $`\overline{\psi }_k`$ in which we introduced for simplicity the following notations:

$$\delta =\mathrm{arctan}[\gamma ]\mathrm{arctan}[\gamma v],\zeta =\xi \frac{1}{8},v=\frac{x}{\sqrt{1+\gamma ^2(1x^2)}}.$$
(35)
$`\psi _0`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (36)
$`\psi _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \zeta }{\gamma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2+1}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma ^2+3}{24}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v(\gamma ^21)}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{5v^3\gamma ^2}{24}}\right],`$
$`\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \zeta }{\gamma }}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \zeta }{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2+1}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma ^2+3}{24}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v(\gamma ^21)}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{5v^3\gamma ^2}{24}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (1+v^2)}{2(\gamma ^2+1)}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\gamma ^2+1)^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{4\gamma ^4+84\gamma ^263}{1152}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v(\gamma ^21)(2\gamma ^2+3)}{192}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2(9\gamma ^458\gamma ^2+9)}{128}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5v^3\gamma ^2(2\gamma ^2+3)}{576}}{\displaystyle \frac{77v^4\gamma ^2(\gamma ^21)}{192}}+{\displaystyle \frac{385v^6\gamma ^4}{1152}}],`$
$`\psi _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \zeta }{\gamma }}\right)^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \zeta }{\gamma }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2+1}}[{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma ^2+3}{24}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v(\gamma ^21)}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{5v^3\gamma ^2}{24}}]+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \zeta }{\gamma }}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\gamma ^2+1)^2}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{4\gamma ^4+84\gamma ^263}{1152}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v(\gamma ^21)(2\gamma ^2+3)}{192}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2(9\gamma ^458\gamma ^2+9)}{128}}{\displaystyle \frac{5v^3\gamma ^2(2\gamma ^2+3)}{576}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{77v^4\gamma ^2(\gamma ^21)}{192}}+{\displaystyle \frac{385v^6\gamma ^4}{1152}}\}+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{\gamma ^2+1}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma ^2+1}{2\gamma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{2}}\}]+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2(1v)}{2\gamma ^2(\gamma ^2+1)}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{(\gamma ^2+1)^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma ^2+7}{48}}{\displaystyle \frac{v(3\gamma ^211)}{16}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2(2\gamma ^2+3)}{48}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v^3(44\gamma ^229)}{48}}{\displaystyle \frac{35v^5\gamma ^2}{48}}\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\gamma ^2+1)^3}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1112\gamma ^6+1116\gamma ^4918\gamma ^2+5265}{414720}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v(4\gamma ^6+728\gamma ^44323\gamma ^2+711)}{9216}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^2(2\gamma ^2+3)(9\gamma ^458\gamma ^2+9)}{3072}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v^3(2005\gamma ^637671\gamma ^4+37566\gamma ^22025)}{27648}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{77v^4(\gamma ^21)(2\gamma ^2+3)}{4608}}{\displaystyle \frac{13v^5\gamma ^2(1053\gamma ^43706\gamma ^2+1053)}{15360}}+{\displaystyle \frac{385v^6\gamma ^4(2\gamma ^2+3)}{27648}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{17017v^7\gamma ^4(\gamma ^21)}{9216}}{\displaystyle \frac{85085v^9\gamma ^6}{82944}}]`$
$`\psi _0^+`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _0=1,`$ (37)
$`\psi _1^+`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}},`$
$`\psi _2^+`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\psi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{288}},`$
$`\psi _3^+`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\psi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{288}}\psi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{139}{51840}}.`$
$`\overline{\psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (38)
$`\overline{\psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \zeta }{\gamma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2+1}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma ^2+3}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{v(3\gamma ^2+1)}{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7v^3\gamma ^2}{24}}\right],`$
$`\overline{\psi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \zeta }{\gamma }}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \zeta }{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2+1}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma ^2+3}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{v(3\gamma ^2+1)}{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7v^3\gamma ^2}{24}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (1v^2)}{2(\gamma ^2+1)}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\gamma ^2+1)^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{(2\gamma ^227)(2\gamma ^23)}{1152}}{\displaystyle \frac{v(3\gamma ^2+1)(2\gamma ^2+3)}{192}}{\displaystyle \frac{v^2(15\gamma ^462\gamma ^2+7)}{128}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7v^3\gamma ^2(2\gamma ^2+3)}{576}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v^4\gamma ^2(99\gamma ^279)}{192}}{\displaystyle \frac{455v^6\gamma ^4}{1152}}],`$
$`\overline{\psi }_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \zeta }{\gamma }}\right)^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \zeta }{\gamma }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2+1}}[{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma ^2+3}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{v(3\gamma ^2+1)}{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7v^3\gamma ^2}{24}}]+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \zeta }{\gamma }}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\gamma ^2+1)^2}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{(2\gamma ^23)(2\gamma ^227)}{1152}}{\displaystyle \frac{v(3\gamma ^2+1)(2\gamma ^2+3)}{192}}{\displaystyle \frac{v^2(15\gamma ^462\gamma ^2+7)}{128}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7v^3\gamma ^2(2\gamma ^2+3)}{576}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^4\gamma ^2(99\gamma ^279)}{192}}{\displaystyle \frac{455v^6\gamma ^4}{1152}}\}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{\gamma ^2+1}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\gamma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{2}}\}]+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2(1v)}{2\gamma ^2(\gamma ^2+1)}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{(\gamma ^2+1)^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma ^21}{48}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v(3\gamma ^27)}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{v^2(2\gamma ^2+3)}{48}}{\displaystyle \frac{v^3(44\gamma ^225)}{48}}+{\displaystyle \frac{35v^5\gamma ^2}{48}}\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\gamma ^2+1)^3}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1112\gamma ^6+5436\gamma ^4+1242\gamma ^21215}{414720}}{\displaystyle \frac{v(12\gamma ^6+904\gamma ^44281\gamma ^2+585)}{9216}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^2(2\gamma ^2+3)(15\gamma ^462\gamma ^2+7)}{3072}}{\displaystyle \frac{v^3(2807\gamma ^642897\gamma ^4+37458\gamma ^21863)}{27648}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^4(99\gamma ^279)(2\gamma ^2+3)}{4608}}+{\displaystyle \frac{11v^5\gamma ^2(1521\gamma ^44762\gamma ^2+1241)}{15360}}{\displaystyle \frac{455v^6\gamma ^4(2\gamma ^2+3)}{27648}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{385v^7\gamma ^4(51\gamma ^247)}{9216}}+{\displaystyle \frac{95095v^9\gamma ^6}{82944}}]`$


text:
# Dynamical Structure of Irregular Constrained Systems

## 1 Introduction

Dirac’s Hamiltonian analysis provides a systematic method for finding the gauge symmetries and the physical degrees of freedom of constrained systems like gauge theories and gravity . Constraints arise through conditions of the form

$$\varphi ^r(z)0(r=1,\mathrm{},R),$$
(1)
where $`z`$ are local coordinates in phase space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In the most common cases of physical interest the $`\varphi `$’s are functionally independent; these are the regular constrained systems. There are some exceptional cases in which functional independence is violated. In these *irregular systems* it is not always clear how to identify symmetries and true degrees of freedom. Moreover, the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian descriptions may not be equivalent in irregular systems.

Irregular systems are not necessarily intractable nor exotic. A common example is a relativistic massless particle ($`p^\mu p_\mu =0`$), which is irregular at the origin of momentum space ($`p^\mu =0`$). There are other physical circumstances in which regularity is violated, and not only for isolated states but on large portions of phase space where the system evolves. This is the case in Chern-Simons (CS) theories for dimensions $`D5`$ where, for some initial configurations, regularity can fail at all times and one is forced to live with this problem.

A CS Lagrangian describes a gauge theory for a certain Lie group $`G`$ in a spacetime of odd dimension. The construction is naturally invariant under diffeomorphisms and provides a non-standard but otherwise acceptable description of gravity as a gauge theory -. Furthermore, CS theories are highly nonlinear, possess propagating degrees of freedom , and have a very rich phase space structure with many different sectors, some of which describe irregular systems .

In five-dimensional CS supergravity, it was observed that the linearized action around a certain anti-de Sitter background seems to have *one more degree of freedom* than the fully nonlinear system . This paradoxical behavior can be seen to arise from a violation of the regularity conditions among the symmetry generators of the theory in the region of phase space defined by the selected background.

Here we address different scenarios in which regularity conditions can be violated, how such systems can be handled in some cases, and why linearization may fail to approximate a nonlinear system faithfully. It is found that there are two main types of irregular constraints, multilinear (type I) and nonlinear (type II). The constraints of the first type can always be regularized, while type II constraints (of the form $`f^k`$, where $`f`$ has a simple zero and $`k>1`$) can be regularized only if $`f`$ is a second class function.

Constraints satisfying regularity conditions are sometimes referred to as *effective* constraints . The issue of regularity (*effectiveness*) and its relevance for the equivalence between the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms has also been discussed in .

## 2 Regularity conditions

Consider a dynamical system in a phase space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with local coordinates $`z^i(q,p)`$ $`\left(i=1,\mathrm{},2n\right)`$. Conditions (1) define the constraint surface

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{\overline{z}\mathrm{\Gamma }\varphi ^r(\overline{z})=0\left(r=1,\mathrm{},R\right)\left(R2n\right)\}.$$
(2)
Dirac’s procedure guarantees that the system remains on the constraint surface during its evolution (for reviews, see Refs. ,-). Choosing different coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ may lead to different forms for the constraint functions whose functional independence is not obvious. The *regularity conditions* were designed by Dirac to test this .

Regularity conditions (RCs):  *The constraints $`\varphi ^r0`$ are regular if and only if their small variations $`\delta \varphi ^r`$evaluated on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ define $`R`$ linearly independent functions of $`\delta z^i`$.*

To first order in $`\delta z^i`$, the variations of the constraints have the form

$$\delta \varphi ^r=J_i^r\delta z^i(r=1,\mathrm{},R),$$
(3)
where $`J_i^r\frac{\varphi ^r}{z^i}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the Jacobian evaluated on the constraint surface. An equivalent definition of the RCs is : *The set of constraints* $`\varphi ^r0`$ *is regular if and only if the Jacobian* $`J_i^r=\frac{\varphi ^r}{z^i}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ *has maximal rank,* $`\mathrm{}(𝐉)=R.`$

A simple classical mechanical example of functionally *dependent* constraints occurs in a $`2`$-dimensional phase space with coordinates $`(q,p)`$ and constraints $`\varphi ^1q0`$ and $`\varphi ^2pq0`$. In this case, $`𝐉=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & p\hfill \\ 0\hfill & q\hfill \end{array}\right]_{q=0}`$ and $`\mathrm{}\left(𝐉\right)=1`$.

A system of just one constraint can also fail the test of regularity. Consider for example the constraint $`\varphi =q^20`$ in a $`2`$-dimensional phase space. In this case, $`𝐉=(2q,0)_{q^2=0}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{}\left(𝐉\right)=0`$. The same problem occurs with the constraint $`q^k0`$, for $`k>1`$, which has a zero of $`k`$-th order on the constraint surface. This example illustrates that one *constraint* may be dependent on itself, while one *function* is, by definition, always functionally independent.

Equivalence: *Different sets of constraints are said to be equivalent if they define the same constraint surface.*

Note that this definition refers to the locus of constraints, not to equivalence of the resulting dynamics. Since the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is defined by the zeros of the constraints, while the regularity conditions depend on their derivatives, it is possible to replace a set of irregular $`\varphi `$’s by an *equivalent* set of *regular* constraints $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$.

In the classification of irregular systems, two questions present themselves: what is the *nature* of the constraints that give rise to irregularity, and *where* the irregularities can occur. These issues are addressed in the following subsections. A third question is whether a system can evolve from an initial state in which regularity holds, into an irregular configuration. This will be discussed in the last section.

### 2.1 Basic types of irregular constraints

Irregular constraints can be classified according to their behavior in the vicinity of the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. For example, linearly dependent constraints have Jacobian with constant rank $`R^{}`$ throughout $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and

$$\varphi ^rJ_i^r(\overline{z})\left(z^i\overline{z}^i\right)0,\mathrm{}(𝐉)=R^{}<R.$$
(4)
These constraints are regular systems in disguise simply because $`RR^{}`$ constraints are redundant and should be discarded. The subset with $`R^{}`$ linearly independent constraints gives the correct description. For example, the linearly dependent constraints $`\varphi ^1=z`$ and $`\varphi ^2=2z`$ are clearly in this category. Apart from this trivial case, two main types of truly irregular constraints, which do not possess a linear approximation in the vicinity of some points of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, can be distinguished:

#### Type I. Multilinear constraints.

Consider the constraint

$$\varphi \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}f_i(z)0,$$
(5)
where the functions $`f_i`$ have simple zeros. Each factor defines a surface of codimension 1,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\{\overline{z}\mathrm{\Gamma }f_i(\overline{z})=0\},$$
(6)
and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the collection of all surfaces, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_i.`$ The rank of Jacobian of $`\varphi `$ is reduced at intersections

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_j.$$
(7)
Thus, the RCs hold everywhere on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, except at the intersections $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}`$, where $`\varphi `$ has zeros of higher order. Note that the intersections (7) also include the points where more than two $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s overlap.

#### Type II. Nonlinear constraints.

Consider the constraint of the form

$$\varphi \left[f(z)\right]^k0\left(k>1\right),$$
(8)
where the function $`f(z)`$ has a simple zero. This constraint has a zero of order $`k`$ in the vicinity of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, its Jacobian vanishes on the constraint surface and, therefore, the RCs fail (here we assume $`k>1`$ in order to avoid infinite values for $`\frac{\varphi }{z^i}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$). It could seem harmless to replace $`\varphi `$ by the equivalent regular constraint $`f(z)0`$, but it turns out that this may change the dynamics of original system, as we show below.

Types I and II are the two fundamental generic classes of irregular constraints. In general, there can be combinations of them occurring simultaneously near a constraint surface, as in constraints of the form $`\varphi =\left[f_1(z)\right]^2f_2(z)0`$, etc.

### 2.2 Classification of constraint surfaces

The previous classification refers to the way in which $`\varphi `$ approaches zero. Now we will discuss *where* regularity can be violated. The rank of the Jacobian $`\frac{\varphi ^r}{z^i}`$ need not be constant throughout $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:`$ suppose one eigenvalue of the Jacobian vanishes on a submanifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. On $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ regularity is violated, while it still holds on the rest of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Thus, barring accidental degeneracies such as linearly dependent constraints, one of these three situation may present themselves:

A. *The RCs are satisfied everywhere on the constraint surface*: $`𝐉`$ has maximal rank throughout $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (regular systems).

B. *The RCs fail everywhere on the constraint surface:* $`𝐉`$ has constant rank $`R^{}<R`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$

C. *The RCs fail on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$:* $`\mathrm{}\left(𝐉\right)|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}=R^{}<R`$, while $`\mathrm{}\left(𝐉\right)=R`$ elsewhere on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

In the last case, the constraint surface can be decomposed into two non overlapping sets $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_R`$. Then, the rank of the Jacobian jumps from $`\mathrm{}\left(𝐉\right)=R`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_R`$, to $`\mathrm{}\left(𝐉\right)=R^{}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$. Although the functions $`\varphi ^r`$ are continuous and differentiable, this is not sufficient for regularity. Irregular cases are illustrated by the following examples.

In a $`(2+N)`$-dimensional phase space $`(q,p,z^1,\mathrm{},z^N)`$, the constraints $`\varphi ^1qp0`$ and $`\varphi ^2qp0`$ are irregular on the whole constraint surface $`\left\{(0,0,z^1,\mathrm{},z^N)\right\},`$ where the Jacobian has rank $`\mathrm{}(𝐉)=1`$. Note that these constraints are always irregular, although the functions $`q+p`$ and $`qp`$ are functionally independent everywhere except for $`q=p`$, which happens to be the case at the constraint surface.

An example having both regular and irregular sectors is a massless relativistic particle in Minkowski space with phase space $`(q^\mu ,p_\nu )`$. The constraint $`\varphi p^\mu p_\mu 0`$has Jacobian $`𝐉=(0,2p^\mu )_{\varphi =0}`$, and its rank is one everywhere, except at the apex of the cone, $`p^\mu =0`$, where the light-cone is not differentiable and the Jacobian has rank zero.

The lack of regularity, however, is not necessarily due to the absence of a well defined smooth tangent space for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Consider for example the multilinear constraint

$$\varphi (x,y,z)=(x1)(x^2+y^21)0.$$
(9)
Here the constraint surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is composed of two sub-manifolds: the plane $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\{(x,y,z)`$ $`x10\}`$, and the cylinder $`C=\{(x,y,z)`$ $`x^2+y^210\}`$, which are tangent to each other along the line $`L=\{(x,y,z)`$ $`x=1,y=0,z`$. The Jacobian on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is

$$𝐉=(3x^2+y^22x1,2y\left(x1\right),0)_{\varphi =0}$$
(10)
and its rank is $`1`$ everywhere, except on $`L`$, where it is zero. The constraint $`\varphi `$ is irregular on this line. However, the tangent vectors to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are well defined there. The irregularity arises because $`\varphi `$ is a multilinear constraint of the type described by (5) and has two simple zeros overlapping on $`L`$. The equivalent set of regular constraints on $`L`$ is $`\{\varphi _\mathrm{\Pi }=x10,\varphi _C=x^2+y^210\}`$, as we will see below.

## 3 Treatment of irregular systems

In what follows regular systems and linearly dependent constraints will not be discussed. They are either treated in standard texts, or they can be trivially reduced to the regular case.

### 3.1 Multilinear constraints

Consider a system of type I, as in Eq. (5). In the vicinity of an irregular point where only two surfaces (6) intersect, say $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$, the constraint $`\varphi 0`$ is equivalently described by the set of regular constraints

$$f_10,f_20.$$
(11)
This replacement generically changes the Lagrangian of the system, and the orbits, as well. Suppose the original canonical Lagrangian is

$$L(q,u)=p_i\dot{q}^iH(q,p)u\varphi (q,p),$$
(12)
where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian containing all regular constraints. Replacing $`\varphi `$ by (11), gives rise to an effective Lagrangian

$$L_{12}(q,v)=p_i\dot{q}^iH(q,p)v^1f_1(q,p)v^2f_2(q,p).$$
(13)
defined on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}`$. Thus, instead of the *irregular* Lagrangian (12) defined on the whole $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, there is a collection of *regularized* effective Lagrangians defined in the neighborhood of the different intersections of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$s. For each of these regularized Lagrangians, the Dirac procedure can be carried out to the end.

Let us illustrate this with the example of a Lagrangian in a $`\left(2+N\right)`$-dimensional configuration space $`(x,y,q^1,\mathrm{},q^N)`$,

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\dot{q}^k\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2\right)\lambda xy.$$
(14)
This Lagrangian describes a free particle moving on the set

$$\left\{(x,y,q^k)^{N+2}\right|xy=0\}^{N+2},$$
(15)
which is the union of two $`(N+1)`$-dimensional planes where $`x`$ and $`y`$ vanish respectively. The constraint surface defined by $`xy=0`$ can be divided into the following sets:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{(x,0,q^k;p_x,p_y,p_k)\right|x0\}`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{(0,y,q^k;p_x,p_y,p_k)\right|y0\}`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{(0,0,q^k;p_x,p_y,p_k)\right\}.`$
The constraint is regular on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$, while on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}`$ it is irregular and can be exchanged by $`\{\varphi _1=x0`$, $`\varphi _2=y0\}`$. The corresponding regularized Lagrangians are

$`L_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(\dot{q}^k\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{x}^2,`$
$`L_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(\dot{q}^k\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{y}^2`$ (17)
$`L_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(\dot{q}^k\right)^2,`$
and the Lagrange multipliers have dropped out, so the regularized Lagrangians describe physical degrees of freedom only – as expected.

The corresponding regularized Hamiltonians are

$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_x^2,`$
$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_y^2`$ (18)
$`H_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_k^2,`$
which are defined in the corresponding reduced manifolds of phase space (obtained after completing the Dirac procedure):

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_1`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{(x,0,q^k;p_x,0,p_k)\right|x0\}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{(0,y,q^k;0,p_y,p_k)\right|y0\}`$ (19)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{(0,0,q^k;0,0,p_k)\right\}.`$
It is straightforward to generalize the proposed treatment when more than two surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ overlap.

#### Evolution of a multilinearly constrained system.

Since in the presence of a multilinear constraint there are regions of the phase space where the Jacobian has different rank, a question arises about the evolution of this system. Can the system evolve from a generic configuration in a region of maximal rank, reaching a configuration of lower rank in finite time? In the case that that were possible, what happens with the system afterwards?. (This problem should not be confused with the issues arising in degenerate systems -.)

To answer this question let us consider the simple example discussed above (14), for $`N=1`$,

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\left(\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2+\dot{z}^2\right)\lambda xy.$$
(20)
In the regions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ \[see Eqs. (16)\], the rank is maximal and the free particle can move freely along the $`x`$\- or $`y`$-axis respectively.

Suppose that the initial state is

$$x(0)=a>0,y(0)=0,z(0)=0,\dot{x}(0)=v<0,\dot{y}(0)=0,\dot{z}(0)=0,$$
(21)
so that the particle is moving on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$, with finite speed along the $`x`$-axis towards $`x=0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}`$. The evolution is given by $`\overline{x}(t)=avt`$, $`\overline{y}(t)=0`$, $`\overline{z}(t)=0`$ and the particle clearly reaches $`x=0`$ in a finite time ($`T=a/v`$). What happens then? According to the evolution equation, for $`x<0`$ the trajectory takes the form $`\overline{x}(t)=a^{}v^{}t`$, $`\overline{y}(t)=0`$, $`\overline{z}(t)=0`$, however the action would be infinite unless $`a=a^{}`$ and $`v=v^{}`$. Therefore, the particle continues unperturbed past beyond the point where the RCs fail. So, the irregular surface is not only reachable in a finite time, but it is crossed without any observable effect on the trajectory.

¿From the point of view of the trajectory in phase space, it is clear that the initial state $`(a,0,0;v,0,0)`$ lies on the surface $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_1`$, and at $`t=T`$ the system reaches the point $`(0,0,0;v,0,0)`$, which *does not lie on* the surface $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{12}=\left\{(0,0,z;0,0,p_z)\right\}`$.

While it is true that at $`t=T`$ the Jacobian changes rank, it would be incorrect to conclude that the evolution suffers a jump since the dynamical equations are perfectly valid there. In order to have significant change in dynamics, the Jacobian should change its rank in an open set.

### 3.2 Nonlinear constraints

Let us now turn to the case of irregular systems of type II. As we will show, it is possible to replace a nonlinear irregular constraint by an equivalent linear one without changing the dynamical contents of the theory, provided the linear constraint is second class. Otherwise, the resulting Hamiltonian dynamics will be, in general, inequivalent to that of the original Lagrangian system.

In order to illustrate this point, consider a system given by the Lagrangian

$$L(q,u)=\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{ij}\dot{q}^i\dot{q}^ju\left[f(q)\right]^k,$$
(22)
where $`k>1`$ and

$$f(q)c_iq^i0,i=1,\mathrm{},N.$$
(23)
Here we assume the metric $`\gamma _{ij}`$ to be constant and invertible, and the coefficients $`c_i`$ are also constant. The Euler-Lagrange equations describe a free particle in an $`N`$-dimensional space, with time evolution $`\overline{q}^i(t)=v_0^it+q_0^i`$, where $`u(t)`$ is a Lagrange multiplier. This solution is determined by $`2N`$ initial conditions, $`q^i(0)=q_0^i`$ and $`\dot{q}^i(0)=v_0^i`$ subject to the constraints $`c_iq_0^i=0`$ and $`c_iv_0^i=0`$. Thus, the system possesses $`N1`$ physical degrees of freedom.

In the Hamiltonian approach this system has a primary constraint $`\pi \frac{L_2}{\dot{u}}0`$ whose preservation in time leads to the secondary constraint

$$\varphi \left[f(q)\right]^k0.$$
(24)
According to (8), this is a nonlinear constraint and there are no further constraints. As a consequence, the system has only two first class constraints $`\left\{\pi 0,f^k0\right\}`$, and $`N1`$ degrees of freedom, as found in the Lagrangian approach.

On the other hand, if one chooses instead of (24), the equivalent linear constraint

$$f(q)=c_iq^i0,$$
(25)
then its time evolution yields a *new* constraint,

$$\chi (p)\gamma ^{ij}c_ip_j0.$$
(26)
Now, since

$$\{f,\chi \}=\gamma ^{ij}c_ic_jc^2,$$
(27)
two cases can be distinguished:

* If $`c=0`$, there are three first class constraints, $`\pi 0`$, $`f0`$ and $`\chi 0`$, which means that the system has $`N2`$ physical degrees of freedom. In this case, substitution of (24) by the equivalent linear constraint (25), yields a *dynamically inequivalent* system.
* If $`c0`$, then $`f0`$ and $`\chi 0`$ are second class, while $`\pi 0`$ is first class, which leaves $`N1`$ physical degrees of freedom and the substitution does not change the dynamics of the system.

Thus, if $`f^k0`$ is irregular, replacing it by the regular constraint $`f0`$ changes the dynamics if $`f`$ is a first class function, but it gives the correct result if it is a second class function.

Note that in the Lagrangian description there is no room to distinguish first and second class constraints, so it would seem like the value of $`c`$ didn’t matter. However, the inequivalence of the substitution can be understood in the Lagrangian analysis as well. Suppose that it were permissible to exchange the constraint $`f^k0`$ by $`f0`$ in the Lagrangian. Then, instead of (22), one would have

$$\stackrel{~}{L}(q,u)=\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{ij}\dot{q}^i\dot{q}^juf(q).$$
(28)
It can be easily checked that (28) yields $`N2`$ degrees of freedom when $`c=0`$, and $`N1`$ degrees of freedom when $`c0`$, which agrees with the results obtained in the Hamiltonian analysis. Note that the substitution of $`f^k`$ by $`f`$ modifies the dynamics only if $`\gamma ^{ij}c_ic_j=0`$, but this can happen nontrivially only if the metric $`\gamma _{ij}`$ is not positive definite.

In general, a nonlinear irregular constraint $`\varphi 0`$ has a multiple zero on the constraint surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which means that its gradient vanishes on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as well. An immediate consequence of $`\left(\varphi /z^i\right)`$ $`0`$, is that $`\varphi `$ commutes with all *finite* functions on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$,

$$\{\varphi ,F(z)\}0.$$
(29)
As a consequence, $`\varphi 0`$ is first class and is always preserved in time,

$$\dot{\varphi }0.$$
(30)
On the other hand, a nonlinear constraint cannot be viewed as a symmetry generator simply because it does not generate any transformation,

$$\delta _\epsilon z^i=\{z^i,\epsilon \varphi \}0.$$
(31)
Consistently with this, $`\varphi `$ cannot be gauge-fixed, as there is no finite function $`𝒫`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that

$$\{\varphi ,𝒫\}0.$$
(32)
In this sense, a nonlinear first class constraint that cannot be gauge-fixed, cancels only half a degree of freedom. The other half degree of freedom cannot be cancelled because the gauge-fixing function does not exist and, in particular, it cannot appear in the Hamiltonian. Although the features (29-32) allow counting the degrees of freedom in a theory, these systems are pathological and their physical relevance is questionable since their Lagrangians cannot be regularized.

When a nonlinear constraint $`\varphi 0`$ can be exchanged by a regular one, the Lagrangian is regularized as in the case of multilinear constraints. For example, the system (22) with $`c0`$ has Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{ij}p_ip_j+\lambda \pi +uf(q),$$
(33)
where $`f=c_iq^i`$ will turn out to be a second class constraint. The corresponding regularized Lagrangian is

$$L_{reg}=\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{ij}\dot{q}^i\dot{q}^juf(q),$$
(34)
which coincides with $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$, Eq. (28), as expected.

In the Refs.  irregular systems of the type II were discussed. It was pointed out that there was a possible loss of dynamical information in some cases. From our point of view, it is clear that this would occur when $`f`$ is a first class function.

## 4 Linearization of irregular systems

It has been observed in five dimensional Chern Simons theory, that the effective action for the linearized perturbations of the system around certain backgrounds seems to have more degrees of freedom than the fully nonlinear theory . This is puzzling since the heuristic picture is that the degrees of freedom of a system correspond to the small perturbations around a local minimum of the action, and therefore the number of degrees of freedom should not change when the linearized approximation is used.

In view of the discussion in the previous section, it is clear that a possible solution of the puzzle lies in the fact that substituting a nonlinear constraint by a linear ones may change the dynamical features of the theory. But the problem with linear approximations is more serious: the linearized approximation retains only up to quadratic and bilinear terms in the Lagrangian, which give linear equations for the perturbations. Thus, irregular constraints in the vicinity of the constraint surface are erased in the linearized action. The smaller number of constraints in the effective theory can lead to the wrong conclusion that the effective system possess more degrees of freedom than the unperturbed theory. The lesson to be learned is that the linear approximation is not valid in the part of the phase space where the RCs fail.

This is illustrated by the same example discussed earlier (22). One can choose as a background the solution $`(\overline{q}^1,\mathrm{},\overline{q}^N,\overline{u})`$, where $`\overline{q}^i(t)=q_0^i+v_0^it`$ satisfies the constraint

$$c_i\overline{q}^i=0,$$
(35)
and $`\overline{u}(t)`$ is an arbitrarily given function. This describes a free particle moving in the ($`N1`$)-dimensional plane defined by (35). The linearized effective Lagrangian, to second order in the small perturbations $`s^i=q^i\overline{q}^i(t)`$ and $`w=u\overline{u}(t)`$, has the form

$$L_{eff}(s,w)=\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{ij}\left(v_0^i+\dot{s}^i\right)\left(v_0^j+\dot{s}^j\right)\overline{u}\left(c_is^i\right)^2,$$
(36)
and the equations of motion are

$$\ddot{s}^i+\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^i(t)s^j=0i=1,\mathrm{},N,$$
(37)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^i2\overline{u}\gamma ^{ik}c_kc_j`$ is the eigen frequency matrix. Since $`\overline{u}`$ is not a dynamical variable, it is not varied and the nonlinear constraint $`\left(c_is^i\right)^2=0`$ is absent from the linearized equations. The system described by (37) possesses $`N`$ physical degrees of freedom, that is, one degree of freedom more than the original nonlinear theory (22).

The only indication that one of these degrees of freedom has a nonphysical origin is the following: If $`c0`$, splitting the components of $`s^i`$ along $`c_i`$ and orthogonal to $`c_i`$ as

$$s^i(t)s(t)\gamma ^{ij}c_j+s_{}^i(t),$$
(38)
gives rise to the projected equations

$`\ddot{s}_{}^i`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (39)
$`\ddot{s}+2\overline{u}(t)c^2s`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (40)
The $`N1`$ components of $`s_{}^i(t)`$ obey a deterministic second order equation, whereas $`s(t)`$ satisfies an equation which depends on an indeterminate arbitrary function $`\overline{u}(t)`$. The dependence of $`s=\overline{s}(t,\overline{u}(t))`$ on the background Lagrange multiplier $`\overline{u}`$ is an indication that $`s`$ is a nonphysical degree of freedom, since $`u`$ was an arbitrary function to begin with. This is not manifest in Eq. (40), where $`\overline{u}`$ is a fixed function and, from a naive point of view, $`s(t)`$ is determined by the same equation, regardless of the physically obscure origin of the function $`\overline{u}`$. It is this naive analysis that leads to the wrong conclusion indicated above.

Let us emphasize that a linearized theory may be consistent by itself, but it is not necessarily a faithful approximation of a nonlinear theory.

One way to avoid the inconsistencies between the original theory and the linearized one would be to first regularize the constraints (if possible) and then linearize the corresponding regular Lagrangian.

## 5 Chern-Simons theories

Hamiltonian structure of CS theories has been studied in . The phase space of a CS theory in $`D=2n+1`$ space-time dimensions, invariant under $`N`$-parameter gauge group, is defined by canonically conjugate pairs of fields $`(A_i^a(x,t),\pi _a^i(x^{},t))`$, where $`a=1,\mathrm{},N`$ and $`x^i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},2n`$) are the local coordinates on a spatial section. The CS Hamiltonian density is given by

$$=A_0^a\stackrel{~}{G}_a+u_i^a\varphi _a^i,$$
(41)
where $`u_i^a(x,t)`$ and $`A_0^a(x,t)`$ are Lagrange multipliers for the constraints

$`\varphi _a^i`$ $``$ $`\pi _a^i_a^i(A_j^b)0,`$ (42)
$`G_a`$ $`=`$ $`g_{aa_1\mathrm{}a_n}F^{a_1}\mathrm{}F^{a_n}0.`$ (43)
Here $`G_ad^{2n}x\stackrel{~}{G}_a`$, $`g`$ is a symmetric tensor of rank $`n+1`$, invariant under action of a gauge group, and $`F=dA+AA`$ is the curvature 2-form associated to the gauge field 1-form $`A`$.

Constraints $`\varphi _a^i`$ are regular because they are linear in momenta. Thus, the regularity of CS theories is determined by momentum-independent constraints $`G_a`$. Their small variations, $`\delta G_a=𝐉_{ab}D\delta A^b`$, evaluated at $`G_a=0`$, give the $`(2n2)`$-form $`𝐉_{ab}`$, which can be identified as the Jacobian,

$$𝐉_{ab}ng_{aba_2\mathrm{}a_n}F^{a_2}\mathrm{}F^{a_n}.$$
(44)
According to Dirac’s definition, sufficient and necessary condition for $`G_a`$ to be regular is

$$\mathrm{}\left(𝐉_{ab}\right)=N.$$
(45)
Since $`𝐉_{ab}`$ is field dependent, its rank may change in space. In particular, for a pure gauge configuration $`F=0`$, and $`𝐉_{ab}`$ has rank zero. For other configurations, the rank of Jacobian can range from zero to $`N`$, and the irregularities are always of multilinear type because in the expression (43) the phase space coordinates $`A_i^a`$ occur only linearly.

In general, a non-abelian CS theory for $`D5`$ possesses a non-vanishing number of physical degrees of freedom

$$f_{2n+1}(N)=nNnN(N2)$$
(46)
in regular and *generic* cases . Therefore, in CS theories, the study of dynamics requires not only the analysis of regularity, but also of genericity. In spite of the fact that both conditions are expressed in terms of the same matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}^{ij}`$, they are independent. For example, the extreme case of $`F=0`$ is both irregular and degenerate, but there are examples in CS supergravity which are generic and irregular . The opposite case occurs in a five-dimensional CS theory based on $`G_1\times G_2`$ for particular choice of invariant tensor. In this case, there exist configurations which are regular but degenerate. Take the group indices as $`a=(r,\alpha )`$ corresponding to $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ respectively, and invariant tensor as $`g_{rs1}=g_{rs}`$ and $`g_{\alpha \beta \overline{1}}=g_{\alpha \beta }`$ (both invertible). Then the configuration $`F^a=(f^1dx^1dx^2,h^{\overline{1}}dx^3dx^4)`$ is regular and degenerate. Indeed, $`𝐉_{ab}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{rs}f^1& 0\\ 0& g_{\alpha \beta }h^{\overline{1}}\end{array}\right)`$ is regular, while $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}^{ij}`$ with non-vanishing components $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{rs}^{34}=g_{rs}f^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{12}=g_{\alpha \beta }h^{\overline{1}}`$ has $`2N`$ zero modes and is therefore degenerate.

As a consequence of existence of both regularity and genericity issues, the regularization problem is much more delicate in CS theories.

## 6 Comments

#### 1 - Dirac conjecture.

Dirac conjectured that *all* first class constraints generate gauge symmetries . It was shown that Dirac’s conjecture is not true for first class constraints of the form $`f^k`$ $`(k>1)`$, and following from $`\dot{f}0`$ . Therefore, for systems with nonlinear constraints, the conjecture does not work and they generically provide counterexamples of it .

From the point of view of irregular systems, it is clear that Dirac’s conjecture fails for nonlinear constraints because they do not generate any local transformation, c.f. Eq. (31). In Refs.  it was observed that Dirac’s conjecture may not hold in the presence of irregular constraints of type II.

In the case of multilinear constraints, however, Dirac’s conjecture holds. The fact that at irregular points the constraints do not generate any transformation only means that these are fixed points of the gauge transformation.

#### 2 - Quantization.

Although, in view of the above discussion, it is possible to deal systematically with classical theories containing irregular constraints, there may be severe problems in their quantum description. Consider a path integral of the form

$$Z[dq][dp][du]\mathrm{exp}i\left[p\dot{q}H(q,p)u\varphi (q,p)\right],$$
(47)
where $`\varphi =\left[f(q,p)\right]^k`$ is a nonlinear constraint. Integration on $`u`$ yields to $`\delta \left(f^k\right)`$, which is not well-defined for a zero of order $`k>1`$, making the quantum theory ill defined. Only if the nonlinear constraint could be exchanged by the regular one, $`f(q,p)0`$, the quantum theory could be saved. An example of this occurs in the standard approach for QED, where it is usual practice to introduce the nonlinear gauge fixing term $`u(_iA^i)^2`$ in order to fix the primary constraint $`\pi ^0\left(\delta I_{ED}/\delta \dot{A}_0\right)0`$. Since the gauge condition $`f(A)=_iA^i(x)0`$ is a second class constraint, its substitution by a regular constraint does not change its dynamical structure.

## 7 Summary

We have discussed the dynamics and evolution of a system possessing constraints which may violate the regularity conditions (functional independence) on some subsets of the constraint surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. These so-called irregular systems are seen to arise generically because of nonlinearities in the constraints and can be classified into two families: multilinear (type I) and nonlinear (type II).

* Type I constraints are of the form $`\varphi =f_i(z)`$, where $`f_i`$ possess simple zeros. These constraints violate the regularity conditions (RCs) on sets of measure zero on the constraint surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.
* Type I constraints can be exchanged by equivalent constraints which are regular giving an equivalent dynamical system.
* Type II constraints are of the form $`\varphi =f^k`$ $`(k>1)`$ where $`f`$ has a simple zero. They violate the RCs on sets of nonzero measure on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.
* A type II constraint can be replaced by an equivalent linear one only if the latter is second class; if the equivalent linear constraint is first class, substituting it for the original constraint would change the system.
* In general, the orbits can cross the configurations where the RCs are violated without any catastrophic effect for the system. If the symplectic form degenerates at the irregular points, additional analysis is required.
* The naive linearized approximation of an irregular constrained system generically changes it by erasing the irregular constraints. In order to study the perturbations around a classical orbit in an irregular system, it would be necessary to first regularize it (if possible) and only then do the linearized approximation.
* Chern-Simons theories possess irregular and regular sectors. This problem is independent of the presence of degeneracies in the symplectic form, making the regularization problem much more complex.

## 8 Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Milutin Blagojević, Marc Henneaux and Claudio Teitelboim for enlightening and helpful comments, and specially to Ricardo Troncoso for many useful discussions, insights and friendly criticisms. We would also like to thank Josep María Pons and Antonio García-Zenteno for bringing their work to our attention and for indicating its relevance to ours. This work is partially funded by grants FONDECYT 1020629, 7020629, 1010450, 2010017 and the grant MECESUP USA 9930. One of us (O. M.) thanks the Abdus Salam ICTP for hospitality during the completion of this work. The generous support of Empresas CMPC to CECS is also acknowledged. CECS is a Millennium Science Institute and is funded in part by grants from Fundación Andes and the Tinker Foundation.