text:
# Imaginary Killing Spinors in Lorentzian Geometry

## 1 Introduction

A classical object of interest in differential geometry are Killing vector fields. These are by definition infinitesimal isometries, which means that the flow of such a vector field preserves the metric. A spinorial analog are the so-called Killing spinor fields, which occur on spin manifolds and are defined as solutions of the field equation $`_X^S\phi =\lambda X\phi `$ for all vector fields $`X`$ and some fixed $`\lambda `$, where $`^S`$ denotes the spinor derivative and $``$ the Clifford multiplication.

In Riemannian geometry, it was proved in \[Fri80\] that real Killing spinors realize the lower bound of the eigenvalue estimation for the Dirac equation on compact spaces with positive scalar curvature. In the sequel Riemannian spaces admitting Killing spinors were intensively studied (cf. \[DNP86\], \[BFGK91\]) and a complete geometric description of such spaces was established. For the case of imaginary Killing spinors this was done by H. Baum in \[Bau89\] and then for real Killing spinors by Ch. Bär using the cone construction and the holonomy classification of Riemannian spaces with parallel spinors (cf. \[Bär93\]). Both results characterize Riemannian spaces with Killing spinors by the Einstein condition and the existence of certain differential forms, which can be understood as generalized Killing vectors. Real Killing spinors in Lorenztian geometry were first studied in \[Boh98\].

In this paper we will tread the Killing spinor equation to an imaginary Killing number $`\lambda `$ on a pseudo-Riemannian space with Lorentzian signature. As technical tool we will use again the cone construction for the investigation. Contrary to the Riemannian case, a holonomy description of the cone can not be used, since there is no classification of indecomposable holonomy groups for pseudo-Riemannian manifolds. Moreover, the geodesical completness of a Lorenztian manifold does not imply that a cone with decomposable holonomy is flat. Instead, our geometrical description is mainly based on a normal form classification of skew-adjoint operators in signature $`(2,n2)`$, which is more rich then in the Euclidean case (cf. \[Bou00\]). The derived Lorenztian geometries are then described by the causal properties of the corresponding Dirac current and the existence of parallel spinors or certain Killing forms. Thereby, we will use the knowledge of structure results for Lorentzian manifolds admitting conformal gradient fields (cf. \[KR97\]) and twistor spinors with lightlike Dirac current (cf. \[BL02\]). Examples of geometries that occur are the Brinkmann spaces with parallel spinors and the Lorenztian Einstein-Sasaki manifolds.

The order of the paper is as follows. In the next section we introduce the basic notations and definitions appropriate for the study of Killing spinors and state basic curvature conditions for their existence (cf. Proposition 2.1 and 2.2). In section 3 we recall the cone construction over a Lorenztian base manifold and the correspondence of ’Killing objects’ on the base and parallel objects on its cone (Theorem 3.1). We present the normal form classification of skew-adjoint operators in signature $`(2,n2)`$ due to the work of Ch. Boubel in section 4. It turns out that there are exactly four generic types of normal forms for skew-adjoint operators coming from a spinor (cf. Corollary 4.7). The cone of a Lorentzian manifold admitting imaginary Killing spinors is furnished with at least one parallel $`2`$-form, which corresponds to one of the generic types (Proposition 5.1). According to this type of a parallel $`2`$-form on the cone we undertake in three of the four generic cases a discussion of the geometry of Lorenztian manifolds with imaginary Killing spinors in the last section. The results of the discussion are summerized in Theorem 5.3.

## 2 Basic facts on Killing spinors

In this section we recall the definition of Killing spinors on a spin manifold and fix some notations. A basic integrability condition for Killing spinors is stated. For more details we refer to \[BFGK91\]. Moreover, we will come across special Killing forms as they were introduced in \[Sem02\].

Let $`(M^{n,k},g)`$ be a semi-Riemannian spin manifold of dimension $`n3`$ and signature $`(k,nk)`$ ($`k`$ is the number of timelike vectors in an orthonormal basis at a point). We denote by $`S`$ the complex spinor bundle and by $``$ the Clifford multiplication on spinors. The Dirac operator $`D:\mathrm{\Gamma }(S)\mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$ acting on smooth spinor fields is defined as superposition of spinor derivative $`^S`$ and Clifford multiplication. A spinor field $`\phi \mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$ is called Killing spinor to the Killing number $`\lambda `$ if it satisfies the equation

$$_X^S\phi =\lambda X\phi \mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}\mathrm{vector}\mathrm{fields}X.$$

It follows immediately from this definition that a Killing spinor $`\phi `$ is an eigenspinor of the Dirac operator $`D`$ to the eigenvalue $`n\lambda `$ and $`\phi `$ is obviously a parallel spinor field with respect to the modified spinor derivative $`\stackrel{~}{}_\lambda `$ defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{}_\lambda :=^S\lambda id_{TM}.$$

In particular, this implies that a Killing spinor $`\phi `$ admits no zeros. It holds the following basic integrability condition.

###### Proposition 2.1

(\[BFGK91\]) Let $`\phi \mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$ be a Killing spinor to the Killing number $`\lambda `$.

1. It is $`𝒲(\eta )\phi =0`$ for any $`2`$-form $`\eta `$, where $`𝒲`$ denotes the Weyl tensor.
2. $`(Ric(X)4\lambda ^2(n1)X)\phi =0`$, i.e. the image of the map $`Ric4\lambda ^2(n1)id_{TM}`$ is totally lightlike or trivial.
3. The scalar curvature is constant and given by $`scal=4n(n1)\lambda ^2`$. The Killing number $`\lambda `$ is real or purely imaginary.

If the Killing number $`\lambda `$ is zero ($`scal=0`$), $`\phi `$ is a parallel spinor, in case that $`\lambda `$ is real and non-zero ($`scal>0`$), $`\phi `$ is called real Killing spinor, and in case that $`\lambda `$ is purely imaginary ($`scal<0`$), $`\phi `$ is called imaginary Killing spinor. We will treat in this paper the Killing spinor equation with imaginary Killing number on a space of Lorentzian signature $`(+\mathrm{}+)`$.

Let $`(M^{n,1},g)`$ be a connected, oriented and time-oriented Lorentzian spin manifold. There exists an indefinite non-degenerate inner product $`,`$ on the spinor bundle $`S`$ such that

$`X\phi ,\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\phi ,X\psi \text{and}`$
$`X(\phi ,\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`_X^S\phi ,\psi +\phi ,_X^S\psi `$
for all vector fields $`X`$ and all spinor fields $`\phi ,\psi `$. Each spinor field $`\phi \mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$ defines a vector field $`V_\phi `$ on $`M`$, the so-called Dirac current, by the relation $`g(V_\phi ,X):=X\phi ,\phi `$ for all vector fields $`X`$. The Dirac current satisfies the following pointwise properties.

###### Lemma 2.1

(\[Lei01\]) Let $`(M^{n,1},g)`$ be a Lorentzian spin manifold and let $`\phi (p)0`$ be a spinor in a point $`pM^{n,1}`$. Then

1. $`V_\phi (p)0`$ and $`V_\phi (p)`$ is causal (i.e. $`g_p(V_\phi ,V_\phi )0`$).
2. If $`X\phi (p)=\rho \phi (p)`$ for some $`0XT_pM`$ and $`\rho `$ then the vector $`X`$ is parallel to $`V_\phi (p)`$.

The lemma makes clear that the Dirac current to a Killing spinor on a Lorentzian manifold is everywhere causal. Moreover, it is now possible to prove a stronger curvature condition for the existence of Killing spinors.

###### Proposition 2.2

Let $`(M^{n,1},g)`$ be a Lorentzian spin manifold admitting a Killing spinor $`\phi `$, whose Dirac current $`V_\phi `$ is timelike. Then $`(M,g)`$ is an Einstein space.

Proof: Let us assume that $`M^{n,1}`$ is a non-Einstein space. Then there is an open set $`U`$ in $`M`$, where $`H:=Ric(X)\frac{scal}{n}X0`$ is lightlike for some vector field $`X`$. The Clifford product $`H\phi `$ vanishes and, by Lemma 2.1, this implies that $`H`$ and $`V_\phi `$ are parallel, which is a contradiction to the assumption. $`\mathrm{}`$

Especially, for imaginary Killing spinors it holds

###### Proposition 2.3

(\[BFGK91\]) Let $`\phi `$ be an imaginary Killing spinor on a Lorenztian spin manifold $`(M^{n,1},g)`$. Then the length $`\phi ,\phi `$ is constant on $`M^{n,1}`$ and if $`\phi ,\phi 0`$ the space $`M^{n,1}`$ is Einstein.

Proof: It is $`X(\phi ,\phi )=\lambda X\phi ,\phi +\phi ,\lambda X\phi =0`$ and with Proposition 2.1 we calculate

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(n1)}}Ric(X,Y)\phi ,\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(n1)}}ReRic(X)\phi ,Y\phi =Re\lambda ^2X\phi ,Y\phi `$
$`=`$ $`\lambda ^2g(X,Y)\phi ,\phi `$
for all vector fields $`X`$ and $`Y`$, which shows that $`Ric(X)=\frac{scal}{n}X`$ in case that $`\phi ,\phi 0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 2.2 and 2.3 imply that an imaginary Killing spinor $`\phi `$ on a Lorentzian non-Einstein space $`M^{n,1}`$ must have vanishing length $`\phi ,\phi 0`$ and the Dirac current $`V_\phi `$ to $`\phi `$ must be lightlike on an open subset of $`M^{n,1}`$. We will see later that in this case $`V_\phi `$ is even lightlike everywhere on $`M^{n,1}`$. Moreover, the Dirac current satisfies

###### Proposition 2.4

Let $`\phi `$ be an imaginary Killing spinor on a Lorentzian spin manifold $`(M^{n,1},g)`$. The Dirac current $`V_\phi `$ is a Killing vector field, which in addition satisfies $`_XdV_\phi ^{\mathrm{}}=4\lambda ^2X^{\mathrm{}}V_\phi ^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Proof: It holds

$$g(_{e_i}V_\phi ,e_j)=\lambda e_je_i\phi ,\phi e_j\phi ,\lambda e_i\phi =g(_{e_j}V_\phi ,e_i)$$

for all $`i,j\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, where $`(e_1,\mathrm{},e_n)`$ is an arbitrary orthonormal basis on $`M^{n,1}`$. This proves that $`V_\phi `$ is a Killing vector field. Moreover,

$$\begin{array}{c}dV_\phi ^b=4\lambda _{i<j}\epsilon _i\epsilon _je_ie_j\phi ,\phi e_i^{\mathrm{}}e_j^{\mathrm{}}\text{and}\hfill \\ _XdV_\phi ^{\mathrm{}}=4\lambda ^2_{i<j}\epsilon _i\epsilon _j(e_ie_jX\phi ,\phi Xe_ie_j\phi ,\phi )e_i^{\mathrm{}}e_j^{\mathrm{}}=4\lambda ^2X^{\mathrm{}}V_\phi ^{\mathrm{}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

In general, a $`p`$-form $`\alpha ^p`$, which solves the equation

$$_Xd\alpha ^p=cX^{\mathrm{}}\alpha ^p\text{for all vectors}X$$

and some fixed $`c`$, is called a special Killing $`p`$-form (cf. \[Sem02\]). Proposition 2.4 states that the dual of the Dirac current to an imaginary Killing spinor is a special Killing $`1`$-form. Killing spinors also produce special Killing forms of other degree then $`1`$. For this, we observe that one constructs a $`p`$-form $`\alpha _\phi ^p`$ to a spinor $`\phi `$ by the rule

$$g(\alpha _\phi ^p,X^p):=i^{\frac{p(p1)}{2}}X^p\phi ,\phi \text{for}\text{all}p\text{-forms}X^p$$

and, in fact, if $`p`$ is odd and the Killing number $`\lambda `$ of a Killing spinor $`\phi `$ is imaginary (or if $`p`$ is even and $`\lambda `$ is real) then the associated $`p`$-form $`\alpha _\phi ^p`$ to $`\phi `$ is special Killing.

## 3 The cone $`\widehat{M}`$

We defined in the last section Killing spinors and special Killing $`p`$-forms on a Lorenztian manifold. In this section we will interpret these as parallel objects on the cone manifold. The cone construction was originally applied in order to describe Riemannian geometries admitting real Killing spinors (see \[Bär93\]) and can be modified here for our requirements.

Let $`(M^{n,1},g)`$ be a Lorentzian manifold. We consider the cone $`\widehat{M}`$ of signature $`(2,n1)`$ on $`M^{n,1}`$, which is defined as

$$\widehat{M}:=(M\times _+,\widehat{g}:=r^2gdr^2).$$

The vector $`r_r`$ is called the Euler vector of $`\widehat{M}`$. The $`1`$-level $`M\times \{1\}`$ of the cone $`\widehat{M}`$ is naturally isometric to the base manifold $`M^{n,1}`$ itself. We denote by $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ the pullback of an arbitrary base vector field $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }(M)`$ to $`\widehat{M}`$ through the projection $`\pi `$. Then we have the following rules for the Levi-Civita connection $`\widehat{}`$ on the cone

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{}__r_r=0,\widehat{}__r\stackrel{~}{X}=\widehat{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}_r=\frac{1}{r}\stackrel{~}{X},\hfill \\ \widehat{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\stackrel{~}{Y}=_XYrg(X,Y)_r.\hfill \end{array}$$

In case that $`M^{n,1}`$ is a spin manifold the cone $`\widehat{M}`$ is a spin manifold, too. Then we denote the spinor bundle of the cone with $`\widehat{S}`$. For $`n`$ even the restriction of $`\widehat{S}`$ to the $`1`$-level $`M\times \{1\}`$ of the cone is naturally isomorphic to the spinor bundle $`S`$ on the base manifold $`M^{n,1}`$ by a map

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:S\widehat{S}|_{M\times \{1\}}$$

with $`\mathrm{\Phi }(X\phi )=X\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )`$ for all $`XTM^{n,1}`$. Similar, if $`n`$ is odd, there are isomorphisms $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm :S\widehat{S}^\pm |_{M\times \{1\}}`$ for the restricted half spinor bundles such that

$$iX\mathrm{\Phi }_+(\phi )=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(X\phi ).$$

for all tangent vectors $`XTM^{n,1}`$. With respect to the metric $`\widehat{g}`$ the projection $`\pi `$ gives rise to a pullback $`\pi ^{}:\mathrm{\Gamma }(\widehat{S}|_{M\times \{1\}})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\widehat{S})`$ of spinor fields on the $`1`$-level to the cone. Eventually, we denote by $`𝒦_\lambda (M)`$ the space of Killing spinors on $`(M^{n,1},g)`$ to the Killing number $`\lambda `$.

###### Theorem 3.1

(cf. \[Bär93\] and \[Sem02\]) Let $`(M^{n,1},g)`$ be a Lorentzian manifold and $`\widehat{M}`$ its cone with signature $`(2,n1)`$. The following correspondences exist.

1. The special Killing $`p`$-forms on $`M^{n,1}`$ to the positive constant $`c=p+1`$ are in 1-to-1-correspondence with the parallel $`(p+1)`$-forms on the cone $`\widehat{M}`$. The correspondence is given by

$$\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^p(M)r^pdr\alpha \frac{r^{p+1}}{p+1}d\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^{p+1}(\widehat{M}).$$
2. If $`M^{n,1}`$ is spin and $`scal=n(n1)`$ then there are natural isomorphisms

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒦_{\frac{i}{2}}(M)𝒦_{\frac{i}{2}}(M)& & 𝒦_0(\widehat{M})\\ \phi & & \widehat{\phi }:=\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )\end{array}\text{for}n\text{even  and}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒦_{\pm \frac{i}{2}}(M)& & 𝒦_0^\pm (\widehat{M})\\ \phi & & \widehat{\phi }:=\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm (\phi )\end{array}\text{for}n\text{odd},$$

where $`𝒦_0^\pm (\widehat{M})`$ is the space of parallel $`\pm `$-half spinors on the cone.

The Riemannian version of Theorem 3.1 is classical for the application to the case of real Killing spinors. The result for Killing $`p`$-forms on Riemannian manifolds was established in \[Sem02\]. The proof for the correspondence here in case of imaginary Killing spinors $`\phi `$ in Lorentzian geomtery is based on the observation that $`\phi `$ is parallel with respect to the modified spinor connection $`\stackrel{~}{}_\lambda `$ coming from an affine connection, which takes values in

$$i^{1,n1}𝔰𝔭𝔦𝔫(1,n1)𝔰𝔭𝔦𝔫(2,n1)\mathrm{𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑓}_{\mathit{1},n\mathit{1}}^{}.$$

We remark for the application of Theorem 3.1 that the metric $`g`$ on $`M^{n,1}`$ can be rescaled by a positive constant such that the positive constant $`c`$ to an arbitrary special Killing $`p`$-form equals $`p+1`$ and the Killing number $`\lambda `$ to an arbitrary imaginary Killing spinor satisfies $`\lambda ^2=\frac{1}{4}`$.

The spinor bundle $`S^{n,2}`$ on a time-oriented pseudo-Riemannian spin manifold $`(N^{n,2},h)`$ of signature $`(2,n2)`$ is equipped with an invariant inner product $`,_{2,n2}`$ (cf. \[Bau81\]). Similar to the induced Dirac current of a spinor in Lorentzian geometry, a spinor $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }(S^{n,2})`$ induces a $`2`$-form $`\alpha _\gamma ^2`$ on $`N^{n,2}`$ by the rule

$$h(\alpha _\gamma ^2,X^2):=iX^2\gamma ,\gamma _{2,n2}\text{for all}2\text{-forms}X^2.$$

In case that $`\widehat{M}`$ is the cone over a Lorenztian spin manifold $`M^{n,1}`$ the inner product $`,_{2,n1}`$ admits the property

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\phi ,\psi \hfill & =& _r\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(\phi ),\mathrm{\Phi }_+(\psi )_{2,n1}& \text{for}n\text{odd\hspace{1em}and}\hfill \\ \phi ,\psi \hfill & =& i_r\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi ),\mathrm{\Phi }(\psi )_{2,n1}& \text{for}n\text{even}\hfill \end{array}$$

on the $`1`$-level of $`\widehat{M}`$, where $`\phi `$, $`\psi `$ are spinor fields on $`M^{n,1}`$. Then the following relation is true.

###### Lemma 3.2

Let $`\phi \mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$ be a spinor with Dirac current $`V_\phi `$ on a Lorentzian spin manifold $`M^{n,1}`$ and let $`\widehat{\phi }`$ be the corresponding ($`\pm `$-half) spinor with associated $`2`$-form $`\alpha _{\widehat{\phi }}^2`$ on the cone $`\widehat{M}`$. It holds $`V_\phi ^{\mathrm{}}=_r{}_{}{}^{}\text{ }\alpha _{\widehat{\phi }}^2`$ on the $`1`$-level $`M^{n,1}\widehat{M}`$.

Proof: With respect to an orthonormal basis $`e=(e_0,e_1,\mathrm{},e_n)`$ with $`e_0=_r`$ in an arbitrary point of the $`1`$-level it holds

$`_r{}_{}{}^{}\text{ }\alpha _{\widehat{\phi }}^2`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}e_ie_j\widehat{\phi },\widehat{\phi }_{2,n1}_r{}_{}{}^{}\text{ }e_i^{}e_j^{}`$
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}_re_j\widehat{\phi },\widehat{\phi }_{2,n1}e_j^{}={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}e_j\phi ,\phi e_j^{}=V_\phi ^{\mathrm{}}.`$
$`\mathrm{}`$

The lemma also shows that $`\alpha _{\widehat{\phi }}^2`$ is non-trivial for all (half) spinors $`\widehat{\phi }0`$ on the cone $`\widehat{M}`$, since the corresponding Dirac current $`V_\phi ^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`M^{n,1}`$ is non-trivial.

## 4 Normal forms for skew-adjoint operators in signature $`(2,n2)`$

In this section we present a complete list of normal forms for skew-adjoint endomorphisms acting on the pseudo-Euclidean space $`^{2,n2}`$ of dimension $`n`$ and signature $`(2,n2)`$. This list was established in \[Bou00\]. Parallel $`2`$-forms on the cone of signature $`(2,n1)`$ over a Lorentzian manifold correspond to parallel skew-adjoint operators and are therefore distinguished by normal forms of the list. This observation will be the crucial point in our description of Lorenztian geometries admitting imaginary Killing spinors in the last section.

###### Theorem 4.1

(cf. \[Bou00\]) Let $`\beta `$ be an arbitrary $`2`$-form on the pseudo-Euclidean space $`^{2,n2}`$. Then there exist vector spaces $`V_i`$ such that $`^{2,n2}=_iV_i`$ is an orthogonal direct sum and the skew-adjoint endomorphism $`b`$, which corresponds to $`\beta `$, satisfies $`b(V_i)V_i`$ for all $`i`$. Moreover, there is a basis $`(e_{i_1},\mathrm{},e_{i_{r(i)}})`$ for every $`V_i`$ such that the corresponding matrix for the inner product and for $`b`$ is one pair of blocks as it occurs in the lines of Table 1 below.

The basis of $`^{2,n2}`$, in which a skew-adjoint operator takes a normal form, is called an adapted basis. There is always an orthogonal decomposition $`^{2,n2}=EP`$ to a skew-adjoint operator $`b`$ such that $`E`$ is Euclidean and $`b`$ preserves the decomposition. We call the normal form to $`b`$ on $`E`$ an Euclidean block and the normal form to $`b`$ on $`P`$ a pseudo-Euclidean block.

###### Example 4.2

1. Let $`\omega _o:=_{i=1}^me_{2i1}^{}e_{2i}^{}`$ be the standard (pseudo)-Kähler form on $`^{2,n2}`$, where $`(e_1,\mathrm{},e_{2m})`$ is the standard basis. The normal form of the skew-adjoint operator corresponding to a multiple $`\omega =\nu \omega _o`$ of the Kähler form with respect to the adapted basis $`(e_1,\mathrm{},e_{2m})`$ is built up by one block of the form $`B_{II}(\nu )`$ (pseudo-Euclidean block) and $`(m1)`$ blocks of the form $`B(\nu )`$ (Euclidean block).
2. A $`2`$-form $`\omega =l_1^{\mathrm{}}l_2^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`^{2,n2}`$, where $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ are lightlike vectors, which span a totally lightlike plane, corresponds as skew-adjoint operator with respect to some adapted basis to a composition of a pseudo-Euclidean block of the form $`B_{Ia}`$ and an Euclidean $`0`$-block of length $`n4`$.
3. A $`2`$-form $`\omega =l_1^{\mathrm{}}t_1^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`^{2,n2}`$, where $`l_1`$ is lightlike, $`t_1`$ is timelike and both vectors are orthogonal, corresponds as skew-adjoint operator with respect to some adapted basis to a composition of a block $`B_{Ib}`$ and a $`0`$-block of length $`n3`$.

Let $`\widehat{\phi }`$ be a spinor on the pseudo-Euclidean space $`^{2,n1}`$. There corresponds a $`2`$-form $`\alpha _{\widehat{\phi }}^2`$ to $`\widehat{\phi }`$ on $`^{2,n1}`$ defined by the rule

$$(\alpha _\phi ^2,x^2):=ix^2\phi ,\phi _{2,n2}\text{for all}x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(^{2,n1^{}}),$$

where $`(,)`$ denotes the induced inner product on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(^{2,n1^{}})`$ (cf. section 3). The following statement is a version of Lemma 3.2 considered in a single point only and the proof for it works the same as there before.

###### Lemma 4.3

Let $`\widehat{\phi }`$ be a ($`\pm `$-half) spinor on $`^{2,n1}`$ and $`T^{2,n1}`$ an arbitrary unit timelike vector. The $`1`$-form $`\alpha _{T,\widehat{\phi }}:=T_{}\text{ }\alpha _{\widehat{\phi }}^2`$ is dual to the associated vector induced by the spinor $`\phi `$ on the Minkowski space $`T^{}^{2,n1}`$, which corresponds naturally to $`\widehat{\phi }`$.

The lemma imposes a condition on the nature of a $`2`$-form induced by a spinor in signature $`(2,n2)`$, since the associated vector to a non-trivial spinor on the Minkowski space is not arbitrary, but causal. With some simple calculations we can sort out the normal forms for skew-adjoint operators corresponding to $`2`$-forms, which do not satisfy the condition imposed by Lemma 4.3, and therefore can not be induced by a spinor.

###### Corollary 4.4

Let $`\omega `$ be a $`2`$-form in signature $`(2,n2)`$ such that the covector $`T_{}\text{ }\omega `$ is causal for every timelike vector $`T^{2,n2}`$.

1. If there is a timelike $`T`$ such that $`T_{}\text{ }\omega `$ is lightlike then the normal form corresponding to $`\omega `$ is a composition of a pseudo-Euclidean block of the form $`B_{Ia}`$ or $`B_{Ib}`$ with an Euclidean $`0`$-block.
2. If $`T_{}\text{ }\omega `$ is timelike for all timelike $`T`$ then the normal form of $`\omega `$ is a composition of $`B_{II}`$, $`B_{IIa}^\pm `$ ($`\nu _+>0`$, $`\nu _{}<0`$) or $`B_{IIb}`$ ($`\nu ^2\xi ^2`$) with an Euclidean block consisting of blocks of the form $`B(\nu )`$ and/or a $`0`$-block.

With stabilizer of a skew-adjoint operator (resp. $`2`$-form) we mean in the following the subgroup of the (pseudo)-orthogonal group, which leaves the operator (resp. the $`2`$-form) invariant under conjugated action. A simple consideration shows the following fact.

###### Lemma 4.5

The stabilizer of a normal form, which is built from a pseudo-Euclidean block of the form $`B_{IIa}^\pm (\nu _\pm )`$ or $`B_{IIb}(\nu ,\xi )`$ and some Euclidean block of length $`n4`$ is included in $`U(1,1)\times SO(n4)`$ for all eigenvalues $`\nu _\pm ,\nu `$ and $`\xi 0`$.

###### Definition 4.6

Let $`^{2,n2}`$ be the pseudo-Euclidean space of signature $`(2,n2)`$ and $`\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }^2^{2,n2^{}}`$ be a non-trivial 2-form. We say that $`\omega `$ is of

1. Type $`(I_a)`$ if $`\omega =l_1^{\mathrm{}}l_2^{\mathrm{}}`$ for some vectors $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$, which span a totally lightlike plane.
2. Type $`(I_b)`$ if $`\omega =l_1^{\mathrm{}}t_1^{\mathrm{}}`$ for some lightlike vector $`l_1`$ and a $`l_1`$-orthogonal timelike vector $`t_1`$.
3. Type $`(II_a)`$ or Kähler Type if $`\omega `$ is a non-trivial multiple of the Kähler form.
4. Type $`(II_b)`$ if there exists a non-trivial Euclidean subspace $`E`$ in $`^{2,n2}`$ such that $`\omega `$ restricted to $`E`$ vanishes and $`\omega `$ is a (pseudo)-Kähler form on the orthogonal complement of $`E`$ in $`^{2,n2}`$.

Lemma 4.5 makes clear, which stabilizers of the normal forms occuring in Corollary 4.4 are maximal.

###### Corollary 4.7

A $`2`$-form $`\omega `$ on $`^{2,n2}`$, which is of Type $`(I_a)`$, $`(I_b)`$ , $`(II_a)`$ or $`(II_b)`$, is exclusively distinguished by its properties that

1. the covector $`T_{}\text{ }\omega `$ is causal for every timelike vector $`T^{2,n2}`$ and
2. its stabilizer $`S_\omega `$ in $`SO(2,n2)`$ is maximal, in the sence that there is no non-trivial $`2`$-form satisfying the first property, whose stabilizer properly contains $`S_\omega `$.

We observe that the stabilizer of a $`2`$-form of Type $`(I_a)`$ and Type $`(I_b)`$ acts indecomposable but reducible on $`^{2,n2}`$, i.e. there exist non-trivial and invariant subspaces of $`^{2,n2}`$, but the inner product is degenerate on all of them. The stabilizer of a Kähler type form is $`U(1,m1)`$ and acts irreducible on $`^{2,2m2}`$. The stabilizer of a form of Type $`(II_b)`$ acts decomposable on $`^{2,n2}`$.

## 5 Imaginary Killing spinors

With the construction of the cone in section 3 and the normal form classification for skew-adjoint operators in signature $`(2,n2)`$ (coming from a spinor) in the last section we are now in the position to discuss a geometric description of Lorentzian manifolds admitting imaginary Killing spinors.

In the following, the metric $`g`$ on the Lorenztian spin manifold $`M^{n,1}`$ will be scaled such that the Killing number $`\lambda `$ to any Killing spinor satisfies $`\lambda ^2=\frac{1}{4}`$. We start with a proposition, which characterizes the cone $`\widehat{M}`$ of a Lorentzian manifold $`M^{n,1}`$ with imaginary Killing spinor and indicates the different cases that are to be considered for the geometry of the base manifold $`M^{n,1}`$. We remark that the normal form corresponding to a parallel $`2`$-form on the cone is in every point the same.

###### Proposition 5.1

Let $`(M^{n,1},g)`$ be a Lorentzian spin manifold admitting an imaginary Killing spinor. Either there exists a parallel $`2`$-form $`\omega `$ of Type $`(II_b)`$ on the cone $`\widehat{M}`$ or there exists at least one parallel (half) spinor $`\widehat{\phi }`$ on $`\widehat{M}`$ such that the induced parallel $`2`$-form $`\omega =\alpha _{\widehat{\phi }}^2`$ is of Type $`(I_a)`$, $`(I_b)`$ or $`(II_a)`$.

Proof: Let $`\psi `$ be an imaginary Killing spinor on $`M^{n,1}`$. According to Corollary 4.4 the normal form of the skew-adjoint endomorphism corresponding to $`\alpha _{\widehat{\psi }}^2`$ is a composition with one block of the form $`B_{Ia}`$, $`B_{Ib}`$, $`B_{II}`$, $`B_{IIa}^\pm `$ or $`B_{IIb}`$. In case that the normal form is built with a block of the form $`B_{Ia}`$ or $`B_{Ib}`$ the parallel $`2`$-form $`\omega =\alpha _{\widehat{\psi }}^2`$ is of Type $`(I_a)`$ or $`(I_b)`$.

In the other cases there exists a biggest number $`s>0`$ such that the stabilizer of the normal form to $`\alpha _{\widehat{\psi }}^2`$ is included in $`U(1,s1)\times SO(n2s)`$. This group includes the holonomy group of the cone $`\widehat{M}`$. In case that $`2s=n`$ the cone $`\widehat{M}`$ is a Kähler spin manifold. Moreover, since $`V_\psi ^{\mathrm{}}=_r{}_{}{}^{}\text{ }\alpha _{\widehat{\psi }}^2`$ is everywhere timelike (Corollary 4.4), the base $`M^{n,1}`$ is Einstein and hence the cone is Ricci-flat. This implies that there exists a parallel (half) spinor $`\widehat{\phi }`$, which induces a Kähler form on the cone. If $`2s<n`$ there exists a parallel $`2`$-form $`\omega `$ of Type $`(II_b)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We discuss now a description of the Lorentzian geometries on the base manifold $`M^{n,1}`$ with imaginary Killing spinor according to the cases $`(I_a)`$, $`(I_b)`$ and $`(II_a)`$ that occur in Proposition 5.1.

### 5.1 Type $`(I_a)`$

In this case there exists a parallel (half) spinor $`\widehat{\phi }`$ on the cone $`\widehat{M}`$, which induces a parallel $`2`$-form $`\omega 0`$ that is locally of the form $`l_1^{\mathrm{}}l_2^{\mathrm{}}`$ for some lightlike vector fields $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$, which span a totally lightlike plane. The dual $`V_\phi ^{\mathrm{}}`$ of the Dirac current of the imaginary Killing spinor $`\phi `$, which corresponds to $`\widehat{\phi }`$ on $`\widehat{M}`$, is equal to $`_r{}_{}{}^{}\text{ }\omega `$, which shows that the Dirac current $`V_\phi `$ is everywhere lightlike.

There is a known description of Lorentzian metrics admitting twistor spinors with lightlike Dirac current. We call a Lorentzian space admitting a lightlike parallel vector field a Brinkmann space. Two spinor fields on (pseudo)-Riemannian spaces are said to be conformally equivalent if there exists a conformal diffeomorphism, which identifies both spinor fields. In particuar, it holds

###### Proposition 5.2

(see \[BL02\]) Let $`\phi `$ be a spinor field, which satisfies the twistor equation $`_X^S\phi +\frac{1}{n}XD\phi =0`$ for all vector fields $`X`$, such that the Dirac current $`V_\phi `$ is a lightlike Killing vector field on $`M^{n,1}`$. If $`Ric(V_\phi ,V_\phi )=0`$ then $`\phi `$ is locally conformally equivalent to a parallel spinor on a Brinkmann space.

This gives rise to

###### Proposition 5.3

Let $`\phi `$ be an imaginary Killing spinor on $`M^{n,1}`$ such that $`\alpha _{\widehat{\phi }}^2`$ on $`\widehat{M}`$ is of Type $`(I_a)`$. Then $`\phi `$ is locally conformally equivalent to a parallel spinor on a Brinkmann space.

Proof: From Proposition 2.1 and Lemma 2.1 we know that $`Ric(V_\phi )=\rho V_\phi `$ for some real function $`\rho `$. Then we can apply Proposition 5.2 to prove the result. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 5.2 Type $`(I_b)`$

There exists a parallel (half) spinor $`\widehat{\phi }`$ on the cone $`\widehat{M}`$, which induces a parallel $`2`$-form $`\omega `$ of Type $`(I_b)`$. In this situation it holds

###### Lemma 5.1

The function $`f_\phi :=\sqrt{g(V_\phi ,V_\phi )}`$ to the imaginary Killing spinor $`\phi `$ on $`M^{n,1}`$ satisfies

1. $`Hess(f_\phi )=f_\phi g`$, i.e. $`gradf_\phi `$ is a conformal gradient field, and $`f_\phi ^2=g(gradf,gradf)`$,
2. $`gradf_\phi 0`$ and $`f_\phi 0`$ on disjoint dense subspaces in $`M^{n,1}`$.

Proof: The $`2`$-form $`\omega `$ can be written as $`rdrV_\phi ^{\mathrm{}}\frac{r^2}{2}dV_\phi ^{\mathrm{}}`$ (Theorem 3.1). The 2-dimensional parallel subbundle $`E_\omega TM^{n,1}`$, which corresponds to the indecomposable $`\omega `$ is degenerate and there is a unique parallel lightlike direction in $`E_\omega `$. In particular, there exists a parallel lightlike vector field $`l_1`$ on $`\widehat{M}`$. Moreover, we can find locally a timelike vector $`t_1`$ of constant length such that $`\omega =l_1^{\mathrm{}}t_1^{\mathrm{}}`$. We choose the parallel lightlike field $`l_1`$ with the scaling $`\widehat{g}(t_1,t_1)=1`$. Since $`l_1`$ is parallel, there is a unique function $`f`$ on $`M^{n,1}`$ such that $`l_1^{\mathrm{}}=fdrrdf`$ and $`f^2=g(gradf,gradf)`$. The function $`f`$ is a special Killing $`0`$-form on $`M^{n,1}`$, i.e. $`gradf`$ is a conformal gradient field. Since neither $`dr`$ nor the lift of $`df`$ to the cone are parallel, it is $`f0`$ and $`gradf0`$ on a dense subset of $`M^{n,1}`$.

We calculate the function $`f`$ with respect to $`\phi `$. The local field $`t_1^{\mathrm{}}`$ is given by $`t_1^{\mathrm{}}=Adr+u`$, where $`A`$ is a function and $`u`$ a $`1`$-form on $`M^{n,1}`$. It follows that $`V_\phi ^{\mathrm{}}=fu+Adf`$ and

$$g(V_\phi ,V_\phi )=f^2g(u,u)+A^2g(df,df)+2fAg(u,df).$$

Since $`g(u,u)=1+A^2`$ and $`g(u,df)=Af`$, we can conclude $`f^2=g(V_\phi ,V_\phi )`$, which shows that $`f_\phi `$ has the claimed properties. $`\mathrm{}`$

The assertions of Lemma 5.1 imply together with Proposition 2.2 that $`M^{n,1}`$ is Einstein and $`gradf_\phi `$ is a non-homothetic conformal gradient field. There is a known description of (pseudo)-Riemannian Einstein metrics admitting such conformal fields. In particluar, there is

###### Proposition 5.4

(cf. \[KR97\]) Let $`(M^{n,1},g)`$ be a Lorentzian Einstein space admitting a non-constant solution $`f`$ of the equation $`Hess(f)=lg`$ for some function $`l`$. Then, in a neighborhood of any point with $`v:=g(grad(f),grad(f))0`$, the metric $`g`$ is a warped product $`\epsilon dt^2+f^{}_{}{}^{}2(t)k`$, where $`\epsilon :=sign(v)`$, $`k`$ is an Einstein metric and $`f`$ satisfies $`f^{{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }2}+\frac{\epsilon scal_g}{n(n1)}f^{}_{}{}^{}2=\frac{\epsilon scal_k}{(n1)(n2)}`$.

This leads to

###### Proposition 5.5

Let $`\phi `$ be an imaginary Killing spinor on $`M^{n,1}`$ such that $`\alpha _{\widehat{\phi }}^2`$ on $`\widehat{M}`$ is of Type $`(I_b)`$. Then, in a neighborhood of any point with $`V_\phi `$ timelike, the metric $`g`$ is a warped product of the form $`dt^2+f^2k`$, where $`k`$ is a Lorentzian Einstein metric admitting a Killing spinor to the Killing number

1. $`\lambda _k=0`$ and $`f=\mathrm{exp}t`$
2. $`\lambda _k=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`f=\mathrm{sinh}t`$ or
3. $`\lambda _k=\frac{i}{2}`$ and $`f=\mathrm{cosh}t`$.

Proof: The function $`f_\phi =\sqrt{g(V_\phi ,V_\phi )}`$ satisfies the assumptions of Proposition 5.4. Since $`f_\phi ^2>0`$, the warping function $`f=f_\phi ^{^{}}`$ must solve the ordinary differential equation $`f^{}_{}{}^{}2n(n1)f^2=scal_k`$. There are three different solutions $`f=\mathrm{exp}t`$, $`\mathrm{cosh}t`$ and $`\mathrm{sinh}t`$ according to the values $`scal_k=0,\pm (n1)(n2)`$. In each case the imaginary Killing spinor $`\phi `$ induces a Killing spinor to the Killing number $`\frac{scal_k}{(n1)(n2)}`$ on the space with Einstein metric $`k`$ (cf. \[Boh98\]). $`\mathrm{}`$

### 5.3 Type $`(II_a)`$

###### Lemma 5.2

Let $`(M^{n,1},g)`$ be a Lorenztian Einstein manifold with a Killing vector $`V`$ such that $`g(V,V)=1`$ is constant and $`V_{}\text{ }𝒲=0`$ ($`𝒲`$ Weyl tensor). Then the operator $`J`$ defined by $`J(X):=_XV`$ on $`TM`$ satisfies

1. $`J(V)=0`$ and $`J^2(X)=\frac{scal}{n(n1)}\left(X+g(V,X)V\right)`$
2. $`(_XJ)(Y)=\frac{scal}{n(n1)}\left(g(V,Y)Xg(X,Y)V\right)`$.

Proof: Because $`V`$ is Killing with constant length, it follows $`_VV=0`$ and $`g(_XV,_YV)=(V,X,Y,V)`$, where $``$ denotes the Riemannian curvature tensor. It is $`=𝒲+gL`$, where $`L=\frac{1}{n2}\left(\frac{scal}{2(n1)}gRic\right)`$ is the Schouten tensor and $``$ denotes the Kulkarni-Nomizu product (cf. \[Bes87\]). Then from $`V_{}\text{ }𝒲=0`$ we obtain

$`g(J^2(X),Y)`$ $`=`$ $`g(J(X),J(Y))`$
$`=`$ $`g(V,Y)L(X,V)g(V,X)L(Y,V)L(X,Y)+g(X,Y)L(V,V).`$
The relation for $`J^2`$ follows immediately, since for $`M^{n,1}`$ an Einstein space it holds $`L=\frac{scal}{2(n1)n}g`$. Moreover, it is $`g(_{e_k}_{e_i}V,e_j)=(e_i,e_j,e_k,V)`$ for all $`i,j,k\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ in $`pM^{n,1}`$ arbitrary, where $`(e_1,\mathrm{},e_n)`$ is a local parallel frame in $`p`$. Then

$`g((_{e_i}J)(e_k),e_l)`$ $`=`$ $`(e_k,e_l,e_i,V)`$
$`=`$ $`g(e_k,e_i)L(e_l,V)+g(e_l,V)L(e_k,e_i)`$
$``$ $`g(e_k,V)L(e_l,e_i)g(e_l,e_i)L(e_k,V),`$
which showes the identity for $`J`$ in an arbitrary point $`p`$ of $`M^{n,1}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

A Lorentzian manifold $`(M^{n,1},g,V)`$ with $`V`$ a timelike Killing vector of constant length such that the operator $`J=V`$ satisfies the both properties of Lemma 5.2, is called a Lorentzian Sasaki manifold. It is well-known that a Sasaki structure $`(V,J)`$ on $`M^{n,1}`$ corresponds to a Kähler structure on the cone $`\widehat{M}`$ (cf. \[Bär93\] and \[Bau00\]).

###### Proposition 5.6

A Lorenztian spin manifold $`(M^{n,1},g)`$ with an imaginary Killing spinor $`\phi `$, whose Dirac current $`V_\phi `$ is timelike and has constant length, is a Lorentzian Einstein-Sasaki manifold. This is exactly the case when the lift $`\widehat{\phi }`$ induces a Kähler form on the cone $`\widehat{M}`$.

Proof: We have only to show that $`V_\phi {}_{}{}^{}\text{ }𝒲=0`$ on $`M^{n,1}`$ and then apply Lemma 5.2. With the identity $`𝒲(\eta )\phi =0`$ (Proposition 2.1) and the relation $`X\eta =X_{}\text{ }\eta +X^{\mathrm{}}\eta `$ in the Clifford algebra, where $`X`$ denotes a vector and $`\eta `$ a $`2`$-form, we obtain

$$𝒲(V_\phi ,X,Y,Z)=\phi ,𝒲(X,Y,Z)\phi =\phi ,Z^{\mathrm{}}𝒲(X,Y)\phi \text{for all}X,Y,ZTM.$$

But $`\phi ,\rho ^3\phi i`$ for all $`3`$-forms $`\rho ^3`$, and therefore $`V_\phi {}_{}{}^{}\text{ }𝒲=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We summarize the different cases to

###### Theorem 5.3

Let $`(M^{n,1},g)`$ be a Lorentzian spin manifold with imaginary Killing spinor $`\phi `$.

1. If $`M^{n,1}`$ is not Einstein then $`M^{n,1}`$ is locally conformally equivalent to a Brinkmann space with parallel spinor.
2. If $`g(V_\phi ,V_\phi )`$ is constant then

1. $`g(V_\phi ,V_\phi )=0`$ and $`M^{n,1}`$ is locally conformally equivalent to a Brinkmann space with parallel spinor or
    2. $`g(V_\phi ,V_\phi )<0`$ and $`M^{n,1}`$ is a Lorentzian Einstein-Sasaki manifold.
3. If the cone $`\widehat{M}`$ is indecomposable and $`V_\phi `$ is timelike then $`M^{n,1}`$ is either

1. locally conformally equivalent to a Brinkmann space with parallel spinor,
    2. locally a warped product of the form $`dt^2+f^2k`$, where $`k`$ is a Lorentzian Einstein metric admitting a Killing spinor and $`f=\mathrm{exp}t`$, $`\mathrm{cosh}t`$ or $`\mathrm{sinh}t`$ or
    3. a Lorentzian Einstein-Sasaki space (and the cone $`\widehat{M}`$ is irreducible).
4. If $`V_\phi `$ changes the causal type then the set $`Z_\phi M^{n,1}`$, where $`V_\phi `$ is lightlike, is a hypersurface and $`M^{n,1}\backslash Z_\phi `$ admits locally a warped product structure as in 3. ii).

In case that the metric $`g`$ does not belong to one of those listed in 3. then either $`V_\phi `$ changes the causal type or there is a parallel $`2`$-form of Type $`(II_b)`$ on the cone $`\widehat{M}`$.

###### Example 5.4

Let $`H^{n,1}:=\{x^{2,n1}:x^2=1\}^{2,n1}`$ be the pseudo-hyperbolic space of signature $`(1,n1)`$ with negative scalar curvature $`scal=n(n1)`$. The space $`H^{n,1}`$ is geodesically complete, time-orientable and spin. The cone over $`H^{n,1}`$ is an open subset of $`^{2,n1}`$. Each parallel (half) spinor on $`^{2,n1}`$ restricted to $`H^{n,1}`$ gives rise to an imaginary Killing spinor. It is not difficult to see that every generic type $`(I_a)`$, $`(I_b)`$, $`(II_a)`$ and $`(II_b)`$ is realized by a $`2`$-form, which comes from a parallel (half) spinor on $`^{2,n1}`$ and thus belongs to an imaginary Killing spinor on $`H^{n,1}`$. This means that there are examples of imaginary Killing spinors on $`H^{n,1}`$, $`n3`$, for each case where the Dirac current is everywhere lightlike $`(I_a)`$, changes the causal type $`(I_b)`$, timelike with constant length $`(II_a)`$ or everywhere timelike with non-constant length.

###### Remark 5.5

1. In fact, there exist examples of imaginary Killing spinors on non-Einstein spaces, which are generated by an appropriate conformal change of certain non-Einstein Brinkmann spaces with parallel spinors (cf. \[Boh98\]).
2. Partial structure results and examples for Lorenztian metrics with parallel or real Killing spinors are known (cf. e.g. \[Bry00\], \[Boh98\]). The warped product structure in case of Type $`(I_b)`$ then provides a concrete construction principle for imaginary Killing spinors on Lorenztian spaces.

The complete result in \[KR97\] for the description of Einstein spaces with conformal gradient fields does not apply when the field changes the causal type. As consequence, Theorem 5.3 does not describe Lorentzian metrics with imaginary Killing spinors when the Dirac current changes the causal type.
3. There is a construction principle for Lorenztian Einstein-Sasaki spin spaces. They appear as $`S^1`$-fiber bundles over Riemannian Kähler-Einstein spin spaces of negative scalar curvature (cf. \[Bau00\]).
4. In case that there exists a parallel $`2`$-form of Type $`(II_b)`$ the cone $`\widehat{M}`$ is decomposable. Different from the Riemannian case, this does not imply that the cone is flat, even if the base $`M^{n,1}`$ is geodesically complete. The geometry of the base $`M^{n,1}`$ with imaginary Killing spinor in this case remains to be investigated and is subject of a forthcoming paper

Acknowledgment: I would like to thank Thomas Neukirchner, Helga Baum and Jose Figueroa-O’Farrill for many helpful discussions and comments.

University of Edinburgh, School of Mathematics,
JCMB–King’s Buildings, EH9 3JZ Edinburgh, Scotland
E-mail address: felipe@maths.ed.ac.uk


format: text

text:
# First order transition from correlated electron semiconductor to ferromagnetic metal in single crystalline FeSi1-xGex

## Abstract

The phase diagram of FeSi1-xGex, obtained from magnetic, thermal and transport measurements on single crystals, shows a first-order transition from a correlated electron semiconductor to a ferromagnetic metal at a critical concentration, $`x_\mathrm{c}0.25`$. The gap of the insulating phase strongly decreases with $`x`$. The specific heat $`\gamma `$ coefficient appears to track the density of states of a Kondo insulator. The phase diagram is consistent with a correlation induced insulator-metal transition in conjunction with disorder on the Si/Ge ligand site.

Kondo insulators (KIs) are Ce, Yb or U based small-gap semiconductors AF , e.g. CeNiSn, Ce3Bi4Pt3, and YbB12. Many KIs are nonmagnetic with a Van-Vleck-like low-$`T`$ susceptibility, but an exponentially activated low-$`T`$ resistivity and electronic specific heat. Most KIs are not perfect semiconductors, because the hybridization gap is frequently only a pseudogap and/or there are intrinsic or impurity states in the band gap Rise . A magnetic field gradually closes the gap yielding a metallic state for fields larger than a critical one Millis ; Jaime .

FeSi is known as a correlated electron semiconductor jac  with an activation gap of about 0.05 eV and exhibits properties similar to those of KIs. Neutron scattering and Mössbauer experiments reveal no long-range magnetic order in FeSi wat ; wer . FeGe, on the other hand, is a long-range spiral metallic ferromagnet (with period of 700 $`\stackrel{̊}{\mathrm{A}}`$ below 280K) with a saturated magnetic moment of about 1 $`\mu _B`$ in a magnetic field larger than 0.3 T Lebech . By alloying these two systems it is then possible to study the transition from correlated electron semiconductor to ferromagnetic metal (FM), with the following unique advantages: (i) Both compounds form in the same slightly distorted rocksalt structure and are soluble over the entire concentration range. (ii) Single crystals can be grown for the two end-compounds and the entire alloy range (previous studies were on polycrystalline samples and over a limited range of $`x`$ Reichl ; Mani ). (iii) The substitution is on the sites of the ligand atoms, yielding a reduction of the gap, and not of the magnetically active ion (Fe), which would give rise to an impurity band in the gap schl . (iv) The Kondo gap is large (about 50 times larger than for other KIs) and therefore the system is less sensitive to internal strains and other impurities. (v) Since the spin-orbit coupling of Fe is much smaller than for rare earth and actinide ions, the orbital momentum is quenched and the magnetic susceptibility is exponentially activated, rather than Van-Vleck-like, and a useful tool to study the gap.

Optical conductivity measurements indicate that FeSi is a strongly correlated system schles , because (1) the gap disappears at unusually low $`T`$ (above 200 K) relative to its magnitude, and (2) the conductivity displaced from the gap region at low $`T`$ does not appear just above the gap, but is spread over a wide energy range. The results are consistent with the usual KI picture. However, the gap is much larger than usual Kondo temperatures, so that FeSi could also be considered a mixed-valence insulator Varma . Based on the spin-fluctuation theory, FeSi has been argued a nearly ferromagnetic semiconductor tak . LDA$`+U`$ band calculations Anisimov  also suggest that FeSi is close to a magnetic instability. Increasing Hubbard $`U`$ leads to a first order transition from a strongly correlated semiconductor to a FM.

Similarly, as a function of $`U/V`$, the half-filled Anderson lattice undergoes a first order transition from KI to a FM ordered state DS . Here $`V`$ is the hybridization of the Fe 3d states with the ligand atoms. According to X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) studies and band calculations XPS , $`V`$ is smaller for FeGe than for FeSi. Alloying these two systems may then lead to a first order transition from KI to FM. Here we present magnetic, transport, and thermal properties of FeSi1-xGex to study the evolution of this transition.

Single crystals were grown by vapor transport method described in Ref. Richard . Polycrystalline samples prepared by arcmelting of the stoichiometric mixture of elements were sealed in an evacuated quartz tube with the chemical agent iodine and heated in a home made two zone furnace for a week. The temperature variations on both sides of the tube were measured with a commercial thermometer and found to be less than 5K. The Ge/Si concentration was determined by Energy Dispersive X-ray analysis (the uncertainty is $`\pm 5\%`$).

All measurements were performed using the same set of crystals. The DC susceptibility was obtained with a Quantum Design MPMS between 2 K and 350 K, the resistivity with a standard four-probe technique in the temperature range from 2 K to 300 K, and the specific heat $`C_p(T)`$ with a relaxation method down to 0.35 K.

Fig. 1 displays the phase diagram of FeSi1-xGex obtained from magnetic, transport and thermal measurements. The solid circles, solid diamonds, and open squares represent the gap in the susceptibility, the transport gap and the resistivity minimum for $`x0.24`$, respectively. The triangles correspond to the ferromagnetic transition temperature $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ for $`x>0.25`$. Note the first order transition from nonmagnetic semiconductor to FM at $`x0.25`$.

Fig. 2 (a) and (b) show the temperature dependence of the magnetic susceptibility of FeSi1-xGex for $`x0.24`$ and $`x0.24`$, respectively. For $`x0.24`$ $`\chi (T)`$ increases upon heating following a thermally activated Curie law,

$$\chi (T)=(C/T)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }_s/k_BT),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ is the spin gap. The left inset of Fig. 2 (a) shows that $`\mathrm{ln}(T\chi (T)`$) vs. $`T^1`$ for $`150K<T<350K`$ follows a straight line, indicating that Eq. (1) represents $`\chi (T)`$ well. The most significant effects of the Ge substitution on $`\chi (T)`$ are: (i) a systematic increase with $`x`$, (ii) a maximum starts to show at about 300 K for $`x0.2`$, and (iii) the spin gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ monotonically decreases with $`x`$, as seen in Fig. 1. At low $`T`$, $`\chi (T)`$ displays a Curie tail, which is attributed to impurities or defects. Since this tail is approximately the same for all $`x0.24`$, we conclude that the impurity concentration is roughly constant with $`x`$.

In contrast, $`\chi (T)`$ qualitatively changes with further Ge doping. For $`0.25x0.50`$ the magnetization gradually increases with decreasing $`T`$ as seen in Fig. 2 (b), suggesting the appearance of a ferromagnetic component. In fact, for $`x0.53`$, the ferromagnetic transition is given by a step-like increase upon cooling (inset of Fig. 2 (b)). $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ is determined by the kink in the magnetization and shown as the solid triangles in Fig. 1. $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ monotonically increases with $`x`$ until it reaches the known value for FeGe Lebech . The sharp jump of the magnetization of FeGe around 280 K appears to be consistent with a first order transition bak . The distorted rocksalt structure lacks of inversion symmetry giving rise to a Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) interaction. A renormalization group study bak  of the ferromagnetic DM instability predicts that the magnetic structure is helical of long period and the transition into the paramagnet is of first order. Experimentally the transition remains discontinuous for $`x>0.6`$. In the range $`0.25<x<0.60`$, on the other hand, the magnetization tends to zero continuously at $`T_\mathrm{C}`$, probably as a consequence of disorder in the sample. The alloying of FeSi with FeGe necessarily leads to Ge-rich and Si-rich regions and hence to a distribution of transition temperatures, such that the total magnetization is continuous. The effective moment ($`p_{eff}`$) of Fe is obtained by fitting a Curie-Weiss law for $`TT_\mathrm{C}`$, and is shown in the right inset of Fig. 2 (a). $`p_{eff}`$ are almost independent of $`x`$ and roughly correspond to $`S=1`$.

The $`T`$-dependence of the resistivity, $`\rho (T)`$, normalized to its value at 300 K is shown in Fig. 3. Two distinct regimes have to be distinguished: For $`x<0.24`$ the resistivity decreases with $`T`$, characteristic of a semiconductor, while for $`x>0.25`$ $`\rho (T)`$ is an increasing function and the behavior is metallic. Starting from the nonmagnetic semiconductor FeSi, the Ge substitution dramatically reduces $`\rho (T)`$. We assume a thermal activation law describes the insulating behavior in the Si rich region,

$$\rho (T)=\rho _0\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }_t/2k_BT),$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_t`$ is the transport gap. For $`x0.21`$ the resistivity for $`25`$ K $`<T<210`$ K is well represented by the activation law (see inset of Fig. 3). The dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_t`$ on $`x`$ is displayed in Fig. 1. For FeSi $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_t`$ have the same value, but with increasing $`x`$ the transport gap becomes much smaller than the magnetic spin gap. This difference is due to the randomness in the sample, consequence of the alloying. While in a transport measurement the electrons travel along the path of least resistance, i.e. the one with the smallest effective gap, a thermodynamic measurement averages over the entire sample. Necessarily, $`\rho (T)`$ should have the smaller gap. Below 20 K the resistivity saturates, which is attributed to impurity states in the gap.

The resistivity of FeGe is clearly metallic. Substituting Si for Ge gradually increases $`\rho (T=0)`$ because of disorder scattering, but the system remains a poor metal up to the metal-insulator transition at $`x_c0.25`$. For $`x0.53`$ a small kink in $`\rho (T)`$ can be observed at the onset of ferromagnetic long-range order at $`T_\mathrm{C}`$. The qualitative change in $`\chi (T)`$ and $`\rho (T)`$ at $`x_\mathrm{c}=0.25`$ is consistent with a first order transition. For $`x<x_\mathrm{c}`$ they follow activation laws with their gaps decreasing with $`x`$, while for $`x>x_\mathrm{c}`$ the system is FM at low $`T`$.

The specific heat divided by temperature, $`C_p(T)/T`$, vs. $`T^2`$ is shown in Fig. 4. For $`T<2K`$, $`C_p/T`$ displays an upturn, believed to originate from 1-2% of impurities. The estimated low-$`T`$ entropy up to 2 K is consistent with the Curie constant obtained from the tail of the impurity states of $`\chi (T)`$ for $`x0.24`$. The specific heat of the compound (electrons and phonons) is obtained by fitting the data for $`5K<T<40K`$ to the expression

$$C_p(T)=\gamma T+\beta T^3+\delta T^5,$$
(3)
where $`\gamma T`$ is the electronic contribution, shown in the inset of Fig. 4. In the insulating regime, i.e. $`x<x_\mathrm{c}`$, $`\gamma `$ is almost zero, suggesting a very small or no density of states at the Fermi energy. However, for $`x>x_\mathrm{c}`$, i.e. in the FM regime, $`\gamma `$ is nonzero, has its largest value at $`x0.4`$ after a steep increase, and then it decreases to a constant value (for $`x`$ 0.6) of about 11 mJ/mole-K2. The Debye temperature can be obtained from $`\beta `$. $`\theta _D`$ decreases with $`x`$ from 600 K for FeSi to 280 K for FeGe.

As seen in Fig. 1, FeSi1-xGex has a first order transition from KI to FM at $`x_c0.25`$. Recent LDA$`+U`$ band structure calculations Anisimov  have shown that FeSi is a semiconductor that is close to a ferromagnetic instability. With increasing $`U`$, it is found that at a critical $`U_c=3.2`$ eV, a first order transition from paramagnetic semiconductor to FM takes place. The calculation Anisimov1  has been extended to the alloy FeSi1-xGex using experimental lattice constants and averages of Si and Ge for the potential parameters. A first order insulator-metal transition is predicted at $`x_c=0.4`$ for $`U=3.7`$ eV, in agreement with the experimental findings.

Detailed LDA band calculations by Mattheiss and Hamann mat  show that FeSi is a small (indirect) gap semiconductor. The bands closest to the Fermi level have predominantly Fe 3d character with some portions of weak dispersion about the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`X`$ points. All other bands are either filled or empty for the temperature range under consideration. It should be then meaningful to discuss FeSi1-xGex within the framework of the Anderson lattice Hamiltonian without orbital degeneracy (one band). The magnetic instabilities of a KI (two electrons per site) have been studied within a mean-field slave-boson approach DS . The key parameter driving the magnetic phases is the Hubbard/Anderson $`U`$ over the hybridization between the localized and conduction states $`V`$. (In the LDA$`+U`$ approach Anisimov ; Anisimov1  the correlation strength is $`U`$ over the bandwidth $`W`$). Two magnetic phases, an antiferromagnetic and a ferromagnetic one, are predicted. With increasing $`U/V`$, the paramagnetic KI first undergoes a second order transition into an antiferromagnetic insulating phase. This, however, requires a bipartite lattice (two interpenetrating sublattices) symmetry, which is absent for the rocksalt structure. Consequently, antiferromagnetism is suppressed and the system has a discontinuous transition to the FM phase DS .

For FeSi1-xGex, we consider $`U`$ a property of the Fe 3d shell and a constant for the alloy series. The hybridization of the 3d states with the ligand atoms, however, depends on $`x`$ and the simplest assumption is an average hybridization, i.e. $`V_{eff}=(1x)V_{Si}+xV_{Ge}`$. According to XPS and band calculations for FeSi and FeGe XPS , $`V_{Si}`$ is larger than $`V_{Ge}`$. Hence, the effective hybridization, $`V_{eff}`$, decreases and $`U/V_{eff}`$ increases with $`x`$, thus leading to a discontinuous transition at $`(U/V)_{cr}`$. The parameters $`U`$ and $`V_{eff}`$ are such that the compound is actually in the mixed valence and not quite in the Kondo regime Varma .Within the mean-field approach the critical parameter is $`(U/V)_{cr}=1.54`$.

The $`\gamma `$ coefficient, shown in the inset of Fig. 4, is a measure of the density of states at the Fermi level. Based on the KI picture, in the gapped region we have $`\gamma =0`$, while in the metallic region $`\gamma 0`$. The magnetization (and also $`T_\mathrm{C}`$) increases with $`x`$ (or $`U/V_{eff}`$), so that the number of electrons (holes) in the majority (minority) conduction (valence) bands increase with $`x`$. Hence, $`\gamma `$ as a function of $`x`$ probes the density of states of the KI, which has a peak above (below) the band edges and then reaches a constant value for larger energy ($`x`$), in agreement with Fig. 4. A large magnetic field is expected to favor a magnetic state close to the insulator-metal transitionMillis ; Jaime ; Anisimov1 . However, we found that the required fields are larger than the 45 T available at the NHMFL.

Finally, we address the rate of decrease of the gap with $`x`$, which is by far too large to be explained by the $`x`$-dependence of $`V_{eff}`$. It is then necessary to invoke the disorder introduced by the Ge substitution. An impurity in a KI gives rise to a bound state in the gap. Two situations have to be distinguished: (i) Substitution of magnetically active ions (Fe, Kondo holes) yields an impurity band close to the center of the band, while (ii) if ligand atoms are replaced, tails of impurity states develop close to the band edges reducing the spin gap schl . Assuming that Ge enters the lattice randomly on ligand sites a selfconsistent calculation schl  yields a much faster decrease of the gap with $`x`$ as shown in Fig. 1 (normalized to the gap for FeSi for $`V_{Ge}=0.67V_{Si}`$ and $`U/V_{Si}=1.5`$).

In summary, we studied the magnetic, transport, and thermal properties of single crystalline FeSi1-xGex and found a first order transition from the correlated insulator phase to a ferromagnetic metal phase at $`x0.25`$. The systematic change of the spin and transport gaps in the insulating phase, and the evolution of the magnetization and the $`\gamma `$-coefficient of the specific heat in the metallic phase are consistent with the Kondo insulator picture.

This work was performed at the NHMFL, which is supported by NSF Cooperative Agreement No. DMR-9527035 and by the State of Florida. This work is also supported by NSF and DOE through grants Nos.DMR-9971348, DMR-0105431 and DE-FG02-98ER45797.


text:
# General formulae for 𝑓₁→𝑓₂𝛾

## 1 Introduction

Radiative decays like $`\mu e\gamma `$ and $`bs\gamma `$ provide an important testing ground for many models in particle physics. In particular, the experimental bounds on flavour-changing leptonic radiative decays  are planned to improve, in some cases by a few orders of magnitude , and the relevance of those decays in tests of new physics will certainly increase.

It is important for model builders to be able to compute expeditiously the predictions of their models for radiative decays. Unfortunately, QCD effects are important and blur the picture in hadronic decays like $`bs\gamma `$. On the other hand, in flavour-changing leptonic decays only the electroweak theory is relevant, and simple, closed formulae may be produced.

The amplitude for $`\mu e\gamma `$ in the standard electroweak theory with lepton mixing (either light or heavy neutrinos) has been given by Cheng and Li . However, that amplitude has been computed for gauge bosons with exclusively left-handed interactions. Recently, the same authors together with He  have computed the amplitude for $`\mu e\gamma `$ following from a general Yukawa interaction.

In this paper I give simple formulae for the amplitude of $`f_1f_2\gamma `$ following from either a general (axial-)vector interaction or a general Yukawa interaction. My formulae are more general than the ones given in the references above, since

* I allow for arbitrary electric charges of the fermions $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$, and of the internal fields — a fermion $`F`$ and a boson $`B`$ — in the one-loop diagram responsible for the decay;
* I do not neglect the masses of $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ in the loop integrals;
* I allow for a general gauge interaction, with both $`VA`$ and $`V+A`$ components.

The last point is important since gauge bosons displaying $`V+A`$ interactions are present in many theories. In particular,

* In the left–right-symmetric model  there is a charged gauge boson $`W_R^\pm `$ coupling to the fermions like $`V+A`$ and, as a matter of fact, the observed $`W^\pm `$ is supposed to have a small $`W_R^\pm `$ component;
* In models with vector-like fermions  — like for instance the $`E_6`$ grand unified theory, which has both vector-like charge-$`1/3`$ quarks and vector-like charge-$`1`$ leptons — the neutral gauge bosons couple to flavour-changing currents while retaining both $`VA`$ and $`V+A`$ couplings;
* In the 3-3-1 model , based on the electroweak gauge group $`SU(3)\times U(1)`$, both singly and doubly charged vector bosons exist, and they have both $`VA`$ and $`V+A`$ couplings to the fermions.

The one-loop computation of $`f_1f_2\gamma `$ is non-trivial since there are both vertex-type diagrams — in which the photon attaches to either the internal boson $`B`$ or the internal fermion $`F`$ — and self-energy-type diagrams — in which the photon attaches to either $`f_1`$ or $`f_2`$. One must write the (divergent) two-point integrals in terms of three-point integrals in order to be able to add the diagrams of both types. When one does that one finds that the full vertex is both gauge-invariant and finite, as it ought to be.

The plan of this paper is as follows. In section 2 I give the notation for the gauge-invariant amplitude. In section 3 I define the relevant three-point finite loop integrals in terms of which the amplitude will be written. In section 4 I give the amplitude resulting from the Yukawa couplings to a spin-$`0`$ boson. In section 5 I give the amplitude following from the couplings of the fermions to an intermediate vector boson.

## 2 Notation for the vertex

I want to compute the process $`f_1\left(p_1\right)f_2\left(p_2\right)\gamma \left(q\right)`$, where $`q=p_1p_2`$. The fermion $`f_1`$ has mass $`m_1`$ while $`f_2`$ has mass $`m_2`$. The fermions are on mass shell: $`p_1^2=m_1^2`$ and $`p_2^2=m_2^2`$. The fermions $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ are represented by spinors $`u_1`$ and $`\overline{u}_2`$, respectively, which satisfy $`p_1/u_1=m_1u_1`$ and $`\overline{u}_2p_2/=m_2\overline{u}_2`$.

The amplitude for the decay is $`eϵ_\mu ^{}\left(q\right)M^\mu `$, where $`ϵ_\mu ^{}\left(q\right)`$ is the polarization vector of the outgoing photon and $`e`$ is the electric charge of the positron. Gauge invariance implies that $`q_\mu M^\mu `$ must be zero; therefore $`M^\mu `$ must be of the form

$$M^\mu =\overline{u}_2\left(\sigma _L\mathrm{\Sigma }_L^\mu +\sigma _R\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^\mu +\delta _L\mathrm{\Delta }_L^\mu +\delta _R\mathrm{\Delta }_R^\mu \right)u_1,$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _L`$, $`\sigma _R`$, $`\delta _L`$, and $`\delta _R`$ are numerical coefficients with dimension of inverse mass, and

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\left(p_1^\mu +p_2^\mu \right)\gamma _L\gamma ^\mu \left(m_2\gamma _L+m_1\gamma _R\right),`$ (2)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\left(p_1^\mu +p_2^\mu \right)\gamma _R\gamma ^\mu \left(m_2\gamma _R+m_1\gamma _L\right),`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_L^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`q^\mu \gamma _L+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m_2^2m_1^2}}\gamma ^\mu \left(m_2\gamma _L+m_1\gamma _R\right),`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_R^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`q^\mu \gamma _R+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m_2^2m_1^2}}\gamma ^\mu \left(m_2\gamma _R+m_1\gamma _L\right).`$ (5)
The matrices $`\gamma _L=\left(1\gamma _5\right)/2`$ and $`\gamma _R=\left(1+\gamma _5\right)/2`$ are the projectors of chirality. If we define $`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=\left(i/2\right)[\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ]`$, then $`M^\mu `$ may alternatively be written as

$$M^\mu =\overline{u}_2\left[i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu \left(\sigma _L\gamma _L+\sigma _R\gamma _R\right)+\delta _L\mathrm{\Delta }_L^\mu +\delta _R\mathrm{\Delta }_R^\mu \right]u_1.$$
(6)
Only the coefficients $`\sigma _L`$ and $`\sigma _R`$ are relevant to the physical decay $`f_1f_2\gamma `$, because $`ϵ_\mu ^{}\left(q\right)q^\mu =0`$ and $`q^2=0`$ for an on-shell photon. The coefficients $`\delta _L`$ and $`\delta _R`$ are important when $`f_1\left(p_1\right)f_2\left(p_2\right)\gamma \left(q\right)`$ is just a sub-process of a more complex decay, like for instance $`f_1\left(p_1\right)f_2\left(p_2\right)e^+e^{}`$. In this paper I shall only give $`\sigma _L`$ and $`\sigma _R`$. The partial width for $`f_1f_2\gamma `$ is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{\left(m_1^2m_2^2\right)^3\left(\left|\sigma _L\right|^2+\left|\sigma _R\right|^2\right)}{16\pi m_1^3}.$$
(7)
## 3 The basic integrals

The expressions for the coefficients $`\sigma _L`$ and $`\sigma _R`$ will be given in terms of a few loop integrals. Denote

$`D_B`$ $`=`$ $`k^2m_B^2,`$ (8)
$`D_{1F}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(k+p_1\right)^2m_F^2,`$ (9)
$`D_{2F}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(k+p_2\right)^2m_F^2.`$ (10)
Then, I define

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{1}{D_BD_{1F}D_{2F}}},`$ (11)
$`c_1p_1^\theta +c_2p_2^\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{k^\theta }{D_BD_{1F}D_{2F}}},`$ (12)
$`d_1p_1^\theta p_1^\psi +d_2p_2^\theta p_2^\psi +f\left(p_1^\theta p_2^\psi +p_2^\theta p_1^\psi \right)+xg^{\theta \psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{k^\theta k^\psi }{D_BD_{1F}D_{2F}}}.`$ (13)
In the formulae for $`\sigma _{L,R}`$ only the finite coefficients $`a`$, $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$, $`d_1`$, $`d_2`$, and $`f`$ occur; the divergent $`x`$ cancels out with two-point integrals.

Conversely, let

$`D_{1B}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(kp_1\right)^2m_B^2,`$ (14)
$`D_{2B}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(kp_2\right)^2m_B^2,`$ (15)
$`D_F`$ $`=`$ $`k^2m_F^2.`$ (16)
Then,

$`\overline{a}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{1}{D_{1B}D_{2B}D_F}},`$ (17)
$`\overline{c}_1p_1^\theta +\overline{c}_2p_2^\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{k^\theta }{D_{1B}D_{2B}D_F}},`$ (18)
$`\overline{d}_1p_1^\theta p_1^\psi +\overline{d}_2p_2^\theta p_2^\psi +\overline{f}\left(p_1^\theta p_2^\psi +p_2^\theta p_1^\psi \right)+\overline{x}g^{\theta \psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{k^\theta k^\psi }{D_{1B}D_{2B}D_F}}.`$ (19)
When one uses the approximation $`m_1^2=m_2^2=0`$ together with $`q^2=0`$ the integrals may be computed easily. Defining $`t=m_F^2/m_B^2`$, one obtains

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16\pi ^2m_B^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}t}{\left(t1\right)^2}}\right],`$ (20)
$`c_1=c_2c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16\pi ^2m_B^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t3}{4\left(t1\right)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}t}{2\left(t1\right)^3}}\right],`$ (21)
$`d_1=d_2=2fd`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16\pi ^2m_B^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2t^2+7t11}{18\left(t1\right)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}t}{3\left(t1\right)^4}}\right],`$ (22)
$`\overline{a}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16\pi ^2m_B^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t1}}{\displaystyle \frac{t\mathrm{ln}t}{\left(t1\right)^2}}\right],`$ (23)
$`\overline{c}_1=\overline{c}_2\overline{c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16\pi ^2m_B^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3t1}{4\left(t1\right)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^2\mathrm{ln}t}{2\left(t1\right)^3}}\right],`$ (24)
$`\overline{d}_1=\overline{d}_2=2\overline{f}\overline{d}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16\pi ^2m_B^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{11t^27t+2}{18\left(t1\right)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^3\mathrm{ln}t}{3\left(t1\right)^4}}\right].`$ (25)
## 4 Results for a Yukawa interaction

The fermions $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ may have an Yukawa interaction with a spin-$`0`$ boson $`B`$ and with another spin-$`1/2`$ fermion $`F`$, assumed to be distinct from both $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$. Let us write that interaction as

$$_{\mathrm{Yukawa}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\left[B\overline{F}\left(L_i\gamma _L+R_i\gamma _R\right)f_i+B^{}\overline{f}_i\left(L_i^{}\gamma _R+R_i^{}\gamma _L\right)F\right],$$
(26)
with arbitrary dimensionless numerical coefficients $`L_1`$, $`L_2`$, $`R_1`$, and $`R_2`$. I denote

$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`L_2^{}L_1,`$ (27)
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`R_2^{}R_1,`$ (28)
$`\zeta `$ $`=`$ $`L_2^{}R_1,`$ (29)
$`\upsilon `$ $`=`$ $`R_2^{}L_1.`$ (30)
The electric charges of $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$, in units of $`e`$, are $`Q_f`$; the electric charge of $`F`$ is $`Q_F`$ and the electric charge of $`B`$ is $`Q_B`$. Obviously, from eq. (26),

$$Q_f=Q_FQ_B.$$
(31)
Otherwise I allow for arbitrary $`Q_f`$, $`Q_F`$, and $`Q_B`$.

Let us consider the consequences of the Yukawa interaction in eq. (26) for the vertex $`f_1\left(p_1\right)f_2\left(p_2\right)\gamma \left(q\right)`$. There will in general be four diagrams for that vertex: two self-energy diagrams in which the photon attaches either to $`f_1`$ or to $`f_2`$; one diagram in which the photon attaches to $`F`$; and another diagram in which the photon attaches to $`B`$. The self-energy diagrams are proportional to $`Q_f`$, and the other two diagrams are proportional to $`Q_F`$ and $`Q_B`$, respectively. One uses eq. (31) to write the vertex as the sum of two terms, one of them proportional to $`Q_F`$ and the other one proportional to $`Q_B`$.

The mass of the scalar boson $`B`$ is denoted $`m_B`$ and the mass of the fermion $`F`$ is denoted $`m_F`$. With the loop integrals defined in the previous section I construct

$`k_1`$ $`=`$ $`m_1\left(c_1+d_1+f\right),`$ (32)
$`k_2`$ $`=`$ $`m_2\left(c_2+d_2+f\right),`$ (33)
$`k_3`$ $`=`$ $`m_F\left(c_1+c_2\right),`$ (34)
and

$`\overline{k}_1`$ $`=`$ $`m_1\left(\overline{c}_1+\overline{d}_1+\overline{f}\right),`$ (35)
$`\overline{k}_2`$ $`=`$ $`m_2\left(\overline{c}_2+\overline{d}_2+\overline{f}\right),`$ (36)
$`\overline{k}_3`$ $`=`$ $`m_F\left(\overline{a}+\overline{c}_1+\overline{c}_2\right).`$ (37)
The results for $`\sigma _L`$ and $`\sigma _R`$ are written in terms of these functions:

$`\sigma _L`$ $`=`$ $`Q_F\left(\rho k_1+\lambda k_2+\upsilon k_3\right)+Q_B\left(\rho \overline{k}_1+\lambda \overline{k}_2+\upsilon \overline{k}_3\right),`$ (38)
$`\sigma _R`$ $`=`$ $`Q_F\left(\lambda k_1+\rho k_2+\zeta k_3\right)+Q_B\left(\lambda \overline{k}_1+\rho \overline{k}_2+\zeta \overline{k}_3\right).`$ (39)
The results in eqs. (32)–(39) do not involve any approximations and they are fully general — they hold even when the photon is off-shell, $`q^20`$. One may want to keep the mass prefactors in the $`k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},\overline{k}_3`$ of eqs. (32)–(37), while computing $`c_1+d_1+f,c_2+d_2+f,\mathrm{},\overline{a}+\overline{c}_1+\overline{c}_2`$ in the approximation $`m_1^2=m_2^2=0`$ (and $`q^2=0`$). One uses eqs. (20)–(25) and obtains

$`\left(i\right)16\pi ^2m_B^2\left(c+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}d\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t^25t2}{12\left(t1\right)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{t\mathrm{ln}t}{2\left(t1\right)^4}},`$ (40)
$`\left(i\right)16\pi ^2m_B^2\left(\overline{c}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\overline{d}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2t^2+5t1}{12\left(t1\right)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^2\mathrm{ln}t}{2\left(t1\right)^4}},`$ (41)
$`\left(i\right)16\pi ^2m_B^2\left(2c\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t3}{2\left(t1\right)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}t}{\left(t1\right)^3}},`$ (42)
$`\left(i\right)16\pi ^2m_B^2\left(\overline{a}+2\overline{c}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t+1}{2\left(t1\right)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{t\mathrm{ln}t}{\left(t1\right)^3}}.`$ (43)
The functions in the right-hand sides of eqs. (40)–(43) have been given in ref. , where they were called $`H(r)`$, $`G(r)`$, $`K(r)`$, and $`I(r)`$, respectively (with $`r=t1`$ and apart from a common factor $`2`$). They are all positive definite, decreasing functions, which start at $`t=0`$ with a value smaller than $`1`$ and tend to $`0`$ as $`t^1`$ when $`t\mathrm{}`$. The exception is the function in the right-hand side of eq. (42), which tends to infinity as $`3/2\mathrm{ln}t`$ in the limit $`t0`$.

## 5 Results for a gauge interaction

Now suppose that the fermions $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ interact with a (neutral or charged) vector boson $`B_\alpha `$ and with another fermion $`F`$,111I use the same notation $`F`$ as in the previous section for the fermion with which $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ interact, although the fermion $`F`$ will not in general be the same in the Yukawa interaction and in the gauge interaction. In the same vein, I use identical notations $`m_{B,F}`$ and $`Q_{B,F}`$ for the masses and electric charges, respectively, of the intermediate boson and fermion. assumed to be distinct from both $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$, the interaction Lagrangian being

$$_{\mathrm{gauge}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\left[B_\alpha \overline{F}\gamma ^\alpha \left(L_i^{}\gamma _L+R_i^{}\gamma _R\right)f_i+B_\alpha ^{}\overline{f}_i\gamma ^\alpha \left(L_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma _L+R_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma _R\right)F\right],$$
(44)
with arbitrary dimensionless numerical coefficients $`L_1^{}`$, $`L_2^{}`$, $`R_1^{}`$, and $`R_2^{}`$. I use the notation

$`\lambda ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`L_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}L_1^{},`$ (45)
$`\rho ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}R_1^{},`$ (46)
$`\zeta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`L_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}R_1^{},`$ (47)
$`\upsilon ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}L_1^{}.`$ (48)
The electric charge of $`F`$ is $`Q_F`$, in units of $`e`$, and the electric charge of $`B_\alpha `$ is $`Q_B`$. Again, eq. (31) holds. The mass of $`B_\alpha `$ is $`m_B`$ and the mass of $`F`$ is $`m_F`$.

The massive gauge field $`B_\alpha `$ has associated with it a scalar “would-be Goldstone boson” $`\phi `$, while $`\phi ^{}`$ is associated with $`B_\alpha ^{}`$. The Yukawa interaction of $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ with $`F`$ and with the “would-be Goldstone bosons” $`\phi `$ and $`\phi ^{}`$ is given by222The phases of $`\phi `$ and $`\phi ^{}`$ are implicitly defined through eq. (49) in a convenient way.

$`_\phi `$ $`=`$ $`\phi {\displaystyle \frac{i}{m_B}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\overline{F}\left[\left(R_i^{}m_iL_i^{}m_F\right)\gamma _L+\left(L_i^{}m_iR_i^{}m_F\right)\gamma _R\right]f_i`$ (49)
$`+\phi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{m_B}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\overline{f}_i\left[\left(L_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}m_FR_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}m_i\right)\gamma _R+\left(R_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}m_FL_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}m_i\right)\gamma _L\right]F.`$
I assume that, just as in the Standard Model (SM), the three-gauge-boson vertex of a photon $`A_\mu `$ with outgoing momentum $`q`$, an incoming $`B_\alpha `$ with incoming momentum $`p`$, and an incoming $`B_\beta ^{}`$ with incoming momentum $`\overline{p}`$ (obviously $`p+\overline{p}=q`$) has the following Feynman rule:

$$ieQ_B\left[g^{\alpha \beta }\left(p\overline{p}\right)^\mu g^{\mu \alpha }\left(q+p\right)^\beta +g^{\mu \beta }\left(q+\overline{p}\right)^\alpha \right].$$
(50)
Furthermore, I assume that the vertex of $`A_\mu `$ with (incoming) $`B_\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\phi `$ has Feynman rule $`eQ_Bm_Bg^{\mu \alpha }`$, while the vertex of $`A_\mu `$ with $`B_\alpha `$ and $`\phi ^{}`$ is $`eQ_Bm_Bg^{\mu \alpha }`$. This is, once again, analogous to what happens in the SM.

One adds the contributions from diagrams with $`B_\alpha `$ with those from diagrams with $`\phi `$ and with those from diagrams with both $`B_\alpha `$ and $`\phi `$. All diagrams must be computed in the same gauge — I have used the Feynman–’t Hooft gauge, in which the propagators of both $`B_\alpha `$ and $`\phi `$ have poles exclusively at the physical mass $`m_B`$. One obtains

$`\sigma _L`$ $`=`$ $`Q_F\left(\rho ^{}y_1+\lambda ^{}y_2+\upsilon ^{}y_3+\zeta ^{}y_4\right)+Q_B\left(\rho ^{}\overline{y}_1+\lambda ^{}\overline{y}_2+\upsilon ^{}\overline{y}_3+\zeta ^{}\overline{y}_4\right),`$ (51)
$`\sigma _R`$ $`=`$ $`Q_F\left(\lambda ^{}y_1+\rho ^{}y_2+\zeta ^{}y_3+\upsilon ^{}y_4\right)+Q_B\left(\lambda ^{}\overline{y}_1+\rho ^{}\overline{y}_2+\zeta ^{}\overline{y}_3+\upsilon ^{}\overline{y}_4\right),`$ (52)
with

$`y_1`$ $`=`$ $`m_1[2a+4c_1+2c_2+2d_1+2f+{\displaystyle \frac{m_F^2}{m_B^2}}(c_2+d_1+f)`$ (53)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2}{m_B^2}}(c_2+d_2+f)],`$
$`y_2`$ $`=`$ $`m_2[2a+2c_1+4c_2+2d_2+2f+{\displaystyle \frac{m_F^2}{m_B^2}}(c_1+d_2+f)`$ (54)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2}{m_B^2}}(c_1+d_1+f)],`$
$`y_3`$ $`=`$ $`m_F[4a4c_14c_2+{\displaystyle \frac{m_F^2}{m_B^2}}(c_1+c_2)`$ (55)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2}{m_B^2}}(c_1+d_1+f){\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2}{m_B^2}}(c_2+d_2+f)],`$
$`y_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1m_2m_F}{m_B^2}}\left(d_1+d_2+2f\right),`$ (56)
and

$`\overline{y}_1`$ $`=`$ $`m_1[2\overline{c}_2+2\overline{d}_1+2\overline{f}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_F^2}{m_B^2}}(\overline{a}2\overline{c}_1\overline{c}_2+\overline{d}_1+\overline{f})`$ (57)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2}{m_B^2}}(\overline{c}_2+\overline{d}_2+\overline{f})],`$
$`\overline{y}_2`$ $`=`$ $`m_2[2\overline{c}_1+2\overline{d}_2+2\overline{f}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_F^2}{m_B^2}}(\overline{a}\overline{c}_12\overline{c}_2+\overline{d}_2+\overline{f})`$ (58)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2}{m_B^2}}(\overline{c}_1+\overline{d}_1+\overline{f})],`$
$`\overline{y}_3`$ $`=`$ $`m_F[4\overline{c}_14\overline{c}_2+{\displaystyle \frac{m_F^2}{m_B^2}}(\overline{a}+\overline{c}_1+\overline{c}_2)`$ (59)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2}{m_B^2}}(\overline{c}_1\overline{d}_1\overline{f})+{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2}{m_B^2}}(\overline{c}_2\overline{d}_2\overline{f})],`$
$`\overline{y}_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1m_2m_F}{m_B^2}}\left(\overline{a}+2\overline{c}_1+2\overline{c}_2\overline{d}_1\overline{d}_22\overline{f}\right).`$ (60)
Just as in the previous section, the results in eqs. (51)–(60) are completely general — they hold even when $`q^20`$. One may want to keep the mass prefactors in $`y_1`$$`y_3`$ and in $`\overline{y}_1`$$`\overline{y}_3`$ while computing the functions inside the square brackets in the limit $`m_1^2=m_2^2=0`$ (and $`q^2=0`$). With $`t=m_F^2/m_B^2`$ as before, one obtains

$`\left(i\right)16\pi ^2m_B^2\left[2a+6c+3d+t\left(c+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}d\right)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5t^3+9t^230t+8}{12\left(t1\right)^3}}`$ (61)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3t^2\mathrm{ln}t}{2\left(t1\right)^4}},`$
$`\left(i\right)16\pi ^2m_B^2\left[2\overline{c}+3\overline{d}+t\left(\overline{a}3\overline{c}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\overline{d}\right)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4t^3+45t^233t+10}{12\left(t1\right)^3}}`$ (62)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3t^3\mathrm{ln}t}{2\left(t1\right)^4}},`$
$`\left(i\right)16\pi ^2m_B^2\left(4a8c+2tc\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t^2+t+4}{2\left(t1\right)^2}}`$ (63)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3t\mathrm{ln}t}{\left(t1\right)^3}},`$
$`\left(i\right)16\pi ^2m_B^2\left[8\overline{c}+t\left(\overline{a}+2\overline{c}\right)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t^211t+4}{2\left(t1\right)^2}}`$ (64)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3t^2\mathrm{ln}t}{\left(t1\right)^3}}.`$
The function in the right-hand side of eq. (62) has been given in ref. ; the functions in the right-hand sides of eqs. (61), (63), and (64) are new. The functions in eqs. (63) and (64) are positive definite and decrease continuously from $`2`$ at $`t=0`$ to $`1/2`$ at $`t\mathrm{}`$; the functions in eqs. (61) and (62) are negative definite and increase from a value larger than $`1`$ at $`t=0`$ to a value smaller than $`0`$ at $`t\mathrm{}`$.

## 6 Conclusions

The amplitude for the decay $`f_1f_2\gamma `$ involves two relevant operators, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L^\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^\mu `$ given in eqs. (2) and (3). When $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ interact with a scalar boson $`B`$ and with a fermion $`F`$ ($`Ff_1`$ and $`Ff_2`$) as in eq. (26), the coefficients of those operators in the amplitude, $`\sigma _L`$ and $`\sigma _R`$, receive contributions as in eqs. (32)–(39). When $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ interact with a vector boson $`B_\alpha `$ and with a fermion $`F`$ through eq. (44), $`\sigma _L`$ and $`\sigma _R`$ receive the contributions in eqs. (51)–(60). All these results are completely general — they do not depend on the values of the kinematical variables $`p_1^2=m_1^2`$, $`p_2^2=m_2^2`$, and $`q^2`$. The finite loop integrals $`a,b_1,b_2,`$ and so on in the general expressions for $`\sigma _L`$ and $`\sigma _R`$ are defined through eqs. (8)–(19).