text:
# The reaction 𝑝̄𝑝→𝜋⁺𝜋⁻: relativistic aspects and final-state interaction in the pion wave functions 11footnote 1this talk is a condensed version of reference [1] and as of yet not published work.

## 1 Introduction

The very accurate set of data from the LEAR experiment  on $`\overline{p}p\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ measuring the differential cross section and analyzing power from 360 to 1550 MeV/c is still a challenge for theoretical models after more than a decade. Large variations are observed in the analyzing power $`A_{0n}`$ as a function of angle at all energies, indicating presence of several partial waves already at low energies. However, recent model calculations  lead to scattering amplitudes which are strongly dominated by total angular momentum $`J=0`$ and $`J=1`$. The reason for this is the choice of a rather short range annihilation mechanism. The short range of the annihilation in the model calculations originates from the dynamics of baryon exchange in Refs.  or from required overlap of quark and antiquark wave functions for proton and antiproton in Refs. . On the other hand the experimental data on differential cross sections as well as those on asymmetries point to a significant $`J=2`$, $`J=3`$ and even higher $`J`$ contributions . All above mentioned models, for this reaction, use a distorted wave approximation (DWA). In order to calculate the $`\overline{p}p\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ amplitudes we use the initial coupled spin-triplet $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{p}p}(𝐫)`$ wave functions in configuration space as provided by the Paris 1998 $`\overline{N}N`$ potential . The transition operator $`O(𝐫^{},𝐫)`$ is computed from quark and antiquark diagrams in which a $`\overline{q}q`$ pair is annihilated into either an effective vacuum $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ or ”gluon” like $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ state. In both cases momentum is transferred from the annihilation vertex to the spectator quarks. The final ingredient is the $`\pi \pi `$ wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pi \pi }(𝐫^{})`$ parameterized in terms of $`\pi \pi `$ phase shifts and inelasticities. The complete scattering amplitude $`T`$ using the DWA is then

$$T=𝑑𝐫^{}𝑑𝐫\mathrm{\Phi }_{\pi \pi }(𝐫^{})O(𝐫^{},𝐫)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{p}p}(𝐫).$$
(1)
## 2 Observables and $`\pi \pi `$ final-state interaction

The reaction $`\overline{p}p\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ can be fully described in the helicity formalism by two independent helicity amplitudes $`F_{++}(\theta )`$ and $`F_+(\theta )`$. The angle $`\theta `$ is the c.m. angle between the outgoing $`\pi ^{}`$ and the incoming $`\overline{p}`$. The two observables measured at LEAR are

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{1}{2}(|F_{++}|^2+|F_+|^2),A_{0n}\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\mathrm{Im}(F_{++}F_+^{}),$$
(2)
where the helicity amplitudes are obtained from the DWA method in Eq. (1). The final $`\pi \pi `$ scattering wave functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\pi \pi }(𝐫^{})`$ supersede previously used plane waves. The elastic $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$ amplitude is known from threshold up to the total relativistic $`\pi \pi `$ energy $`\sqrt{s}=1800`$ MeV mainly from analysis of the $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ reaction. The extracted $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$ amplitudes can be parameterized in terms of phase shifts $`\delta _J`$ and inelasticities $`\eta _J`$ where $`J=0,1,2`$, and 3. This final $`\pi \pi `$ interaction proves to be a sensitive ingredient in the fit to the observables.

## 3 Quark wave functions and charge distribution radii

Within the quark model the spin-momentum structure of the annihilation amplitudes is dictated by the topology of the flavor flux as well as by the vertices, whereas the range is determined by the overlap of quark and antiquark wave functions for proton, antiproton and pions. These wave functions are

$$\psi _p(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,𝐫_3)=N_p\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\alpha }{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(𝐫_i𝐫_p)^2\right]\times \chi __p(\mathrm{spin},\mathrm{isospin},\mathrm{color}),$$
(3)
where $`𝐫_i`$ are the quark coordinates and $`𝐫_p`$ the proton coordinate. For the antiproton the antiquarks are $`𝐫_4,𝐫_5`$ and $`𝐫_6`$. An $`S`$-wave meson intrinsic wave function is:

$$\varphi _\pi (𝐫_1,𝐫_4)=N_\pi \mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\beta }{2}\underset{i=1,4}{}(𝐫_i𝐫_\pi )^2\right]\times \chi __\pi (\mathrm{spin},\mathrm{isospin},\mathrm{color}).$$
(4)
Here $`𝐫_1`$ and $`𝐫_4`$ are the quark and antiquark coordinates of one pion, respectively. The coordinate of the pion is $`𝐫_\pi `$. In a fit to a representative set of $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`A_{0n}`$ data  at five energies the size parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ take on values which correspond to $`r_p^2^{1/2}=0.91`$ fm and $`r_\pi ^2^{1/2}=0.71`$ fm, respectively. This is within 7% of the measured charge distribution radii values found in the literature  and considerably larger than the proton, antiproton and pion radii used before.

## 4 Relativistic corrections

Final states with kinetic energies much higher that the pion rest mass are produced in the LEAR experiment. For an incoming antiproton with $`p_{\text{lab}}=800`$ MeV/c one obtains a relativistic factor $`\gamma =E_{\mathrm{cm}}/2m_\pi c^2=7.2`$ for the outgoing pions. The Gaussian spheres of Eqs. (3,4) are appropriate in the rest frame of the pions. However, the transition amplitudes and therefore the observables (2) are calculated in the c.m. frame. The $`\pi \pi `$ wave functions must be Lorentz transformed from their rest frame into the relevant c.m. frame. The boosts “flatten” the pion wave functions. After a Lorentz boost along the relative pion coordinate $`𝐫_\pi `$ the exponential part of the wave functions becomes

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\beta }{2}\underset{i=1,4}{}\left((𝐫_i𝐫_\pi )_{}^2+\gamma ^2(𝐫_i𝐫_\pi )_{}^2\right)\right].$$
(5)
These modified wave functions can be shown to considerably change the angular distribution due to additional terms in the annihilation amplitude. Also, as for the changes in the last two sections, partial waves for $`J1`$ are strongly enhanced.

## 5 Results

Some partial results for $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`A_{0n}`$ at $`T_{\text{lab}}=123.5`$ and 219.9 MeV ($`p_{\text{lab}}=497`$ and 679 MeV/c) are shown in the figures above. The dotted curves correspond to the quark model with final $`\pi \pi `$ plane waves. Switching on the $`\pi \pi `$ final state interactions yields the dashed and furthermore increasing the hadronic radii the solid curves. Relativistic effects have not yet been included.

## Acknowledgment

B.E. would like to thank the organizers of the $`N^{}`$2002 conference in Pittsburgh for the financial support and the opportunity to give this talk.


format: text

text:
# 1 Hypergeometric series

## 1 Hypergeometric series

BKP hierarchy was invented in , as a certain generalization of the KP hierarchy of integrable equations ,. In  (see also ) the role of projective Schur functions  as rational solutions of the BKP hierarchy was explained. Here we construct hypergeometric functions related to the projective Schur functions as certain tau functions of the one component BKP hierarchy. The consideration is going along the way of ,,. Let us notice that a different KP hierarchy of the root type B was constructed in the paper , we do not study this case in the present paper.

### 1.1 Neutral free fermions and BKP hierarchy ,

Let us consider neutral fermions $`\left\{\varphi _n,nZ\right\}`$, obeying the following canonical anticommutation relations

$$[\varphi _m,\varphi _n]_+=()^m\delta _{m,n},$$
(1.1.1)
where $`[a,b]_+=ab+ba`$. In particular $`\varphi _0^2=1/2`$.

There are the right and the left vacuum vectors, $`|0`$ and $`0|`$ respectively, having the properties

$$\varphi _m|0=0\left(m<0\right),0|\varphi _m=0\left(m>0\right)$$
(1.1.2)
We have a right and a left Fock spaces spanned, respectively, by the right and the left vacuum vectors and by right and left vectors

$$\varphi _{n_1}\mathrm{}\varphi _{n_k}|0,0|\varphi _{n_k}\mathrm{}\varphi _{n_1},$$
(1.1.3)
where $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, and where we put

$$n_1>\mathrm{}>n_k0$$
(1.1.4)
According to ,  we introduce the following operators (Hamiltonians) labeled by odd numbers $`n2Z+1`$:

$$H_n=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1\right)^{k+1}\varphi _k\varphi _{kn}$$
(1.1.5)
One can check that $`H_n`$ obey the following Heisenberg algebra relations

$$[H_n,H_m]=\frac{n}{2}\delta _{m+n,0},$$
(1.1.6)
where $`[a,b]:=abba`$ is a commutator.

By (1.1.1) we obtain

$$[H_n,\varphi _m]=\varphi _{mn}$$
(1.1.7)
We also notice that

$$H_n|0=H_n\varphi _0|0=0,0|H_n=0|\varphi _0H_n=0,n>0$$
(1.1.8)
For a pair of collections of independent variables (so called BKP higher times, whose numbers we choose to be always odd numbers)

$$𝐭=(t_1,t_3,t_5\mathrm{}),𝐭^{}=(t_1^{},t_3^{},t_5^{}\mathrm{})$$
(1.1.9)
one sets

$$H\left(𝐭\right)=\underset{n=1,3,\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}t_nH_n,H^{}\left(𝐭^{}\right)=\underset{n=1,3,\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}t_n^{}H_n$$
(1.1.10)
It is suitable to introduce the following fermionic field, which depends on a complex parameter $`z`$:

$$\varphi \left(z\right)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}z^k\varphi _k$$
(1.1.11)
For fermionic fields (1.1.11) the anticommutation relation (1.1.1) reads as

$$[\varphi \left(z\right),\varphi \left(z^{}\right)]_+=\delta (z,z^{})=\underset{nZ}{}\left(\frac{z}{z^{}}\right)^n,$$
(1.1.12)
(the symbol $`\delta `$ denotes a Dirac $`\delta `$-function with the defying property $`\frac{1}{2\pi i}f\left(z\right)\delta \left(z/z^{}\right)\frac{dz}{z}=f\left(z^{}\right)`$).

The relation (1.1.7) yields

$$[H_n,\varphi \left(z\right)]=z^n\varphi \left(z\right),$$
(1.1.13)
which in turn results in

$$e^{H\left(𝐭\right)}\varphi \left(z\right)e^{H\left(𝐭\right)}=\varphi \left(z\right)e^{\xi (𝐭,z)},\xi (𝐭,z)=\underset{n=1,3,\mathrm{}}{}z^nt_n$$
(1.1.14)
The formulae below are called bosonization formulae ,:

$$0|\varphi \left(z\right)e^{H\left(𝐭\right)}=0|\varphi _0e^{H\left(𝐭ϵ\left(z^1\right)\right)},$$
(1.1.15)
$$\sqrt{2}0|\varphi _0\varphi \left(z\right)e^{H\left(𝐭\right)}=0|e^{H\left(𝐭ϵ\left(z^1\right)\right)},$$
(1.1.16)
where

$$ϵ\left(z^1\right)=(\frac{2}{z},\frac{2}{3z^3},\frac{2}{5z^5},\mathrm{})$$
(1.1.17)
Furthermore, given $`N>1`$, one obtains bosonization relations:

$$0|e^{H\left(𝐭\left(𝐱^N\right)\right)}=2^{\frac{N}{2}}\frac{0|\varphi \left(\frac{1}{x_N}\right)\mathrm{}\varphi \left(\frac{1}{x_1}\right)}{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐱^N\right)},N\text{even},$$
(1.1.18)
$$0|e^{H\left(𝐭\left(𝐱^N\right)\right)}=2^{\frac{N+1}{2}}\frac{0|\varphi _0\varphi \left(\frac{1}{x_N}\right)\mathrm{}\varphi \left(\frac{1}{x_1}\right)}{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐱^N\right)},N\text{odd},$$
(1.1.19)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐱^N\right)=\frac{_{i<j}^N\left(1x_jx_i^1\right)}{_{i<j}^N\left(1+x_jx_i^1\right)}=\frac{_{i<j}^N\left(x_ix_j\right)}{_{i<j}^N\left(x_i+x_j\right)}$$
(1.1.20)
The following expression is a typical example of BKP tau-function

$$\tau \left(𝐭\right)=0\left|e^{H\left(𝐭\right)}g\right|0,g=\underset{k=1}{\overset{2K}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_k\mathrm{exp}(\underset{n,m}{}b_{n,m}:\varphi _n\varphi _m:),$$
(1.1.21)
where each of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ is a linear combination of neutral fermions $`\varphi _k`$, and $`N:b_{n,m}=0,\left|nm\right|>N`$. Symbol $`::`$ means normal ordering, i.e. $`:\varphi _n\varphi _m:`$ is $`\varphi _n\varphi _m0\left|\varphi _n\varphi _m\right|0`$. The numbers $`b_n`$ we consider satisfy $`b_{n,m}+b_{m,n}=0`$.

We remind definitions  will be required in the sequel. A set of non increasing positive integers $`n_1n_2\mathrm{}n_k0`$ is called the partition of number $`n=\left|\lambda \right|=n_1+\mathrm{}+n_k`$, and is denoted by $`\lambda =(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_k)`$; if $`n_k>0`$, then $`k`$ is called the length of the partition $`\lambda `$ and denoted by $`l\left(\lambda \right)`$. The number $`\left|\lambda \right|`$ is called the weight of the partition $`\lambda `$. Numbers $`n_1,n_2,\mathrm{}`$ are said to be the parts of the partition $`\lambda `$. The partition of zero (i.e. $`n_1=0`$) is denoted by $`\lambda =0`$. The set of all partitions is usually denoted by $`P`$.

The diagram of a partition $`\lambda `$ (or the Young diagram $`\lambda `$) may be defined as the set of points (nodes) $`(i,j)Z^2`$ such that $`1jn_i`$.

The conjugate of a partition $`\lambda `$ is the partition $`\lambda ^{}`$ whose diagram is the transpose of the diagram $`\lambda `$, i.e. the diagram obtained by reflection in the main diagonal.

There is different notation for partitions (Frobenius notation). Suppose that the main diagonal of the diagram $`\lambda `$ consists of $`r`$ nodes $`(i,i)`$ $`\left(1ir\right)`$. Let $`\alpha _i=n_ii`$ be the number of nodes in the $`i`$th row of $`\lambda `$ to the right of $`(i,i)`$, for $`1ir`$, and let $`\beta _i=n_i^{}i`$ be the number of nodes in the $`i`$th column of $`\lambda `$ below $`(i,i)`$, for $`1ir`$. One has $`\alpha _1>\alpha _2>\mathrm{}>\alpha _r0`$ and $`\beta _1>\beta _2>\mathrm{}>\beta _r0`$. Then we denote the partition $`\lambda =(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_k)`$ by

$$\lambda =(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _r|\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _r)=\left(\alpha |\beta \right)$$
(1.1.22)
Given set of variables $`𝐭=(t_1,t_2,t_3,\mathrm{})`$ and a given partition $`\lambda =(n_1,\mathrm{},n_k),n_k>0`$, Schur function is defined as

$$s_\lambda \left(𝐭\right)=deth_{n_ii+j}\left(𝐭\right)|_{i,j=1,\mathrm{},k},\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}z^kh_k\left(𝐭\right):=e^{_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}z^mt_m}$$
(1.1.23)
In what follows, we shall need only those sets of variables $`𝐭`$ where all variables with even numbers vanish: $`𝐭=(t_1,0,t_3,0,t_5,\mathrm{})`$. Keeping this in mind we shall write $`𝐭=(t_1,t_3,t_5,\mathrm{})`$ as in (1.1.9). (Below we shall use projective Schur functions which are defined as polynomials in variables $`𝐭=(t_1,t_3,t_5,\mathrm{})`$ ).

A set of strictly vanishing positive integers $`\lambda =n_1>n_2>\mathrm{}>n_k0`$ is called the partition with distinct parts or the strict partition. The set of all strict partitions is denoted by $`DP`$.

We see that vectors (1.1.3) are labeled by strict partitions. Zero partition $`\lambda =0`$ is related to vacuum vectors $`0|,|0`$ .

If $`\lambda =(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_k)DP`$ and $`n_k0`$, one gets the so-called double of $`\lambda `$, which is the partition $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=(n_1,\mathrm{},n_k|n_11,\mathrm{},n_k1)P`$ in the Frobenius notation.

Lemma 1  Let $`n_1>n_2>\mathrm{}>n_k0`$, $`k`$ is even. If $`n_k=0`$ we put $`\lambda =(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_{k1})`$, and if $`n_k>0`$ we put $`\lambda =(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_k)`$. Then

$$0\left|e^{H\left(𝐭\right)}\varphi _{n_1}\mathrm{}\varphi _{n_k}\right|0=2^{\frac{k}{2}}Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭}{2}\right),$$
(1.1.24)
where $`Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭}{2}\right)`$ is the polynomial in variables $`t_1,t_3,t_5,\mathrm{}`$, which is called a projective Schur function and may be presented via the usual Schur function $`s_\lambda `$ as

$$2^{\frac{k}{2}}Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭}{2}\right)=\sqrt{s_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}\left(𝐭\right)},$$
(1.1.25)
where $`s_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}\left(𝐭\right)`$ is the Schur function, and the partition $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }P`$ is the double of the strict partition $`\lambda `$. Notice that $`Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭}{2}\right)=Q_\lambda (\frac{t_1}{2},\frac{t_3}{2},\frac{t_5}{2},\mathrm{})`$, while $`s_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}\left(𝐭\right)=s_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}(t_1,0,t_3,0,t_5,0,\mathrm{})`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We shall often use a special choice of times: $`𝐭=𝐭\left(𝐱^{N_1}\right),𝐭^{}=𝐭^{}\left(𝐲^{N_2}\right)`$:

$$mt_m=\underset{k}{\overset{N_1}{}}\left(x_k^m\left(x_k\right)^m\right),mt_m^{}=\underset{k}{\overset{N_2}{}}\left(y_k^m\left(y_k\right)^m\right)$$
(1.1.26)
In case when it is not confusing we shall omit the superscripts $`N,N^{}`$, mainly we shall consider the case $`N_1=N_2=N`$ with some $`N`$.

Being rewritten as a function of $`x`$ variables, $`Q_\lambda \left(x\right)`$ becomes a well-known symmetric function, which was invented by Schur in the construction of the projective representations of the symmetric groups .

Also we shall need the so-called the product-of-the-hooks-length of the shifted diagram , which generalizes the notion of the factorial for the strict partition, and which we shall denote by $`H_\lambda ^{}`$:

$$H_\lambda ^{}=\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}n_i!\right)\underset{i<j}{}\frac{n_i+n_j}{n_in_j}=2^{\frac{k}{2}}\sqrt{H_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{H_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}}}=\sqrt{s_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}\left(𝐭_{\mathrm{}}\right)}=2^{\frac{k}{2}}Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭_{\mathrm{}}}{2}\right),$$
(1.1.27)
where $`\frac{𝐭_{\mathrm{}}}{2}=(\frac{1}{2},0,0,0,\mathrm{})`$, $`n_i`$ are parts of $`\lambda `$, and $`H_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}`$ is the product-of-the-hooks-length of diagram  of the double of the partition $`\lambda `$. The very last equality of (1.1.27) follows from (1.1.25), other equalities of (1.1.27) are extracted from . The quantity $`\left|\lambda \right|!Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭_{\mathrm{}}}{2}\right)`$ has a combinatorial meaning: it counts the number of shifted standard tableaux of a given shape, see .

### 1.2 BKP tau-function of hypergeometric type and additional symmetries

Let us consider the following set of commuting fermionic operators

$$B_k=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1\right)^n\varphi _n\varphi _{kn}r\left(n\right)r\left(n1\right)\mathrm{}r\left(nk+1\right),k=1,3,\mathrm{},$$
(1.2.1)
These operators are defined by a function $`r`$ which satisfies the relation

$$r\left(n\right)=r\left(1n\right).$$
(1.2.2)
Therefore it is enough to define $`r`$ only for positive $`n`$.

We check that $`[B_m,B_k]=0`$ for each $`m,k`$.

It is easy to check that

$$0|B_k=0$$
(1.2.3)
Let us note that one can rewrite operators $`B_n`$ in the form

$$B_k=\frac{1}{4\pi \sqrt{1}}\frac{dz}{z}\varphi \left(z\right)\left(\frac{1}{z}r\left(D\right)\right)^k\varphi \left(z\right),D:=z\frac{d}{dz},$$
(1.2.4)
where operator $`r\left(D\right)`$ acts on all functions of $`z`$ from the right hand side according to the rule $`r\left(D\right)z^k=r\left(k\right)z^k`$.

For the collection of independent variables $`𝐭^{}=(t_1^{},t_3^{},\mathrm{})`$ let

$$B\left(𝐭^{}\right)=\underset{n=1,3,\mathrm{}}{}t_n^{}B_n$$
(1.2.5)
For a partition $`\lambda =(n_1,\mathrm{},n_k)`$ and for a function of one variable $`r`$, we introduce the notation

$$r_\lambda =\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}r\left(1\right)r\left(2\right)\mathrm{}r\left(n_i\right).$$
(1.2.6)
We set $`r_\mathrm{𝟎}\left(M\right)=1`$.

We have
Lemma 2 Under conditions of the Lemma 1 the following formula holds

$$0\left|\varphi _{n_k}\mathrm{}\varphi _{n_1}e^{B\left(𝐭^{}\right)}\right|0=2^{\frac{k}{2}}r_\lambda Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭^{}}{2}\right)$$
(1.2.7)
Now let us consider the following tau-function (1.1.21) of the BKP hierarchy

$$\tau _r(𝐭,𝐭^{}):=0\left|e^{H\left(𝐭\right)}e^{B\left(𝐭^{}\right)}\right|0$$
(1.2.8)
Remark. Here $`B_k`$ generate symmetry flows for BKP hierarchy (similar to the additional symmetries of KP ). The symmetries act on vacuum solution, parameters $`t_k^{}`$ play the role of group times.

Using Taylor expanding $`e^H=1+H+\mathrm{}`$ and Lemma 2 we easily get

###### Proposition 1

We have the expansion:

$$\tau _r(𝐭,𝐭^{})=1+\underset{\lambda DP}{}2^{l\left(\lambda \right)}r_\lambda Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭}{2}\right)Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭^{}}{2}\right),$$
(1.2.9)
where sum is going over all nonzero strict partitions (partitions with distinct parts $`DP`$). $`l(\lambda )`$ is the length of the partition $`\lambda `$.

Obviously we get:

$$\tau _r(𝐭,𝐭^{})=\tau _r(𝐭^{},𝐭)$$
(1.2.10)
Also for $`aC`$ tau function $`\tau _r(𝐭,𝐭^{})`$ does not change if $`t_ma^mt_m,t_m^{}a^mt_m^{},m=1,3,\mathrm{}`$. And it does not change if $`t_ma^mt_m,m=1,3,\mathrm{},r\left(n\right)a^1r\left(n\right)`$.

For $`𝐭=𝐭\left(𝐱^{N_1}\right),𝐭^{}=𝐭^{}\left(𝐲^{N_2}\right)`$, see (1.1.26), the sum (1.2.9) is restricted to the sum over partitions of the length $`l\left(\lambda \right)N=min(N_1,N_2)`$.

Remark. Let us cite the recent paper  where a certain analog of Gessel theorem was proved, concerning actually the sum (1.2.9) with very specific choice of $`r`$: $`r\left(n\right)=1,n<M`$ and $`r\left(n\right)=0,nM`$. (This case describes certain rational solutions of BKP).

Remark. If there exists a function $`\rho \left(n\right),nZ`$ such that

$$r\left(n\right)=\rho \left(n\right)\rho \left(n1\right),$$
(1.2.11)
the constraint (1.2.2) is satisfied. Then it is easy to check that

$$r_\lambda =\rho _{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}^{KP}\left(0\right),$$
(1.2.12)
the $`\rho _{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}^{KP}\left(k\right)`$ was used to construct hypergeometric functions related to Schur functions in the framework of KP theory , and was defined as

$$\rho _{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}^{KP}\left(k\right):=\underset{i,j\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}{}\rho \left(k+ji\right)$$
(1.2.13)
In (1.2.12) the product goes over all nodes of Young diagram $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ and the partition $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ is the double of the strict partition $`\lambda PD`$. In this case

$$0\left|\varphi _{n_k}\mathrm{}\varphi _{n_1}e^{B\left(𝐭^{}\right)}\right|0=2^{\frac{k}{2}}r_\lambda Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭^{}}{2}\right)=\rho _{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}^{KP}\left(0\right)\sqrt{s_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}\left(𝐭^{}\right)}.$$
(1.2.14)
$$\tau _r(𝐭,𝐭^{})=1+\underset{\lambda DP}{}2^{l\left(\lambda \right)}r_\lambda Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭}{2}\right)Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭^{}}{2}\right)=1+\underset{\lambda DP}{}\rho _{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}^{KP}\left(0\right)\sqrt{s_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}\left(𝐭\right)s_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}\left(𝐭^{}\right)},$$
(1.2.15)
where sum is going over all nonzero strict partitions (partitions with distinct parts $`DP`$), $`r\left(n\right)=\rho \left(n\right)\rho \left(n1\right)`$, while the partition $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }P`$ is the double of the strict partition $`\lambda PD`$. The notation $`\rho _{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}^{KP}\left(0\right)`$ is given by (1.2.13), and the notation $`r_\lambda `$ see in (1.2.6). $`l\left(\lambda \right)`$ is the length of the partition $`\lambda `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 2

Let us consider KP tau function of hypergeometric type $`\tau _r(n,𝐭,𝐭^{})`$ ,,, which we denote $`\tau _r^{KP}(n,𝐭,𝐭^{})`$ in the present paper, while the notation $`\tau _r(𝐭,𝐭^{})`$ we keep for the BKP tau function (1.2.8). For $`r(n)=r(1n)`$ we have

$$\tau _r^{KP}(0,𝐭,𝐭^{})=\tau _r^2(𝐭,𝐭^{}),$$
(1.2.16)
or

$$\left(1+\underset{\lambda DP}{}2^{l\left(\lambda \right)}r_\lambda Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭}{2}\right)Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭^{}}{2}\right)\right)^2=1+\underset{\lambda P}{}r_\lambda ^{KP}\left(0\right)s_\lambda \left(𝐭\right)s_\lambda \left(𝐭^{}\right),$$
(1.2.17)
where the notation $`r_\lambda `$ in the left hand side is due to (1.2.6), and the notation $`r_\lambda ^{KP}(0)`$ in the right hand side is defined in (1.2.13). The sum in the left hand side is going over all nonzero partitions with distinct parts, while the sum in the right hand side is going over all nonzero partitions.

Let us consider additional set of commuting operators $`\stackrel{~}{B}_k`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{B}_k=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1\right)^{n+1}\varphi _n\varphi _{kn}\stackrel{~}{r}\left(n+1\right)\stackrel{~}{r}\left(n+2\right)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{r}\left(n+k\right),k=1,3,\mathrm{},$$
(1.2.18)
$$\stackrel{~}{B}\left(𝐭^{}\right)=\underset{k=1,3,\mathrm{}}{}\stackrel{~}{B}_kt_k^{}$$
(1.2.19)
One can also rewrite these operators in the form

$$\stackrel{~}{B}_n=\frac{1}{4\pi \sqrt{1}}\frac{dz}{z}\varphi \left(z\right)\left(\stackrel{~}{r}\left(D\right)z\right)^n\varphi \left(z\right),D:=z\frac{d}{dz},$$
(1.2.20)
where operator $`r\left(D\right)`$ acts on all functions of $`z`$ from the right hand side.

###### Proposition 3

$$0\left|e^{\stackrel{~}{B}\left(𝐭\right)}e^{B\left(𝐭^{}\right)}\right|0=\underset{\lambda DP}{}\left(\stackrel{~}{r}r\right)_\lambda 2^{l\left(\lambda \right)}Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭}{2}\right)Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭^{}}{2}\right)$$
(1.2.21)
Taking $`\stackrel{~}{r}r=1`$ we get the useful relation:

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{n=1,3,5,\mathrm{}}{}\frac{1}{2}nt_nt_n^{}\right)=\underset{\lambda DP}{}2^{l\left(\lambda \right)}Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭}{2}\right)Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭^{}}{2}\right),$$
(1.2.22)
where the l.h.s. one gets by evaluating the vacuum expectation value $`0\left|e^{H\left(𝐭\right)}e^{H\left(𝐭^{}\right)}\right|0`$ with the help of (1.1.6) and (1.1.8).

Formula (1.2.22) yields the so-called vacuum tau-function.

The relation (1.2.22) will be of use throughout the text, whatever symbols $`t_k,t_k^{}`$ mean.

Formulas (1.2.1) (1.1.11) and (1.1.1) provide

$$[B_n,\varphi \left(z\right)]=\left(\frac{1}{z}r\left(D\right)\right)^n\varphi \left(z\right)$$
(1.2.23)
Considering the exponents as its Taylor series we obtain

$$e^{B\left(𝐭^{}\right)}\varphi \left(z\right)e^{B\left(𝐭^{}\right)}=\underset{nZ}{}\varphi _nw(n,z)=e^{\xi _r(𝐭^{},z^1)}\varphi \left(z\right),$$
(1.2.24)
where operators

$$\xi _r(𝐭^{},z^1)=\underset{m=1,3,\mathrm{}}{}t_m\left(\frac{1}{z}r\left(D\right)\right)^m,D=z\frac{d}{dz}$$
(1.2.25)
act on all functions of $`z`$ on the right hand side, and

$$w(n,z)=z^n\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}z^mh_m\left(𝐭^{}\right)r\left(n\right)\mathrm{}r\left(nm\right)=e^{\xi _r(𝐭^{},z^1)}z^n$$
(1.2.26)
The formula (1.2.24) generalizes (1.1.14). In (1.2.24) $`\xi _r`$ are operators which act on $`z`$ variable of $`\varphi \left(z\right)`$.

### 1.3 $`H_0(T)`$, fermions $`\varphi (T,z)`$ and bosonization rules

Let us introduce a set of variables $`T=\{T_n,nZ;T_n=T_n\}`$. Put $`:\varphi _m\varphi _n:=\varphi _m\varphi _n0\left|\varphi _m\varphi _n\right|0`$ (it is said that the notation $`:A:`$ serves for a normal ordering of an operator $`A`$). Then we consider the operators

$$H_0\left(T\right)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{nZ}{}()^{n+1}T_n:\varphi _n\varphi _n:=\underset{n>0}{}()^{n+1}T_n\varphi _n\varphi _n$$
(1.3.1)
Then we see that $`e^{()^{n+1}T_n\varphi _n\varphi _n}=1+()^n\varphi _n\varphi _n\left(e^{T_n}1\right)`$, and therefore we obtain

$$e^{H_0\left(T\right)}\varphi _ne^{H_0\left(T\right)}=e^{T_n}\varphi _n$$
(1.3.2)
For $`r0`$ we put

$$r\left(n\right)=e^{T_{n1}T_n}$$
(1.3.3)
We see that $`r\left(n\right)=r\left(1n\right)`$. Then

$$e^{H_0\left(T\right)}B\left(𝐭^{}\right)e^{H_0\left(T\right)}=H^{}\left(𝐭^{}\right).$$
(1.3.4)
Let $`r0`$. It is convenient to consider the fermionic operators:

$`\varphi (T,z):=e^{H_0\left(T\right)}\varphi \left(z\right)e^{H_0\left(T\right)}={\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{n=+\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{T_n}z^n\varphi _n`$ (1.3.5)
Given $`N`$ we use (1.1.26) to derive the bosonization rules below in a way similar to .

$$e^{B\left(𝐭^{}\left(𝐲^N\right)\right)}|0=2^{\frac{N}{2}}\frac{\varphi (T,y_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (T,y_N)|0}{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐲^N\right)},N\text{even},$$
(1.3.6)
$$e^{B\left(𝐭^{}\left(𝐲^N\right)\right)}|0=2^{\frac{N+1}{2}}\frac{\varphi (T,y_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (T,y_N)\varphi _0|0}{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐲^N\right)},N\text{odd}\text{}$$
(1.3.7)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐱^N\right)`$ see in (1.1.20), for $`N=1`$ we put $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐱^N\right)=1`$

Therefore in variables $`x,y`$ (see (1.1.26)) one can write by (1.1.18),(1.1.19):

$$\tau _r(𝐭\left(𝐱^N\right),𝐭^{}\left(𝐲^N^{}\right))=0\left|e^{H\left(𝐭\left(𝐱^N\right)\right)}e^{B\left(𝐭^{}\left(𝐲^N^{}\right)\right)}\right|0$$
(1.3.8)
$$=2^{\frac{N+N^{}}{2}}\frac{0\left|\varphi \left(\frac{1}{x_N}\right)\mathrm{}\varphi \left(\frac{1}{x_1}\right)\varphi (T,y_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (T,y_N^{})\right|0}{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐱^N\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐲^N^{}\right)},N+N^{}\text{even}$$
(1.3.9)
$$=2^{\frac{N+N^{}+1}{2}}\frac{0\left|\varphi _0\varphi \left(\frac{1}{x_N}\right)\mathrm{}\varphi \left(\frac{1}{x_1}\right)\varphi (T,y_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (T,y_N^{})\right|0}{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐱^N\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐲^N^{}\right)},N+N^{}\text{odd}$$
(1.3.10)
By (1.1.1), (1.1.2) we have

$$2^{\frac{N}{2}}0\left|\varphi \left(\frac{1}{x_N}\right)\mathrm{}\varphi \left(\frac{1}{x_1}\right)\right|0=\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐱^N\right),2^{\frac{N+1}{2}}0\left|\varphi _0\varphi \left(\frac{1}{x_N}\right)\mathrm{}\varphi \left(\frac{1}{x_1}\right)\right|0=\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐱^N\right),$$
(1.3.11)
where the first equality is for even $`N`$ while the second is for odd $`N`$, and where we put

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐱^N\right)=\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1x_jx_i^1}{1+x_jx_i^1},\frac{1x_jx_i^1}{1+x_jx_i^1}=1+2\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{x_j}{x_i}\right)^n$$
(1.3.12)
At last we consider the different expression for the tau function of hypergeometric type, which we obtain due to (1.3.4). For non-vanishing $`r`$ we have

$$\tau _r(𝐭,𝐭^{})=0\left|e^{H\left(𝐭\right)}\mathrm{exp}(\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}()^{n+1}T_n:\varphi _n\varphi _n:)e^{H^{}\left(𝐭^{}\right)}\right|0$$
(1.3.13)
$$=1+\underset{\lambda DP}{}2^{l\left(\lambda \right)}e^{T_{n_1}T_{n_2}\mathrm{}T_{n_l}}Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭}{2}\right)Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭^{}}{2}\right).$$
(1.3.14)
The sum is going over all different strict partitions $`\lambda =(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_l),l=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$, excluding the partition of zero.

Tau-function (1.3.13) is linear in each $`e^{T_n}`$. With respect to the BKP dynamics the times $`T_n`$ have a meaning of integrals of motion.

### 1.4 Expressions and linear equations for the tau-functions $`\tau _r(𝐭(𝐱^N),𝐭^{})`$, $`\tau _r(𝐭(𝐱^N),𝐭^{}(𝐲^N^{}))`$

It is the well-known fact that tau functions solve Hirota bilinear equations ,. In this section we write down linear equations, which follow from the the bosonization formulae (1.3.8). These equations may be viewed as constraint on the totality of BKP tau functions, or, as someone prefer, may be viewed as a certain form of the so-called string equations.

First let us consider tau function (1.2.9) as a function of variables $`𝐭\left(𝐱\right)`$ (see (1.1.26)) and of $`𝐭^{}=(t_1,t_3,\mathrm{})`$.

Let $`r^{}\left(n\right):=r\left(n\right)`$. By (1.2.25) we have

$$\xi _r^{}(𝐭^{},x_i)=\underset{m=1,3,\mathrm{}}{}t_m\left(x_ir\left(D_i\right)\right)^m,D_i=x_i\frac{}{x_i}$$
(1.4.1)
Let us note that $`[\xi _r^{}(𝐭^{},x_n),\xi _r^{}(𝐭^{},x_m)]=0`$ for all $`n,m`$. Below each $`e^{\xi _r^{}(𝐭^{},x_k)}`$ means the Taylor series $`1+\xi _r^{}(𝐭^{},x_k)+\mathrm{}`$.

Then in cases $`𝐭=𝐭\left(𝐱^N\right)`$ (using (1.2.3), (1.3.6)),(1.3.11) and (1.2.24)) we have the following representations

$$\tau _r(𝐭\left(𝐱^N\right),𝐭^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }^1e^{\xi _r^{}(𝐭^{},x_1)}\mathrm{}e^{\xi _r^{}(𝐭^{},x_N)}\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(1.4.2)
where each factor in the product of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the notation of the infinite series (1.3.12). Therefore the action of the pseudo-differential operators $`r\left(D_k\right),D_k=x_k\frac{}{x_k}`$, are well defined on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ via the action on each monomial $`_ix_i^{n_i}`$, the action which is given by

$$r\left(D_k\right)\underset{i}{}x_i^{n_i}=r\left(n_k\right)\underset{i}{}x_i^{n_i}$$
(1.4.3)
For $`N=1`$ the expression (1.4.2) takes a simple form:

$$\tau _r(𝐭\left(x\right),𝐭^{})=1+r\left(1\right)xh_1\left(𝐭^{}\right)+r\left(1\right)r\left(2\right)x^2h_2\left(𝐭^{}\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(1.4.4)
From (1.4.2) it follows that

$$\left(\frac{}{t_m^{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(x_ir\left(D_{x_i}\right)\right)^m\right)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _r(𝐭\left(𝐱^N\right),𝐭^{})\right)=0$$
(1.4.5)
Now let us consider the case $`𝐭=𝐭\left(𝐱^N\right),𝐭^{}=𝐭^{}\left(𝐲^N^{}\right)`$, see (1.1.26). We get

$`\tau _r(𝐭\left(𝐱^N\right),𝐭^{}\left(𝐲^N^{}\right))={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda P}{}}r_\lambda 2^{\left(\lambda \right)}Q_\lambda \left(𝐱^N\right)Q_\lambda \left(𝐲^N^{}\right)`$ (1.4.6)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐱^N\right)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N^{}}{}}}\left(1+y_jx_ir\left(D_{x_i}\right)\right)\left(1y_jx_ir\left(D_{x_i}\right)\right)^1\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐱^N\right)`$ (1.4.7)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐲^N^{}\right)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N^{}}{}}}\left(1+x_iy_jr\left(D_{y_j}\right)\right)\left(1x_iy_jr\left(D_{y_j}\right)\right)^1\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐲^N^{}\right),`$ (1.4.8)
where $`\left(1y_jx_ir\left(D_{x_i}\right)\right)^1`$ and $`\left(1x_iy_jr\left(D_{y_j}\right)\right)^1`$ are formal series $`1+y_jx_ir\left(D_{x_i}\right)+\mathrm{}`$ and $`1+x_iy_jr\left(D_{y_j}\right)+\mathrm{}`$ respectively.

Looking at (1.4.7) ,(1.4.8) one derives the following system of linear equations

$$\left(D_{y_j}2\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{y_jx_ir\left(D_{x_i}\right)}{1\left(y_jx_ir\left(D_{x_i}\right)\right)^2}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐱^N\right)\tau _r(𝐭\left(𝐱^N\right),𝐭^{}\left(𝐲^N^{}\right))\right)=0,j=1,\mathrm{},N^{},$$
(1.4.9)
$$\left(D_{x_i}2\underset{j=1}{\overset{N^{}}{}}\frac{x_iy_jr\left(D_{y_j}\right)}{1\left(x_iy_jr\left(D_{y_j}\right)\right)^2}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐲^N^{}\right)\tau _r(𝐭\left(𝐱^N\right),𝐭^{}\left(𝐲^N^{}\right))\right)=0,i=1,\mathrm{},N,$$
(1.4.10)
where $`\left(1\left(y_jx_ir\left(D_{x_i}\right)\right)^2\right)^1`$ and $`\left(1\left(x_iy_jr\left(D_{y_j}\right)\right)^2\right)^1`$ are the formal series $`1+\left(y_jx_ir\left(D_{x_i}\right)\right)^2+\mathrm{}`$ and $`1+\left(x_iy_jr\left(D_{y_j}\right)\right)^2+\mathrm{}`$ respectively.

Also for the tau-function written in variables $`𝐱^N,𝐲^N^{}`$ (see (1.1.26)) we have

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}D_{x_i}\mathrm{\Delta }\tau (𝐭\left(𝐱^N\right),T,𝐭^{}\left(𝐲^{\left(N^{}\right)}\right))=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N^{}}{}}\left(\frac{1}{y_i}D_{y_i}y_i\right)\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\tau (𝐭\left(𝐱^N\right),𝐓,𝐭^{}\left(𝐲^N^{}\right)),$$
(1.4.11)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐱^N\right)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐲^N^{}\right)`$. This formula may be obtained by the insertion of the fermionic operator $`res_z:\varphi \left(z\right)z\frac{d}{dz}\varphi \left(z\right):`$ inside the vacuum expectation value (1.3.13) (like it was done in ). These formulae can be also written in terms of higher BKP times, with the help of vertex operator action, see the subsection “Vertex operator action”. Then the relation (1.4.5) is the infinitesimal version of (1.9.5), while the relation (1.4.11) is the infinitesimal version of (1.9.6).

### 1.5 Vacuum expectation as a scalar product. Symmetric function theory consideration

It is well-known fact in the theory of symmetric functions, that there exists the scalar product, where the projective Schur functions are orthogonal

$$<Q_\mu ,Q_\lambda >=2^{l\left(\lambda \right)}\delta _{\mu ,\lambda },$$
(1.5.1)
see , Chapter III. Let us note that projective Schur functions form a basis, see  for details.

One may obtain the following realization of this scalar product if functions $`Q_\lambda `$ are written as functions of variables $`𝐭=(t_1,t_3,\mathrm{})`$ (sometimes below it is convenient to use the letter $`\gamma `$ instead of the $`t`$). For functions $`Q_\lambda \left(\frac{\gamma }{2}\right)`$ (moreover for any functions $`f=f\left(\frac{\gamma }{2}\right),g=g\left(\frac{\gamma }{2}\right)`$) we have the following realization of the scalar product:

$$<Q_\mu ,Q_\lambda >=(Q_\mu \left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{2}\right)Q_\lambda \left(\frac{\gamma }{2}\right))|_{\gamma =0},<f,g>=(f\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{2}\right)g\left(\frac{\gamma }{2}\right))|_{\gamma =0},$$
(1.5.2)
where

$$\frac{\gamma }{2}=(\frac{\gamma _1}{2},\frac{\gamma _3}{2},\frac{\gamma _5}{2},\mathrm{}),\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{2}=(_{\gamma _1},\frac{1}{3}_{\gamma _3},\mathrm{},\frac{1}{2n1}_{\gamma _{2n1}},\mathrm{})$$
(1.5.3)
In particular we have $`<\gamma _n,\gamma _m>=<2\frac{\gamma _n}{2},2\frac{\gamma _m}{2}>=\frac{2}{n}\delta _{n,m}`$.

Let us deform the relation (1.5.1) as follows

$$<Q_\mu ,Q_\lambda >_r=2^{l\left(\lambda \right)}r_\lambda \delta _{\mu ,\lambda }$$
(1.5.4)
By this formula and by (1.2.22) we obtain that $`\tau _r`$ of (1.2.9) is the following scalar product of functions of variables $`\gamma `$

$$\tau _r(𝐭,𝐭^{})=<e^{_{m=1,3,\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{2}mt_m\gamma _m},e^{_{m=1,3,\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{2}mt_m^{}\gamma _m}>_r,$$
(1.5.5)
notice that in (1.5.5) the variables $`𝐭,𝐭^{}`$ play the role of parameters

Now let us show that scalar product (1.5.2) is equal to the following vacuum expectation value:

###### Proposition 4

For functions $`f=f(\frac{\gamma }{2}),g=g(\frac{\gamma }{2})`$

$$<f,g>=0\left|f\left(\frac{𝐇}{2}\right)g\left(\frac{𝐇^{}}{2}\right)\right|0,$$
(1.5.6)
where

$$\frac{𝐇}{2}=(\frac{H_1}{1},\frac{H_3}{3},\mathrm{},\frac{H_{2n1}}{2n1},\mathrm{}),\frac{𝐇^{}}{2}=(\frac{H_1}{1},\frac{H_3}{3},\mathrm{},\frac{H_{2n+1}}{2n1},\mathrm{})$$
(1.5.7)
The proof follows from the comparing of the formulae (1.1.6),(1.1.8) with (1.5.2).

Also we have

###### Proposition 5

For functions $`f=f(\frac{\gamma }{2}),g=g(\frac{\gamma }{2})`$

$$<f,g>_r=0\left|f\left(\frac{𝐇}{2}\right)g\left(\frac{𝐁}{2}\right)\right|0,$$
(1.5.8)
where

$$\frac{𝐇}{2}=(\frac{H_1}{1},\frac{H_3}{3},\mathrm{},\frac{H_{2n1}}{2n1},\mathrm{}),\frac{𝐁}{2}=(B_1,\frac{B_3}{3},\mathrm{},\frac{B_{2m1}}{2m1},\mathrm{})$$
(1.5.9)
### 1.6 Hypergeometric functions

Let all parameters $`b_k`$ be not equal to negative integers. Denote $`(1,0,0,0,\mathrm{})`$ by $`𝐭_{\mathrm{}}`$. Let

$$r\left(n\right)=\frac{_{i=1}^p\left(a_i+n1\right)}{_{i=1}^s\left(b_i+n1\right)},n>0,𝐭^{}=𝐭_{\mathrm{}}$$
(1.6.1)
We have (see (1.2.9),(1.1.27)) :

$$\tau _r(𝐭,𝐭^{})=1+\underset{\lambda DP}{}2^{l\left(\lambda \right)}Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭}{2}\right)\frac{1}{H_\lambda ^{}}\frac{_{k=1}^p\left(a_k\right)_\lambda }{_{k=1}^s\left(b_k\right)_\lambda },$$
(1.6.2)
where the notation $`\left(a\right)_\lambda `$ is a version of Pochhammer Symbol attached to a partition:

$$\left(a\right)_\lambda :=\underset{i=1}{\overset{l\left(\lambda \right)}{}}\left(a\right)_{n_i},\left(a\right)_{n_i}:=a\left(a+1\right)\mathrm{}\left(a+n_i1\right)$$
(1.6.3)
If we take $`𝐭=(2x,\frac{2x^3}{3},\frac{2x^5}{5},\mathrm{})`$, the sum is going over partitions of the length one, in this case $`Q_{\left(n\right)}=2x^n,n>0,Q_0=1`$, $`H_{\left(n\right)}^{}=n!`$, and we obtain the ordinary generalized hypergeometric function of one variable

$$\tau _r(𝐭,𝐭^{})=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{_{k=1}^p\left(a_k\right)_n}{_{k=1}^s\left(b_k\right)_n}\frac{x^n}{n!}={}_{p}{}^{}F_{s}^{}(a_1,\mathrm{},a_p;b_1,\mathrm{},b_s;x)$$
(1.6.4)
Below we consider hypergeometric series related to Schur Q-functions with the following property: its square is a certain hypergeometric function related to the Schur functions $`s_\lambda `$  via the Proposition 2, see (1.2.17). To achieve this property one should take a rational function $`r`$ solving $`r\left(n\right)=r\left(1n\right)`$. Let all parameters $`\beta _k`$ be non half integers. We take

$$r\left(n\right)=\frac{_{k=1}^p\left(\left(n\frac{1}{2}\right)^2\alpha _k^2\right)}{_{k=1}^s\left(\left(n\frac{1}{2}\right)^2\beta _k^2\right)},\rho \left(n\right)=\sqrt{1}\left(\alpha \frac{1}{2}n\right)$$
(1.6.5)
We obtain the following hypergeometric function

$$\tau _r(𝐭,𝐭^{})=1+\underset{\lambda DP}{}\frac{2^{l\left(\lambda \right)}}{H_\lambda ^{}}\frac{_{k=1}^p\left(\alpha _k+\frac{1}{2}\right)_\lambda \left(\alpha _k+\frac{1}{2}\right)_\lambda }{_{k=1}^s\left(\beta _k+\frac{1}{2}\right)_\lambda \left(\beta _k+\frac{1}{2}\right)_\lambda }Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭}{2}\right).$$
(1.6.6)
### 1.7 Integral representations of the scalar product $`<,>_r`$

We need a function $`\mu _r`$ of one variable with the following properties:

$$_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mu _r\left(zz^{}\right)z^n𝑑z𝑑z^{}=_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mu _r\left(zz^{}\right)z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}𝑑z𝑑z^{}=\delta _{n,0}$$
(1.7.1)
together with the relation

$$_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mu _r\left(zz^{}\right)z^nz_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}𝑑z𝑑z^{}=2\delta _{n,m}r\left(1\right)r\left(2\right)\mathrm{}r\left(n\right)$$
(1.7.2)
Remark. The way to find an appropriate $`\mu _r`$ is to solve the equation

$$\left(z^{}\frac{1}{z}r\left(D\right)\right)\mu _r\left(zz^{}\right)=0,D=z\frac{d}{dz},r\left(k\right)=r\left(1k\right)$$
(1.7.3)
and to choose the integration domain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ should be chosen in such a way that the operator $`\frac{1}{z}r\left(D\right),D=z\frac{d}{dz}`$ is conjugated to the operator $`\frac{1}{z}r\left(D\right)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Using

$$\frac{1}{M!}\mathrm{}\varphi \left(z_M\right)\mathrm{}\varphi \left(z_1\right)|00\left|\varphi \left(z_1^{}\right)\mathrm{}\varphi \left(z_M^{}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\mu _r\left(z_iz_i^{}\right)dz_idz_i^{}=\underset{\lambda DP,l\left(\lambda \right)M}{}2^{l\left(\lambda \right)}\right|\lambda r_\lambda \lambda |$$
(1.7.4)
we obtain for partitions $`\lambda ,\mu `$ (both partitions have length $`l\left(\lambda \right),l\left(\mu \right)M`$)

$$\frac{1}{M!}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }\left(z\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(z^{}\right)Q_\lambda \left(z\right)Q_\mu \left(z^{}\right)\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\mu _r\left(z_kz_{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}\right)dz_kdz_k^{}=2^{l\left(\lambda \right)}r_\lambda \delta _{\lambda \mu }=<Q_\lambda ,Q_\mu >_r,$$
(1.7.5)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(z\right)=\underset{i<j}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{\left(z_iz_j\right)}{\left(z_i+z_j\right)},\mathrm{\Delta }\left(z^{}\right)=\underset{i<j}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{\left(z_i^{}z_j^{}\right)}{\left(z_i^{}+z_j^{}\right)}$$
(1.7.6)
With the help of equalities

$$e^{_{n=1,3,\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{k=1}^Mz_k^nt_n}=\underset{\lambda DP,l\left(\lambda \right)M}{}2^{l\left(\lambda \right)}Q_\lambda \left(𝐳^M\right)Q_\lambda \left(𝐭\right),$$
(1.7.7)
$$e^{_{n=1,3,\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{k=1}^Mz_{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{n}t_n^{}}=\underset{\lambda DP,l\left(\lambda \right)M}{}2^{l\left(\lambda \right)}Q_\lambda \left(𝐳_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{M}\right)Q_\lambda \left(𝐭^{}\right)$$
(1.7.8)
we evaluate the integral

$$I_r(M,𝐭,𝐭^{})=\frac{1}{M!}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }\left(z\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(z^{}\right)\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}e^{_{n=1,3,\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(z_k^nt_n+z_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}t_n^{}\right)}\mu _r\left(z_kz_{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}\right)dz_kdz_k^{}$$
(1.7.9)
We finely obtain

$$I_r(M,𝐭,𝐭^{})=1+\underset{\lambda DP,l\left(\lambda \right)M}{}2^{l\left(\lambda \right)}r_\lambda Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭}{2}\right)Q_\lambda \left(\frac{𝐭^{}}{2}\right)$$
(1.7.10)
The restriction $`l\left(\lambda \right)M`$ makes the difference between the r.h.s. of (1.7.10) and $`\tau _r(𝐭,𝐭^{})`$. However in case at least one of the sets $`𝐭,𝐭^{}`$ has the form of (1.1.26) with $`N`$ or $`N^{}`$ no more then $`M`$, the integral $`I_r(M,𝐭,𝐭^{})`$ is the BKP tau function $`\tau _r(𝐭,𝐭^{})`$. In this case I would like to interpret the integral $`I_r(M,𝐭,𝐭^{})`$ as an analog of Borel sum for the divergent series $`\tau _r`$, similar we do in .

It may be interesting to apply this treatment to matrix models  and to statistical models where partition functions reduce to the similar type of integrals, see ,  for examples of similar integrals.

### 1.8 Pfaffian formulae for the tau-functions $`\tau _r(𝐭(𝐱),𝐭^{})`$, $`\tau _r(𝐭(𝐱),𝐭^{}(𝐲))`$

First let us remind that a Pfaffian of a $`2N`$ by $`2N`$ skew symmetric matrix $`S`$ is defined as the square root of its determinant. We shall denote the Pfaffian as $`\text{Pfaff}\left(S\right)`$,

Now let us enumerate all neutral fermions in (1.3.8) from the left to the right as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k,k=1,2,\mathrm{},2N`$ as it is written here

$$0\left|\varphi \left(\frac{1}{x_N}\right)\mathrm{}\varphi \left(\frac{1}{x_1}\right)\varphi (𝐓,y_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (𝐓,y_N)\right|0=0\left|\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{2N1}\mathrm{\Phi }_{2N}\right|0$$
(1.8.1)
$`\varphi \left(\frac{1}{x_N}\right)=\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{},\varphi (𝐓,y_N)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{2N}`$. With the help of Wick theorem (see  for instance) we obtain

$$0\left|\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{2N1}\mathrm{\Phi }_{2N}\right|0=\text{Pfaff}\left(S\right),S_{km}=0\left|\mathrm{\Phi }_k\mathrm{\Phi }_m\right|0$$
(1.8.2)
The matrix $`S_{nm}`$ consists of the following four blocks, $`N`$ by $`N`$ each:

$$S_{km}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{x_mx_k}{x_m+x_k},1k,mN,S_{km}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{y_my_k}{y_m+y_k},N+1k,m2N,$$
(1.8.3)
and

$$S_{km}=S_{mk}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{T_n}x_k^ny_m^n,1kN,N+1m2N$$
(1.8.4)
where $`e^{T_{n1}T_n}=r\left(n\right)`$. Thus in the case $`𝐭=𝐭\left(x\right),𝐭^{}=𝐭^{}\left(y\right)`$, we obtain the Pfaffian formula for (1.2.9)

###### Proposition 6

For $`r0`$ and for $`𝐭(𝐱^N),𝐭^{}(𝐲^N)`$ defined by (1.1.26) we have

$$\tau _r(𝐭\left(𝐱^N\right),𝐭^{}\left(𝐲^N\right))=\frac{\text{Pfaff}\left(S\right)}{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐱^N\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐲^N\right)},$$
(1.8.5)
where for the notation $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐱^N)`$ see (1.3.12). The matrix $`S_{km}`$ is defined by (1.8.3)-(1.8.4).

###### Proposition 7

For $`N`$ even

$$\tau _r(𝐭\left(𝐱^N\right),𝐭^{})=\frac{\text{Pfaff}\left(R\right)_{i,k=1}^N}{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐱^N\right)},R_{ik}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{x_ix_k}{x_i+x_k}\tau _r(𝐭(x_i,x_k),𝐭^{}),t_m(x_i,x_k)=\frac{2x_i^m}{m}+\frac{2x_k^m}{m}$$
(1.8.6)
where

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{x_ix_k}{x_i+x_k}\tau _r(𝐭(x_i,x_k),𝐭^{})=0\left|\varphi \left(\frac{1}{x_i}\right)\varphi \left(\frac{1}{x_k}\right)e^{B\left(𝐭^{}\right)}\right|0$$
(1.8.7)
$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n_k>n_i0}{}\left(x_k^{n_k}x_i^{n_i}x_k^{n_i}x_i^{n_k}\right)r_{(n_k,n_i)}Q_{(n_k,n_i)}\left(\frac{𝐭^{}}{2}\right)$$
(1.8.8)
For $`N`$ odd the formula is almost the same, provided the additional $`N+1`$th row and line are added to matrix $`R`$:

$$\tau _r(𝐭\left(𝐱^N\right),𝐭^{})=\frac{\text{Pfaff}\left(R\right)_{i,k=1}^{N+1}}{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐱^N\right)},R_{i,N+1}=R_{N+1,i}=\tau _r(𝐭\left(x_i\right),𝐭^{}),t_m\left(x_i\right)=\frac{2x_i^m}{m}$$
(1.8.9)
(where for explicit expression of $`\tau _r(𝐭(x_i),𝐭^{})`$ see (1.4.4)).

### 1.9 The vertex operator action. Linear equations II

Vertex operators $`Z\left(z\right)`$ act on the space $`C[t_1,t_3,t_5\mathrm{}]`$ of polynomials in infinitely many variables, and are defined by the formulae:

$$Z\left(z\right)=e^{\xi (𝐭,z)}e^{2\xi (\stackrel{~}{},z^1)},\xi (𝐭,z)=zt_1+z^3t_3+z^5t_5+\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{}:=(\frac{}{t_1},\frac{1}{3}\frac{}{t_3},\frac{1}{5}\frac{}{t_5},\mathrm{})$$
(1.9.1)
Let us introduce the operators (the generators of additional symmetries) which act on functions of $`𝐭`$ variables:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_r\left(𝐭^{}\right):=\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}\underset{ϵ0}{lim}Z\left(z+ϵ\right)\xi _r(𝐭^{},z,D)Z\left(z\right)\frac{dz}{z}$$
(1.9.2)
(here parameters $`t_k^{}`$ play the role of group times). For instance

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{r=1}\left(𝐭^{}\right)=2\underset{n>0}{}\left(2n+1\right)t_{2n+1}t_{2n+1}^{}$$
(1.9.3)
We also consider

$$Z_{nn}=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\frac{z^n}{\left(z^{}\right)^n}Z\left(z^{}\right)Z\left(z\right)\frac{dzdz^{}}{zz^{}}$$
(1.9.4)
Having in mind (1.3.3) it is convenient to have the second notation for our tau function: $`\tau (𝐭,T,𝐭^{}):=\tau _r(𝐭,𝐭^{})`$.

###### Proposition 8

We have shift argument formulae

$$e^{\mathrm{\Omega }_r\left(\gamma \right)}\tau _r(𝐭,𝐭^{})=\tau _r(𝐭,𝐭^{}+\gamma )$$
(1.9.5)
We also have

$$e^{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\gamma _nZ_{nn}}\tau (𝐭,T,𝐭^{})=\tau (𝐭,T+\gamma ,𝐭^{}),$$
(1.9.6)
In particular

$$e^{\mathrm{\Omega }_r\left(𝐭^{}\right)}1=\tau _r(𝐭,𝐭^{}),$$
(1.9.7)
$$e^{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}T_nZ_{nn}}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\underset{n=1,3,\mathrm{}}{}nt_nt_n^{}\right)=\tau (𝐭,T,𝐭^{}).$$
(1.9.8)
## Acknowledgements

The paper was mainly done when the author visited Kyoto university in 1999-2001. I am grateful to A.Kirillov, J.J.C.Nimmo, I.Loutsenko and most of all to T. Shiota for discussions. I thank grant RFBR 02-02-17382a. I also thank T. Shiota who recently pointed me the paper .


text:
# 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑟𝑎 and XMM–𝑁𝑒𝑤𝑡𝑜𝑛 observations of Tololo 0109-383

## 1 Introduction

Tololo 0109–383 (a.k.a. NGC 424) is a remarkable obscured Seyfert galaxy. It was classified as a Seyfert 2 by Smith (1975). Boisson & Durret (1986) discovered weak broad H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$ lines. Broad lines were also observed in polarized light (Moran et al. 2000), the polarization degree being, after correction for starlight, about 4%. Murayama et al. (1998) studied the optical spectrum in detail and, besides confirming the presence of broad H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$ lines in direct light, also discovered Fe ii emission, and a partially extended (about 1 kpc) High Ionization Nuclear Emission Line Region (HINER), 70% of which was however unresolved ($`\stackrel{<}{}`$200 pc). HST/WFPC2 data showed the presence of a dust lane across the central part of the galaxy (Malkan et al. 1998), which may help to explain the observed $`A_V`$1.4 to the NLR (Murayama et al. 1998; it corresponds to N$`{}_{H}{}^{}3\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2 for a dust–to–gas ratio equal to that of the Galactic ISM).

In X–rays, Collinge & Brandt (2000) analysed ASCA data and, based on the prominent iron line, the flat spectrum, and the large \[O iii\]/F(2-10 keV) ratio, argued that the nucleus of Tololo 0109–383 should, rather surprisingly given its optical appearance, be absorbed by Compton–thick matter. This result was fully confirmed by BeppoSAX (Matt et al. 2000; Iwasawa et al. 2001), which measured the absorbing column to be about 2$`\times 10^{24}`$ cm-2. The estimated nuclear 2–10 keV luminosity is about 1043 erg s-1. The IRAS colours are quite warm, suggesting that the IR emission is dominated by dust reprocessing of the nuclear radiation (Matt et al. 2000).

In this paper we present $`Chandra`$ and XMM–$`Newton`$ observations of Tololo 0109–383. The superior perfomances of these satellites permit us to study the source spectrum down to 0.3 keV and to search for extended emission.

Assuming $`H_0`$=70 km s-1 Mpc-1, the redshift of the source, $`z`$=0.0117, corresponds to a distance of 48.5 Mpc. At this distance, 1″ corresponds to 235 pc.

## 2 Observations and Data Reduction

### 2.1 Chandra

$`Chandra`$ observed Tololo 0109–383 on February 4, 2002, with ACIS–S in standard configuration and with a 0.8 s frame time, to reduce pile–up to negligible values. After data reduction, performed with CIAO v.2.2.1, the exposure time is 9181 s.

### 2.2 XMM–Newton

XMM–$`Newton`$ observed the source on December 12, 2001. Both EPIC cameras were operated in full–frame mode, as at the flux level expected for the source pile–up is negligible. The data were reduced with SAS 5.3.3, and using a Calibration Index File generated at the time of the analysis, August 15, 2002. Only events corresponding to patterns 0-4 and 0-12 were used for the p-n and MOS, respectively. Events from the two MOS cameras were merged to obtain a single event file. The background in both instruments remained constant during the observation. After data reduction, the exposure times are 4525 s for the p-n, and 7538 s for the MOS.

## 3 Data Analysis

The data were binned in order to have at least 25 counts per bin, to ensure applicability of $`\chi ^2`$ statistics, and to oversample the energy resolution by a factor 3. They have been analyzed with xspec.v11.1. Errors correspond to the 90% confidence level for one interesting parameter ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$=2.7).

### 3.1 Chandra

#### 3.1.1 Spatial analysis

The image is dominated by a point–like source coincident, within the $`Chandra`$ angular resolution, with the optical nucleus (see Fig. 1). However, emission extended over about 5″ is also apparent (Fig 2). This emission is about 13% (17%) of the total flux in the 0.3-10 (0.3-2) keV energy band, and it is somewhat asymmetric (Fig. 1).

#### 3.1.2 Spectral analysis

The $`Chandra`$ spectra were fitted in the 0.3-7 keV energy range (at higher energies no source emission is detected).

We first analysed the spectrum of the extended emission alone (taken from an annulus with inner and outer radii of 1″ and 5″ , respectively). The count rate of this region, over the adopted 0.3-7 keV energy range, is 0.017 cts/s. The spectrum is quite soft, and it is reasonably well fitted either by an absorbed power law with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=3.0$`{}_{0.5}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.7}`$ and $`N_H`$=1.4$`{}_{0.5}{}^{+1.2}\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2 ($`\chi _\mathrm{r}^2`$=1.0/6 d.o.f.), or by a thermal plasma spectrum (model mekal; ($`\chi _\mathrm{r}^2`$=1.2/5 d.o.f.) with $`kT`$=1.2$`{}_{0.7}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.2}`$ keV; for the latter model, only upper limits of 0.19 solar and of 0.9$`\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2 can be put on the metal abundance and the absorber column density, respectively. Given the implausibly low metal abundance, in the following we will adopt the power law model (even if, of course, the low metal abundance may derive from a too simple thermal plasma model; however, statistics is not good enough to test more complex models). In this case, absorption in excess of the Galactic one (1.8$`\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2, Dickey & Lockman 1990) is required, and may be due to the dust lane observed by HST (Malkan et al. 1998). The value of the $`N_H`$ is broadly in agreement with the reddening to the NLR, which is $`A_V`$=1.4 (Murayama et al. 1998).

We then analyzed the spectrum extracted from a circular cell with a radius of 5″ (count rate of 0.14 cts/s). (We choose to analyze the unresolved+extended spectrum, instead of the nuclear spectrum alone, to make easier the comparison with the XMM–$`Newton`$ spectrum, as well as with spectra from previous satellites. In any case, unresolved emission dominates at all energies.) Following Iwasawa et al. (2001) we adopted a model composed of: a nuclear power law absorbed by a cold screen of 2$`\times 10^{24}`$ cm-2; a cold reflection component (pexrav model; the illuminating power law index has been initially fixed to 2, given the limited statistics available); a 6.4 keV narrow iron line; a soft X-ray emission component, parameterized by a power law; and Galactic absorption. The fit is completely unacceptable ($`\chi _\mathrm{r}^2`$=4.4/36 d.o.f.; see Fig. 3), partly due to two emission features at about 0.55 and 0.9 keV (the latter was indeed already found by Iwasawa et al 2001 in the ASCA spectrum). The inclusion of these two lines improves the fit significantly; however, the $`\chi ^2`$ is still unacceptable ($`\chi _\mathrm{r}^2`$=2.3/32 d.o.f.). Adding a thermal plasma component further improves the quality of the fit ($`\chi _\mathrm{r}^2`$=1.68/29 d.o.f.), which however remains poor. A much better, and fully acceptable, fit ($`\chi _\mathrm{r}^2`$=0.88/31 d.o.f.) is instead obtained by allowing the cold absorption, covering all components, to be larger than the Galactic value. Interestingly, the best fit value, $`3\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2, is what is expected from the optical extinction. No significant improvement is found after adding either a He–like or a H–like iron line. The best–fit values are summarized in Table 1, and the spectrum is shown in Fig. 4. As the power law index of the soft component is much larger than 2, the value we assumed for the hard X-ray component (both transmitted and reflected), we tried to link the two values to each other. The resulting value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is 2.9, but the fit is unacceptable ($`\chi _\mathrm{r}^2`$=1.96/31 d.o.f.). A fit with a thermal plasma model instead of the soft power law plus two lines also fails to give an acceptable fit ($`\chi _\mathrm{r}^2`$=1.8/34 d.o.f) mainly because the two lines remain unfitted. Adding instead either the thermal model or a black body to the best fit spectrum, no further improvement is found.

To understand whether the two soft X–ray lines can originate in the extended emission, we refitted its spectrum adding the two lines in turn (with the energies fixed to 0.57 and 0.92 keV, respectively; see Sect. 4). Neither line is required, the upper limits being 30$`\times `$10-5 and 10-5 ph cm-2 s-1, respectively. The latter is inconsistent with the value obtained from the total spectrum. Assuming that the two lines are emitted by the same material, we can conclude that at least a large part of them, and possibly all, is associated with the unresolved component.

The 2–10 (0.5–10) keV observed flux is 1.6(1.8)$`\times 10^{12}`$ erg cm-2 s-1, corresponding to an observed luminosity at source of 4.8(5.4)$`\times 10^{41}`$ erg s-1.

### 3.2 XMM–$`Newton`$

At the spatial resolution of XMM–$`Newton`$, the source is point like. The p-n (MOS) spectrum was extracted using a circular source cell with a radius of 40″ (45″ ) and fitted in the 0.5-10 (0.3-10) keV energy range, where the instrument calibration is reliable. The MOS spectra were combined together, once we verified that the spectral results from the individual units were consistent within the statistical uncertainties. In this energy range, the count rate is 0.27 (0.18) cts/s. The flux of the source and the exposure time are too low to give a significant detection in the RGS.

We fitted the XMM–$`Newton`$ EPIC spectra with the same model adopted for the Chandra spectrum. The fit is acceptable ($`\chi _\mathrm{r}^2`$=1.22/78 d.o.f.; see Fig. 5 and Table 1). Again, neither a He–like nor a H–like iron line is required by the data. Adding the iron K$`\beta `$ component at 7.06 keV, no significant improvement ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=0.5`$) is found. The best–fit value for its flux, however, is about 17% that of the K$`\alpha `$ component, roughly as expected. The best–fit model is shown in Fig. 6. Again, substituting the soft power law plus lines with a thermal plasma model gives a significantly worse fit ($`\chi _\mathrm{r}^2`$=1.40/81), besides an unacceptably low ($`<`$0.02) metal abundance. The addition of either a thermal plasma or black body component to the best fit model of Table 1 results in no statistical improvement.

In Fig. 5, some residuals around the iron K$`\alpha `$ line are apparent. We therefore allowed both the line energy and width to vary. No significant improvement is however found ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$=0.8 with two less d.o.f.). The best fit line energy is 6.38$`\pm `$0.04 keV, and the upper limit to $`\sigma `$ is 90 eV.

Finally, the 2–10 keV (0.5–10) observed flux is 1.6(1.9)$`\times 10^{12}`$ erg cm-2 s-1, in agreement with the $`Chandra`$ one (as well as with ASCA and BeppoSAX fluxes, Iwasawa et al. 2001).

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 The soft X–ray emission

The soft X–ray emission of Tololo 0109-383 is partly (about 15%) extended over a scale of $``$5″ , interestingly similar to the scale over which part of the HINER is extended (Murayama et al. 1998). However, the ionization structure of the HINER is too low to reflect soft X–rays efficiently, and therefore the two regions are probably not associated with each other. The quality of the spectrum of the extended emission is not good enough to allow for a detailed spectral analysis. The spectrum is, in any case, consistent with that of the unresolved soft X–ray emission, suggesting a possible common origin as reflection of the nuclear radiation from ionized matter.

Two emission lines, partly if not entirely coming from the unresolved component, are also clearly present. One of them, at about 0.9 keV, was already observed by Iwasawa et al. (2001) in the ASCA spectrum. Its energy is consistent with either the O viii recombination continuum (0.87 keV) or with the Ne ix (0.92 keV) recombination line. A contribution from iron L lines is also possible. The other line, at $``$0.55 keV, is most naturally explained as a O vii recombination line (0.57 keV). If the two lines originate from the same material, the $``$0.9 keV line is therefore more likely due to Ne ix. It is worth noting that the emitting region cannot be associated with the HINER, as the ionization of the latter is much lower.

A possible site of origin for these two lines is the same reflector responsible for the iron K$`\alpha `$ line, if it is mildly ionized, similar to what was found by Bianchi et al. (2001) for the Circinus Galaxy. They found that an ionization structure in which He–like ions of light elements may coexist with iron less than xvii is possible. We therefore fitted both the $`Chandra`$ and XMM–$`Newton`$ spectra with the pexriv model for ionized reflection instead of the pexrav model, with the ionization parameter fixed to the same value found for the Circinus Galaxy (Bianchi et al. 2001). In both cases the fit is significantly worse ($`\chi _\mathrm{r}^2`$=1.02/31 d.o.f and 1.55/78 d.o.f. for $`Chandra`$ and XMM–$`Newton`$, respectively), and the soft power law is steeper than before ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$5). The equivalent widths of the two lines with respect to the mildly ionized reflector ($``$3 and 0.9 keV, respectively) are however reasonable (e.g. Matt et al. 1996). Therefore, we consider this model as less favoured but still possible.

The power law photon index of the soft component is large, i.e. around 4. Assuming that this component is due to reflection of the nuclear radiation, and neglecting self-absorption effects, this would imply a soft (i.e. below about 2 keV) X–ray nuclear emission more typical of Narrow–Line Seyfert 1s (Boller et al. 1996) than of classical Seyferts. Indeed, Boisson & Durret (1986) measured for the broad lines a FWHM of 1800 km s-1, slightly lower than the value of 2000 km s-1 conventionally adopted as the boundary between Narrow–Line and classical Seyfert 1s. However, Murayama et al. (1998) measured a FWHM of about 3800 km s-1 for the broad H$`\beta `$ component (but only 1500 km s-1 for the H$`\alpha `$), and Moran et al. (2000) found even larger wings in the lines observed in polarized light. In this case, Tololo 0109-383 would probably be the most X–ray soft among classical Seyferts.

At least part of the soft excess may however be due to several unresolved emission lines from photoionized plasma, similarly to what found in NGC 1068 (Kinkhabwala et al. 2002), weakening the case for a very steep continuum. Unfortunately, the source is too faint for the RGS to be profitably used, and we cannot check directly this hypothesis.

### 4.2 The absorption structure

Combining previous ASCA and BeppoSAX results (Collinge & Brandt 2000; Iwasawa et al. 2001) with the $`Chandra`$ and XMM–$`Newton`$ observations discussed here, we can conclude that at least two X–ray absorbers are present: one Compton–thick, obscuring the nucleus on a small scale, the other Compton–thin, obscuring the soft X–ray emission and possibly the extended emission. The latter may be associated with the dust lanes observed by HST to obscure the central part of the galaxy (Malkan et al. 1998). This provides one more piece of evidence in favour of the co–existence of both Compton–thin and Compton–thick matter in the circumnuclear regions of Seyfert galaxies (see e.g. Matt & Guainazzi 2002 and references therein).

The problem here is that the optical broad lines appears to be seen through the dust lane rather than the Compton–thick X-ray absorber. Recently, it has become clear that a fraction of type 1 nuclei are absorbed in X–rays (e.g. Maiolino et al. 2001a; Fiore et al. 2001) and, more generally, that X–ray absorption column densities are often much larger than would be expected from the amount of optical extinction (e.g. Granato et al. 1997). While a fraction of hard X-ray spectrum, type 1 AGN may be explained in terms of a temporary switching–off of the nucleus, which makes them for a while reflection–dominated and so apparently Compton–thick absorbed (Matt et al. 2002), this is certainly not the case for Tololo 0109-383, whose nucleus is definitely absorbed by Compton–thick matter (Iwasawa et al. 2001). Let us call this matter, for simplicity, the ‘torus’.

There are several possible solutions to this problem (see Maiolino et al. 2001b for a discussion).

First of all, the Broad Line Region (BLR) may be located outside the torus. However, the typical BLR size, from reverberation mapping studies, is usually of the order of light-days or of light-weeks, at least for a moderately luminous source as Tololo 0109-383, while the inner surface of the torus is expected to have a size of a fraction of a pc or more (e.g. Bianchi et al. 2001 and references therein). Moreover, the ratio between the fluxes of the broad and narrow components is very low (less than 1, Murayama et al. 1998). Therefore, even though we cannot exclude that the size of either the BLR or the torus, or both, are different than usual in this object (we do not have any direct measurement of them) this possibility seems unlikely.

Another possibility is that the dust–to–gas ratio of the absorber is very low, due to dust sublimation (Granato et al. 1997). However, the H$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ ratio is similar for the narrow and broad components, suggesting that they are observed through the same absorber, which is probably the dust lane observed by HST. Therefore, dust sublimation must be almost complete, to avoid further extinction of the broad components, and the low fluxes of the broad components would remain unexplained. An alternative solution, proposed by Maiolino et al. (2001b), is that the sizes of the dust grains are much larger than that in the ISM of our own Galaxy, changing dramatically the extinction curves. This solution has the merit of explaining qualitatively the low fluxes of the broad line components, but the expected extinction, given the X–ray measured column density, would be too high to allow them to be observed at all (see the figures in Maiolino et al. 2001b).

All these problems can be avoided if the broad lines are actually seen in reflected, rather than direct, light. Indeed, the broad lines in this object are best seen in polarized light (Moran et al. 2000) and therefore at least part of them must be reflected. It is possible that the reflecting medium is the same responsible for the soft X–ray excess and the O vii and Ne ix lines we observe in the $`Chandra`$ and XMM–$`Newton`$ spectra. One may wonder why in this source the reflected light would be so intense to permit the detection of broad lines in direct light, despite the fact that the polarization degree is by no means exceptional. This is possible if the covering factor and optical depth of the reflecting matter are large enough; it must be recalled that a large covering factor implies a low polarization degree, for obvious geometrical reasons. Unfortunately, this hypothesis cannot be readily tested in X–rays because the evidence of a spectral break in the nuclear spectrum makes it difficult to estimate the nuclear–to–scattered flux ratio.

## 5 Summary

To summarize, the $`Chandra`$ and XMM–$`Newton`$ observations, together with previous X–ray and optical observations, suggest the following scenario for Tololo 0109-383. The nucleus is absorbed by Compton–thick material, the nuclear radiation being reflected by: a) cold material (probably the inner wall of the torus) giving rise to the Compton reflection component and the iron K$`\alpha `$ line (and, by reprocessing, to the infrared emission, Matt et al. 2000 and Iwasawa et al. 2001); b) ionized matter, responsible for the soft X–ray excess, and the oxygen and neon He–like lines. This ionized matter may coincide with that reflecting and polarizing the otherwise obscured BLR. Further material, partly spatially resolved, is responsible for the HINER; the size of the spatially extended HINER emission ($``$1 kpc) is similar to that of the extended soft X–ray emission, but probably the two regions are not associated with each other. Finally, all these components are seen through a dust lane, responsible for the Balmer decrement and the absorption of the soft X–ray emission.

## Acknowledgements

GM and SB acknowledge ASI and MIUR (under grant cofin-00-02-36) for financial support. WNB acknowledges the Chandra X-ray Center grant GO2-3123X and the NASA LTSA grant NAG5-8107. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This paper is partly based on observations obtained with XMM-Newton, an ESA science mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and the USA (NASA).


text:
# A gauge invariant formulation for the 𝑆𝑈(𝑁) non-linear 𝜎-model in 2+1 dimensions

## 1 Introduction

The non-linear $`\sigma `$-model  is a very important tool for the description of the effective, low-energy dynamics of systems with a broken continuous (global) symmetry . Many of its interesting and distinctive features stem from the fact that the symmetry group is realized in a non-linear way, as this endows the theory with a rich structure of interactions. Indeed, it has an infinite number of interaction vertices, when defined in terms of field variables which are themselves group coordinates. Nonetheless, this holds true in spite of the model having a ‘universality’: its properties are completely determined when the symmetry group and the spacetime dimension are known.

Of course, the same non-linearity is also responsible for the fact that, except for the $`1+1`$ dimensional case, the theory becomes non-renormalizable from the point of view of the usual loop expansion . However, even in more than two spacetime dimensions, the model still has a reasonable predictive power, if properly understood as an effective theory . This approach has been successfully applied to chiral perturbation theory , as a convenient effective model for $`QCD`$. Note, however, that in $`2+1`$ dimensions, the non-linear $`\sigma `$-model is renormalizable if a large-$`N`$ expansion is used , instead of the standard loopwise perturbation theory.

The non-linearity may usually be tackled by resorting to an auxiliary, ‘Lagrange multiplier’ field, which enforces a constraint on the (otherwise free) field variables. The typical example of this is, perhaps, the $`O(N)`$ non-linear $`\sigma `$-model, where an auxiliary field imposes a constant-modulus constraint on an $`N`$-component scalar field $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }=(\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _N)`$, which is a vector field in internal space. An important by-product of this construction is that the auxiliary field is a $`O(N)`$ singlet, hence, the large-$`N`$ expansion is easier to formulate after one ‘integrates out’ the $`\varphi `$ field, leaving an action for the Lagrange multiplier.

Indeed, the procedure of ‘linearizing’ an action, by the introduction of auxiliary fields, and afterwards integrating the original fields out to obtain an effective theory for the auxiliary fields, has frequently proven to be very useful. This is particularly true when the auxiliary field has some convenient symmetry or transformation properties . In particular, it allows one to obtain an effective theory where the symmetry properties are inherited from the ones of the Lagrange multiplier in the linearized theory.

In this paper, we introduce a gauge invariant, non-trivially realized Abelian quantum field theory model in $`2+1`$ dimensions, which is derived by the procedure of integrating out the original variables, in order to obtain an effective theory for the auxiliary field. Since our starting point shall be a representation of the non linear $`\sigma `$-model where the Lagrange multiplier has a local gauge symmetry, that feature will be preserved in the resulting action. The realization of the Abelian gauge symmetry is non trivial, because the commutator of two gauge transformations is zero only on-shell, i.e., on the configurations that satisfy the equations of motion. Equivalently, the commutator between two ‘true’ gauge transformations yields a trivial, ‘equation of motion’ gauge transformation .

The structure of this paper is as follows: in section 2 we derive the action for model, showing that it is indeed defined by a gauge invariant action. Then we consider the realization and structure of the gauge and global symmetries in section 3, leaving for section 4 the quantum treatment of the model. Section 5 contains our conclusions.

## 2 The model

We shall begin by reviewing the main features of the polynomial representation for the $`SU(N)`$ non-linear $`\sigma `$-model in $`2+1`$ dimensions, as presented in . This formulation may be defined in terms of a gauge invariant Euclidean action $`S_{inv}`$, which determines the dynamics of two fields $`L_\mu `$ (vector) and $`\theta _\mu `$ (pseudo-vector) in the Lie algebra of $`SU(N)`$:

$$S_{inv}[L,\theta ]=d^3x_{inv}(L,\theta )$$
(1)
with

$$_{inv}(L,\theta )=\frac{1}{2}g^2L_\mu L_\mu +ig\theta _\mu \stackrel{~}{F}_\mu (L)$$
(2)
where $`g`$ is a constant with the dimensions of a mass (it is in fact the exact analog of $`f_\pi `$ in the $`3+1`$ dimensional case), and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\mu (L)`$ denotes the dual of the non Abelian field strength tensor for the vector field $`L_\mu `$, namely,

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_\mu (L)=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }F_{\nu \lambda }(L),F_{\mu \nu }(L)=_\mu L_\nu _\nu L_\mu +g^{\frac{1}{2}}[L_\mu ,L_\nu ].$$
(3)
Being $`L_\mu `$ an element in the Lie algebra, with the convention that $`L_\mu =L_\mu ^{}`$, it can be written as

$$L_\mu (x)=L_\mu ^a(x)\lambda _a,\lambda _a^{}=\lambda _a,$$

$$\mathrm{tr}(\lambda _a\lambda _b)=\delta _{ab},[\lambda _a,\lambda _b]=f_{abc}\lambda _c$$
(4)
where $`f_{abc}`$ is real and completely antisymmetric. Group indices will be indistinctly written as subscripts or superscripts; no meaning should be assigned to the difference. In (2), we also used the notation: $`UVU_aV_a`$, and $`(U\times V)_a=f_{abc}U_bV_c`$ for any two elements $`U`$, $`V`$ in the algebra. Also, both $`L`$ and $`\theta `$ have the mass dimensions of $`g^{1/2}`$.

The ‘inv’ subscript in the action has been introduced in order to emphasize the fact that it is, indeed, invariant under the (local) gauge transformations:

$$\delta _\omega L_\mu =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\delta _\omega \theta _\mu =D_\mu \omega ,$$
(5)
where the covariant derivative is compatible with the parallel transport defined by $`L`$, namely,

$$D_\mu \omega =_\mu \omega +g^{\frac{1}{2}}[L_\mu ,\omega ],$$
(6)
or in components:

$$(D_\mu \omega )^a=_\mu \omega ^a+g^{\frac{1}{2}}f_{abc}L_\mu ^b\omega _c.$$
(7)
It must be noted that this gauge symmetry is valid of-shell, namely, it holds true regardless of whether the fields verify the equations of motion or not. Besides, equation (5) tells us that $`L`$ is a gauge-invariant object, and this implies that the commutator of two gauge transformations vanishes:

$$[\delta _\eta ,\delta _\omega ]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(8)
Here $`\delta _\omega `$ and $`\delta _\eta `$ denote the operators that perform a gauge transformation on a given functional (eventually a function) of the fields. Namely, if $`I`$ is a functional of $`L`$ and $`\theta `$,

$$\delta _\omega I[L,\theta ]=d^3x\delta _\omega \theta _\mu ^a(x)\frac{\delta I[L,\theta ]}{\delta \theta _\mu ^a(x)},$$
(9)
where $`\delta _\omega \theta _\mu ^a`$ is defined as in (5). This of course means that the gauge group is Abelian, in spite of the non-Abelian looking transformation rule for $`\theta `$.

Had we wanted to work with this representation, we should have considered fixing the gauge as the next step. Rather than doing that, we shall move on to derive an ‘effective theory’ for $`\theta _\mu `$, an auxiliary field which transforms as a vector field in the adjoint representation. To that end, we define the effective action $`S_{inv}[\theta ]`$ by the following expression:

$$[𝒟\theta ]e^{S_{inv}[\theta ]}=𝒟\theta 𝒟Le^{S_{inv}[L,\theta ]}$$
(10)
where $`[𝒟\theta ]`$ denotes the integration measure for $`\theta `$ in the effective theory (the brackets denote possible group factors). Of course, the integration over $`\theta _\mu `$ is ill-defined, since the theory is gauge invariant. There is, however, no obstruction to the integration of the $`L`$-field, since $`\theta _\mu `$ is, in that case, regarded as a background field. We shall, of course, have to deal with the gauge-fixing for $`S_{inv}[\theta ]`$ afterwards.

The integral over $`L_\mu `$ in (10) is a Gaussian, and its evaluation yields the result:

$$S_{inv}[\theta ]=d^3x_{inv}(\theta ),_{inv}(\theta )=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{f}_\mu ^aG_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(\theta )\stackrel{~}{f}_\nu ^b$$
(11)
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is the dual of the Abelian field 111 We adopt the convention that a lowercase $`f_\mu `$ refers to the dual of the Abelianfield strength, while the uppercase one is reserved for the dual non Abelian one. strength: $`\stackrel{~}{f}_\mu ^aϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu \theta _\lambda ^a`$, and

$$G_{\mu \nu }^{ab}=[M^1]_{\mu \nu }^{ab},M_{\mu \nu }^{ab}=\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta ^{ab}+ig^{\frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\mu \lambda \nu }f^{acb}\theta _\lambda ^c.$$
(12)
The fact that $`G`$ is the inverse of $`M`$ must be understood in the sense that the relations:

$$G_{\mu \lambda }^{ac}M_{\lambda \nu }^{cb}=\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta ^{ab}$$
(13)
are valid. Fortunately, the explicit for of $`G`$ is not required for most of our presentation. Note, however, that one may easily obtain an approximate expression for it by performing an expansion in powers of the (dimensionless) object $`\theta g^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. There arises also from the Gaussian integral a factor which modifies the $`\theta `$-field integration measure,

$$[𝒟\theta ]=𝒟\theta [det(M)]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(14)
A question that immediately presents itself at this point is what has happened to the gauge invariance; indeed, the gauge invariance in the polynomial representation, equation (5), involves $`L_\mu `$ in its definition, and $`L_\mu `$ is precisely the field that has been eliminated from the action.

Of course, a standard Maxwell-like gauge transformation will not do, since, although $`\stackrel{~}{f}_\mu `$ is invariant under the Abelian gauge transformations of the Maxwell theory, $`G`$, that depends on $`\theta _\mu `$, is not. Indeed, looking for example at the explicit form of the action (11), with $`G`$ expanded up to terms of order $`\frac{\theta ^2}{g}`$, we see that:

$$S_{inv}[\theta ]=d^3x[\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{f}_\mu (\theta )\stackrel{~}{f}_\mu (\theta )\frac{i}{2}g^{\frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }\theta _\mu \stackrel{~}{f}_\nu (\theta )\times \stackrel{~}{f}_\lambda (\theta )$$

$$\frac{1}{2g}(\theta _\mu \stackrel{~}{f}_\mu \theta _\nu \stackrel{~}{f}_\nu \theta _\mu \stackrel{~}{f}_\nu \theta _\mu \stackrel{~}{f}_\nu +\stackrel{~}{f}_\mu \stackrel{~}{f}_\mu \theta _\nu \theta _\nu \stackrel{~}{f}_\mu \stackrel{~}{f}_\nu \theta _\mu \theta _\nu )],$$
(15)
where only the term in the first line is invariant under Abelian gauge transformations. In spite of this, we do expect a gauge invariance to exist for $`S_{inv}[\theta ]`$, since we know there are two unphysical components (for each value of $`a`$) in $`\theta _\mu `$, which do appear in the free propagator. This propagator will of course be determined by the free action

$$S_{inv}^{(0)}[\theta ]=d^3x\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{f}_\mu ^a(\theta )\stackrel{~}{f}_\mu ^a(\theta )=d^3x\frac{1}{4}f_{\mu \nu }^a(\theta )f_{\mu \nu }^a(\theta )$$
(16)
after adding a gauge fixing term.

It is then reasonable to assume that the gauge transformations for $`\theta `$ should be of the form

$$\delta _\omega \theta _\mu =_\mu \omega +g^{\frac{1}{2}}[L_\mu (\theta ),\omega ]$$
(17)
where $`L_\mu (\theta )`$ is a dependent field which plays the role of a connection, and should of course be defined in terms of $`\theta `$.

A possible hint to find the explicit form of $`L_\mu (\theta )`$ comes from the fact that performing the Gaussian integration is tantamount to ‘replacing the integrated field by their values at the extreme of the exponent’. Denoting by $`\widehat{L}_\mu (\theta )`$ the expression that maximizes the exponent, we see that it is given by:

$$\widehat{L}_\mu ^a=ig^1G_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(\theta )\stackrel{~}{f}_\nu ^b.$$
(18)
Thus we shall adopt the ansatz $`L_\mu (\theta )\widehat{L}_\mu (\theta )`$, the consistency of which we will verify now: to see whether the transformation (17) is a (gauge) symmetry of the action (11) or not, we first evaluate the first variation of $`S_{inv}[\theta ]`$ under a general, not necessarily gauge, infinitesimal variation of $`\theta `$.

After some elementary algebra, we obtain:

$$\delta S_{inv}[\theta ]=d^3x\delta \theta _\mu ^a\{ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu [G_{\lambda \rho }^{ab}(\theta )\stackrel{~}{f}_\rho ^b(\theta )]$$

$$\frac{i}{2}g^{\frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }f_{abc}G_{\nu \alpha }^{bd}(\theta )\stackrel{~}{f}_\alpha ]^dG_{\lambda \beta }^{ce}(\theta )\stackrel{~}{f}_\beta ^e\}$$
(19)
where we used the symmetry property $`G_{\mu \nu }^{ab}=G_{\nu \mu }^{ba}`$, and the relation

$$\delta G_{\mu \nu }^{ab}=ig^{\frac{1}{2}}G_{\mu \lambda }^{ac}(\theta )ϵ_{\lambda \rho \sigma }f^{cde}\delta \theta _\rho ^dG_{\sigma \nu }^{eb}(\theta ),$$
(20)
both of them consequences of the fact that $`G=M^1`$. Recalling the definition of $`L_\mu (\theta )`$, we may also write (19) as:

$$\delta S_{inv}[\theta ]=igd^3x\delta \theta _\mu ^a\stackrel{~}{F}_\mu ^a(L(\theta ))$$
(21)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_\mu ^a(L(\theta ))=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }F_{\nu \lambda }^a(L(\theta )),$$

$$F_{\mu \nu }^a(L(\theta ))=_\mu L_\nu ^a(\theta )_\nu L_\mu ^a(\theta )+g^{\frac{1}{2}}f^{abc}L_\mu ^b(\theta )L_\nu ^c(\theta ).$$
(22)
Using now the explicit form for $`\delta \theta _\mu `$ that corresponds to a gauge variation, equation (17), we see that

$$\delta S_{inv}[\theta ]=igd^3x\omega ^a(x)[D_\mu \stackrel{~}{F}_\mu ]^a(L)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$
(23)
as a consequence of the Bianchi identity, which is of course true regardless of $`L`$ being an independent field or not. We shall henceforth omit writing the dependence of $`L`$ on $`\theta `$ explicitly, since $`L`$ shall always be assumed to be a dependent field. A small technical point (absent in the real time formulation) is that the relation (18) includes complex factors: an $`i`$ multiplying $`G`$, but also $`G`$ itself has both real an imaginary parts. That should be hardly surprising, since the action itself is not purely real, as it happens with Euclidean actions including Chern-Simons terms (and with other topological objects in different numbers of dimensions). Thus the relation (18), to have non-trivial solutions, require the continuation of the fields to complex values. Of course, the gauge invariant action in Minkowski spacetime, $`S_{inv}^M`$, is real,

$$S_{inv}^M=d^3x\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{f}_a^\mu G_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(\theta )\stackrel{~}{f}_b^\nu $$
(24)
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}_a^\mu =ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu \theta _\lambda ^a`$ and $`G_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(\theta )`$ is determined by the equations:

$$G_{\mu \rho }^{ac}(\theta )M_{cb}^{\rho \nu }(\theta )=\delta _\mu ^\nu \delta _b^a,M_{ab}^{\mu \nu }=g^{\mu \nu }\delta _{ab}+g^{\frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{\mu \lambda \nu }f^{acb}\theta _\lambda ^c.$$
(25)
Thus we have verified the consistency of the definition of the covariant derivative with the gauge invariance of the action. Note, however, that there is an important difference with the polynomial formulation, in that the gauge transformations for $`\theta `$ involve $`L`$, which is itself a function on $`\theta `$. Thus $`L`$ will, in general, change under a gauge transformation in this formulation. In particular, this implies that finite gauge transformations will be different to infinitesimal ones. This is a consequence in fact of the algebra of gauge transformations being open, as it will be discussed in the next section.

Also, expression (21) tells us that the classical equations of motion deriving from $`S_{inv}[\theta ]`$ are:

$$F_{\mu \nu }(L)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(26)
i.e., the Maurer-Cartan equations for $`L`$, which obviously have a gauge invariant set of solutions.

Regarding the integration measure $`[𝒟\theta ]`$, it is straightforward to verify that the gauge variation of $`[𝒟\theta ]`$ is zero. We conclude that the action (11) is indeed gauge invariant. The gauge invariance is not of the Yang-Mills type, but rather involves as a connection a vector field $`L_\mu `$ which is a composite field, defined in terms of $`\theta _\mu `$ and its derivatives. As we shall see in the next section, the gauge group is indeed Abelian, but the albegra of gauge transformations is not closed off-shell.

It may seem surprising at first sight that the only ‘content’ of the classical equations of motion is that the Maurer-Cartan equations for a field are satisfied, since we still need the dynamics for the true degrees of freedom. Of course, such a dynamics is also present in this description: $`L`$ is a pure gauge field, i.e., $`L_\mu =U^{}_\mu U`$ with $`U(x)SU(N)`$, and besides (see (42) below) $`_\mu L_\mu =0`$. These two equations are the equivalent to the classical equations of motion for the non-linear $`\sigma `$-model.

## 3 Symmetries

The actual form of the gauge transformations, as acting on the field $`\theta _\mu `$, has been obtained by the procedure of borrowing the (known) form of the corresponding transformations from the polynomial version, and afterwards replacing the field $`L_\mu `$ by its value at the extreme (a function of $`\theta `$). This yields, for a transformation parametrized by the function $`\omega (x)`$, the variation:

$$\delta _\omega \theta _\mu (x)=D_\mu ^L\omega (x)$$
(27)
where

$$D_\mu ^L\omega =_\mu \omega +g^{\frac{1}{2}}[L_\mu ,\omega ],$$
(28)
with:

$$L_\mu ^a=ig^1G_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(\theta )\stackrel{~}{f}_\nu ^b(\theta ).$$
(29)
In spite of the presence of a covariant derivative, the transformations do not correspond to a non-Abelian Yang-Mills theory. Indeed, it should be noted that the transformations (27) involve the covariant derivative, defined in terms of a composite field which plays the role of a connection. However, they are not of the strictly Abelian type either, since the transformation law for $`\theta `$ does not correspond to that case.

We shall now see that what happens is that the transformations are, indeed, Abelian, but only on-shell, i.e., on the equations of motion. To be specific, consider the commutator of two gauge transformations, corresponding to the gauge functions $`\omega `$ and $`\eta `$. We find that the result may be written, after some algebraic manipulations, as follows:

$$[\delta _\eta ,\delta _\omega ]\theta _\mu ^a=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(\theta )\frac{\delta S_{inv}[\theta ]}{\delta \theta _\nu ^b}$$
(30)
where we introduced the object:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(\theta )=\frac{1}{g}\eta ^h\omega ^c(f^{aec}f^{dbh}f^{aeh}f^{dbc})G_{\mu \nu }^{ed}(\theta ).$$
(31)
It is important to realize that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}`$ is antisymmetric, namely,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\nu \mu }^{ba},$$
(32)
since this means that the right hand side of (30) is a trivial gauge transformation . Indeed, for a given action $`S[\theta ]`$, a transformation of the kind

$$\delta \theta _\mu ^a=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(\theta )\frac{\delta S[\theta ]}{\delta \theta _\nu ^b}$$
(33)
with an arbitrary antisymmetric function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\nu \mu }^{ba}`$, is a symmetry of $`S[\theta ]`$, regardless of the form of $`S[\theta ]`$. It can also be shown , that the commutator between a non-trivial gauge transformation and a trivial one yields a trivial gauge transformation. Thus, we see that the physically relevant gauge group is Abelian, and isomorphic to $`U(1)^{(N^21)}`$ (for $`SU(N)`$), although realized in a non-trivial way, since the ‘trivial’ part of the gauge transformations cannot be easily eliminated within the present formulation of the model.

A related property is that the composite field $`L_\mu `$, which is gauge invariant in the polynomial transformation, is now also gauge-invariant but only on-shell:

$$\delta _\omega L_\mu ^a=ig^{\frac{1}{2}}G_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(\theta )f^{bcd}\stackrel{~}{F}_\nu ^c(L)\omega _d,$$
(34)
i.e., it vanishes when $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\mu (L)=0`$.

The question that immediately presents itself is what are the conditions a gauge invariant functional must verify. This is of course important, since gauge invariant functionals are naturally associated to physical observables. Besides, in the functional integral approach to a quantum gauge field theory, the condition a gauge invariant functional must satisfy is an important part of the formulation.

So, assuming $`I[\theta ]`$ to be a gauge invariant functional of $`\theta `$, it must verify the condition:

$$\delta _\omega I[\theta ]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$
(35)
where

$$\delta _\omega =d^3x\delta _\omega \theta _\mu ^a(x)\frac{\delta }{\delta \theta _\mu ^a(x)}.$$
(36)
However, if such a gauge invariant functional exists, one immediately gets a consistency condition by applying two successive gauge transformations on $`I`$ and subtracting them, namely:

$$\delta _\omega I[\theta ]=0[\delta _\eta ,\delta _\omega ]I[\theta ]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(37)
On the other hand, we may of course evaluate the commutator of two gauge transformations; after some algebra, we find:

$$[\delta _\eta ,\delta _\omega ]=d^3x\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(\theta )\frac{\delta S_{inv}}{\delta \theta _\mu ^a(x)}\frac{\delta }{\delta \theta _\nu ^b(x)}.$$
(38)
Thus, for non-trivial gauge invariant functional $`I`$ to exist, since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ depends on the arbitrary functions $`\eta `$ and $`\omega `$, we have to impose the additional condition:

$$F_{\mu \nu }(L)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(39)
This is nothing new from the classical point of view, but it makes a difference for the quantum theory, where all the configurations matter, and not just the extrema of the action. This seems to lead us to the inclusion of (39) as a constraint, what is not what we want. Fortunately, there are ways out of this , that does not require the introduction of extra constraints (wich might even reduce the number of degrees of freedom.

Regarding the global symmetries, we know that $`L_\mu `$ is a conserved current, associated to a global symmetry of the non-linear $`\sigma `$-model. To see that $`L_\mu `$ is conserved in this formalism is a bit tricky. One possible way to prove that is to use the property that the composite field $`L_\mu `$ as given by (29) may also be written, after some algebra, as:

$$L_\mu =ig^1ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }D_\nu \theta _\lambda ,$$
(40)
where we used the property:

$$G_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(\theta )=\delta _{\mu \nu }^{ab}ig^{\frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\mu \lambda \sigma }f^{acd}\theta _\lambda ^cG_{\sigma \nu }^{db}(\theta ).$$
(41)
Then it follows that

$$_\mu L_\mu =D_\mu L_\mu =ig^1ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }D_\mu D_\nu \theta _\lambda =ig^{\frac{1}{2}}[\stackrel{~}{F}_\mu (L),\theta _\mu ]$$
(42)
which vanishes on shell, and implies the conservation of $`L_\mu `$. The conserved charge is of course given by the space integral of $`L_0`$. It is instructive to consider the particular case of a static point-like static charge of color $`a`$ and strength $`q`$ located at $`𝐱=𝐱_0`$. This corresponds to a charge density

$$L_0^a(x)=iq\delta (𝐱𝐱_0),L_j(x)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(43)
Inserting this into the relation (29) yields

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_\mu ^a=q\delta _{\mu 0}\delta (𝐱𝐱_0)$$
(44)
i.e., it corresponds to a point like magnetic flux sitting on the same point. The conserved charge is then equal to the total magnetic flux (for that color).

## 4 Quantum theory

We shall consider here the quantum theory corresponding to this gauge invariant model, from the path integral approach. The natural object to consider is then of course the generating functional for $`\theta `$-field correlation functions. The ill-defined (gauge invariant) partition function shall be given by the expression:

$$𝒵_{inv}[J]=[𝒟\theta ]\mathrm{exp}\left\{S_{inv}[\theta ]+d^3xJ_\mu \theta _\mu \right\}.$$
(45)
The generating functional (45), being gauge invariant, requires the introduction of a gauge-fixing term and its companion ghost action to be well-defined. However, a standard Faddeev-Popov approach to the definition of the gauge-fixed action will not do, since the resulting action is neither BRST invariant, nor the transformation becomes nilpotent. The difficulty lies, of course, in the fact that the algebra of the gauge transformations is ‘open’, namely, it closes only when the equations of motion are satisfied. However, a modified action, which generally involves quartic ghost terms may be constructed, such that the action is invariant under an extended BRST transformation . By an application of such method to this case, we obtain the gauge-fixed action $`S`$:

$$S[\theta _\mu ;b,\overline{c},c]=S_{inv}[\theta ]+S_{gf}[b,\theta ]+S_{gh}[\overline{c},c;\theta ]$$
(46)
where We shall adopt the covariant gauge-fixing term:

$$S_{gf}[\theta ]=d^3x(\frac{1}{2\lambda }b^2+b_\mu \theta _\mu )$$
(47)
and the corresponding ghost action becomes

$$S_{gh}[\overline{c},c;\theta ]=d^3x\left[_\mu \overline{c}D_\mu ^Lc+\frac{1}{2g}(_\mu \overline{c}\times c)^aG_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(\theta )(_\nu \overline{c}\times c)^b\right].$$
(48)
The existence of a quartic term in the ghosts makes it evident that the BRST transformations are not of the standard form. Indeed, we find that the precise form for the transformations is:

$$\delta \theta _\mu ^a=\xi (D_\mu c)^a+\xi \frac{i}{g}f^{abe}G_{\mu \nu }^{bd}(_\nu \overline{c}\times c)^dc^e$$

$$\delta c=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\delta \overline{c}=i\xi b,\delta b=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(49)
They leave the action $`S`$ invariant, and the transformation is besides nilpotent.

The generating functional for the gauge-fixed action is then defined as follows:

$$𝒵[J;j,\overline{\eta },\eta ]=[𝒟\theta ]𝒟b𝒟\overline{c}𝒟c$$

$$\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{S[\theta ;b,\overline{c},c]+d^3x(J_\mu \theta _\mu +jb+\overline{\eta }c+\overline{c}\eta )\right\}.$$
(50)
It should be noted that, in all of the above equations, the covariant derivative is defined in terms of the dependent field $`L`$, which is a function of $`\theta `$.

This may be thought of as the main result of this letter, namely, there exists a gauge invariant description for the non-linear $`\sigma `$-model in $`2+1`$ dimensions; that description is built in terms of $`\theta `$, a pseudo-vector field in the algebra of the group. The gauge algebra is however open, what makes the BRST quantization less immediate than for the Yang-Mills case (although the algebra is Abelian on-shell). The resulting gauge fixed action contains terms quartic in the ghosts, and is invariant under a global BRST symmetry. This BRST symmetry may be applied to, for example, the derivation of Ward identities that will restrict the form of the counterterms.

Regarding the quantum corrections, it should be noted that there is another (equivalent) possibility to tackle the problem of open gauge algebras, through the introduction of auxiliary field. Their function is to render the on-shell symmetry into an off-shell one, where the Faddeev-Popov trick may be applied. The upshot of this procedure here, leads one to the ‘polynomial formulation’ Lagrangian of (2), whose renormalization properties have been considered in .

## 5 Conclusions

We have shown that the $`SU(N)`$ non-linear $`\sigma `$-model in $`2+1`$ dimensions may indeed be described by a gauge invariant action $`S_{inv}[\theta ]`$, for a single pseudo-vector field $`\theta `$. That action has a gauge invariance which involves a composite field $`L`$ (a function of $`\theta `$) that plays a role similar to a connection. This, however, is so only when one considers infinitesimal gauge transformations. Finite gauge transformations, and the composition of two gauge transformations show that the gauge algebra is open. The resulting classical theory shows no difference with the standard formulation of the non-linear $`\sigma `$-model, since the classical trajectories are the only important part of the action, and there the algebra closes.

For the quantum theory, however, the situation is more complicated, as the BRST quantization requires the introduction of a term which is quartic in the ghosts. However, the corresponding global BRST symmetry exists, and may indeed be used as a starting point in the construction of the quantum effective action. We also note that this open algebra formulation is also equivalent to the polynomial formulation, where the algebra is closed and Abelian.

## Acknowledgments:

The authors wish to thank The Abdous Salam ICTP, where this work was initiated, for the warm hospitality. C. D. F. was supported by Fundación Antorchas, Argentina. C. P. C. thanks Olivier Piguet for useful discussions and a careful reading of the manuscript.