SU-4240-721

October 23, 2018

arXiv:hep-lat/0006013v2 3 Aug 2000

A lattice path integral for supersymmetric

quantum mechanics

Simon Catterall∗ and Eric Gregory†

∗
Physics Department, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244
†
Department of Physics, Zhongshan University, Guangzhou 510275, China

Abstract
We report on a study of the supersymmetric anharmonic oscillator
computed using a euclidean lattice path integral. Our numerical work
utilizes a Fourier accelerated hybrid Monte Carlo scheme to sample the
path integral. Using this we are able to measure massgaps and check
Ward identities to a precision of better than one percent. We work
with a non-standard lattice action which we show has an exact super-
symmetry for arbitrary lattice spacing in the limit of zero interaction
coupling. For the interacting model we show that supersymmetry is
restored in the continuum limit without fine tuning. This is contrasted
with the situation in which a ‘standard’ lattice action is employed. In
this case supersymmetry is not restored even in the limit of zero lat-
tice spacing. Finally, we show how a minor modification of our action
leads to an exact, local lattice supersymmetry even in the presence of
interaction.

Introduction
Supersymmetry is thought to be a crucial ingredient in any theory which at-
tempts to unify the separate interactions contained in the standard model of
particle physics. Since low energy physics is manifestly not supersymmetric
it is necessary that this symmetry be broken at some energy scale. Issues
of spontaneous symmetry breaking have proven difficult to address in per-
turbation theory and hence one is motivated to have some non-perturbative
0
Corresponding author: Simon Catterall, email: [email protected]

1
method for investigating such theories. The lattice furnishes such a frame-
work. Unfortunately, supersymmetry being a spacetime symmetry is ex-
plicitly broken by the discretization procedure and it is highly non-trivial
problem to show that it is recovered in the continuum limit.
One manifestation of this problem is the usual doubling problem of lat-
tice fermions - the naive fermion action in D dimensions possesses not one
but 2D continuum-like modes. These extra modes persist in the continuum
limit and yield an immediate conflict with supersymmetry requiring as it
does an equality between boson and fermion degrees of freedom. As has
been noted by several authors [1] it is possible to circumvent this problem
in a free theory by the addition of a simple Wilson mass term to the fermion
action. This removes the doubles and leads to a supersymmetric free theory
in the continuum limit. However such a procedure fails when interactions
are introduced. Instead we shall show that the use of a non-standard lattice
action allows the quantum continuum limit of such an interacting theory to
admit continuum supersymmetry [2]. Indeed, we will show that this action
has an exact lattice supersymmetry in the absence of interactions (similar to
that proposed in [3]) and very small symmetry breaking effects at non-zero
interaction coupling. Finally, we write down an action for the interacting
theory which is supersymmetric for all lattice spacings.

Model
The model we will study contains a real scalar field x and two indepen-
dent real fermionic fields ψ and ψ defined on a one-dimensional lattice of L
sites with periodic boundary conditions imposed on both scalar and fermion
fields.
X1h   i X1
2
S= −xi Dij xj + ψ i Dij + Pij′ ψj + Pi2 (1)
ij
2 i
2

The quantity Pi is defined as

Kij xj + gx3i
X
Pi =
j

and its derivative is then just

Pij′ = Kij + 3gx2i δij

The choice of a cubic interaction term in P (x) guarantees unbroken super-

symmetry [4] in the continuum. The matrix Dij is the symmetric difference

2
operator
1
Dij = [δj,i+1 − δj,i−1 ]
2
and Kij is the Wilson mass matrix
r
Kij = mδij − (δi,j+1 + δi,j−1 − 2δij )
2
We work in dimensionless lattice units in which m = mphys a, g = gphys a2
1
and x = a− 2 xphys .
Notice that the boson operator D 2 is not the usual lattice Laplacian ✷ =
D+ D− but contains a double corresponding to the extra zero in D = 21 (D+ +
D− ). However, the boson action contains now a Wilson mass term and so
this extra state, like its fermionic counterpart, decouples in the continuum
limit. With the further choice r = 1 the fermion matrix M = D + P ′ is
almost lower triangular and its determinant can be shown to be
L  
1 + m + 3gx2i − 1
Y
det(M ) =
i=1

which is positive definite for g > 0 and m > 0. This fact will be utilized
in our numerical algorithm. Furthermore, the choice r = 1 removes the
doubles completely in the free theory and renders the fermion correlators
simple exponentials.

Simulation
In order to simulate the fermionic sector we first replace the fermion field
by a bosonic pseudofermion field φ whose action is just
X1  −1
φi M T M φj
ij
2 ij

This is an exact representation of the original fermion effective action pro-

vided the determinant of the fermion matrix is positive definite. The re-
sultant (non-local) action S (x, φ) can now be simulated using the Hybrid
Monte Carlo (HMC) algorithm [5]. In the HMC scheme momentum fields
(p, π) conjugate to (x, φ) are added and a Hamiltonian H defined which is
just the sum of the original action plus additional terms depending on the
momenta H = S + ∆S.
X1 
∆S = p2i + πi2
i
2

3
On integrating out the momenta it is clear that this partition function is
(up to a constant) identical to the original one. The augmented system
(x, p, φ, π) is now naturally associated with some classical dynamics depend-
ing on an auxiliary time variable t
∂x
= p
∂t
∂p ∂H
= −
∂t ∂x
∂φ
= π
∂t
∂π ∂H
= −
∂t ∂φ
If we introduce a finite time step ∆t we may simulate this classical evo-
lution and produce a sequence of configurations (x(t), φ(t)). If ∆t = 0 then
H would be conserved along such a trajectory. In practice ∆t is finite and
H is not exactly conserved. However a finite length of such an approximate
trajectory can still be used as a global move on the fields (x, φ) which may
then be subject to a Metropolis step based on ∆H. Provided the classical
dynamics is reversible and care is taken to ensure ergodicity the resulting
move satisfies detailed balance and hence this dynamics will provide a sim-
ulation of the original partition function. The reversibility criterion can be
satisfied by using a leapfrog integration scheme and ergodicity is taken care
of by drawing new momenta from a Gaussian distribution after each such
trajectory.
If we introduce bosonic and pseudofermionic forces
∂H(t)
Fi (t) = − (2)
∂xi
and
∂H(t)
Fi (t) = − , (3)
∂φi
the resultant evolution equations look like
(∆t)2
xi (t + ∆t) = xi (t) + ∆tpi (t) − Fi (t)
2
(∆t)2
φi (t + ∆t) = φi (t) + ∆tπi (t) − Fi (t)
2
∆t
pi (t + ∆t) = pi (t) + (Fi (t) + Fi (t + ∆t))
2
∆t
πi (t + ∆t) = πi (t) + (Fi (t) + Fi (t + ∆t)) (4)
2

4
The force terms are then given in terms of a vector si which is a solution of
the (sparse) linear problem
 
MT M sj = φi
ij

∂H 2
= −Dij xj + Pij′ Pj + 6gxi si Mij sj
∂xi
∂H
= si
∂φi
In order to reduce the effects of critical slowing down we have chosen to
perform this update in momentum space using FFTs and a momentum
dependent time step. Thus, for example, the lattice field xm , (m = 0 . . . L −
1) can be expanded as
r
1X 2πmn
xm = xn ei L
L n

where xn is the Fourier amplitude with wavenumber 2π

L n (n = 0 . . . L−1) and
the Fourier amplitudes xn are updated using equations 4 with ∆t = ∆t(n).
For the boson field x we use ∆t = τB where

(meff + 2r)
τB (n) = ǫ r  2
2πn 2πn
sin2 L + meff + 2r sin2 2L

For the pseudofermion field update we use the inverse function ∆t = τF =

1
τB . With these choices (and meff = ma) it is simple to show that the g = 0
theory suffers no critical slowing down - all modes are updated at the same
rate independent of their wavelength. By setting meff at the approximate
position of the massgap in the interacting case we have found very substan-
tial reductions in the autocorrelation time for the two point functions of the
theory. In practice we set ǫ ∼ 0.1 and the number of leapfrog integrations
per trajectory at Nleap = 10.

Correlation functions
We have measured the following correlators

GB
ij = hxi xj i

5
and
GFij = hsj Mik sk i
It can be shown that the latter is simply an estimator for the original fermion
correlator < ψ i ψj >.

10.5

10.0
bosons
fermions
9.5

M=10.0, G=0.0
mphys

9.0

8.5

8.0

7.5
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080
a

Figure 1: Boson and Fermion masses vs. lattice spacing a at mphys = 10.0,
gphys = 0.0

In figure 1 we show first the results of a simulation of this model for

gphys = 0.0 and mphys = 10.0. The data set consists of 106 Fourier acceler-
ated HMC trajectories. The plot shows both boson and fermion massgaps,
extracted from a simple exponential fit to the correlators over the first L/4
timeslices, as a function of the lattice spacing a = 1/L. Notice that boson
and fermion masses while receiving large O(a) systematic errors (due to the
Wilson term) are degenerate within statistical errors. We see furthermore
that as a → 0 the common massgap approaches the correct continuum value.
As we shall see later the free action has an exact supersymmetry at finite
lattice spacing which is responsible for the boson/fermion degeneracy.

6
 18.0

bosons
16.0 fermions

M=10.0, G=100.0
mphys

14.0

12.0

10.0
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080
a

Figure 2: Boson and Fermion masses vs. lattice spacing a at mphys = 10.0,
gphys = 100.0

We have also examined the massgaps at non-zero coupling. Figure 2

shows the same plot for mphys = 10.0 and gphys = 100.0. The massgaps are
also listed in Table . The data set consists of 106 trajectories again using
lattice sizes L = 16 − 256. The effective dimensionless expansion parameter
is g/m2 so this corresponds to a regime of strong coupling. Remarkably,
the boson and fermion masses are again degenerate within statistical errors
O(0.5%) and flow as a → 0 to the correct continuum limit (the latter can
be computed easily using Hamiltonian methods and yields mcont = 16.87)).
That this result is nontrivial can be seen when we compare it to the result
of a ‘naive’ discretization of the continuum action using ✷ in place of D 2
and the usual Wilson action for the fermions – figure 3.
In this case the mass plot looks very different. At large lattice spacing
the extracted massgaps differ widely – the fermion having O(a) errors while
the boson is much smaller (it varies as O(a2 ) at g = 0). Initially they ap-
pear to approach each other as a → 0 but the two curves depart for fine

7
 L mB mF
16 10.60(3) 10.64(5)
32 12.80(2) 12.91(4)
64 14.47(2) 14.52(2)
128 15.63(4) 15.63(4)
256 16.19(3) 16.28(4)

Table 1: Boson and Fermion massgaps for g/m2 = 1 versus inverse lattice
spacing

lattice spacing and do not approach the correct continuum limit - the quan-
tum continuum limit is not supersymmetric. Thus naive discretizations of
the continuum action will break supersymmetry irreversibly even in theo-
ries such as quantum mechanics which have no divergences. At minimum
it would be necessary to tune parameters to obtain a supersymmetric con-
tinuum limit. In comparison the numerical results of figure 2 indicate that
supersymmetry breaking effects, if present, are very small. We examine this
more carefully next.

Supersymmetry
Motivated by the form of the continuum supersymmetry transformations for
this model consider the following two lattice transformations
δ1 xi = ψi ξ
δ1 ψi = (Dij xj − Pi ) ξ
δ1 ψi = 0 (5)
and
δ2 xi = ψi ξ
δ2 ψi = 0
δ2 ψi = (Dij xj + Pi ) ξ (6)
where ξ and ξ are independent anti-commuting parameters. The existence
of two such symmetries reflects the N = 2 character of the continuum su-
persymmetry. If we perform the variation corresponding to the first of these
(eqn. 5) we find  
X
δ1 S = ψ i ξ Pij′ Djk xk − Dij Pj (7)
i

8
 18.0

16.0
mF
mB
14.0

M=10.0, G=100.0
12.0

10.0

8.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
a

Figure 3: Boson and Fermion masses vs. lattice spacing a at mphys = 10.0,
gphys = 100.0 computed from ‘naive’ action

The expression corresponding to the second transformation eqn. 6 is similar

X  
δ2 S = ξψi Pij′ Djk xk − Dij Pj (8)
i

In the continuum limit a = 0 the difference operators become derivatives

and the term inside the brackets is zero - this is the statement of continuum
supersymmetry. Notice, for g = 0 and a 6= 0 this term is still zero - the
classical free lattice action is also supersymmetric. However this term is
non-zero for finite spacing and non-zero interaction coupling - the classical
lattice action breaks supersymmetry. Since we use the symmetric difference
operator this breaking will be O(gL−2 ). From the point of view of a con-
tinuum limit such a breaking would not be important - since the theory
contains no divergences all non-supersymmetric terms induced in the quan-
tum effective action will have couplings that vanish as a → 0. Indeed, as
was shown explicitly in [2], the two-dimensional Wess-Zumino model has a

9
supersymmetric continuum limit when regulated in this way. For a lattice
of size L = 16 and gphys = 100.0 we would expect symmetry breaking terms
to be suppressed by a factor of gphys /L4 = 0.002. This is consistent with
what we see in the massgaps.
To verify these conclusions we have studied the approximate Ward iden-
tities which follow from the lattice transformations eqn. 5 and eqn. 6.

Ward identities
The Ward identities corresponding to these approximate symmetries can be
derived in the usual way. First consider the partition function with external
sources   Z P
Z J, θ, θ = DxDψDψe−S+ J.x+θ.ψ+θ.ψ

Perform a lattice supersymmetry transformation, for example, eqn. 5. The

action S varies as in eqn. 7, and the integration measure is invariant while
the source terms vary. Since the partition function does not change (the
transformation can be viewed as a change of variables) we find
Z X 
0 = δZ = DxDψDψe−S J.δx + θ.δψ + θ.δψ + α.ψ (9)
 
where αi = Pij′ Djk xk − Dij Pj Furthermore, any number of derivatives
with respect to the sources evaluated for zero sources will also vanish. For
the first supersymmetry equation 5 this yields a set of identities connecting
different correlation functions. The first non-trivial example is
D E D E
ψi ψj + h(Djk xk − Pj )xi i + αk ψ k xi ψj = 0

The last term represents the symmetry breaking term which may be rewrit-
ten as < (M T )−1
jk αk xi >. Since αk is a vector with random elements each
of mean zero and suffering fluctuations O(g/L2 )) we might expect that this
term contributes rather a small correction to the Ward identity. In this spirit
we will neglect it at this point and see if the predictions are substantiated by
the results of the simulation. It is important to notice that this correction
to the naive Ward identity is finite (quantum mechanics) and multiplied by
1/L2 and consequently the continuum limit is guaranteed to possess super-
symmetry. The same will be true for any approximate Ward identity we
care to construct.

10
 A second Ward identity may be derived corresponding to the second
(approximate) supersymmetry equation 6 we find
D E
ψi ψj + h(Djk xk + Pj )(x)xi i = 0

More conveniently we can add and subtract these equations to yield the
relations
GFij − GFji = − h2Djk xk xi i (10)
and
GFij + GFji = h2Pj xi i (11)
Translation invariance on the lattice implies GFij = GF (t) and GFji = GF (L −
t) where t = (j−i). We can check that these two Ward identities are satisfied
numerically by forming the two (distance dependent) quantities w1 and w2
which are defined by

GFij + GFji − 2 hxi Pj i

w1 (t) = (12)
2 hxi Pj i

GFij − GFji + 2 hxi Djk xk i

w2 (t) = (13)
2 hxi Djk xk i
These are shown in figure 4 and figure 5 for a lattice of size L = 16 at
gphys = 0.0. In this case we expect the symmetry to be exact and indeed we
see that the Ward identities are satisfied within statistical accuracy.
Figures 6 and 7 show plots of w1 and w2 for a lattice of size L = 16 at
gphys = 100.0. It is clear that within our statistical error (on the order of
a few percent for these quantities) we are again not sensitive to the SUSY
breaking terms and the continuum Ward identities are satisfied.

Discussion and Conclusions

We have performed a numerical study of the lattice supersymmetric anhar-
monic oscillator computed using path integrals. This is essentially a one-
dimensional version of the Wess-Zumino model. We have utilized a lattice
discretization which preserves two exact supersymmetries in the free theory.
We are able to show that the interacting theory flows to a supersymmetric
fixed point in the zero lattice spacing limit without fine tuning. This is to be
contrasted with naive discretizations of the continuum action which require
fine tuning to recover supersymmetry in the continuum limit.

11
 0.050
M=10.0, G=0.0
L=16
0.040

0.030
W1(t)

0.020

0.010

0.000

−0.010

−0.020
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0
t

Figure 4: w1 (t) vs. t for L = 16, mphys = 10.0 and gphys = 0.0

Furthermore, we have estimated the magnitude of supersymmetry break-

ing at O(g/L2 ) which is typically smaller than one percent even at strong
coupling and for coarse lattices. Thus the lattice simulations are, in prac-
tice, very close to the supersymmetric fixed point. We have checked the
first two non-trivial Ward identities following from this (approximate) in-
variance. Our numerical results place an upper bound on the magnitude of
symmetry breaking corrections which is consistent with this estimate.
It is tempting to try to interpret the numerical results as evidence of an
exact lattice supersymmetry even in the presence of interactions. Using the
antisymmetry of the derivative operator it is easy to show that the symmetry
breaking term 8 can be rewritten
X
δ2 S = δ2 xi Dij Pj
P
Thus Snew = S − xi Dij Pj will be exactly invariant under the second
lattice supersymmetry transformation even for non zero interaction. Notice
that the presence of an extra minus sign prevents this new action from

12
 0.010

0.000

−0.010
W2(t)

−0.020

−0.030

−0.040
M=10.0, G=0.0
L=16
−0.050

−0.060
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0
t

Figure 5: w2 (t) vs. t for L = 16, mphys = 10.0 and gphys = 0.0

having a second invariance corresponding to the first supersymmetry 7. This

invariant action can be rewritten in the form
X1 X  
Snew = (Dij xj + Pi ) (Dij xj + Pi ) + ψ i Dij + Pij′ ψj
ij
2 ij

This allows us to identify the Nicolai map for the model [6]. The latter
is the non-trivial transformation xi → ξi which maps the boson action to
a free field form and whose Jacobian simultaneously cancels the fermion
determinant. Here we see it explicitly

ξi = Dij xj + Pi

It has previously been pointed out that the identification of such a map may
be used to help find lattice supersymmetric actions [7] and [8]. This quantum
mechanics model furnishes a concrete example - the lattice action which ad-
mits the Nicolai map is invariant under a transformation which interchanges

13
 0.10

M=10.0, G=100.0
L=16
0.05
W1(t)

0.00

−0.05

−0.10
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0
t

Figure 6: w1 (t) vs. t for L = 16,mphys = 10.0 and gphys = 100.0

bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom. In the continuum limit this lat-
tice action approaches its continuum counterpart and the transformation
reduces to a continuum supersymmetry transformation. The presence of
one exact supersymmetry is already enough to guarantee vanishing vacuum
energy and boson/fermion mass degeneracy for the lattice theory.
It would be interesting to extend these calculations to the two-dimensional
Wess-Zumino model and verify non-perturbatively the results derived per-
turbatively in [2].

Acknowledgements
Simon Catterall was supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG02-85ER40237.
We would like to thank Yoshio Kikukawa for drawing our attention to refs [6]
and [7].

14
 0.10

0.05
W2(t)

0.00

−0.05
M=10.0, G=100.0
L=16

−0.10
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0
t

Figure 7: w2 (t) vs. t for L = 16, mphys = 10.0 and gphys = 100.0

References
[1] Hiroto So and Naoya Ukita, Phys.Lett. B457 (1999) 314
Tatsumi Aoyama and Yoshio Kikukawa, Phys.Rev. D59 (1999)

[2] M. Goltermaan and D. Petcher, Nucl. Phys. B319 (1989) 307.

[3] W. Bietenholz, Mod. Phys. Lett A14 (1999) 51.

[4] E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B185 (1981) 513.

[5] S. Duane, A. Kennedy, B. Pendleton and D. Roweth, Phys. Lett. B195B

(1987) 216.

[6] H. Nicolai, Phys. Lett. B89 (1980) 341.

[7] N. Sakai and M. Sakamoto, Nucl. Phys. B229 (1983) 173.

15
[8] M. Beccaria, G. Curci and E. D’Ambrosio, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998)
065009.

16