Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I was looking at a 0-dimensional matrix model, where the variables are $N\cdot N$ Hermitean matrices. It had a gauge symmetry, e.g. $U(N)$. And in the path integral, the Faddeev-Popov trick was used. So instead of integrating over the set of matrices, one was reduced to integrating over the $N$ (real) eigenvalues. Or, I tried counting the number of degrees of freedom and I as puzzled:

  1. N by N Hermitean matrices have $N^2$ real independent variables ($N(N-1)$ values for the triangular part (non counting the diagonal ones), plus $N$ real variables for the diagonal ones, giving us a total of $N^2$

  2. $U(N)$ has real dimension $N^2$, classic result from group theory

  3. At the end, I arrive at $N^2 - N^2 = 0$ variables instead of $N$ real eigenvalues.

I tried seeing it from another point but I can't derive what I'd like to. What I am thinking/doing wrong?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Your $N^2-N^2$ calculation is naive, well, it is incorrect because not all $N^2$ generators of $U(N)$ are changing the Hermitian matrix $M$. If a generic Hermitian matrix $M$ is transformed to $$ M\to U M U^{-1} ,\quad U U^\dagger = 1,$$ then $N$ directions in $U$ i.e. in $U(N)$ don't change $M$ at all. This is easily seen in the basis in which $M$ is diagonal: the matrices $$ U = {\rm diag} (e^{i\alpha_1},\dots , e^{i\alpha_N})$$ don't change $M$ at all. So the right difference is $N^2 - (N^2-N) = N$.

share|improve this answer

In this answer we will basically expand on Lubos Motl's correct answer using some other words and introducing some terminology.

In the Hermitian one-matrix model, the action

$$\tag{1}S~=~ {\rm Tr} L(H)$$

is invariant under adjoint conjugation

$$\tag{2} H\to UHU^{-1}$$

with unitary matrices $U$. Eq.(2) here play the role of the gauge transformations. One therefore has $N^2$ real gauge parameters.

At the infinitesimal level $U=e^A$, the gauge transformation is

$$\tag{3} \delta H ~=~[A, H],$$

where $A$ is an infinitesimal anti-Hermitian matrix.

On the other hand, the $N$ real eigenvalues $\lambda_1$, $\ldots$, $\lambda_N$ of an Hermitian matrix are gauge invariants, which cannot be changes by gauge transformations of adjoint type (2). Hence there are actually only $N(N−1)$ independent gauge parameters. Such a gauge algebra is called reducible.

For a diagonal Hermitian matrix $H$, the $N$ redundant gauge parameters may be identified with the diagonal matrix entries $A^1{}_1$ , $A^2{}_2$, $\ldots$, $A^N{}_N$, at the infinitesimal level.

The Faddeev-Popov trick (in its original formulation) applies to irreducible gauge symmetries, but one can make it work in this reducible case (i.e. the Hermitian one-matrix model) by properly identifying the independent gauge parameters, cf. above.

The Faddeev-Popov determinant becomes the square of the Vandermonde determinant of the eigenvalues $\lambda_1$, $\ldots$, $\lambda_N$.

Finally, it seems natural to mention that the presence of this Vandermonde determinant is a typical feature of (random) matrix models, and it leads to eigenvalue repulsion, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.