text:
# Structure Functions at Very High 𝑄² From HERA

## Introduction

Deep–Inelastic scattering (DIS) of leptons off nucleons has played a fundamental role in understanding the structure of matter. HERA the first electron-proton ($`ep`$) collider ever built is capable of investigating the two main contributions to DIS, Neutral Current (NC) interactions, $`epeX`$ and Charged Current (CC) interactions, $`ep\nu X`$. In the Standard Model a photon ($`\gamma `$) or a $`Z^0`$ boson is exchanged in a NC interaction, and a $`W^\pm `$ boson is exchanged in a CC interaction. DIS can be described by the four-momentum transfer squared $`Q^2`$, Bjorken-$`x`$ and inelasticity $`y`$ defined as:

$`Q^2=q^2(kk^{})^2`$ (1)
$`x={\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{2pq}}`$ (2)
$`y={\displaystyle \frac{pq}{pk}}`$ (3)
with $`k(k^{})`$ and $`p`$ being the four-momentum of the incident (scattered) lepton and proton respectively. The centre-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ of the $`ep`$ interaction is given by $`s(p+k)^2=Q^2/xy`$.

In this paper measurements are presented of the NC and CC cross-sections at high $`Q^2>200\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ for both electron and positron scattering from both the H1 and ZEUS experiments. The integrated luminosity in the $`e^+p`$ data sample is $`35.6\mathrm{pb}^1(30\mathrm{pb}^1)`$ and in the $`e^{}p`$ data sample is $`16\mathrm{pb}^1(16\mathrm{pb}^1)`$ for the H1 (ZEUS) collaborations.

## I Experimental Setup

The H1 and ZEUS detectors are described elsewhere h1 ,zeus . Both detectors are nearly hermetic multi-purpose apparatus built to investigate $`ep`$ interactions. The measurements in both experiments rely primarily on the calorimetry, tracking and the luminosity detectors.

In both experiments the Charged Current event selection is based on the observation of large $`P_T^{miss}`$, which is assumed to be the transverse momentum carried by the outgoing neutrino. For NC events it is based on the identification of a scattered electron (positron), further fiducial (NC) and kinematic cuts (CC and NC) are then applied. Details of the selection procedure can be found in zeus ; h1nccc .

## II Cross Sections

The electroweak Born-level NC DIS cross section $`d^2\sigma ^{NC}/dxdQ^2`$ for the reaction $`e^\pm pe^\pm X`$ can be written as:

$$\frac{d^2\sigma _{Born}^{e^{\pm p}}}{dxdQ^2}=\frac{2\pi \alpha ^2}{xQ^4}\left[Y_+F_2(x,Q^2)Y_{}xF_3(x,Q^2)y^2F_L(x,Q^2)\right]$$
(4)
For unpolarised beams, the structure functions $`F_2`$ and $`xF_3`$ can be decomposed taking into account $`Z^0`$ exchange as:

$`F_2`$ $``$ $`F_2^{em}\upsilon {\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _wQ^2}{(Q^2+M_Z^2)}}F_2^{\gamma Z}+(\upsilon ^2+a^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _wQ^2}{Q^2+M_Z^2}}\right)F_2^Z`$ (5)
$`xF_3`$ $``$ $`a{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _wQ^2}{(Q^2+M_Z^2)}}xF_3^{\gamma Z}+(2\upsilon a)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _wQ^2}{Q^2+M_Z^2}}\right)^2xF_3^Z`$ (6)
where $`M_Z`$ is the mass of the $`Z^0`$, $`\kappa _w=1/(4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _w)`$ is a function of the Weinberg angle $`(\theta _w)`$ and $`\upsilon `$ and $`a`$ are the vector and axial couplings of the electron to the $`Z^0`$. For unpolarised beams, $`F_2`$ is the same for electron and positron scattering, while $`xF_3`$ changes sign.

The NC “reduced cross-section” $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ is defined from the measured as:

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{NC}(x,Q^2)\frac{1}{Y_+}\frac{xQ^4}{2\pi \alpha ^2}\frac{d^2\sigma ^{NC}}{dxdQ^2}$$
(7)
The Born double differential CC cross-section for $`e^+p\overline{\nu }X`$ can be written in leading order QCD as:

$$\left(\frac{d^2\sigma _{CC}^{e^+p}}{dxdQ^2}\right)_{Born}=\frac{G_F^2}{2\pi }\left(\frac{M_W^2}{M_W^2+Q^2}\right)^2[(\overline{u}+\overline{c})+(1y)^2(d+s)]$$
(8)
for $`e^{}p`$ scattering the coupling is predominantly to the $`u`$ type quarks for $`e^+p`$ scattering the electroweak coupling is predominantly to the $`d`$ type quarks.

$$\left(\frac{d^2\sigma _{CC}^{e^{}p}}{dxdQ^2}\right)_{Born}=\frac{G_F^2}{2\pi }\left(\frac{M_W^2}{M_W^2+Q^2}\right)^2[u+c+(1y)^2(\overline{d}+\overline{s})]$$
(9)
The double differential CC “reduced” cross-section $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{CC}`$ is defined as:

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{CC}=\frac{2\pi x}{G_F^2}\left(\frac{M_W^2+Q^2}{M_W^2}\right)^2\frac{d^2\sigma _{CC}}{dxdQ^2}$$
(10)
## III Results and Interpretation

The NC and CC single differential cross-sections and $`d\sigma _{NC}/dQ^2`$, $`d\sigma _{CC}/dQ^2`$ are shown in fig LABEL:fig:singdif, also shown are the Standard Model expectations given from NLO QCD fits to the data by both the CTEQ cteq  and the H1 h1qcd  collaborations. The Standard Model is seen to give a good description of the data.

The measurement of he NC cross-section spans more than two orders of magnitude in $`Q^2`$ and the cross-section falls with $`Q^2`$ by about 6 orders of magnitude for both the $`e^+p`$ and the $`e^{}p`$ cross section. For $`Q^2`$ values above $`1000\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ the $`e^{}p`$ cross section can be seen to be significantly above the $`e^+p`$ cross section. This is consistent with the Standard Model picture in which one expects constructive interference of the photon and $`Z^0`$ for $`e^{}p`$ interactions and destructive interference for $`e^+p`$ interactions.

Due to the propagator mass term and the different coupling the CC cross-section is smaller than the NC cross-section and it falls less steeply, by about 3 orders of magnitude, between $`Q^2=300`$ and $`\mathrm{15\hspace{0.17em}000}\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ for both the $`e^{}p`$ and $`e^+p`$ cross section. The shape and magnitude of the NC and CC cross-sections are well described by the Standard Model expectation. The $`e^{}p`$ cross section is at relatively low $`Q^2`$ to be approximately twice as big as the $`e^+p`$ cross section, which is consistent with the Standard Model picture in which the $`u`$ quark density probed is expected to be approximately twice the $`d`$ quark density.

Shown in fig. LABEL:fig:singdif is the single differential CC cross section $`d\sigma _{CC}/dx`$ for $`Q^2>200\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ for $`e^+p`$ scattering from the ZEUS collaboration zeuscc . The ratio of the measured cross section $`d\sigma _{CC}/dx`$. At high $`x`$ the $`e^+p`$ CC cross-section depends mainly on the $`d`$ quark density which is less constrained than the $`u`$ quark density. All data agree well with the Standard Model expectation using PDFs extracted from CTEQ4D and those from the ZEUS NLO fit botje . The possibility of a larger $`d/u`$ ratio than previously assumed has been of interest in recent years, for example see yangbodek ; melnitchouk . Modification yangbodek  of PDFs with an additional term $`\delta (d/u)`$ yields $`d\sigma /dx`$ close to the NLO QCD fit.

The NC cross-section $`d\sigma _{NC}/dx`$ for $`Q^2>\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}000}\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ is shown in Fig. 2 along with the expectations from the Standard Model with a $`Z^0`$ mass of set to the PDG value, which gives a good description of the data. Also shown is the expectation from the Standard Model with $`Z^0`$ mass set to infinity, thereby effectively removing the weak interaction so that only photon ($`\gamma `$) exchange is possible. It can be seen the data clearly favours the need for the $`Z^0`$ contribution.

## IV Double Differential NC and CC Cross-Sections

The double differential reduced NC cross-section is shown in Fig. 2 for fixed $`x`$ as a function of $`Q^2`$ for both $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ data. Also shown are the expectations of the Standard Model which give a good description of the data. For $`Q^2`$ values below $`\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}000}\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ the $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ cross-sections are within errors equal, for higher values of $`Q^2`$ the cross sections are seen to deviate, with the $`e^{}p`$ cross-section seen to increase above the $`e^+p`$ cross section. This difference is consistent with the change in sign of the parity violating structure function $`xF_3`$.

The ZEUS collaboration go a step further and combine the $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ cross sections, where $`30\mathrm{pb}^1`$ of $`e^+p`$ data collected at a centre of mass energy of $`\sqrt{s}=300\mathrm{GeV}`$ were combined with $`16\mathrm{pb}^1`$ of $`e^+p`$ data collected at a centre of mass energy of $`\sqrt{s}=300\mathrm{GeV}`$. To reduce statistical fluctuations several bins from the double differential binning zeusosaka . Figure 2 shows $`xF_3`$ at fixed values of $`Q^2`$ as a function of $`x`$. The Standard Model expectation evaluated with either the CTEQ4D or MRST(99) mrst  parton density functions are seen to give a good description of the data.

The reduced cross sections as functions of $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ are displayed in Figs. 2 along with the prediction of the H1 NLO QCD fit h1qcd . The relative increase in the $`e^{}p`$ cross section over the $`e^+p`$ cross section is consistent with a larger $`u`$ quark density relative to that of the $`d`$ quark.

The absolute magnitude of the CC cross section, described by equation 8 is determined by the Fermi constant $`G_F`$ and the PDFs, while the $`Q^2`$ dependance of the CC cross-section includes the propagator term $`[M_W^2/(M_W^2+Q^2)]`$ which produces substantial damping of the cross section. The ZEUS collabiration have fitted the measured differential cross section, $`d\sigma /dQ^2`$, treating $`G_F`$ and $`M_W`$ as free parameters, yields

$$G_F=(1.171\pm 0.034((\mathrm{stat}.)_{0.015}^{+0.026}(\mathrm{syst}.)_{0.015}^{+0.016}(\mathrm{PDF}))\times 10^5\mathrm{GeV}^2$$
(11)
and

$$M_W=80.8_{4.5}^{+4.9}(stat.)_{4.3}^{+5.0}(syst.)_{1.3}^{+1.4}(PDF)\mathrm{GeV}$$
(12)
The central values are obtained using the CTEQ4D PDFs. Further fits to the data were also performed zeuscc , the ’propagator-mass’ fit to the measured differential cross-section, $`d\sigma /dQ^2`$, with $`G_F`$ fixed to the value $`G_F=1.16639\times 10^5\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ yields the result

$$M_W=81.4_{2.6}^{+2.7}(stat.)\pm 2.0(syst.)_{3.0}^{+3.3}(PDF)\mathrm{GeV}$$
(13)
Using the Standard Model constraint $`\alpha `$, $`M_Z`$, and all fermion masses, other than the mass of the top quark, $`M_t`$, are set to the PDG values pdg . The central result of the fit was obtained with $`M_t=175\mathrm{GeV}`$ and the mass of the Higgs boson $`M_H=100\mathrm{GeV}`$. The $`\chi ^2`$ function is evaluated along the line given by the SM constraint, gives the following result.

$$M_W=80.50_{0.25}^{+0.24}(stat.)_{0.16}^{+0.13}(syst.)\pm 0.31(PDF)_{0.06}^{+0.03}(\mathrm{\Delta }M_t,\mathrm{\Delta }M_H,\mathrm{\Delta }M_Z)\mathrm{GeV}$$
(14)
## V HERA Upgrade

From September 2000, the luminosity of the HERA collider will be increased by a factor of five. At the same time longitudinal lepton beam polarisation will be provided for the collider experiments H1 and ZEUS. Over a six year running period it is anticipated that the total luminosity of $`\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}000}\mathrm{pb}^1`$ will be delivered. This large data volume will allow $`F_2^{NC}`$ to be extracted with an accuracy of $`3\%`$ over the kinematic range $`2\times 10^5<x<0.7`$ and $`2\times 10^5<Q^2<5\times 10^4\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. With this accuracy it is anticipated that it will be possible to determine $`\alpha _S`$ from the scaling violations of $`F_2^{NC}`$ with a precision of $`<0.003`$. The gluon distribution will also be determined from such a fit with a precision of $`3\%`$ for $`x=10^4`$ and $`Q^2=20\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.

There will also be a significant benefit to the CC cross-section measurement, with the potential of a clean determination of the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark densities.

With the introduction of polarised beams it will be possible to obtain a measurement of the vector and axial-vector couplings of the $`u`$-quark, $`\nu _u`$ and $`a_u`$ respectively, obtained in a fit in which $`\nu _u`$ and $`a_u`$ are allowed to vary. With a luminosity of $`250\mathrm{pb}^1`$ per charge, polarisation combination and taking the vector and axial-vector couplings of the $`u`$ and $`d`$-quarks as free parameters gives a precision of 13 %, 6 %, 17 % for $`\nu _u`$, $`a_u`$, $`\nu _d`$ and $`a_d`$ respectively. By comparing the NC couplings of the $`c`$ and $`b`$-quarks obtained at LEP, it will be possible to test the universality of the NC couplings.

## VI Summary and Outlook

The latest Deep-Inelastic Neutral and Charge current cross-sections have been presented from the H1 and ZEUS experiments. The Standard Model is seen to give a good description of the data in all cases. The high luminosity data at high $`Q^2`$ from both experiments has enabled the first tests of electroweak effects in both Neutral and Charged current interactions. In NC interactions the data are seen to be consistent with the effect of $`\gamma Z^{}`$ interference and has allowed the first extraction of the parity violating structure function $`xF_3`$ at high $`Q^2`$.

With the factor of five increase in yearly luminosity expected from the HERA upgrade further high precision tests of the Strong and Weak Interaction will be made. The future CC measurements will allow precision determinations of the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark densities and a determination of the vector and axial-vector couplings of the quarks from the NC interaction, providing important information for future high energy hadron colliders such as the LHC.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Great progresses have been made in recent years in the understanding of multi-instanton calculus. A first impulse to try to perform computations for winding numbers, $`k`$, bigger than one came from the solution for the holomorphic part of the effective action for extended globally $`N=2`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills (SYM) theories proposed in ref.. The idea of checking this solution triggered a first set of computations up to $`k=2`$  in the case with no matter. Computations for $`k>2`$ seemed to be out of reach due to the lack of an explicit parametrization for the ADHM data  and for the complexity of the algebra involved in the computation. Trying to circumvent this limitation, in ref. a new computational strategy was devised: the ADHM constraints were inserted in the path integral through the introduction of a certain number of Dirac deltas. This removed the need of solving complicated algebraic equations of higher order. The product of the Dirac deltas times the differentials of the fermionic and bosonic zero–modes involved in the computation is the supermeasure that needs to be specified to perform the computation. The Dirac deltas needed to implement the constraints were found working backwards i.e. starting from the explicit form of the measure, known in the $`k=2`$ case . This approach was then extended to arbitrary $`k`$. The measure thus obtained possesses a certain number of desired features which are dictated by physical considerations: it is supersymmetric, reproduces the known $`k=2`$ measure for $`N=1,2`$ and in the dilute gas limit factorizes as expected. The extension of this procedure to the $`N=4`$ case was also given .

Although this procedure may seem to be rather ad hoc, it has anyway proved to be very useful in giving a nonperturbative consistency check of the conjectured duality  between certain IIB string theory correlators on an $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background and some Green’s functions of composite operators of the $`N=4`$ $`SU(N_c)`$ SYM theory in four dimensions in the large $`N_c`$ limit. At leading order in that limit the $`N=4`$ measure, for moduli spaces of dimension $`k`$, collapses to the product of the measure of an $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ space times the partition function of an $`N=1`$ ten dimensional $`SU(k)`$ theory reduced to 0+0 dimensions . It was then possible to carry out an explicit calculation which turned out to be in agreement with the above mentioned conjecture : a highly nontrivial result, in our opinion.

Another motivation for the present study comes from ref., where multi–instanton calculus was reformulated in the language of topological field theories. This gives a new geometrical interpretation of the nonperturbative effects and from a computational point of view allows to rewrite all the correlators of interest as total derivatives on the moduli space of gauge connections. This, in turn, could leads to further progresses in the computations for generic values of $`k`$’s, using the properties of the ADHM contruction at the boundary of the moduli space. A key ingredient in this approach is given by the introduction of a derivative on the moduli space of gauge connections: the nilpotent BRST operator of the theory, $`s`$. If the moduli space is realized via the ADHM construction, the nilpotency of $`s`$ requires the introduction of a connection which can be explicitly computed imposing the fermionic constraint of the ADHM construction  or, alternatively, from the Killing vectors of the residual symmetry of the above mentioned constraints. Furthermore, the BRST equations relate bosonic differentials with fermionic variables through the above cited connection, which consequently appears in the multi–instanton measure, as computed in ref., by this change of basis. In view of the potential applications of these results, the scope of this paper is to revisit the derivation of the supersymmetric instanton measure in the light of the geometry of the moduli space of gauge connections. By generalizing the standard bosonic construction for the metric of a hyperkähler quotient to its supersymmetric extension, we will derive the measure from this newly introducted supermetric. The construction is valid for any $`k`$, though it can be made explicit only for $`k=2`$. For higher $`k`$’s we will introduce Dirac deltas, following ref., which will directly implement the necessary steps of the quotient construction. This will allow us to put the derivation of the measure on a firmer mathematical basis than before since the implemented constraints do not have their origin only in symmetry arguments but stem from the quotient construction.

The plan of this paper is the following: in the next section after introducing the quotient construction, we give a brief presentation of the ADHM construction in this language and recall how to compute the bosonic metric of the moduli space in the $`k=2`$ case. In the third section we recall some material from ref. we need here. In the fourth section we give the supersymmetric extension of the quotient construction. Finally in the fifth and last section we show how to implement the construction of section 4 in the functional integral giving the nonperturbative contribution for arbitrary winding number $`k`$.

## 2 The Hyperkähler Quotient Construction

We start by discussing the Marsden-Weinstein reduction  which allows us to define a metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ on the quotient $`M=V/G`$, where $`G`$ is a Lie group with Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ which acts by isometries on a Riemannian manifold $`(V,g)`$. An alternative discussion of this construction, using nonlinear sigma models, can be found in ref.. An application to connections on gravitational instantons is given in ref.. Let us assume that the action of $`G`$ is proper and free. Then the quotient $`M=V/G`$ is a smooth manifold, and the projection $`\pi :VM`$ is a principal bundle with structure group $`G`$. For every $`\xi 𝔤`$ the associated infinitesimal generator $`\xi ^{}`$ of the action of $`G`$ on $`V`$ is a vertical fundamental vector field for the principal bundle $`V`$.

For every $`xV`$ the collection $`\{\xi ^{}(x)\}_{\xi 𝔤}`$ coincides with the vertical tangent space $`\text{Vert}_xV`$. If we set $`\text{Hor}_xV=(\text{Vert}_xV)^{}`$ in the metric $`g`$, the assignment $`x\text{Hor}_xV`$ is $`G`$-equivariant and therefore defines a connection on $`V`$. We shall denote by $`C`$ the corresponding connection form (as a $`𝔤`$-valued form on $`V`$). We have now an associated *horizontal lift operator:* for every vector field $`\alpha `$ on $`M`$, its horizontal lift $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is the unique $`G`$-invariant vector field on $`V`$ which projects to $`\alpha `$.

The metric $`g`$ induces a metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ on $`M`$, given by

$$\stackrel{~}{g}(\alpha ,\beta )=g(\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\stackrel{~}{\beta }).$$
(2.1)
Let us write $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ in components. Given local coordinates $`(y^1,\mathrm{},y^m)`$ in $`M`$ and a basis $`\{\xi _a\}`$ of $`𝔤`$ we may represent the horizontal lift in the form

$$\stackrel{~}{\frac{}{y^i}}=\frac{}{y^i}C_i^a\xi _a^{}.$$
(2.2)
Given the definition (2.2) for the horizontal lift and keeping in account that $`\{\xi ^{}(x)\}_{\xi 𝔤}`$ coincides with the vertical tangent space, the following identity holds

$$0=g(\stackrel{~}{\frac{}{y^i}},\xi _a^{})=g(\frac{}{y^i},\xi _a^{})C_i^bg(\xi _b^{},\xi _a^{}).$$
(2.3)
The matrix $`g_{ab}=g(\xi _b^{},\xi _a^{})`$ is invertible; by denoting by $`g^{ab}`$ the elements of the inverse matrix, we get

$$C_i^a=g^{ab}g(\frac{}{y^i},\xi _b^{}).$$
(2.4)
Acting with the metric $`g`$ on two elements of the horizontal lift (2.2), we get

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}=g_{ij}g^{ab}g(\frac{}{y^i},\xi _a^{})g(\frac{}{y^j},\xi _b^{})=g_{ij}C_i^aC_{aj}.$$
(2.5)
It is now possible to define a hyperkähler quotient in the following way: let $`X`$ be a hyperkähler manifold of real dimension $`4n`$, with hyperkähler metric $`g`$ and basic complex structures $`J_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$. Let $`\omega _i`$ be the corresponding Kähler forms. Assume that a Lie group $`G`$ acts on $`X`$ freely and properly by hyperkähler isometries, so that

$$_\xi \omega _i=0,$$
(2.6)
for all $`\xi 𝔤`$ (here $``$ is the Lie derivative). As a result, provided that $`H^1(X,\text{})=0`$, and having fixed a basis $`\{\xi _a\}`$ of $`𝔤`$, one gets $`3r`$ “first integrals” $`f_i^a`$ ($`r=dimG`$) such that

$$0=_{\xi _a}\omega _i=df_i^a.$$
(2.7)
Let $`V`$ be the submanifold of $`X`$ defined by the equations $`f_i^a=0`$, so that $`dimV=4n3r`$. The group $`G`$ acts freely and properly on $`V`$, and one has a quotient $`M=V/G`$ of dimension $`4(nr)`$. Every complex structure on $`X`$, compatible with $`g`$, defines a complex structure on $`M`$, and one can prove that the quotient metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is hyperkähler. We can now bridge this construction with the standard ADHM one.

The starting point is the ADHM matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }=a+bx`$. Due to the symmetries of the ADHM contruction (we will later come back to this point at greater length) we may choose the matrix $`b`$ so that it does not contain any moduli. Then in the case of the gauge group $`SU(n)`$, the matrix $`a`$ can be written as

$$a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}t& s^{}\\ A& B^{}\\ B& A^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(2.8)
where $`A,B`$ are $`k\times k`$ complex matrices and $`s,t`$ are $`n\times k`$ and $`k\times n`$ dimensional matrices. Let us introduce the $`4k^2+4kn`$–dimensional hyperkähler manifold $`M=\{A,B,s,t\}`$. Given the three complex structures $`J_{ab}^i`$ where $`i=1,2,3`$ and $`a,b=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{dim}M`$, we can build the 2–forms $`\omega ^i=J_{ab}^idx^adx^b`$, where the $`x^a`$’s are coordinates on $`M`$. The real forms $`\omega ^i`$ allow one to define a $`(2,0)`$ and a $`(1,1)`$ form

$`\omega _{\text{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}dAdB+\text{Tr}dsdt,`$
$`\omega _{\text{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}dAdA^{}+\text{Tr}dBdB^{}+\text{Tr}dsds^{}\text{Tr}dt^{}dt.`$ (2.9)
The transformations

$`A`$ $``$ $`QAQ^{},`$
$`B`$ $``$ $`QBQ^{},`$
$`s`$ $``$ $`QsR^{},`$
$`t`$ $``$ $`RtQ^{},`$ (2.10)
with $`QU(k),RU(n)`$ leave $`\omega _{\text{}},\omega _{\text{}}`$ invariant. Using a complex notation for the momenta defined in (2.7) $`f_\xi ^i=f_a^i\xi ^a`$, we write

$`f_{\text{}}`$ $`=`$ $`[A,B]+st,`$
$`f_{\text{}}`$ $`=`$ $`[A,A^{}]+[B,B^{}]+ss^{}t^{}t.`$ (2.11)
$`f_\xi ^i=0`$ defines a hypersurface $`𝒩^+`$ in $`M`$, of dimension $`k^2+4kn`$. The moduli space of self–dual gauge connections, $`^+`$, is obtained by modding $`𝒩^+`$ by the reparametrizations defined in (2). It has dimension $`\mathrm{dim}^+=4kn`$ and, as we have already noticed, is hyperkähler. To make things even more explicit and as a guidance for future developments we now explicitly perform the $`k=2`$ computation in the $`SU(2)`$ case . In order to do this, we pause to adapt our notation to this case. In fact we find it convenient to introduce a quaternionic notation exploiting the isomorphism between $`SU(2)`$ and $`Sp(1)`$. The points, $`x`$, of the quaternionic space $`\text{}\text{}^2\text{}^4`$ can be conveniently represented in the form $`x=x^\mu \sigma _\mu `$, with $`\sigma _\mu =(i\sigma _c,\text{1 l}_{2\times 2}),c=1,2,3.`$ The $`\sigma _c`$’s are the usual Pauli matrices, and $`\text{1 l}_{2\times 2}`$ is the 2–dimensional identity matrix. The conjugate of $`x`$ is $`x^{}=x^\mu \overline{\sigma }_\mu `$. A quaternion is said to be real if it is proportional to $`\text{1 l}_{2\times 2}`$ and imaginary if it has vanishing real part.

The prescription to find an instanton of winding number $`k`$ is the following: introduce a $`(k+1)\times k`$ quaternionic matrix linear in $`x`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=a+bx,$$
(2.12)
where $`a`$ has the generic form

$$a=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}w_1& \mathrm{}& w_k\\ & & \\ & a^{}& \end{array}\right);$$
(2.13)
$`a^{}`$ is a $`k\times k`$ quaternionic matrix. The (anti–hermitean) gauge connection takes the form

$$A=U^{}dU,$$
(2.14)
where $`U`$ is a $`(k+1)\times 1`$ matrix of quaternions providing an orthonormal frame of $`\text{Ker}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, i.e.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}U`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.15)
$`U^{}U`$ $`=`$ $`\text{1 l}_{2\times 2}.`$ (2.16)
The constraint (2.16) ensures that $`A`$ is an element of the Lie algebra of the $`SU(2)`$ gauge group. The self–duality condition

$${}_{}{}^{}F=F$$
(2.17)
on the field strength of the gauge connection (2.14) requires the matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to obey the constraint

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }=(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta })^T,$$
(2.18)
where the superscript $`T`$ stands for transposition of the quaternionic elements of the matrix (without transposing the quaternions themselves). (2.18) in turn implies $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }=f^1\text{1 l}_{2\times 2}`$, where $`f`$ is an invertible hermitean $`k\times k`$ matrix (of real numbers).

Gauge transformations are implemented in this formalism as right multiplication of $`U`$ by a unitary (possibly $`x`$–dependent) quaternion. Moreover, $`A`$ is invariant under reparametrizations of the ADHM data of the form:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Q\mathrm{\Delta }R,$$
(2.19)
with $`QSp(k+1),RGL(k,\text{})`$. It is straightforward to see that (2.19) preserves the bosonic constraint (2.18). These symmetries can be used to simplify the expressions of $`a`$ and $`b`$. Exploiting this fact, in the following we will choose the matrix $`b`$ to be

$$b=\left(\begin{array}{c}0_{1\times k}\\ \text{1 l}_{k\times k}\end{array}\right).$$
(2.20)
Choosing the canonical form (2.20) for $`b`$, the bosonic constraint (2.18) becomes

$`a^{}=a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{T},`$ (2.21)
$`a^{}a=(a^{}a)^T.`$ (2.22)
This still allows for $`O(k)\times SU(2)`$ reparametrizations of the form (2.19), where now $`RO(k)`$,

$$Q=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}q& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& & & \\ \mathrm{}& & R^T& \\ 0& & & \end{array}\right),$$
(2.23)
and $`qSU(2)`$. These transformations act nontrivially on the matrix $`a`$ and leave $`b`$ invariant. After imposing the constraint (2.18), the number of independent degrees of freedom contained in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (that is the number of independent collective coordinates that the ADHM formalism uses to describe an instanton of winding number $`k`$) is $`8k+k(k1)/2`$; modding out the $`O(k)\times SU(2)`$ reparametrization transformations, we remain with $`8k3`$ independent degrees of freedom. However (2.15) and (2.16) do not determine $`U_0/|U_0|`$, where $`U_0`$ is the first component of $`U`$; this adds three extra degrees of freedom, so that in conclusion we end up with a moduli space of dimension $`8k`$ (the instanton moduli space $`^+`$). It is easy to convince oneself that the arbitrariness in $`U_0/|U_0|`$ can be traded for the $`SU(2)`$ reparametrizations; in other words, one can forget to mod out the $`SU(2)`$ factor of the reparametrization group $`O(k)\times SU(2)`$ but fix the phase of the quaternion $`U_0`$ (setting for example $`U_0=|U_0|\text{1 l}_{2\times 2}`$). This is what we will actually do in the following.

We now focus our attention on the zero–modes corresponding to the self–dual field introduced in (2.14). They must obey

$${}_{}{}^{}(D_{[\mu }\psi _{\nu ]})=D_{[\mu }\psi _{\nu ]},D_\mu \psi _\mu =0,$$
(2.24)
where $`D`$ is the covariant derivative in the instanton background, Eq.(2.14). The solution to (2.24) can be written as

$$\psi =U^{}f(d\mathrm{\Delta }^{})U+U^{}(d\mathrm{\Delta })f^{}U,$$
(2.25)
where $``$ is a $`(k+1)\times k`$ matrix of quaternions which, in order for (2.24) to be satisfied must obey the constraint

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^T.$$
(2.26)
(2.24) tell us that the $`\psi `$ zero–modes are the tangent vectors to the instanton moduli space $`^+`$; as it is well known, the number of independent zero–modes is $`8k`$ (the dimension of $`^+`$), and we would like to see how this is realized in the formalism of the ADHM construction. To this end, note that $``$ has $`k(k+1)`$ quaternionic elements ($`4k(k+1)`$ real degrees of freedom) which are subject to the $`4k(k1)`$ constraints given by (2.26). The number of independent $``$’s satisfying (2.26) is thus $`8k`$, as desired. Notice that since the $`O(k)`$ symmetry is purely bosonic it only mods out the degrees of freedom in $`a`$, leaving those in $``$ untouched. This fact will play an important role in the following.

If we work in the gauge where $`b`$ has the canonical form (2.20), then (2.26) can be conveniently elaborated as follows. We put $``$ in a form which parallels that for $`a`$ in (2.13),

$$=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mu _1& \mathrm{}& \mu _k\\ & & \\ & ^{}& \end{array}\right),$$
(2.27)
$`^{}`$ being a $`k\times k`$ quaternionic matrix. Plugging (2.13), (2.20), (2.27) into (2.26) we get

$`^{}=_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{T},`$ (2.28)
$`a^{}=(a^{})^T.`$ (2.29)
When $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is transformed according to (2.19), the $``$’s must also be reparametrized so as to keep the constraint (2.26) unchanged. This implies that the $``$’s must undergo the same formal reparametrization as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, that is

$$QR.$$
(2.30)
Let us now consider the $`k=2`$ case explicitly. The ADHM bosonic matrix reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}w_1& w_2\\ x_1x& a_1\\ a_1& x_2x\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}w_1& w_2\\ a_3& a_1\\ a_1& a_3\end{array}\right)+b(xx_0),$$
(2.31)
where $`x_0=(x_1+x_2)/2`$, $`a_3=(x_1x_2)/2`$. We also need the expression of the matrix $``$ which is defined in (2.26). Since this constraint is very similar to (2.18) (to get convinced of this fact just think that two solutions of (2.26) are given by $``$ proportional to $`a`$ and $`b`$, respectively) it is convenient to choose a form of $``$ which parallels (2.31)

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mu _1& \mu _2\\ \xi +_3& _1\\ _1& \xi _3\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mu _1& \mu _2\\ _3& _1\\ _1& _3\end{array}\right)b\xi .$$
(2.32)
The bosonic constraint (2.18) now reads

$$\overline{w}_2w_1\overline{w}_1w_2=2(\overline{a}_3a_1\overline{a}_1a_3),$$
(2.33)
(2.33) is a set of three equations since both sides are purely imaginary. We decide to solve (2.33) with respect to $`a_1`$. A possible solution is

$$a_1=\frac{1}{4|a_3|^2}a_3(\overline{w}_2w_1\overline{w}_1w_2+\mathrm{\Sigma }),$$
(2.34)
where the imaginary part is fixed by (2.33) and the free real part has been called $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. It is easy to see that

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=2(\overline{a}_3a_1+\overline{a}_1a_3).$$
(2.35)
The constraint (2.26) is

$$\overline{w}_2\mu _1\overline{w}_1\mu _2=2(\overline{a}_3M_1\overline{a}_1M_3),$$
(2.36)
and it is satisfied by

$$_1=\frac{a_3}{2|a_3|^2}(2\overline{a}_1_3+\overline{w}_2\mu _1\overline{w}_1\mu _2).$$
(2.37)
As one can easily check, these are four real equations. The dimension of the tangent space to the moduli space is the right one without resorting to a quotient procedure. Let us now introduce a 20–dimensional hyperkähler manifold $`M=\{w_1,w_2,a_3,a_1,x_0\}`$.111Notice that, since we are using a different parametrization of the ADHM space with respect to (2.8), the dimensions of the manifolds $`M`$ and $`𝒩^+`$ are not those of the previous discussion. However, also the reparametrization groups are different, in such a way that the final dimension of the moduli space of self–dual gauge connections is the same, as it should be. The parametrization (2.31) involves the combination $`x_0x`$ since the ADHM construction has a rigid translation symmetry. We then find handy to restrict the analysis to the 16–dimensional hyperkähler manifold $`M\backslash \{x_0\}`$ parametrized by the quaternionic coordinates

$$m^I=(w_1,w_2,a_3,a_1),$$
(2.38)
and endowed with a flat metric

$$ds^2=\eta _{I\overline{J}}dm^Id\overline{m}^{\overline{J}}=|dw_1|^2+|dw_2|^2+|da_3|^2+|da_1|^2,$$
(2.39)
which, following , can be also imagined to be the Lagrangian density of a suitable sigma model with target space $`M\backslash \{x_0\}`$. To keep the notation as simple as possible, we rename $`^+\backslash \{x_0\}`$ and $`𝒩^+\backslash \{x_0\}`$ as $`^+`$, $`𝒩^+`$, respectively.

(2.33) is invariant under the reparametrization group $`O(2)`$, whose action on the $`k=2`$ quaternionic coordinates is

$`(w_1^\theta ,w_2^\theta )=(w_1,w_2)R_\theta ,`$
$`(a_3^\theta ,a_1^\theta )=(a_3,a_1)R_{2\theta },`$ (2.40)
with

$$R_\theta =\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right).$$
(2.41)
The construction of the reduced bosonic moduli space $`^+`$ proceeds now in two steps. First, given the $`O(2)`$ invariant solution (2.34) to the constraint (2.33), $`𝒩^+`$ turns out to be a 13–dimensional manifold, described by the set of coordinates $`(w_1,w_2,a_3,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Second, we mod out the isometry group of $`𝒩^+`$ as discussed above. The instanton moduli space is then $`^+=𝒩^+/O(2)`$, and it has dimension $`\mathrm{dim}^+=\mathrm{dim}𝒩^+k(k1)/2|_{k=2}=12`$. As anticipated, the construction of the quotient space $`^+`$ leads to the connection (2.4) which can also be obtained by gauging a nonlinear sigma model . In this case we get

$$C=\frac{1}{|k|^2}\eta _{I\overline{J}}\left(\overline{k}^{\overline{J}}dm^I+d\overline{m}^{\overline{J}}k^I\right),$$
(2.42)
where $`k^I_I+\overline{k}^{\overline{I}}\overline{}_{\overline{I}}`$ is the $`O(k)`$ Killing vector with $`|k|^2=\eta _{I\overline{J}}k^I\overline{k}^{\overline{J}}`$. The components of the $`O(2)`$ Killing vector on $`M`$ leaving (2.34) invariant are

$$k^I=(w_2,w_1,2a_1,2a_3).$$
(2.43)
Substituting (2.43) into (2.42), we get

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2H}}(\overline{w}_1dw_2\overline{w}_2dw_1+2\overline{a}_3da_12\overline{a}_1da_3+`$ (2.44)
$`+d\overline{w}_2w_1d\overline{w}_1w_2+2d\overline{a}_1a_32d\overline{a}_3a_1).`$
The metric $`g_{I\overline{J}}^{𝒩^+}`$ on the constrained hypersurface $`𝒩^+`$ is obtained plugging (2.34) into (2.39), and gets simplified if we introduce the variable

$$W=\overline{w}_2w_1.$$
(2.45)
The hypersurface $`𝒩^+`$ is now described by the new set of coordinates $`(w_1,U,V,a_3,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, where

$`U={\displaystyle \frac{W+\overline{W}}{2}},`$
$`V={\displaystyle \frac{W\overline{W}}{2}},`$ (2.46)
are respectively the real and the imaginary part of $`W`$. The Jacobian factor associated to this change of variables is

$$d^4w_1dUd^3V=|w_1|^4d^4w_1d^4w_2.$$
(2.47)
In the new variables, (2.39) reads

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|w_2|^2}{|w_1|^2}}\right)|dw_1|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{dU^2}{|w_1|^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|dV|^2}{|w_1|^2}}+`$ (2.48)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dU}{|w_1|^2}}(\overline{w}_2dw_1+d\overline{w}_1w_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{dV}{|w_1|^2}}(\overline{w}_2dw_1d\overline{w}_1w_2)+`$
$`+|da_3|^2+|da_1|^2,`$
which, inserting (2.34), becomes

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|w_2|^2}{|w_1|^2}}\right)|dw_1|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{dU^2}{|w_1|^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|dV|^2}{|w_1|^2}}+`$ (2.49)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dU}{|w_1|^2}}(\overline{w}_2dw_1+d\overline{w}_1w_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{dV}{|w_1|^2}}(\overline{w}_2dw_1d\overline{w}_1w_2)+`$
$`+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|a_1|^2}{|a_3|^2}}\right)|da_3|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}{16|a_3|^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|dV|^2}{4|a_3|^2}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }}{4|a_3|^2}}(\overline{a}_1da_3+d\overline{a}_3a_1){\displaystyle \frac{dV}{2|a_3|^2}}(\overline{a}_1da_3d\overline{a}_3a_1).`$
Also in this case, the r.h.s. of (2.49) can be regarded as the Lagrangian density of a zero–dimensional non–linear sigma model with target space $`𝒩^+`$. In real coordinates

$$m^A=(w_1^\mu ,U,V^i,a_3^\mu ,\mathrm{\Sigma }),$$
(2.50)
the $`O(2)`$ Killing vector on this manifold has components

$$k^A=(w_2^\mu ,|w_1|^2|w_2|^2,0,2a_1^\mu ,8(|a_3|^2|a_1|^2)).$$
(2.51)
The global $`O(2)`$ symmetry can be promoted to a local one by introducing the connection (2.42), which on $`𝒩^+`$ is written as

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{AB}^{𝒩^+}k^B}{H}}dm^A=`$ (2.52)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H}}\left(2w_2^\mu dw_1^\mu +dU4a_1^\mu da_3^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }}{2}}\right),`$
where the metric $`g_{AB}^{𝒩^+}`$ is obtained by rewriting (2.49) in the coordinates $`\{m_A\}`$. Writing $`U`$ in terms of $`w_1,w_2`$ by means of (2.45) and (2.46), the connection (2.52) becomes

$$C=\frac{1}{H}\left(w_1^\mu dw_2^\mu w_2^\mu dw_1^\mu 4a_1^\mu da_3^\mu +\frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }}{2}\right).$$
(2.53)
From (2.5), or alternatively from the gauged version of the Lagrangian given from (2.49), we can read off the metric on $`^+=𝒩^+/O(2)`$ written in the $`\{m^A\}`$ coordinates, namely

$$g_{AB}^^+=g_{AB}^{𝒩^+}\frac{g_{AC}^{𝒩^+}g_{BD}^{𝒩^+}k^Ck^D}{g_{EF}^{𝒩^+}k^Ek^F}.$$
(2.54)
We can now gauge fix the connection by imposing $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$. This is a good gauge condition provided that the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$ is transversal to the Killing vector i.e. $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }(k)=|a_3|^2|a_1|^20`$ (using (2.51)).

Finally, by using translational invariance to restore the dependence on $`x_0`$, and taking into account the Jacobian factor (2.47), we write the volume form on the moduli space of self–dual gauge connections with winding number $`k=2`$ as

$$|w_1|^4\sqrt{g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }=0}^^+}d^4w_1d^4w_2d^4a_3d^4x_0=\frac{H}{|a_3|^4}\left||a_3|^2|a_1|^2\right|d^4w_1d^4w_2d^4a_3d^4x_0,$$
(2.55)
which reproduces Osborn’s well–known result .

As we shall see in section 4, in terms of the cotangent bundle to $`^+`$ we may construct a supermanifold whose bosonic part is given by $`^+`$ itself. The norm of the field $`\psi `$ will define the odd part of the supermetric of the supermanifold.

The norm of the zero modes (2.25) was computed by Corrigan to yield

$`<\psi |\psi >`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\text{}^4}|\psi |^2=2\pi ^2\text{Tr}\left[^{}(1+P_{\mathrm{}})\right]=\eta _{I\overline{J}}M^I\overline{M}^{\overline{J}}`$ (2.56)
$`=`$ $`|\mu _1|^2+|\mu _2|^2+|M_3|^2+|M_1|^2,`$
neglecting the coordinate $`\xi `$ which is the ”partner” of $`x_0`$. We then introduce ”rotated” variables

$$\mu _1=\frac{w_2\overline{a}_1\mu _1^{}}{|w_2||a_1|},\mu _2=\frac{w_2\overline{a}_1\mu _2^{}}{|w_2||a_1|}.$$
(2.57)
Substituting (2.37) into (2.56) we get

$`<\psi |\psi >`$ $`=`$ $`(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|w_2|^2}{4|a^3|^2}})(\mu _1^{})_\alpha (\mu _1^{})_\alpha +(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|w_1|^2}{4|a^3|^2}})(\mu _2^{})_\alpha (\mu _2^{})_\alpha +(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|a_1|^2}{|a_3|^2}})(M_3)_\alpha (M_3)_\alpha +`$ (2.58)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{|w_2||a_1|}{2|a_3|^2}}(\mu _1^{})_\alpha (M_3)_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{|w_1||a_1}{2|a_3|^2}}|(\mu _2^{})_\alpha (M_3)_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{|w_1||w_2|}{4|a_3|^2}}(\mu _1^{})_\alpha (\mu _2^{})_\alpha ,`$
where $`(M^I)_\alpha `$ are the real components of the quaternion $`M^I`$. From (2.56), after restoring the $`\xi `$ dependence, we easily compute

$$\sqrt{<\psi |\psi >}=\frac{H^2}{|a_3|^4}.$$
(2.59)
## 3 Connection with Topological Field Theories

In ref. it was shown how the results of instanton calculus can be more easily derived in the framework of topological field theories . Here we collect some results which will be relevant to our discussion. We use the same notation as in  to which we refer the reader for a detailed exposition of this material. As it is well known , after twisting, the Lagrangian of $`N=2`$ SYM is invariant under

$`sA=\psi Dc,`$
$`s\psi =[c,\psi ]D\varphi ,`$
$`s\varphi =[c,\varphi ],`$
$`sc={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[c,c]+\varphi .`$ (3.1)
The distinction between the cases with a vacuum expectation value of the scalar field equal or different to zero, which was important for the discussion in , is of no relevance here. We will not dwell on this subject anymore, working with (3) which is the simplest set of equations. The BRST operator, $`s`$, defined in (3) is such that $`s^2=0`$ and when the set of equations in (3) is restricted to the solutions of the Euler–Lagrange classical equation (the zero modes) it gives the derivative on the space $`^+`$. In (2.14) and (2.25) we already described these solutions in terms of the parameters of the ADHM construction for $`A`$ and $`\psi `$. The form of the other fields appearing in (3) is

$`c`$ $`=`$ $`U^{}sU,`$ (3.2)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`U^{}f^{}U+U^{}𝒜U.`$ (3.3)
Plugging (2.14) and (2.25) into (3) leads to the action of the operator $`s`$ on the elements of the ADHM construction

$``$ $`=`$ $`s\mathrm{\Delta }+C\mathrm{\Delta }=𝒮\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (3.4)
$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`s\mathrm{\Delta }+C=𝒮,`$ (3.5)
$`s𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`[C,𝒜],`$ (3.6)
$`sC`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜CC,`$ (3.7)
i.e. this is the realization of the BRST algebra on the instanton moduli space. $`C`$ is the connection we have introduced in (2.4). In the $`k=2`$ case, using (2.44), (3.4) can be written as

$$(\stackrel{~}{}_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }})_i=\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu (K_{\mu \nu })_{ij}(s\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\nu )_j.$$
(3.8)
We can now use (3.4) to further elaborate on the results of the previous section where we constructed hyperkähler metrics. We begin by reminding that the Kähler potential for those varieties is given by the second moment of the gauge field strength distribution

$$𝒦=_\text{}^4x^2|F|^2=\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\left[a^{}(1+P_{\mathrm{}})a\right],$$
(3.9)
where $`P_{\mathrm{}}=lim_x\mathrm{}P=1bb^{}`$ and $`P=U(x)U(x)^{}`$ is the projector onto $`Ker\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$. Defining complex derivatives by $`s=+\overline{}`$ the Kähler form is given by

$$\omega _^+=\overline{}𝒦=\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\left[(𝒮a)^{}(1+P_{\mathrm{}})𝒮a\right],$$
(3.10)
with $`𝒮=s+C`$ the covariant derivative coming from (3.4). In the $`k=2`$ case, substituting (4.14) of  in (3.10), one recovers (2.54).

Before closing this section we remind the reader that in the topological formalism of ref. the measure arises as a consequence of (3.4). Let us see how. At the semi–classical level, any correlator which is expressed as a polynomial in the fields, becomes after projection onto the zero–mode subspace, a well–defined differential form on $`^+`$ . Symbolically

$$fields=_^+\left[(fields)e^{S_{\mathrm{TYM}}}\right]_{zeromodesubspace}.$$
(3.11)
Let us now call $`\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i\}`$ ($`\{\widehat{}_i\}`$), $`i=1,\mathrm{},p`$, where $`p=8k`$, a basis of (ADHM) coordinates on $`^+`$ ($`T_A^+`$). (3.4) thus yields $`\widehat{}_i=s\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i+(\widehat{𝒞\mathrm{\Delta }})_i`$. A generic function on the zero–mode subspace will then have the expansion

$`g(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }},\widehat{})`$ $`=`$ $`g_0(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }})+g_{i_1}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }})\widehat{}_{i_1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}g_{i_1i_2}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }})\widehat{}_{i_1}\widehat{}_{i_2}+\mathrm{}`$ (3.12)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p!}}g_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_p}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }})\widehat{}_{i_1}\widehat{}_{i_2}\mathrm{}\widehat{}_{i_p},`$
the coefficients of the expansion being totally antisymmetric in their indices. Now (3.4) implies that the $`\widehat{}_i`$’s and the $`s\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i`$’s are related by a (moduli–dependent) linear transformation $`K_{ij}`$, which is completely known once the explicit expression for $`𝒞`$ is plugged into the $`\widehat{}_i`$’s:

$$\widehat{}_i=K_{ij}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }})s\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_j.$$
(3.13)
It then follows that

$`\widehat{}_{i_1}\widehat{}_{i_2}\mathrm{}\widehat{}_{i_p}`$ $`=`$ $`K_{i_1j_1}K_{i_2j_2}\mathrm{}K_{i_pj_p}s\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{j_1}s\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{j_2}\mathrm{}s\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{j_p}=`$ (3.14)
$`=`$ $`ϵ_{j_1\mathrm{}j_p}K_{i_1j_1}K_{i_2j_2}\mathrm{}K_{i_pj_p}s^p\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}=`$
$`=`$ $`ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_p}(\mathrm{det}K)s^p\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }},`$
where $`s^p\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}s\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1\mathrm{}s\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_p`$. From (3.12), (3.13) we conclude that

$`{\displaystyle _^+}g(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }},\widehat{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p!}}{\displaystyle _^+}g_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_p}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }})\widehat{}_{i_1}\widehat{}_{i_2}\mathrm{}\widehat{}_{i_p}=`$ (3.15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _^+}s^p\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}|\mathrm{det}K|g_{12\mathrm{}p}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}).`$
The determinant of $`K`$ naturally stands out as the instanton integration measure for $`N=2`$ SYM theories. This important ingredient of the calculation is obtained in standard instanton calculations as a ratio of bosonic and fermionic zero–mode Jacobians, while it emerges here in a geometrical and very direct way.

## 4 A Supermanifold Construction

The purpose of this section is to show that the results of the previous sections can be consistently put together into a supermanifold framework. We do this into two steps. In the first subsection we recall some general notions on supermanifolds, which we use in the second subsection to do the construction itself.

### 4.1 Generalities on Supermanifolds

In this subsection we give the definition of a supermanifold and show that these objects can conveniently be constructed from vector bundles. Naively, a supermanifold is a manifold with both “commuting and anticommuting” coordinates. One possible mathematical formalization of this idea is provided by the so-called Berezin-Leĭtes-Kostant approach , where one considers an ordinary differentiable manifold $`X`$ and “enlarges” its structure sheaf (the sheaf of germs of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ functions on $`X`$)222For the definition of the notion of sheaf see e.g. . to a sheaf $`𝒜`$ including anticommuting generators.

Let us recall a few algebraic facts. A $`\text{}_2`$-graded commutative algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an associative unital algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ over the real field  which has a splitting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ such that

$$ab=(1)^{\alpha \beta }ba\text{if}a\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ,b\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta .$$
(4.1)
The field  is embedded into $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by $`xx1`$. A morphism $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ between two such algebras is an algebra morphism which is compatible with the grading, i.e., $`\varphi (\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha )\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^{}`$.

An $`(m,n)`$-dimensional supermanifold is a pair $`𝔛=(X,𝒜)`$, where $`X`$ is an $`m`$-dimensional differentiable manifold, and $`𝒜`$ is a sheaf of $`\text{}_2`$-graded commutative algebras on $`X`$, satisfying the following requirements:

* if $`𝒩`$ is the nilpotent333An element in an algebra is nilpotent if it vanishes when raised to a finite power. subsheaf of $`𝒜`$, then $`𝒜/𝒩`$ is isomorphic to the sheaf $`𝒞_X^{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ functions on $`X`$. The quotient map $`\sigma :𝒜𝒞_X^{\mathrm{}}`$ is often called the *body map*.
* Locally the sheaf $`𝒜`$ is a sheaf of exterior algebras over the smooth functions with $`n`$ generators; namely, every $`xX`$ has a neighbourhood $`W`$ such that there is an isomorphism $`𝒜(W)C_X^{\mathrm{}}(W)V`$, where $`V`$ is an $`n`$-dimensional vector space. This isomorphism is required to be compatible with the map $`\sigma `$.

If $`(x^1,\mathrm{},x^m)`$ are local coordinates in $`W`$, and $`(\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^n)`$ is a basis of $`V`$, the collection $`(x^1,\mathrm{},x^m,\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^n)`$ is said to be a local coordinate chart for $`𝔛`$. According to the second requirement above, a local section of $`𝒜`$ (i.e., a superfunction on $`𝔛`$) has a local expression

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`f_0(x)+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}f_\alpha (x)\theta ^\alpha `$ (4.5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\\ \alpha ,\beta =1,\mathrm{}n\\ \alpha <\beta \end{array}}{}}f_{\alpha \beta }(x)\theta ^\alpha \theta ^\beta +\mathrm{}+f_{1\mathrm{}n}(x)\theta ^1\mathrm{}\theta ^n.`$
This is quite evidently the physicists’ superfield expansion. The map $`ff_0`$ is the coordinate expression of the map $`\sigma :𝒜𝒞_X^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Supervector fields and differential superforms may be introduced in terms of the notion of graded derivation of a graded commutative algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. A homogeneous graded derivation $`D:\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{}`$ is a linear map satisfying a graded Leibniz rule

$$D(ab)=D(a)b+()^{\alpha |D|}aD(b),$$
(4.6)
where $`a\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$ and $`|D|=0,1`$. $`D`$ is said to be even (odd) if $`|D|=0`$ ($`|D|=1`$). A graded derivation is the sum of an even and an odd homogeneous graded derivation. The space of such graded derivations will be denoted by $`\text{Der}_{\text{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The sheaf of derivations, $`\text{Der}𝒜`$, of the sheaf of superfunctions is defined by the rule $`(\text{Der}𝒜)(W)=\text{Der}_{\text{}}𝒜(W)`$ for any open set $`WX`$. This is the sheaf of sections of supervector bundle on $`𝔛`$ of rank $`(m,n)`$, called the tangent superbundle to $`𝔛`$; its sections are the supervector fields. The sections of the dual superbundle are the differential 1-superforms and by taking graded wedge products one defines the sheaves $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔛^k`$ of differential $`k`$-superforms. In the local coordinate charts introduced above a $`k`$-superform is written as

$$\omega =\underset{\begin{array}{c}\\ p+q=k\\ i_1,\mathrm{},i_p=1,\mathrm{},m\\ \beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _q=1,\mathrm{},n\end{array}}{}\omega _{i_1\mathrm{}i_p,\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _q}(x,\theta )dx^{i_1}\mathrm{}dx^{i_p}d\theta ^{\beta _1}\mathrm{}d\theta ^{\beta _q}.$$
(4.7)
For later use, we recall that a supermetric on $`𝔛`$ is a graded-symmetric nondegenerate pairing $`T𝔛T𝔛𝒜`$. In local coordinates $`(x,\theta )`$ a supermetric is written as

$$g=g_{ij}dx^idx^j+g_{i\alpha }dx^id\theta ^\alpha +g_{\alpha i}d\theta ^\alpha dx^i+g_{\alpha \beta }d\theta ^\alpha d\theta ^\beta $$
(4.8)
where the matrix of superfunctions $`g_{ij}`$ is symmetric and $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ is skew-symmetric.

We study now the relation between supermanifolds and vector bundles. Given a rank $`n`$ vector bundle $`E`$ on $`X`$, the pair $`(X,𝒜)`$, where $`𝒜`$ is the sheaf of sections $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(E)`$ of the exterior algebra bundle444The exterior bundle $`E=_{i=1}^n^iE`$ is the direct sum of the antisymmetrized tensor product of $`i`$ copies of $`E`$. $`E`$, is a supermanifold. Indeed, if ($`\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^n`$) is a local basis of sections of $`E`$, a section of $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(E)`$ has the form of (4.5) (so the sections of $`E`$ are regarded as Grassmann variables and the sections of the dual bundle, $`E^{}`$, are fermion fields). As a matter of fact all supermanifolds are of this kind; to extract the data corresponding to a vector bundle from a supermanifold, heuristically we may regard the odd coordinates $`\theta ^\alpha `$ as the basis sections which locally generate the bundle. Intrinsically, with no reference to a coordinate system, if $`(X,𝒜)`$ is an “abstract” supermanifold, and $`𝒩`$ is the nilpotent subsheaf of $`𝒜`$, then the quotient sheaf $`𝒩/𝒩^2`$ is the sheaf of sections of a vector bundle $`E`$, and $`𝒜𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(E)`$. This fact is known as *Batchelor’s theorem* .

If a supermanifold $`𝔛=(X,𝒜)`$ is represented by a vector bundle $`E`$, its tangent superbundle $`T𝔛=T_0𝔛T_1𝔛`$ is explicitly described by the isomorphisms

$$T_0𝔛𝒜TX,T_1𝔛𝒜^{}$$
(4.9)
where $``$ is the sheaf of sections of $`E`$. Indeed, the derivations $`/x^i`$ locally generate $`TX`$, while, in view of the relation

$$\frac{}{\theta ^\beta }\theta ^\alpha =\delta _\beta ^\alpha ,$$
(4.10)
the odd derivations $`/\theta ^\alpha `$ may be regarded as local generators for $`^{}`$ (the sheaf of sections of the dual bundle to $`E`$). This also shows that there is a map $`T_1^{}𝔛𝒜`$ given by $`d\theta ^\alpha \theta ^\alpha `$.

With this explicit representation of a supermanifold, a natural way to introduce a (block-diagonal) supermetric $`\gamma `$ on it is to assign a Riemannian metric $`g`$ for the even sector, and a nondegenerate alternate two-form $`\chi `$ on $`E`$ (notice that the matrix of the bosonic metric must be symmetric while the matrix of the fermionic metric has to be skew-symmetric); with reference to (4.9), we have

$$\gamma (u_0+u_1,v_0+v_1)=g(u_0,v_0)+\chi (u_1,v_1).$$
(4.11)
As a particular case $`E`$ may be the tangent or cotangent bundle to $`X`$, in which case $`m=n`$. If $`E=T^{}X`$, an isomorphism $`𝔛(X,𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}X))`$ may be locally expressed in the form $`\theta ^i=\eta ^i`$, where the $`\theta `$’s are odd coordinates on $`𝔛`$, and $`(\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^m)`$ form a basis of sections of the cotangent bundle.

Suppose now that $`X`$ is a hermitian manifold with hermitian metric $`g`$; considering also the associated two-form $`\omega `$, we have the data to define a block-diagonal supermetric:

$$\gamma =g_{ij}dx^idx^j+\omega _{\alpha \beta }d\theta ^\alpha d\theta ^\beta .$$
(4.12)
So, let us consider the supermanifold $`𝔛=(X,𝒜)`$, where $`𝒜=𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}X)`$ (here $`T^{}X`$ is the complexified $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ cotangent bundle). Let $`(\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^n)`$ be linearly independent forms of type $`(1,0)`$. Then locally we have

$$g=g_{i\overline{ȷ}}\eta ^i\overline{\eta }^{\overline{ȷ}}$$
(4.13)
and the matrix $`g_{i\overline{ȷ}}`$ is real and skew-symmetric.

The 1-forms $`(\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^n,\overline{\eta }^1,\mathrm{},\overline{\eta }^n)`$ provide local odd coordinates for $`𝔛`$, and with all these data, and with the help of the dual of (4.9), we may define a supermetric $`\gamma `$ for $`𝔛`$, by letting

$$\gamma =g_{i\overline{ȷ}}\eta ^i\overline{\eta }^{\overline{ȷ}}+ig_{i\overline{ȷ}}d\eta ^id\overline{\eta }^{\overline{ȷ}}.$$
(4.14)
So we use the datum provided by the specification of the 1-forms $`\eta ^i`$ to “replicate” the (even) metric $`g`$ in the odd sector of the supermanifold. Notice that the bosonic metric is hermitean while the fermionic one is skew-hermitean. We find now convenient to use real coordinates to compute the superdeterminant of $`\gamma `$, by introducing $`\theta ^i=\mathrm{}\eta ^i,\theta ^{i+n}=\mathrm{}\eta ^i`$. To simplify the notation we will use the same symbol $`g_{ij}`$ also to denote the metric in real coordinates. Suppose now that $`(x^1,\mathrm{},x^{2n})`$ are real coordinates for $`X`$. Let $`K`$ be the matrix of the components of the 1-forms

$$\theta ^i=K_{ik}dx^k,$$
(4.15)
over the basis $`(dx^k)`$. A simple computation shows that in the supercoordinates $`(x^1,\mathrm{},x^{2n},`$$`\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{2n})`$ one has

$$\text{Sdet}\gamma =(\text{det}K)^2.$$
(4.16)
Assume now further that $`X`$ is hyperkähler, i.e., $`X`$ has a hermitian metric $`g`$ with three compatible complex structures $`J_i`$ which generate the quaternion algebra (that is, $`J_i=0`$ where $``$ is the Levi-Civita connection of $`g`$, and $`J_iJ_h=\delta _{ih}+\epsilon _{ihk}J_k`$). The same definition — mutatis mutandis — applies to a complex supermanifold $`(X,𝒜)`$ endowed with a hermitian supermetric. Let us still consider the case where $`𝒜`$ is the sheaf of sections of the exterior algebra of $`T^{}X`$, and fix 1-forms $`\eta ^j`$ as before. Since equations (4.9) now reads

$$T𝔛𝒜(TXTX),$$
(4.17)
the three basic complex structures of $`X`$ can be lifted to $`𝔛`$ (the matrices of the complex structures in the odd sector expressed on the basis $`(d\eta ^i,d\overline{\eta }^{\overline{ȷ}})`$ are the same as the matrices of the complex structures in the even sector expressed on the basis $`(\eta ^i,\overline{\eta }^{\overline{ȷ}})`$), and these are automatically compatible with the supermetric of $`𝔛`$. Thus, *the supermanifold $`𝔛`$ acquires a hyperkähler structure.*

### 4.2 Supermanifolds by (even) group quotients

We reconsider now the construction in Section 2 in the case of supermanifolds. The basic theory of the action of a super Lie group $`𝔊=(G,)`$ on a supermanifold $`𝔛=(X,𝒜)`$ was developed in . This theory is quite involved because the geometry of a supermanifold is not completely encoded in the underlying topological manifold but, of course, it is also described by the structure sheaf (sheaf of superfunctions). As a result one needs to formulate the theory in purely sheaf-theoretic terms (see e.g. ) or using the graded Hopf algebras of global functions on the supergroup . Here we shall only notice that, provided that some conditions for the existence of a good quotient are satisfied, the action of $`𝔊`$ on $`𝔛`$ defines a quotient supermanifold $`𝔜=(Y,)`$ such that $`dim𝔜=(mp,nq)`$ if $`dim𝔛=(m,n)`$ and $`dim𝔊=(p,q)`$. As a consequence of a result proved in , these conditions are equivalent to the fact that the induced action of the bosonic part of the group $`G`$ on $`X`$ yields a good quotient $`Y`$.

The case of interest to us is simpler than the general situation for two reasons. The first is that the symmetry group $`G`$ is purely bosonic, so that the dimension of the quotient is $`(mr,n)`$ if $`dimG=r`$. This simplification is present for any number $`N`$ of supersymmetries. The second fact is typical of $`N=2`$; in this case the dimension of the bosonic moduli space equals the number of fermionic zero-modes, which may be interpreted as differential 1-forms on the moduli space. From the viewpoint of the mathematical description we propose here this means that the vector bundle associated with the structure sheaf of the supermoduli space is the cotangent bundle. When this happens, one can get an action of $`G`$ on $`𝔛`$ from an action of $`G`$ on the bosonic manifold $`X`$; indeed, the latter induces by linearization an action on $`T^{}X`$ (i.e., on the $`\theta `$’s) which is then extended to an action on $`𝒜`$.

The Marsden-Weinstein reduction procedure now works as follows. Let $`𝔙=(V,𝒜)`$ be an $`(s,q)`$-dimensional supermanifold with a supermetric $`g`$. Assume also that in some local coordinate system $`(x^1,\mathrm{},x^s,\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^q)`$ the supermetric has a block diagonal form,

$$\gamma =g_{ij}dx^idx^j+g_{\alpha \beta }d\theta ^\alpha d\theta ^\beta .$$
(4.18)
If $`G`$ has dimension $`r`$, the quotient supermanifold $`𝔐=(M,)`$ has dimension $`(m,q)`$ with $`m=sr`$. The “body” manifold $`M`$ is the quotient $`V/G`$. The connection $`C`$ is “purely even,” in the sense that, locally, $`C=C_idy^i`$ where $`(y^1,\mathrm{},y^m)`$ are even local coordinates on $`M`$. The quotient metric has the form

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}dy^idy^j+g_{\alpha \beta }d\theta ^\alpha d\theta ^\beta $$
(4.19)
where the even components $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}`$ are given by equation (2.5).

The square root of the superdeterminant of $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ gives the supermeasure of the supermoduli space for any number $`N`$ of supersymmetries, since the latter specifies the “odd” geometry of the supermoduli space. For $`N=2`$ this construction can be further specialized. The supermetric, for instance, can be computed using (4.14), and the results of sections 2 and 3 can be given a simple description in terms of supermanifold theory. To do so, we need to introduce a dictionary between the general supermanifold theory and the ADHM construction of the moduli space of instantons. We consider a supermanifold $`𝔐=(^+,)`$ whose bosonic part $`^+`$ is the moduli space of section 3. The fermionic zero-modes, according to (3.4), can be interpreted as differential 1-forms on $`^+`$. It is therefore natural to construct the supermanifold, $`𝔐`$, as explained previously in this section, in terms of the cotangent bundle $`T^{}^+`$, i.e, $`=𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}^+)`$. Thus, $`dim𝔐=(8k,8k)`$. Since $`M`$ is hyperkähler, we get a hyperkähler structure for the supermoduli space $`𝔐`$. In the $`k=2`$ case (4.14) is realized using the coordinates employed in (2.58) while (4.15) is given by (3.8). The supermeasure is straightforwardly obtained by (4.16) which coincides with the one found in . This shows how the supermeasure can be obtained by a superquotient construction. In the next section we will show how to implement this construction in the functional integral which computes the correlators of interest for generic values of $`k`$. Following  we can also write a potential for the hyperkähler supermetric:

$$f=a^{}(1+P_{\mathrm{}})a+\overline{}(1+P_{\mathrm{}}).$$
(4.20)
Indeed, by acting on (4.20) with the operator $`\overline{}`$, where $``$ is the holomorphic exterior differential on $`𝔐`$, it is easy to recover the Kähler superform associated with the supermetric $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$.

## 5  The Hyperkähler Quotient Construction and Multi-Instanton Calculus

In section 3 we have obtained the explicit form (3.15) of the instanton dominated correlators by plugging the constraints (2.34), (2.35), (2.37), (3.4) into (3.11). This is possible only for winding numbers up to $`k=2`$ for which an explicit solution to the contraints is known. For arbitrary winding numbers an explicit solution to (2.22) and (2.26) (and, as a consequence, to (3.4)) is missing. It can be useful though, as it was shown in  for the $`N=4`$ case, to have an expression of the type (3.11) in which the manifold on which to perform the integration is given by the unconstrained ADHM parameters introduced in (2.13) and the constraints are introduced by suitable Dirac deltas. In the bosonic case, which we treat first as an example, this program goes into the opposite direction of the strategy that we have adopted starting from (2.39) to end with (2.54). With respect to the computations carried on in , we do not have to worry about the transformation properties of our measure which is built to be hyperkähler (see (4.20)) and thus $`s`$-invariant.

At first we will stick to the $`k=2`$ case since, as we shall see later, the extension to arbitrary winding numbers is straightforward. In order to make a bridge between the ADHM construction and the computations performed in section 2 let us remind the reader that the connection $`C`$ introduced in (3.4) is a matrix of the form

$$C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& C^{12}\\ C^{12}& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(5.1)
Plugging (3.4) into (2.26) leads to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}C\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}C\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^T=(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}s\mathrm{\Delta })^T\mathrm{\Delta }^{}s\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(5.2)
or, more compactly, to

$$LC=\mathrm{\Lambda }_C,$$
(5.3)
and to an explicit expression for $`C^{12}`$ which is equal to (2.52) . Let us now make the sigma-model interpretation of the computations in section 2 more explicit. The starting point is the metric (2.54) which can be interpreted  as the target space metric (described by the coordinates (2.50)) arising from the Lagrangian

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`g_{AB}^^+sm^Asm^B=\left(g_{AB}^{𝒩^+}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{AC}^{𝒩^+}g_{BD}^{𝒩^+}k^Ck^D}{g_{EF}^{𝒩^+}k^Ek^F}}\right)sm^Asm^B`$ (5.4)
$`=`$ $`g_{AB}^{𝒩^+}sm^Asm^BC^{12}C_{12}=g_{AB}^{𝒩^+}𝒮m^A𝒮m^B`$
where $`𝒮m^A=(sm^A+C^{12}k^A)`$ is the covariant derivative on $`^+`$. These formulae are derived from (2.4) and (2.5) in the case where the Lie algebra $`𝔤=SO(2)`$. In this particular case the metric $`g^{ab}`$ is a one by one metric and $`C^{12}=HC_{12}`$555The connection $`C^{12}`$ appearing in (5.4) is a one-form on the space spanned by the coordinates (2.50). The coordinate $`a_1`$ in (2.52) is to be replaced by its value (2.34)..

Imposing the constraint (2.34), the change of variable (2.35) and the explicit form (2.53) is now straightforward. Following  we write

$$1=16|a_3|^2\delta (\frac{1}{4}tr_2\sigma ^a(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta })^T)\delta (\overline{a}_3a_1\overline{a}_1a_3\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{2}),$$
(5.5)
For consistency with the other sections where we constantly used forms, to impose the constraints we can use currents  instead of Dirac deltas. In fact the definition of an n-current

$$T=\underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_n}{}T_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}dx_1\mathrm{}dx_n,$$
(5.6)
encompasses also the case where $`T_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}`$ is a distribution. So from now on when we write expressions like (5.5) we shall omit the differentials. Taking these observations into account, we can write

$`{\displaystyle e^L}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }dC^{12}\delta (C^{12}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H}}(w_1^\mu dw_2^\mu w_2^\mu dw_1^\mu 4a_1^\mu da_3^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }}{2}})`$ (5.7)
$`16|a_3|^4\delta ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}tr_2\sigma ^a(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta })^T)\delta (\overline{a}_3a_1\overline{a}_1a_3{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{2}})e^L^{},`$
where the integration is over the set of variables (2.38),

$$L^{}=𝒮m^I𝒮m^I=(𝒮a)^{}(1+P_{\mathrm{}})𝒮a=sm^Ism^ICCH,$$
(5.8)
and $`C`$ is given by (2.44). This shows that the Kähler form (5.8) descends on the quotient manifold (5.4).

The extension to the case of (3.11) is now straightforward. When projected onto the zero-modes subspace of winding number $`k`$, $`S_{\mathrm{TYM}}=\left[S_{\mathrm{inst}}\right]_k=\left[S_B\right]_k+\left[S_F\right]_k`$ and

$`\left[S_B\right]_k`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi ^2\text{Tr}\left[2(\overline{v}v){\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{k}{}}}|w_l|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{l,p=1}{\overset{k}{}}}(\overline{w}_l\overline{v}w_p\overline{w}_p\overline{v}w_l)(𝒜_b^{})_{lp}\right],`$ (5.9)
$`\left[S_F\right]_k`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi ^2\text{Tr}\left[2\overline{v}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\mu _l\overline{\mu }_l+{\displaystyle \underset{l,p=1}{\overset{k}{}}}(\overline{w}_l\overline{v}w_p\overline{w}_p\overline{v}w_l)(𝒜_f^{})_{lp}\right],`$ (5.10)
$`𝒜_b^{}`$ and $`𝒜_f^{}`$ being defined as

$$𝒜^{}=𝒜_b^{}+𝒜_f^{},$$
(5.11)
where

$`L𝒜_b^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b(v),`$ (5.12)
$`L𝒜_f^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_f.`$ (5.13)
The right hand sides of (5.12) and (5.13) are given by

$`[\mathrm{\Lambda }_b]_{ij}(\mathrm{\Omega }_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{w}_i\mathrm{\Omega }_0w_j\overline{w}_j\mathrm{\Omega }_0w_i,`$ (5.14)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_f`$ $`=`$ $`^{}(^{})^T`$ (5.15)
and

$$\underset{|x|\mathrm{}}{lim}\varphi \underset{|x|\mathrm{}}{lim}U^{}𝒜U=v\frac{\sigma _3}{2i}.$$
(5.16)
Now $`\left[S_B\right]_k`$ contains only the $`w_l`$ variables which are unconstrained, while

$$[S_F]_k=\overline{}_i^{\dot{A}\alpha }(h_{ij})_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(_j)_{\beta \dot{A}}^{}=(𝒮_i^{\dot{A}\alpha }a)^{}(h_{ij})_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(𝒮_j)_{\beta \dot{A}}^{}a,$$
(5.17)
where $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},n`$ and666In the following equation we denote by $`h^{}`$ the hermitean conjugate matrix obtained without complex conjugating $`v`$, i.e. treating $`v`$ as real. $`h=h^{}`$. (5.17) is of the same form of (5.4), and leads to (3.15) with $`g_{12\mathrm{}p}=det(h)`$. The difference from the bosonic case (5.4) is given by the fact that after expanding the fermionic action, the measure arises from the change of variables from $`𝒮\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to $`s\mathrm{\Delta }`$, as a consequence of (4.16).

To put (5.17) in a form similar to (5.8), in addition to the constraints introduced in (5.7) we also have to insert the following deltas to take care of the fermionic constraint (2.26), the BRS relation (3.4) and the presence of a scalar field in the action

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16|a_3|^4}}{\displaystyle d^4M_1\delta ((\mathrm{\Delta }^{})(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^T)},`$
$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu _1\delta (\mu _1𝒮w_1)},`$
$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu _2\delta (\mu _2𝒮w_2)},`$
$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑M_3\delta (\mu _1𝒮a_3)},`$
$`1`$ $`=`$ $`H{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒜_{12}\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }^{}𝒜\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}𝒜\mathrm{\Delta })^T)}.`$ (5.18)
Consequently (3.11) gets modified to

$`fields={\displaystyle _^+}𝑑C𝑑𝒜\delta (C+L^1\mathrm{\Lambda }_C)\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }^{}𝒜\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}𝒜\mathrm{\Delta })^T)\delta ((\mathrm{\Delta }^{})(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^T)`$
$`\delta (𝒮\mathrm{\Delta })\delta ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}tr_2\sigma ^a(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta })^T)\delta (f(C))\left[(fields)e^{S_{\mathrm{TYM}}}\right]_{zeromode},`$ (5.19)
In the $`k=2`$ case, $`f(C)=Cn=\overline{a}_3a_1\overline{+}a_1a_3\mathrm{\Sigma }/2`$ where $`n^A=(0,0,a_3/2,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is a certain direction in the moduli space.

Rotations of the type (2.41) act on $`f(C)`$ so that

$$1=\mathrm{}_f(C)𝑑\theta \delta (f(C^\theta )),$$
(5.20)
where

$$\mathrm{}_f(C)=\frac{\delta f(C)}{\delta \theta }=||a_3|^2|a_1|^2\frac{1}{8}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^\theta }{\theta }|_{_{\theta =0}}|,$$
(5.21)
as found in . $`\mathrm{}_f(C)`$ is invariant under $`O(2)`$ rotations. The reader will recognize in (5.20) the standard Faddeev-Popov trick. Then after multiplying (5) by $`2\pi ^1𝑑\theta `$ and expanding the forms in the usual coordinate basis, $`\delta (f(C))`$ can be made to disappear using (5.20).

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the EEC contract HPRN-2000-00122, by the INTAS project 991590 and by Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region through the research project “Noncommutative geometry: algebraic, analytical and probabilistic aspects and applications to mathematical physics.” One of the authors (F.F.) wants to thank D.Bellisai for collaboration in an early stage of this work and G.C.Rossi for carefully reading the manuscript.