text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Super-Yang-Mills theories with extended supersymmetry have a rich spectrum of BPS monopole and dyon states. At weak coupling one can use semi-classical techniques to study their properties and one finds that the low-energy dynamics is governed by some kind of a supersymmetric quantum mechanics based on the moduli space of classical BPS monopole solutions.

Early work analyzed points in the classical moduli space of vacua of the field theory where only a single adjoint Higgs field is non-vanishing . In this case the electric and magnetic charge vectors of the BPS dyons are proportional to each other and they preserve 1/2 of the supersymmetry. More recently it has been realised that when a second adjoint Higgs field is non-vanishing there is an interesting spectrum of BPS states with electric and magnetic charge vectors that are not parallel . In theories with $`N=4`$ supersymmetry such BPS states preserve 1/4 of the supersymmetry, while in the theories with $`N=2`$ supersymmetry they still preserve 1/2.

In this more general situation it is becoming clear that the supersymmetric quantum mechanics that governs the low-energy dynamics includes potential terms. This has been studied in the $`N=4`$ theories in  and in  for pure $`N=2`$ super-Yang-Mills theories. The status of the derivation of these potential terms rests on two types of arguments. Firstly, rather direct arguments for the existence of a bosonic potential  and secondly, indirect arguments for the fermions based on supersymmetry considerations .

Here we will improve upon the indirect arguments by showing that the supersymmetric quantum mechanics can in fact be derived using a more direct collective coordinate approach generalizing that of . In addition to verifying the result of  for pure $`N=2`$ super-Yang-Mills theory this approach allows us to generalize to $`N=2`$ theories with hypermultiplets when the two adjoint Higgs fields in the $`N=2`$ vector multiplet are non-vanishing. The resulting supersymmetric quantum mechanics in this case both generalizes that of , which only considered a single Higgs field, and that of  which didn’t include hypermultiplets. As the $`N=4`$ theory is an $`N=2`$ theory with a single massless adjoint hypermultiplet, we also recover the supersymmetric quantum mechanics presented in  as a special case.

We will also consider how the supersymmetric quantum mechanics is modified when the scalars in the hypermultiplets acquire expectation values while maintaining a non-trivial Coulomb branch. In doing so we derive the general supersymmetric quantum mechanics for $`N=4`$ SYM theory presented in  when all six Higgs fields have non-vanishing expectation values, as well as making contact with the models of .

The supersymmetric quantum mechanics with potential terms that was presented in  and generalized here are new. We will show that they can be obtained by a non-trivial “Scherk-Schwarz” dimensional reduction of two-dimensional $`(4,0)`$ supersymmetric sigma models.

The plan of the rest of this paper is as follows: in section 2 we discuss pure $`N=2`$ Super-Yang-Mills theory. We briefly recall that the general BPS equations consist of the usual BPS equations for a single Higgs field plus a secondary BPS equation. We next review some aspects of the geometry of the moduli space of solutions to the BPS equation for a single Higgs field that we use later. This section concludes by carrying out the collective coordinate expansion leading to the supersymmetric quantum mechanics of  that describes the low-energy monopole dynamics when the two adjoint Higgs fields have non-vanishing expectation values.

Section 3 generalizes the discussion to include matter fermions from hypermultiplets. The zero modes of the matter fermions gives rise to an Index bundle on the monopole moduli space. The effect of the second Higgs field is to introduce extra terms in the supersymmetric quantum mechanics constructed from a two-form on this bundle.

Section 4 generalizes to cases when scalars from the hypermultiplets also acquire expectation values in addition to the two adjoint Higgs fields in the $`N=2`$ vector multiplet. The analysis covers the case that the hypermultiplets are in real representations of the gauge group. Since the $`N=4`$ model is an $`N=2`$ model with a single massless adjoint hypermultiplet, this analysis includes a derivation of the supersymmetric quantum mechanics presented in .

For the convenience of the reader Section 5 summarizes various aspects of the general dynamics and discusses the quantization. Section 6 briefly concludes. Finally, appendix A contains some technical calculations used in the text, while appendix B shows how the supersymmetric quantum mechanics that we derive can be obtained via non-trivial, “Scherk-Schwarz”, dimensional reduction.

## 2 Dynamics of Monopoles in Pure $`N=2`$ SYM

### 2.1 BPS Equations

The pure $`N=2`$ super-Yang-Mills Lagrangian is given by

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{MN}F^{MN}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_M\mathrm{\Phi }^ID^M\mathrm{\Phi }^I{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{\Phi }^1,\mathrm{\Phi }^2]^2`$ (2.1)
$`i\overline{\chi }\gamma ^MD_M\chi +i\overline{\chi }[\mathrm{\Phi }^1,\chi ]\overline{\chi }\gamma _5[\mathrm{\Phi }^2,\chi ]\},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^I`$, $`I=1,2`$ denote the two real Higgs fields, $`D_M\mathrm{\Phi }^I=_M\mathrm{\Phi }^I+[A_M,\mathrm{\Phi }^I]`$, $`\chi `$ is a Dirac spinor and all fields are in the adjoint representation of the gauge group $`G`$. The anti-hermitian generators of the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ are normalised so that $`\mathrm{Tr}t^at^b=\delta ^{ab}`$. Our metric has mostly minus signature and $`\gamma _5=i\gamma _0\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3`$. The classical vacuum satisfy $`[\mathrm{\Phi }^1,\mathrm{\Phi }^2]=0`$ and thus $`\varphi ^I`$ lie in the Cartan subalgebra of $`G`$: $`\mathrm{\Phi }^I=\mathit{\varphi }^I𝐇`$. We will only consider vacua where the symmetry is maximally broken to $`U(1)^r`$ where $`r`$ is the rank of $`G`$. For a given vacuum we can define electric and magnetic charge two-vectors via

$`Q_e^I`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \widehat{n}\stackrel{}{E}\mathrm{\Phi }^I}=\mathit{\varphi }^I𝐪,`$
$`Q_m^I`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \widehat{n}\stackrel{}{B}\mathrm{\Phi }^I}=\mathit{\varphi }^I𝐠,`$ (2.2)
where the integration is over the asymptotic two-sphere with outward normal unit vector $`\widehat{n}`$, and we have introduced the electric and magnetic charge vectors given by

$`𝐪`$ $`=`$ $`n_e^m𝜷^m,`$
$`𝐠`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi n_m^m𝜷_m^{},`$ (2.3)
respectively, where $`𝜷^m`$ are the simple roots and $`𝜷_m^{}`$ are the simple co-roots of $`𝒢`$, and $`n_m^m`$ are the topological winding numbers and $`n_e^m`$ are, in the quantum theory, the electric quantum numbers.

There is a classical bound on the mass given by

$$M\mathrm{Max}\left[|\stackrel{}{Q}_e|^2+|\stackrel{}{Q}_m|^2\pm 2(Q_m^2Q_e^1Q_m^1Q_e^2)\right]^{1/2}.$$
(2.4)
It can also be written in the form $`\mathrm{Max}|Z_\pm |`$ where $`Z_\pm =(Q_e^1\pm Q_m^2)+i(Q_m^1Q_e^2)`$. Only the charge $`Z_{}`$ appears as a central charge in the $`N=2`$ supersymmetry algebra and BPS states preserving 1/2 of the supersymmetry satisfy $`M=|Z_{}|`$ . A consequence of the bound (2.4) is that classical BPS solitons can only have charges that satisfy $`|Z_{}||Z_+|`$. In subsequent sections we will mostly be concerned with BPS solitons.

The mass bound (2.4) is saturated when

$`\stackrel{}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \stackrel{}{D}a,`$
$`\stackrel{}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{D}b,`$ (2.5)
where we have defined the rotated Higgs fields via

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^2,`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^1+\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^2,`$ (2.6)
and the angle $`\alpha `$ is constrained to be

$$\mathrm{tan}\alpha =\frac{Q_m^1Q_e^2}{Q_m^2\pm Q_e^1}.$$
(2.7)
The second equation in (2.1) is the usual BPS equation for a single Higgs field and is referred to as the “primary BPS equation”. If we take static fields in the gauge $`A_0=a`$, Gauss’ Law becomes the “secondary BPS equation” for the field $`a`$:

$$D^2a+[b,[b,a]]=0.$$
(2.8)
For a given solution of the primary BPS equation, the secondary BPS equation is exactly the same equation that is solved by gauge functions that generate zero modes about the original solution. For specified asymptotic behavior of $`a`$ it has a unique solution. The solutions to the general equations can thus be viewed as electrically dressed solutions to the primary BPS equation. Finally we note that in terms of the vectors $`𝐚,𝐛`$, the mass bound is given by

$`M`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{Max}|i(\pm 𝐚𝐪+𝐛𝐠)+(𝐛𝐪𝐚𝐠)|`$ (2.9)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Max}(\pm 𝐚𝐪+𝐛𝐠).`$
where the second expression is obtained by noting that (2.7) can be recast as the constraint

$$𝐛𝐪=\pm 𝐚𝐠$$
(2.10)
### 2.2 Zero Modes

As we will discuss in the next subsection, the collective coordinate expansion is constructed about solutions of the ordinary BPS equation for a single Higgs field $`B_i=D_i\mathrm{\Phi }`$. It will be useful to summarize some aspects of the discussion of the geometry of the moduli spaces of solutions as presented in . We first define a connection $`W_\mu `$ on $`R^4`$ that is translationally invariant in the four direction via $`W_\mu =(A_i,\mathrm{\Phi })`$. If $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is the corresponding field strength then the BPS equations can be recast as self duality equations for $`W_\mu `$,

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }G_{\rho \sigma }.$$
(2.11)
Introducing the covariant derivative on $`R^4`$, $`D_\mu =_\mu +[W_\mu ,]`$, we note that an infinitesimal gauge transformations on $`(A_i,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ can be recast in the form $`\delta W_\mu (x)=D_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ if the gauge parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ is restricted to be independent of $`x^4`$.

Denote the moduli space of solutions to the BPS equations within a given topological class $`k`$ by $`_k`$. A natural set of coordinates is provided by the moduli $`z^m`$ that specify the most general gauge equivalence class of solutions $`W_\mu (x,z)`$. The zero modes $`\delta _mW_\mu `$ about a given solution satisfy the linearized self-duality equation

$$D_{[\mu }\delta _mW_{\nu ]}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }D_\rho \delta _mW_\sigma ,$$
(2.12)
as well as

$$D_\mu \delta _mW_\mu =0.$$
(2.13)
They can be used to construct a natural metric on $`_k`$ via:

$$g_{mn}=d^3x\mathrm{Tr}(\delta _mW_\mu \delta _nW_\mu ).$$
(2.14)
We see that (2.13) implies that the zero mode is orthogonal to gauge modes.

If we let $`W_\mu (x,z)`$ be a family of BPS monopole configurations, the zero modes are given by

$$\delta _mW_\mu =_mW_\mu D_\mu \eta _m,$$
(2.15)
where the gauge parameters $`\eta _m(x,z)`$ are chosen to satisfy (2.13). The gauge parameters $`\eta _m`$ define a natural connection on $`_k`$ with covariant derivative

$$s_m=_m+[\eta _m,],$$
(2.16)
and field strength

$$\varphi _{mn}=[s_m,s_n].$$
(2.17)
The pair $`(W_\mu (x,z),\eta _m(x,z))`$ defines a natural connection on $`R^4\times _k`$. The components of the field strength are given by $`G_{\mu \nu }`$, $`\varphi _{mn}`$ and the mixed components are given by

$$[s_m,D_\mu ]=\delta _mW_\mu .$$
(2.18)
Note the following identities:

$`s_mG_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`2D_{[\mu }\delta _mW_{\nu ]},`$
$`D_\mu \varphi _{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`2s_{[a}\delta _{b]}W_\mu ,`$
$`\varphi _{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`2(D_\mu D_\mu )^1[\delta _mW_\nu ,\delta _nW_\nu ].`$ (2.19)
The Christoffel connection associated with the metric (2.14) can be written in the form:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mnk}=g_{ml}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{l}{}_{nk}{}^{}=d^3x\mathrm{Tr}(\delta _mW_\mu s_k\delta _nW_\mu ).$$
(2.20)
The hyper-Kähler structure on $`R^4`$ gives rise to a hyper-Kähler structure on $`_k`$. The three complex structures can be written

$$J_m^{(s)n}=g^{np}d^3xJ_{}^{(s)}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\mathrm{Tr}(\delta _mW_\mu \delta _pW_\nu ),$$
(2.21)
and we note that

$$J_m^{(s)n}\delta _nW_\mu =J_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}\delta _mW_\nu .$$
(2.22)
We now recall some aspects of the zero modes of the adjoint fermions. It is convenient to introduce hermitian Euclidean gamma matrices via

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=\gamma _0\gamma _i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_4=\gamma _0,$$
(2.23)
satisfying $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu \}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }`$ and define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_3\mathrm{\Gamma }_4`$. The fermion zero modes are time independent solutions of the Dirac equation in the presence of a BPS monopole and thus solve:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu D_\mu \chi =0.$$
(2.24)
They are necessarily anti-chiral. The monopole breaks 1/2 of the supersymmetry and they unbroken supersymmetry can be used to pair the bosonic and fermionic zero modes via

$$\chi _m=\delta _mW_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ϵ_+,$$
(2.25)
where $`ϵ_+`$ is a c-number spinor that can be chosen to satisfy

$$ϵ_+^{}ϵ_+=1,J_{\mu \nu }^{(3)}=iϵ_+^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }ϵ_+.$$
(2.26)
Using (2.22) we deduce that the fermionic zero modes satisfy

$$J_m^{(3)n}\chi _n=i\chi _m,$$
(2.27)
and hence that two bosonic zero modes are paired with one fermionic zero mode, in accord with the Callias index theorem .

### 2.3 Bosonic Monopole Dynamics

The semi-classical quantization of BPS monopoles begins with a mode expansion of the fields about a given classical solution. For each zero mode one must introduce a collective co-ordinate. By ignoring all of the non-zero modes one obtains a description of the low-energy dynamics. For the case of a single Higgs field in pure $`N=2`$ SYM this was carried out in detail in . The resulting supersymmetric quantum mechanics is a consistent, i.e. supersymmetric, truncation of the full field theory dynamics. Here we generalize this derivation to include the effects of a second Higgs field having a non-vanishing expectation value.

Let us first consider the bosonic case. There have been a number of separate but related arguments that conclude that the effect of the second Higgs field, in an appropriate limit, is to give rise to a potential term that is the norm of a tri-holomorphic Killing vector on the moduli space . Let us paraphrase the arguments here in a way that is most useful to include fermions.

We begin by emphasising that we derive the low-energy dynamics of monopoles; dyons then emerge as particular excited states of the monopole dynamics. We thus begin with a given magnetic charge vector $`𝐠`$ and fixed Higgs expectation values $`\mathrm{\Phi }^I`$. Setting $`𝐪=0`$ then fixes the angle $`\alpha `$ (2.7) and hence specifies the fields $`a,b`$ defined in (2.1). It is important to notice that this means the expectation value $`𝐚`$ is orthogonal to the magnetic charge,

$$𝐚𝐠=0.$$
(2.28)
The collective coordinate expansion then begins with a static purely magnetic solution to the primary BPS equation $`B_i=D_ib`$. The dynamical effect of the second Higgs field is treated as a perturbation of this solution. The collective coordinate expansion can be considered to be an expansion in the number of time derivatives $`n=n_{}`$. The equations of motion of the low-energy effective action will be of order $`n=2`$ so we must ensure that a collective coordinate ansatz solves the equations of motion of the field theory to order $`n=0`$ and $`n=1`$. To incorporate the affects of the second Higgs field we will also assume that $`a`$ is of order $`n=1`$. We next write the Lagrangian in terms of $`b,a`$ rather than $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1,\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$, respectively, to obtain

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\frac{1}{2}F_{MN}F^{MN}+D_MaD^Ma+D_MbD^Mb+[a,b]^2\right\}.$$

To order $`n=0`$ the equations of motion are all solved for a time dependent solution to the primary BPS equation $`W_\mu (x,z(t))`$, with $`W_4=b`$. At order $`n=1`$ we need to solve the $`A_0`$ equation of motion, Gauss’s Law, and the $`a`$ equation of motion. The former is solved, as usual, by setting $`A_0=\dot{z}^m\eta _m`$ and noting that the terms involving $`a`$ are higher order. The order $`n=1`$ equation of motion for $`a`$ is simply the secondary BPS equation $`D_\mu D_\mu a=0`$, since $`D_0D_0a`$ is higher order. This equation has a unique solution for specified asymptotic behavior (expectation value) of $`a`$. Since this is precisely the equation satisfied by the gauge parameter specifying the gauge-zero mode, $`D_\mu a`$ must be a linear combination of gauge zero modes. More precisely we have

$$D_\mu a=G^m\delta _mW_\mu ,$$
(2.29)
where $`G^m`$ is a linear combination of the $`r`$ tri-holomorphic Killing vector fields $`𝐊`$ on $`_k`$ corresponding to the $`U(1)^r`$ gauge transformations111Note that the sign appearing in (2.29) is related to a choice of conventions for the signs of the Killing vectors $`𝐊`$.:

$$G=𝐚𝐊.$$
(2.30)
Having solved the equations of motion to order $`n=0,1`$ we can substitute the ansatz into the field theory Lagrangian. After integrating over space we get

$$S=\frac{1}{2}𝑑t[\dot{z}^m\dot{z}^ng_{mn}G^mG^ng_{mn}]𝐛𝐠.$$
(2.31)
Note that the corresponding energy admits a Bogomol’nyi bound, $`E|\dot{z}^mG_m|+𝐛𝐠`$, that is saturated when $`\dot{z}^m=G^m`$. States saturating this bound then have energy given by $`E=G^mG^ng_{mn}+𝐛𝐠`$. Using our ansatz we next note that the electric field can be expressed via $`E_i=\dot{z}^m\delta _mW_i`$. For configurations with $`\dot{z}^m=G^m`$ we have $`E_i=\pm D_ia`$. Using the argument in  we can then show that the energy of theses states can be recast in the form $`E=\pm 𝐚𝐪+𝐛𝐠`$.

To relate this to the mass formula (2.9) it is helpful to first recall that the monopole moduli space splits into the product, modulo a discrete identification, of a centre of masss piece with a piece describing the relative motion of fundamental monopoles. Since the electric charge arising from the center of mass part is necessarily parallel to $`𝐠`$, we see that the electric excitation energy $`\pm 𝐚𝐪`$ only captures the excitation energy due to relative electric charges. On the other hand centre of mass sector contribution to the electric energy can be written as $`(𝐛𝐪)^2/2𝐛𝐠`$. Thus, in the moduli space approximation that began with $`𝐚𝐠=0`$222Note that $`𝐚𝐠=0`$ also implies that $`G^2=0`$ for the centre of mass part of the Lagrangian. the electric energy of a BPS dyon splits cleanly into two pieces; $`\pm 𝐚𝐪`$ arising from the electric energy of the relative sector and $`(𝐛𝐪)^2/2𝐛𝐠`$ from the center of mass. We see that this is consistent with the expansion of the first line of (2.9):

$$M𝐛𝐠\pm 𝐚𝐪+\frac{(𝐛𝐪)^2}{2𝐛𝐠},$$
(2.32)
### 2.4 Supersymmetric Monopole Dynamics

Let us now turn to a derivation of effective action when we include the fermions in the pure $`N=2`$ super-Yang-Mills theory. It is again convenient to rewrite the pure $`N=2`$ super Yang-Mills action in terms of $`a,b`$. Noting that $`(a,b)`$ is a rotation of $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^2,\mathrm{\Phi }^1)`$ we obtain

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{MN}F^{MN}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_MaD^Ma+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_MbD^Mb{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[a,b]^2`$ (2.33)
$`i\overline{\chi }\gamma ^MD_M\chi +i\overline{\chi }[b,\chi ]+\overline{\chi }\gamma _5[a,\chi ]\},`$
with it understood that $`\chi `$ has now been rotated by the angle $`(\alpha \pi /2)/2`$. The collective coordinate expansion can now be considered to be an expansion in $`n=n_{}+\frac{1}{2}n_f`$. where $`n_f`$ as the number of fermions. A low-energy ansatz for the fields should solve the equations of motion to order order $`n=0,\frac{1}{2},1`$. By combining the ansatz for the case of a single Higgs field in  with the above ansatz for the bosonic case we are led to

$`W_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`W_\mu (x,z(t)),`$
$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`\delta _mW_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ϵ_+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m(t),`$
$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{z}^m\eta _mi\varphi _{mn}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^n,`$
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{a}+i\varphi _{mn}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^n,`$ (2.34)
with

$$D_\mu \overline{a}=G^m\delta _mW_\mu .$$
(2.35)
Because of (2.27) the complex fermionic Grassmann odd collective coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m`$ are not independent and satisfy

$$i\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^mJ_m^{(3)n}=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^n.$$
(2.36)
Real independent $`\lambda ^m`$ can be defined via

$$\lambda ^m=\sqrt{2}\left(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m+(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m)^{}\right).$$
(2.37)
If we ignore the shift in $`a`$ by $`\overline{a}`$, we have the ansatz for the case of a single Higgs field analysed in . Hence after substituting into the action (2.33) the $`\overline{a}`$ independent terms lead to the supersymmetric quantum mechanics:

$$S=\frac{1}{2}𝑑t[\dot{x}^m\dot{x}^ng_{mn}+ig_{mn}\lambda ^mD_t\lambda ^n]𝐛𝐠,$$
(2.38)
where

$$D_t\lambda ^m=\dot{\lambda }^m+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nk}^m\dot{z}^n\lambda ^k.$$
(2.39)
Since the $`\overline{a}`$ dependent terms arising from $`(D_0a)^2`$ in the action are again higher order than we are considering, we just need to focus on $`D_\mu aD_\mu a`$ and the Yukawa terms $`\overline{\chi }\gamma _5[a,\chi ]`$. The $`\overline{a}`$ dependent terms in the former are

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}D_\mu \overline{a}D_\mu \overline{a}+i\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^n\mathrm{Tr}D_\mu (\varphi _{mn}D_\mu \overline{a}).$$
(2.40)
When we integrate over the spatial coordinates the second term vanishes and we are left with bosonic potential

$$\frac{1}{2}G^mG^ng_{mn}.$$
(2.41)
as in the bosonic case. The $`\overline{a}`$ terms arising from the Yukawa term give rise to

$$id^3x\mathrm{Tr}\chi ^{}[\overline{a},\chi ],$$
(2.42)
which can be rewritten as

$`2i\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^n{\displaystyle d^3x\mathrm{Tr}\delta _mW_\mu [\overline{a},\delta _nW_\mu ]}`$ (2.43)
$`=`$ $`2i\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^n{\displaystyle d^3x\mathrm{Tr}\delta _mW_\mu (D_\mu s_n\overline{a}s_nD_\mu \overline{a})},`$
where we have used (2.26) and (2.18), respectively. Using the fact that

$$s_m\overline{a}=G^n\varphi _{mn},$$
(2.44)
which can be proved by acting on both sides with $`D^2`$ and using the fact that $`D^2`$ has no zero modes, we note that the first term is a boundary term which vanishes. The remaining term can then be recast in the form

$$2i\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^nG_{m;n}=\frac{i}{2}\lambda ^m\lambda ^nG_{m;n}.$$
(2.45)
In summary, the effect of the second field is thus to add the potential term (2.41) and the fermion bilinear (2.45) to the action (2.38) to obtain

$$S=\frac{1}{2}𝑑t[\dot{x}^m\dot{x}^ng_{mn}+ig_{mn}\lambda ^mD_t\lambda ^nG^mG^ng_{mn}iD_mG_n\lambda ^m\lambda ^n]𝐛𝐠.$$
(2.46)
We have thus derived the supersymmetric quantum mechanics that was first presented, based on supersymmetry considerations, in .

## 3 Inclusion of Matter Fermions

We now consider the low-energy dynamics of monopoles in $`N=2`$ Yang-Mills theories with hypermultiplets. This was first studied in  in the special case that only a single adjoint Higgs field has a non-trivial expectation value. The main new feature is that the matter fermions give rise to extra fermionic zero modes that provide a natural Index bundle over the moduli space of monopoles. The resulting supersymmetric quantum mechanics is coupled to this bundle. Here we will show that when the second adjoint Higgs field of the $`N=2`$ vector multiplet has a non-vanishing expectation value, this supersymmetric quantum mechanics is modified by terms constructed from a natural two-form on this bundle.

The massless hypermultiplet contribution to the Lagrangian is given by

$`L_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_KM^{}D^KM+i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^KD_K\mathrm{\Psi }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(i\mathrm{\Phi }_1\gamma _5\mathrm{\Phi }_2)\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (3.1)
$`+M^1\overline{\chi }\mathrm{\Psi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\chi M_1+iM^2\overline{\chi }^c\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }+i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _5\chi ^cM_2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_2^2)M+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(M^{}t^\alpha \tau _sM)^2,`$
where $`M`$ is a doublet of complex scalars $`(M_1,M_2)^T`$, $`t^\alpha `$ are anti-hermitian generators in the matter representation, $`\tau _s`$ are Pauli matrices, and $`\chi ^c`$ is the charge conjugation of $`\chi `$ (defined precisely in section 4).

### 3.1 Zero Modes and the Index Bundle

Before discussing the effects of the second adjoint Higgs field, let us briefly discuss some of the geometry of the Index bundle defined by the fermion zero-modes. The fermion zero modes solve the Dirac equation in the background of a monopole configuration

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu D_\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }=0,$$
(3.2)
and are chiral. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A(x,z)`$, $`A=1\mathrm{}l`$ be a basis of the fermion zero modes in monopole background specified by the moduli $`z`$ satisfying

$$d^3x\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_B<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_B>=\delta _{\overline{A}B},$$
(3.3)
where we have defined $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_A)^{}`$. It will be very useful to note the completeness relationship

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_A>\delta ^{A\overline{B}}<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{B}}|+\mathrm{\Pi }+\frac{1\mathrm{\Gamma }_5}{2}=1,$$
(3.4)
where the operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ projects onto the chiral non-zero modes and has the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\gamma _5\text{/}D\frac{1}{D_\mu D_\mu }\text{/}D\gamma _5\frac{1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_5}{2}.$$
(3.5)
A connection on the Index bundle is defined by

$$A_{m}^{}{}_{\overline{A}B}{}^{}=<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}|s_m\mathrm{\Psi }_B>.$$
(3.6)
Using the results of section 2.2 and (3.4) one can show that the corresponding field strength can be written in the form

$$F_{mn\overline{A}B}=<s_m\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}|\mathrm{\Pi }s_n\mathrm{\Psi }_B><s_n\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}|\mathrm{\Pi }s_m\mathrm{\Psi }_B>+<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}|\varphi _{mn}\mathrm{\Psi }_B>.$$
(3.7)
It is straightforward to see that the connection one-form is unitary and hence the structure group of the Index bundle is generically $`U(l)`$. The Index bundle thus admits a covariantly constant complex structure $`I^{(3)}`$ with Kähler form taken to be $`I_{A\overline{B}}^{(3)}=i\delta _{A\overline{B}}`$ (the superscript will be convenient in section 4). When the representation of the matter fermions in the gauge group is real or pseudo-real, however, the structure group is further restricted . For the pseudo-real representation, the structure group of the bundle reduces to $`O(l)`$, while, for the real representation, the structure group reduces to a symplectic bundle $`USp(l)`$. A special case of the latter is the adjoint fermion zero modes that live in the co-tangent bundle of the moduli space which, being hyper-Kähler, is indeed symplectic. In this case note that the field strength $`F`$ is simply the Riemann curvature tensor.

### 3.2 Collective Coordinate Expansion

The collective coordinate expansion with two adjoint Higgs fields and matter fermions parallels what was done for the case of pure $`N=2`$ SYM in section 2. We again first perform a chiral rotation to write the action in terms of $`a,b`$ which requires that we work with rotated fermions and matter fields. The ansatz for the vector multiplet fields is then given by

$`W_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`W_\mu (x,z(t)),`$
$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`\delta _mW_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ϵ_+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m(t),`$
$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{z}^m\eta _mi\varphi _{mn}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^n+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{D^2}}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}t^\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }t^\alpha ),`$
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{a}+i\varphi _{mn}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^n+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{D^2}}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}t^\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }t^\alpha ),`$ (3.8)
while for the matter fields it is given by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`\psi ^A(t)\mathrm{\Psi }_A,`$
$`M_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{D^2}}(\overline{\chi }\mathrm{\Psi }),`$
$`M_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{D^2}}(\overline{\chi }^c\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }),`$ (3.9)
where we have introduced the Grassmann odd complex collective coordinates $`\psi ^A(t)`$ for the matter fermion zero modes. This ansatz solves the equations of motion to order $`n=0,1/2,1`$ and generalises that in  by simply shifting the $`a`$ field by a gauge function $`\overline{a}`$ satisfying (2.35).

After substituting this ansatz into the field theory action, the $`\overline{a}`$ independent terms give rise to the supersymmetric quantum mechanics presented in :

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(g_{mn}\dot{z}^m\dot{z}^n+ig_{mn}\lambda ^mD_t\lambda ^n+i\psi ^a𝒟_t\psi ^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{mnab}\lambda ^m\lambda ^n\psi ^a\psi ^b\right)𝐛𝐠,`$ (3.10)
where

$$𝒟_t\psi ^a=\dot{\psi }^a+A_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}\dot{z}^m\psi ^b,$$
(3.11)
and we traded off complex $`\psi ^A`$’s in favor of real $`\psi ^a`$’s (effectively this means we are embedding the $`U(l)`$ bundle in an $`So(2l)`$ bundle). The $`\overline{a}`$ dependent terms give rise to the potential terms presented in the last section plus an additional fermion bilinear. This latter term can be rewritten

$$i\psi ^{\overline{A}}\psi ^BT_{\overline{A}B},$$
(3.12)
where we have defined $`\psi ^{\overline{A}}`$ as the complex conjugate of $`\psi ^A`$ and

$$T_{\overline{A}B}=<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}|\overline{a}\mathrm{\Psi }_B>.$$
(3.13)
As $`T`$ is anti-hermitian, in a real basis (3.12) becomes $`i\psi ^a\psi ^bT_{ab}/2`$ with $`T_{ab}=T_{ba}`$. For hypermultiplets in general representations we cannot write $`T`$ in a simpler form. However, as we will discuss it is crucial for consistency of the supersymmetric quantum mechanics that

$$T_{\overline{A}B;m}=F_{mn\overline{A}B}G^n.$$
(3.14)
To prove this we begin with

$$_mT_{\overline{A}B}=<s_m\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}|\overline{a}\mathrm{\Psi }_B>+<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}|(s_m\overline{a})\mathrm{\Psi }_B>+<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}|\overline{a}s_m\mathrm{\Psi }_B>.$$
(3.15)
Using (3.4) the first term in (3.15) can then be written

$`<s_m\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_C>\delta ^{C\overline{C}}<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{C}}|\overline{a}\mathrm{\Psi }_B>+<s_m\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}|\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{a}\mathrm{\Psi }_B>.`$ (3.16)
The first term is $`A_{m\overline{A}C}\delta ^{C\overline{C}}T_{\overline{C}B}`$. Using the identity

$$\text{/}D\gamma _5(\overline{a}\mathrm{\Psi }_AG^ms_m\mathrm{\Psi }_A)=0,$$
(3.17)
which can be proven by acting with $`G^ms_m`$ on $`\text{/}D\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }_A=0`$, we can rewrite the second term as

$$G^n<s_m\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}|\mathrm{\Pi }s_n\mathrm{\Psi }_B>.$$
(3.18)
The last term in (3.15) can be manipulated in a similar way. The second term can be rewritten using (2.44). Putting this together we deduce that

$$_mT_{\overline{A}B}=G^n\{<s_m\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}|\mathrm{\Pi }s_n\mathrm{\Psi }_B><s_n\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}|\mathrm{\Pi }s_m\mathrm{\Psi }_B>+<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}|\varphi _{mn}\mathrm{\Psi }_B>\}.$$
(3.19)
Since the last term in braces is precisely the curvature $`F_{mn\overline{A}B}`$ we have established (3.14).

In conclusion the supersymmetric quantum mechanics describing the low-energy dynamics of monopoles in $`N=2`$ theories with matter when both adjoint Higgs fields are non-vanishing is given by

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g_{mn}\dot{z}^m\dot{z}^n+ig_{mn}\lambda ^mD_t\lambda ^ng^{mn}G_mG_niD_mG_n\lambda ^m\lambda ^n`$ (3.20)
$`+i\psi ^a𝒟_t\psi ^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{mnab}\lambda ^m\lambda ^n\psi ^a\psi ^biT_{ab}\psi ^a\psi ^b)𝐛𝐠.`$
The main new feature is the presence of the two-form $`T`$ on the Index bundle. The action is invariant under the supersymmetry transformations

$`\delta z^m`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ\lambda ^m+iϵ_sJ_{}^{(s)m}{}_{n}{}^{}\lambda ^n,`$
$`\delta \lambda ^m`$ $`=`$ $`(\dot{z}^mG^m)ϵ+J_{}^{(s)m}{}_{n}{}^{}(\dot{z}^nG^n)ϵ_siϵ_s\lambda ^k\lambda ^nJ_{}^{(s)l}{}_{k}{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ln}^m`$
$`\delta \psi ^a`$ $`=`$ $`A_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}\delta z^m\psi ^b,`$ (3.21)
where $`ϵ,ϵ_s`$ are constant one component Grassmann odd parameters, provided that in addition to the usual requirements that the moduli space is hyper-Kähler and that the field strength $`F`$ is of type (1,1) with respect to all complex structures, the two form $`T`$ satisfies (3.14). The action is also invariant under the following symmetry transformation generated by the tri-holomorphic Killing vector $`G`$

$`\delta z^m`$ $`=`$ $`kG^m,`$
$`\delta \lambda ^m`$ $`=`$ $`kG_{}^{m}{}_{,n}{}^{}\lambda ^n,`$
$`\delta \psi ^a`$ $`=`$ $`kT_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}\psi ^bA_{mb}^a\delta z^m\psi ^b.`$ (3.22)
where $`k`$ is a constant. In the case of $`N=4`$ supersymmetry, i.e. a single hypermultiplet in the adjoint representation, the bundle is the tangent bundle and $`T_{ab}=G_{a;b}`$. We have thus derived the action first presented in , which was obtained there via symmetry arguments.

### 3.3 Massive Matter Fields

Let us briefly consider the case that the hypermultiplets are massive333Early work on this issue can be found in .. The relevant mass terms are given by444Since we work with the rotated fields $`a,b`$, we interpret $`(m_R,m_I)`$ to have been similarly rotated..

$$m_R\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }m_Ii\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(3.23)
Recall that the collective coordinate expansion begins by writing the field theory Lagrangian in terms of $`a,b`$. We can treat this term as a perturbation by taking the bare mass to be order $`n=1`$, i.e., the same order of magnitude as $`a`$ and hence smaller than $`b`$. To leading order the Dirac equation for the matter fermions is then not modified from (3.2). Substituting our ansatz (3.2) into (3.23), we find that only $`m_I`$ part contributes;

$$m_I\psi ^{\overline{A}}\psi ^B\delta _{\overline{A}B}.$$
(3.24)
In terms of real fermions, $`\psi ^a`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},2l`$, we get

$$\frac{i}{2}m_I\psi ^aI_{ab}^{(3)}\psi ^b.$$
(3.25)
This term is naturally incorporated in the supersymmetric quantum mechanics (3.20) by adding it to $`T_{ab}`$, since the differential condition on $`T`$ allows a shift of $`T`$ by a covariantly constant piece.

When we quantise the supersymmetric quantum mechanics the term (3.24) will contribute a term $`N_fm_I`$ to the Hamiltonian where $`N_f`$ is the hypermultiplet fermion number. Recalling the discussion at the end of section 2.3, this will lead to the mass of the BPS sates of the supersymmetric quantum mechanics being given by

$$M𝐛𝐠𝐚𝐪+\frac{(𝐛𝐪)^2}{2𝐛𝐠}+N_fm_I,$$
(3.26)
This result is in precise accord with the BPS mass formula arising from the general $`𝒩=2`$ central charge formula. The latter can be written

$$M=|i(𝐛𝐠𝐚𝐪+N_fm_I)+(𝐛𝐪+𝐚𝐠+N_fm_R)|,$$
(3.27)
which reduces to (3.26) in the moduli space approximation in which $`𝐚𝐠=0`$ and $`m_R`$ is neglected compared to $`b`$.

## 4 More Potentials from the Matter Sector

In this section we analyse situations when one can turn on additional scalar vevs in the hypermultiplets while leaving the $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetries of the Coulomb phase intact. This will lead to additional potential terms in the supersymmetric low-energy dynamics of the monopoles. Considering the potential terms in the matter Lagrangian (3.1), we see that this is possible when the matter representation contains a zero-weight vector. Moreover it is only possible when the hypermultiplets are massless. A trivial example is when the hypermultiplets are in the adjoint representation. Less trivial examples are, for instance, symmetric tensors for $`SO(k)`$ and anti-symmetric tensors for $`Sp(k)`$.

We will further assume in this section that the representation is real. In this case the Index bundle associated with the matter fermions has a symplectic structure group and is equipped with three covariantly constant complex structures, $`I^{(s)}`$. A special case is when we have a single massless adjoint hypermultiplet, whose zero modes live in cotangent bundle with complex structures $`I^{(s)}=J^{(s)}`$, $`s=1,2,3`$. The field theory is then $`N=4`$ Yang-Mills theory, so our derivation of the low-energy dynamics will include a derivation, en-passant, of the effective action for $`N=4`$ monopoles that was first presented, based on symmetry considerations, in .

### 4.1 Bosonic potential

The effect on the monopole dynamics of allowing the scalar fields $`M`$ to acquire expectation values is determined in a very similar manner to the treatment of the second adjoint Higgs field $`a`$ in sections 2 and 3. We regard the vevs of the two complex scalars $`M`$’s as a perturbation of order $`n=1`$ and perform a perturbative expansion.

A low-energy ansatz that solves the equations of motion to order $`n=1`$ is obtained by shifting the ansatz (3.2) via

$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`\psi ^A\mathrm{\Psi }_A,`$
$`M_1`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{M}_1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{D^2}}(\overline{\chi }\mathrm{\Psi }),`$
$`M_2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{M}_2{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{D^2}}(\overline{\chi }^c\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }),`$ (4.1)
where $`\overline{M}_{1,2}`$ are order $`n=1`$ and solve the covariant Laplace equation in the monopole background

$$D^2\overline{M}_{1,2}=0.$$
(4.2)
The new terms that arise from this shift after substituting into the field theory action are either linear or quadratic in $`\overline{M}_{1,2}`$. The linear pieces generate fermionic bilinears and are discussed in the next subsection, while the quadratic pieces correspond to bosonic potential terms.

It will be convenient to exchange the two complex scalars $`M_{1,2}`$, for four real $`H_i`$’s via

$`M_1=H_3+iH_0,`$
$`M_2=H_1+iH_2.`$ (4.3)
and similarly exchange $`\overline{M}_{1,2}`$ for four real $`\overline{H}_i`$’s. Next note that, given (4.2), $`\text{/}D\overline{H}_iϵ_+`$ is a fermion zero mode and hence can be expanded in terms of our basis:

$$\text{/}D\overline{H}_iϵ_+=i\gamma ^5\sqrt{2}K_i^A(z)\mathrm{\Psi }_A.$$
(4.4)
The quantities $`K_i^A(z)`$ define four sections on the dual of the Index bundle over the monopole moduli space.

After substituting the ansatz (4.1) into the field theory action and using (4.4) we find that the bosonic part of order $`n=2`$ that involves $`H`$ is given by

$$\frac{1}{2}d^3x(D_\mu \overline{H}_i)^{}(D_\mu \overline{H}_i)=|K_i^A|^2=\frac{1}{2}K_{ia}K_i^a,$$
(4.5)
where we rewrote the complex quantities $`K_i^A`$ in terms of real quantities $`K_i^a`$ by expanding

$$K_i^A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(K_i^{2A1}+iK_i^{2A}\right).$$
(4.6)
Since $`i`$ runs from 0 to 3, there could be four such bosonic potentials.

### 4.2 Fermion bilinear terms

After substituting (4.1) into (3.1) one finds that the fermionic bilinear terms arising from the kinetic terms of the $`H`$’s vanish. The non-zero fermionic bilinear terms arise from the Yukawa couplings in (3.1). Since the derivation is reasonably long, we point out here that the key results are given in (4.19) and (4.35).

For fermions in a real representation of the gauge group, it is often convenient to introduce symplectic Majorana fermions: $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ are each a doublet of Dirac spinors defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi \\ i\gamma _5\chi ^c\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }\\ i\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }^c\end{array}\right).$$
(4.7)
The Yukawa terms in (3.1) can then be written compactly as

$$id^3x\overline{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}\tau _i\stackrel{~}{\chi }H_i,$$
(4.8)
where $`\tau _i=(1,i\tau _s)`$ and $`\overline{H}_i`$ are real. The charge-conjugation of the spinor, $`\chi `$, is defined as

$$\chi ^cC\overline{\chi }^T=C(\gamma ^0)^T\chi ^{}$$
(4.9)
and similarly for $`\mathrm{\Psi }^c`$, where the charge-conjugation matrix $`C`$ satisfies,

$$CC^{}=1,C\gamma _M^T=\gamma _MC.$$
(4.10)
It follows that $`C\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^T=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu C`$.

Accordingly, the zero mode ansatz for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m\delta _mW_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ϵ_+\\ \stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m\delta _mW_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ϵ_+^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(4.11)
where $`ϵ_+^{}Cϵ_+^{}`$. Because $`\chi `$ (and $`W`$) is in a real representation of the gauge group, complex conjugated zero modes can expressed as a linear combination of original zero modes:

$$\delta _mW_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ϵ_+^{}=𝒞_m^k\delta _kW_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ϵ_+.$$
(4.12)
By a basis redefinition, the matrix $`𝒞`$ can be chosen to be anti-symmetric and unitary so that $`𝒞^2=1`$. By taking the complex conjugate of the expression $`J_m^{(3)k}\chi _k=i\chi _m`$, it follows that $`𝒞`$ anticommutes with $`J^{(3)}`$;

$$𝒞J^{(3)}=J^{(3)}𝒞.$$
(4.13)
This matrix $`𝒞`$ generates a second complex structure on the moduli space which we will also denote by $`J^{(2)}`$. Defining $`J^{(1)}`$=$`J^{(2)}J^{(3)}`$ we obtain the hyper-Kähler structure of the monopole moduli space (which can be taken to be the same as (2.21) by an appropriate choice of complex structures on $`R^4`$). We can use (4.12) to give an alternate expression for the zero mode ansatz of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ where the roles of $`ϵ`$ and $`ϵ^{}`$ are exchanged,

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m𝒞_m^k\delta _kW_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ϵ_+^{}\\ \stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m𝒞_m^k\delta _kW_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ϵ_+\end{array}\right).$$
(4.14)
Using $`\delta _mW_\mu =[s_m,D_\mu ]`$, we thus find two possible expressions for $`\chi H`$

$`\chi \overline{H}_i`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^ms_m\text{/}D\overline{H}_iϵ_++\mathrm{}`$ (4.15)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m𝒞_m^ks_k\text{/}D\overline{H}_iϵ_+^{}+\mathrm{},`$
and also for $`i\gamma _5\chi ^cH`$

$`i\gamma _5\chi ^c\overline{H}_i`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^ms_m\text{/}D\overline{H}_iϵ_+^{}+\mathrm{}`$ (4.16)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m𝒞_m^ks_k\text{/}D\overline{H}_iϵ_++\mathrm{}.`$
The ellipsis denote terms of the form $`\text{/}D(\mathrm{})`$, which do not contribute any new terms in the low energy dynamics, once we use the Dirac equation for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and the fact that the zero modes of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are chiral with respect to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$. They will be ignored subsequently.

The matter fermion zero mode ansatz $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ takes the form

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi ^A\mathrm{\Psi }_A\\ i\gamma _5\psi ^{\overline{A}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}^c\end{array}\right).$$
(4.17)
We also have

$`\text{/}D\overline{H}_iϵ_+`$ $`=`$ $`i\gamma _5\sqrt{2}K_i^A(z)\mathrm{\Psi }_A,`$
$`\text{/}D\overline{H}_iϵ_+^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}K_i^{\overline{A}}(z)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}^c,`$ (4.18)
where the second equation is derived from the first (which is just (4.4)).

When determining the contributions from the Yukawa couplings, one has a choice of writing out the zero modes $`\chi _m`$ as $`\delta _mW_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ϵ_+`$ or equivalently as $`𝒞_m^k\delta _kW_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ϵ_+^{}`$. Of course the answer should not depend on such choices, but the expression one gets does depend on the choices. In fact, we also could rewrite the same expression based on a different $`ϵ`$ associated with different complex structures such as $`ϵ_++iϵ_+^{}`$. This redundancy of expressions gives us a very important constraint on the quantities $`K_i`$. As will be shown in Appendix, it implies a holomorphicity condition on $`K_i`$’s;

$$(J^{(s)})(I^{(s)}K_i)=K_i,$$
(4.19)
for $`s=1,2,3`$. $`s`$ labels the three complex structure on the tangent and the Index bundles. This fact will be used crucially in the derivation of fermion bilinears.

In the following we are going to switch between the above two expansions, so that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is always paired up with $`\text{/}DHϵ_+`$ while $`\mathrm{\Psi }^c`$ is always paired up with $`\text{/}DHϵ_+^{}`$. This can be achieved by using the first line of (4.15) and (4.16) for the Yukawa terms involving $`\overline{H}_0`$ and $`\overline{H}_3`$, and using the second line for the Yukawa terms involving $`\overline{H}_1`$ and $`\overline{H}_2`$.

Consider first the Yukawa terms containing $`\overline{H}_0`$. One term is

$$i\sqrt{2}d^3x(\psi ^{\overline{A}})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}^{}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^ms_m)\mathrm{\Gamma }_5K_0^B(z)\mathrm{\Psi }_B+\mathrm{},$$
(4.20)
where the ellipses denote the second term arising from the charge conjugate. The two terms can then be written

$$i\sqrt{2}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m_m)(K_{0\overline{A}}\psi ^{\overline{A}})i\sqrt{2}((\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m)^{}_m)(K_{0A}\psi ^A)$$
(4.21)
For the Yukawa terms containing $`\overline{H}_3`$, one gets the same two terms multiplied by $`i`$ and $`i`$, respectively, to give

$$\sqrt{2}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m_m)(K_{3\overline{A}}\psi ^{\overline{A}})+\sqrt{2}((\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m)^{}_m)(K_{3A}\psi ^A).$$
(4.22)
These expressions can be recast in a more useful form using the fact that

$`((\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m)^{}_m)(K_{0\overline{A}}\psi ^{\overline{A}})=0=(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m_m)(K_{0A}\psi ^A),`$
$`((\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m)^{}_m)(K_{3\overline{A}}\psi ^{\overline{A}})=0=(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m_m)(K_{3A}\psi ^A).`$ (4.23)
This can be derived using (4.19) and the fact that the relation among $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$’s (2.36) implies

$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m\left(\delta _m^kiJ_m^{(3)k}\right)_k,`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m)^{}_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m)^{}\left(\delta _m^k+iJ_m^{(3)k}\right)_k.`$ (4.24)
The operators $`(1iJ^{(3)})`$ are holomorphic and anti-holomorphic covariant derivatives, so $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m_m`$ is composed of holomorphic derivatives only, while $`(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m)^{}_m`$ is composed of anti-holomorphic derivatives only. Using this the terms arising from the $`\overline{H}_0`$ Yukawa term can be written

$`i\sqrt{2}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m+(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m)^{})_m(K_{0A}\psi ^A+K_{0\overline{A}}\psi ^{\overline{A}}),`$ (4.25)
while those from the $`\overline{H}_3`$ Yukawa term become

$`\sqrt{2}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m+(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m)^{})_m(K_{3A}\psi ^A+K_{3\overline{A}}\psi ^{\overline{A}}).`$ (4.26)
We next use (2.37) to write the expressions in terms of the real and independent $`\lambda `$’s to get

$`i(\lambda ^m_m)(K_{0A}\psi ^A+K_{0\overline{A}}\psi ^A)+i(\lambda ^mJ_m^{(3)k}_k)(K_{3A}\psi ^A+K_{3\overline{A}}\psi ^A).`$ (4.27)
As the final step, we trade off complex $`K`$’s and $`\psi `$’s in favor of real ones and find

$`i(\lambda ^m_m)K_{0a}\psi ^a+i(\lambda ^mJ_m^{(3)k}_m)K_{3a}\psi ^a,`$ (4.28)
as the fermion bilinears arising from $`\overline{H}_0`$ and $`\overline{H}_3`$ Yukawa terms.

The action of $`i\tau _{1,2}`$ exchanges $`\chi `$ and $`i\gamma _5\chi ^c`$, so the $`\overline{H}_{1,2}`$ Yukawa terms are a bit different. Expanding $`\chi `$ in terms of $`𝒞_m^k\delta _kW_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ϵ_+^{}`$ instead, we find

$$\sqrt{2}((\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m)^{}𝒞_m^k_k)(K_{1\overline{A}}\psi ^{\overline{A}})+\sqrt{2}((\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m)𝒞_m^k_k)(K_{1A}\psi ^A),$$
(4.29)
and

$$i\sqrt{2}((\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m)^{}𝒞_m^k_k)(K_{2\overline{A}}\psi ^{\overline{A}})+i\sqrt{2}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m𝒞_m^k_k)(K_{2A}\psi ^A).$$
(4.30)
Since $`J^{(3)}𝒞=𝒞J^{(3)}`$, the (anti-)holomorphic covariant derivatives are now paired with $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}`$’s ($`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$’s). As in case of $`\overline{H}_{0,3}`$ Yukawa terms, we can complete the above expression by adding appropriate (anti-)holomorphic derivatives of $`K_{1,2}`$ ($`K_{1,2}^{}`$). The end result is,

$$i\lambda ^m(𝒞J^{(3)})_m^k_kK_{1a}\psi ^a+i\lambda ^m𝒞_m^k_kK_{2a}\psi ^a,$$
(4.31)
which can be rewritten as

$$i\lambda ^mJ_m^{(1)k}_kK_{1a}\psi ^a+i\lambda ^mJ_m^{(2)k}_kK_{2a}\psi ^a,$$
(4.32)
where we use the fact that $`𝒞`$ is identified with a second complex structure, $`J^{(2)}`$, and that $`J^{(2)}J^{(3)}`$ becomes yet another complex structure, $`J^{(1)}`$, completing the triplet of complex structures necessary for the hyper-Kähler geometry.

Adding up all terms, we thus find the following set of fermion bilinears from the Yukawa terms,

$$i\lambda ^m_mK_{0a}\psi ^a+i\underset{s=1}{\overset{3}{}}\lambda ^mJ_m^{(s)k}_kK_{sa}\psi ^a.$$
(4.33)
The identity (4.19) allows us to rewrite this as

$$i\lambda ^m_mK_{0a}\psi ^ai\underset{s=1}{\overset{3}{}}\lambda ^m_mI_a^{(s)b}K_{sb}\psi ^a.$$
(4.34)
After combining with the bosonic potential terms derived in the last subsection, we find the supersymmetric potential terms arising from the matter Higgs fields having non-vanishing expectation values is given by

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}|K_i|^2i\lambda ^m_mK_{0a}\psi ^ai\underset{s=1}{\overset{3}{}}\lambda ^m_mI_a^{(s)b}K_{sb}\psi ^a.$$
(4.35)
We will discuss the supersymmetry of the action including these extra potential terms in the next section.

## 5 Supersymmetric Low Energy Dynamics

For the convenience of the reader, this section summarises the general low-energy dynamics of monopoles in $`N=2`$ Yang-Mills theories with hypermultiplets that we have derived. We also discuss the quantisation. Firstly, the action is given by

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g_{mn}\dot{z}^m\dot{z}^n+ig_{mn}\lambda ^mD_t\lambda ^n+i\psi ^a𝒟_t\psi ^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{mnab}\lambda ^m\lambda ^n\psi ^a\psi ^b`$ (5.1)
$`g^{mn}G_mG_niD_mG_n\lambda ^m\lambda ^niT_{ab}\psi ^a\psi ^b`$
$`K_i^aK_{ia}2iI_a^{(i)b}K_{ib;m}\lambda ^m\psi ^a),`$
where $`I_a^{(0)b}=\delta _a^b`$, and $`i`$ runs from 0 to 3. The action is invariant under $`N=4`$ supersymmetry transformations given by

$`\delta z^m`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ\lambda ^m+iϵ_sJ_{}^{(s)m}{}_{n}{}^{}\lambda ^n,`$
$`\delta \lambda ^m`$ $`=`$ $`(\dot{z}^mG^m)ϵ+J_{}^{(s)m}{}_{n}{}^{}(\dot{z}^nG^n)ϵ_siϵ_s\lambda ^k\lambda ^nJ_{}^{(s)l}{}_{k}{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ln}^m,`$
$`\delta \psi ^a`$ $`=`$ $`A_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}\delta z^m\psi ^bϵ(I^{(i)})_b^aK_i^bϵ_s(I^{(i)})_b^a(I^{(s)})_c^bK_i^c,`$ (5.2)
where $`ϵ,ϵ_s`$ are constant one component Grassmann odd parameters, provided that several differential constraints are met: The first is the well-known requirements that the moduli space is hyper-Kähler and the curvature $`F`$ is of (1,1) type with respect to all three complex structures of the manifold. In addition $`G`$ must be a tri-holomorphic Killing vector field, and the two form on the bundle $`T`$ must satisfy

$`T_{ab;m}=F_{mnab}G^n.`$ (5.3)
The section $`K`$’s on the dual bundle must satisfy a holomorphicity condition

$$(J^{(s)})(I^{(s)}K_i)=K_i,$$
(5.4)
for each $`s=1,2,3`$, and must also be “preserved” under the translation by $`G`$

$$G^m_mK_{ia}=T_a^bK_{ib}.$$
(5.5)
An additional condition is that

$$K_i^aI_{ab}^{(s)}K_j^b=0.$$
(5.6)
When the sections $`K`$ are non-vanishing we also require

$$(I^{(s)})_{}^{c}{}_{b}{}^{}T_{ca}=(I^{(s)})_{}^{c}{}_{a}{}^{}T_{cb}.$$
(5.7)
We shall show in appendix A, that (5.5), (5.6) and (5.7) are indeed satisfied. The action is also invariant under the following symmetry transformation generated by the tri-holomorphic Killing vector field:

$`\delta z^m`$ $`=`$ $`kG^m,`$
$`\delta \lambda ^m`$ $`=`$ $`kG_{}^{m}{}_{,n}{}^{}\lambda ^n,`$
$`\delta \psi ^a`$ $`=`$ $`kT_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}\psi ^bA_{mb}^a\delta z^m\psi ^b,`$ (5.8)
where $`k`$ is a constant. This symmetry is responsible for the presence of a central charge in the superalgebra.

Let us summarize the origin of various terms.

* The first line contains the basic ingredient of the monopole dynamics in $`N=2`$ Yang-Mills theories. The $`z^m`$ are coordinates on the monopole moduli space with metric $`g_{mn}`$. The $`\lambda `$’s take values in the tangent bundle while the $`\psi `$’s take values in the Index bundle of the matter fermions. Generically, this Index bundle has a unitary structure group, but for real or pseudo-real matter representations it is symplectic or orthogonal, respectively. All interactions are thus encoded in the geometry of the moduli space and of the Index bundles over it. These terms suffice if, up to $`U(1)_R`$ rotation, a single adjoint Higgs field has a non-vanishing vacuum expectation value, and no other Higgs field does.
* The second line is necessary when the second adjoint Higgs field is turned on and is not proportional to the first in the Lie algebra space. This is possible for rank two or higher gauge groups. Extra information is contained in the tri-holomorphic Killing vector field $`G`$, which is picked out by the adjoint Higgs expectation values via (2.29). The two-form $`T`$ is defined via (3.13) and when the bare mass for the hypermultiplets is non-vanishing it includes a constant piece as discussed in section 3.3.
* The third line is necessary when scalar fields in real massless hypermultiplets get a vacuum expectation value and still preserves the unbroken $`U(1)`$ gauge groups. In this case, the Index bundle is symplectic and admits three covariantly constant complex structures $`I^{(s)}`$. The sections $`K`$ must be $`G`$-invariant in the sense of Eq. (5.5), and must be holomorphic in the sense of Eq. (5.4). Their normalization is determined by the Higgs expectation values via (4.4).

An important special case of the above Lagrangian occurs when one has a single massless adjoint hypermultiplet. The field theory is then $`N=4`$ Yang-Mills theory, and the $`\psi `$’s live in the tangent bundle. The above Lagrangian should then be the same as the complete monopole dynamics in $`N=4`$ Yang-Mills theory, first presented in . This can be seen easily by identifying $`K`$’s as the additional tri-holomorphic Killing vector fields555That the $`K`$’s must be tri-holomorphic Killing vector fields arises from the additional supersymmetries. on the moduli space and setting $`T_{ab}=G_{a;b}`$.

To quantize the effective action we first introduce a frame $`e_m^E`$ and define $`\lambda ^E=\lambda ^me_m^E`$ which commute with all bosonic variables. The remaining canonical commutation relations are then given by

$`[z^m,p_n]`$ $`=`$ $`i\delta _n^m,`$
$`\{\lambda ^E,\lambda ^F\}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{EF},`$
$`\{\psi ^a,\psi ^b\}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{ab}.`$ (5.9)
We can realize this algebra on spinors on the moduli space by letting $`\lambda ^E=\gamma ^F/\sqrt{2}`$, where $`\gamma ^F`$ are gamma matrices. The states must also provide a representation of the Clifford algebra generated by the $`\psi `$’s. The supercovariant momentum operator defined by

$$\pi _m=p_m\frac{i}{4}\omega _{mEF}[\lambda ^E,\lambda ^F]\frac{i}{2}A_{iab}\psi ^a\psi ^b,$$
(5.10)
where $`\omega _{mF}^E`$ is the spin connection, then becomes the covariant derivative acting on spinors twisted in an appropriate way by $`A`$. Note that

$`[\pi _m,\lambda ^n]`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mk}^n\lambda ^k,`$
$`[\pi _m,\psi ^a]`$ $`=`$ $`iA_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}\psi ^b,`$
$`[\pi _m,\pi _n]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R_{mnkl}\lambda ^k\lambda ^l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{mnab}\psi ^a\psi ^b.`$ (5.11)
The supersymmetry charges take the form

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^m(\pi _mG_m)\psi ^a{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}}(I^{(i)}K_i)_a,`$
$`Q_s`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^mJ_m^{(s)n}(\pi _nG_n)\psi ^a{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}}(I^{(i)}I^{(s)}K_i)_a.`$ (5.12)
The algebra of supercharges is given by

$`\{Q,Q\}`$ $`=`$ $`2(𝒵),`$
$`\{Q_s,Q_t\}`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta _{st}(𝒵),`$
$`\{Q,Q_s\}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (5.13)
where the Hamiltonian $``$ and the central charge $`𝒵`$ is given by

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{g}}}\pi _m\sqrt{g}g^{mn}\pi _n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_mG^m+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\lambda ^m\lambda ^nD_mG_n`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\psi ^a\psi ^bT_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{mnab}\lambda ^m\lambda ^n\psi ^a\psi ^b`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_i^aK_{ia}+iI_a^{(i)b}K_{ib;m}\lambda ^m\psi ^a,`$
$`𝒵`$ $`=`$ $`G^m\pi _m{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\lambda ^m\lambda ^n(D_mG_n)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\psi ^a\psi ^bT_{ab}.`$ (5.14)
Note that the operator $`i𝒵`$ is the Lie derivative $`_G`$ acting on spinors twisted by $`T`$.

Although the algebra of supercharges contains a central charge $`𝒵`$ we see that the states will either preserve all four supersymmetries of the supersymmetric quantum mechanics if $`=𝒵`$, or none. This is entirely consistent with the fact that the parent $`N=2`$ field theory has a complex central charge and hence BPS states preserve 1/2 of the eight field theory supercharges, while generic states preserve none of the supersymmetry (of course the vacuum preserves all of the supersymmetry).

## 6 Conclusions

We have presented a detailed derivation of the effective action governing the low-energy dynamics of monopoles and dyons in $`N=2`$ super-Yang-Mills theory with hypermultiplets. It is valid when both adjoint Higgs fields in the $`N=2`$ vector multiplet have non-vanishing expectation values. We have thus derived the supersymmetric quantum mechanics presented in  and generalised it to include the effects of the hypermultiplet fermion zero modes.

Our dynamics is also valid for certain cases when it is possible to have Higgs fields in the hypermultiplets acquire expectation values while maintaining a non-trivial Coulomb branch. This situation arises when the matter representation contains a zero weight vector. Our derivation in section 4 analysed cases when the matter fields are in real representations. A special case of this is $`N=4`$ super-Yang-Mills theory and we have thus derived the supersymmetric quantum mechanics of . Note that a representation (of a hypermultiplet) does not have to be real to have a zero weight vector and it would be interesting to know what the dynamics is for this general case.

It is interesting that the low-energy dynamics of monopoles gives rise to supersymmetric quantum mechanics that have not been considered previously. We showed that they can be obtained by a non-trivial dimensional reduction of $`(4,0)`$ sigma models in two dimensions.

Finally, it would be interesting to use the effective action to study the BPS dyon spectrum in more general situations than have been considered so far. The most promising direction might be to generalise the approach of  using index theorems.

## Acknowledgments

JPG is supported in part by an EPSRC Advanced Fellowship and by PPARC through SPG #613. KL is supported in part by KOSEF 1998 Interdisciplinary Research Grant 98-07-02-07-01-5.

## Appendix A

In this appendix, we derive the conditions (4.19), (5.5) and (5.6) satisfied by the sections $`K_i`$ and also establish (5.7).

Holomorphicity Condition for $`K_i`$

First, we derive the holomorphicity condition (4.19). Since $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is in a real representation, charge-conjugated zero modes can be expressed in terms of original zero modes as in the $`\chi `$ case,

$$\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}^c=i\stackrel{~}{C}_{\overline{A}}^B\mathrm{\Psi }_B,$$
(A.1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is an anti-symmetric unitary matrix with $`\stackrel{~}{C}^2=1`$. Then, using the expansions (4.17) and (4.2), the relations (4.15), (4.16) imply that

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^ms_mK_i^{\overline{A}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\overline{A}}^B\mathrm{\Psi }_B+\mathrm{}=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^mC_m^ns_nK_i^A\mathrm{\Psi }_A+\mathrm{},$$
(A.2)
where, for simplicity, we omitted the index $`i`$ in $`K_i^A`$ which plays no role in the appendix. Taking the inner product with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}^{}`$, we find

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^m_mK_i^{\overline{A}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\overline{A}}^B=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^mC_m^n_nK_i^A.$$
(A.3)
This is a nontrivial condition on $`K`$. Written in terms of the real quantities introduced in (4.6) and (2.37), it becomes

$$(1+iJ^{(3)})I^{(2)}(1iI^{(3)})K=(1+iJ^{(3)})J^{(2)}(1+iI^{(3)})K,$$
(A.4)
where $`I^{(3)}`$ is the third complex structure of the Index bundle which transforms the real part of $`K`$ into the imaginary part of $`K`$; $`I^{(2)}`$ is the second complex structure similar to $`J^{(2)}=𝒞`$ in the $`\chi `$ case and has the block-diagonal form

$$I^{(2)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{C}& 0\\ 0& \stackrel{~}{C}\end{array}\right),$$
(A.5)
when acting on $`\left(\begin{array}{c}K_{2A1}\\ K_{2A}\end{array}\right)`$. All the quantities are now real so the real and the imaginary parts of (A.4) should hold separately. In fact they reduce to the same condition

$$K=J^{(1)}I^{(1)}K+J^{(2)}I^{(2)}KJ^{(3)}I^{(3)}K.$$
(A.6)
Clearly (A.6) is consistent with the holomorphicity condition (4.19) but is not exactly the same. More conditions can be obtained by considering the fermionic zero modes associated with a complex structure other than $`J^{(3)}`$. We first generalise (2.25), (2.26) by introducing $`c`$-number spinors $`ϵ_+^{(s)}`$, $`s=1,2,3`$ satisfying

$$ϵ_+^{(s)}ϵ_+^{(s)}=1,J_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}=iϵ_+^{(s)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }ϵ_+^{(s)},J_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ϵ_+^{(s)}=i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ϵ_+^{(s)},$$
(A.7)
and denoting the corresponding zero modes as

$$\chi _m^{(s)}=\delta _mW_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ϵ_+^{(s)}.$$
(A.8)
The explicit form of $`ϵ_+^{(s)}`$ can be found in the following way. From the definition (4.12) of $`J^{(2)}=𝒞`$,

$`\delta _mW_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ϵ_+^{}`$ $`=`$ $`C_m^n\delta _nW_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ϵ_+`$ (A.9)
$`=`$ $`J_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}\delta _mW_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ϵ_+,`$
from which we find

$$J_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ϵ_+=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ϵ_+^{}.$$
(A.10)
(We will continue to omit the superscript label for quantities associated with $`J^{(3)}`$.) Therefore $`ϵ_+^{(2)}`$ has the form

$$ϵ_+^{(2)}=\frac{e^{i\pi /4}}{\sqrt{2}}(ϵ_+iϵ_+^{}),$$
(A.11)
where the phase is chosen to simplify equations appearing below. $`\chi _m^{(2)}`$ is then given by

$$\chi _m^{(2)}=\frac{e^{i\pi /4}}{\sqrt{2}}(1iJ^{(2)})_m^n\chi _n$$
(A.12)
With the definition $`ϵ^{{}_{}{}^{}(2)}=Cϵ_+^{(2)}`$, we can also expand the complex-conjugated zero modes in terms of $`\chi _n^{(2)}`$,

$`\delta _mW_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ϵ^{{}_{}{}^{}(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\pi /4}}{\sqrt{2}}}(i+J^{(2)})_m^n\chi _n`$ (A.13)
$`=`$ $`(J^{(2)}J^{(3)})_m^n\chi _n^{(2)},`$
where the relation $`J_m^n\chi _n=i\chi _n`$ is used. With $`J^{(1)}=J^{(2)}J^{(3)}`$, the above equation corresponds to the counterpart of (4.12). A similar analysis can be repeated for $`J^{(1)}`$, but we will omit the details.

Now let us consider the expansion of $`\text{/}D\overline{H}_iϵ_+^{(2)}`$,

$$\text{/}D\overline{H}_iϵ_+^{(2)}i\sqrt{2}\gamma _5K_i^{(2)A}\mathrm{\Psi }_A.$$
(A.14)
From the relation (A.11), it follows that $`K_i^{(2)A}`$ is given by

$$K_i^{(2)}=\frac{e^{i\pi /4}}{\sqrt{2}}(K+i\stackrel{~}{C}K_i^{}).$$
(A.15)
In terms of real quantities, this equation becomes

$$K_i^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}(1+I^{(2)})(1+I^{(3)})K.$$
(A.16)
With the expansion (A.14), the condition arising from (A.2) now takes the form

$$(1+iJ^{(2)})I^{(2)}(1iI^{(3)})K_i^{(2)}=(1+iJ^{(2)})J^{(1)}(1+iI^{(3)})K_i^{(2)}.$$
(A.17)
Inserting (A.16) into (A.17) we obtain a condition for $`K`$,

$$K_i=J^{(1)}I^{(1)}K_iJ^{(2)}I^{(2)}K_i+J^{(3)}I^{(3)}K_i.$$
(A.18)
Performing a similar analysis for complex structures $`J^{(1)}`$ gives

$$K_i=J^{(s)}I^{(s)}K_i+J^{(t)}I^{(t)}K_iJ^{(u)}I^{(u)}K_i,$$
(A.19)
where $`(s,t,u)`$ is a cyclic permutation of $`(1,2,3)`$. Collectively, these condition implies the holomorphicity condition (4.19).

Invariance of $`K_i`$’s under $`G`$

To establish (5.5) consider the following integral:

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}d^3x\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}^{}\gamma ^0G^ms_m\text{/}D\overline{H}_iϵ_+.$$
(A.20)
After substituting (4.2) and directly integrating, this becomes

$$G^m_mK_{i\overline{A}}.$$
(A.21)
Alternatively, we can commute $`\text{/}D`$ through $`G^ms_m`$ and integrate by parts (noting that the surface term vanishes) to get

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}d^3xD_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}^{}\gamma ^0\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu G^ms_m\overline{H}_iϵ_++\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}d^3x\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}^{}\gamma ^0G^m[s_m,\text{/}D]\overline{H}_iϵ_+.$$
(A.22)
The first term vanishes since $`\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }_A`$ is a zero mode while the second term can be written using (2.18) and (2.35) as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle d^3x\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}^{}\gamma ^0G^m\delta _mW_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \overline{H}_iϵ_+}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle d^3x\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}^{}\gamma ^0D_\mu \overline{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \overline{H}_iϵ_+},`$ (A.23)
which equals

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle d^3x\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}^{}\gamma ^0\overline{a}\text{/}D\overline{H}_iϵ_+}=K_i^B{\displaystyle d^3x\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{A}}^{}\overline{a}\mathrm{\Psi }_B}.`$ (A.24)
Thus we find

$$G^m_mK_{i\overline{A}}=T_{\overline{A}}^{\overline{B}}K_{i\overline{B}}.$$
(A.25)
Repeating the exercise for the charge-conjugated version, we find

$$G^m_mK_{ia}=T_a^bK_{ib}.$$
(A.26)
Vanishing of $`K_i|I^{(s)}|K_j`$

Consider the simplest case of $`I^{(3)}`$. From the definition of the $`K`$’s, this inner product is equal to the integral

$$\frac{i}{2}d^3x\left(ϵ_+^{}\text{/}D\overline{H}_i\text{/}D\overline{H}_jϵ_+(ϵ_+^{})^{}\text{/}D\overline{H}_i\text{/}D\overline{H}_jϵ_+^{}\right).$$
(A.27)
Since $`\text{/}D^2Hϵ_+=\text{/}D^2Hϵ_+^{}=0`$ this is a boundary integral given by

$$\frac{i}{2}𝑑\widehat{n}_\mu \overline{H}_iD_\nu \overline{H}_j\left(ϵ_+^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ϵ_+(ϵ_+^{})^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ϵ_+^{}\right).$$
(A.28)
Since $`ϵ_+`$ and $`ϵ_+^{}`$ are normalized to unity, the symmetric part of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu `$ in each term cancel. The anti-symmetric part is proportional to $`J_{\mu \nu }^{(3)}`$ which is a complex structure on $`R^4`$;

$$𝑑\widehat{n}_\mu \overline{H}_iD_\nu \overline{H}_jJ_{\mu \nu }^{(3)}.$$
(A.29)
This integrand consists of angular covariant derivatives of $`\overline{H}_j`$ contracted with $`\overline{H}_i`$ as well as a term involving the action of the adjoint field $`b`$ on $`\overline{H}_j`$ again contracted with $`\overline{H}_i`$. Lets work in the unitary gauge where the unbroken gauge $`U(1)`$ generators are taken to be diagonal. In the asymptotic region the only surviving terms are then ordinary angular derivatives on $`\overline{H}_j`$, since all the other terms are exponentially small and do not contribute to the surface integral.

Since $`\overline{H}_j`$ must solve the ordinary 3-dimensional Laplace equation at large $`r`$ its asymptotic form is given by

$$\overline{H}_j=\overline{H}_j+\underset{lm}{}c_{lm}\frac{Y_{lm}}{r^{l+1}}+\mathrm{},$$
(A.30)
where $`c_{lm}`$ are constant vectors, $`Y_{lm}`$ are the 3-dimensional spherical harmonics and the ellipsis denotes terms that are exponentially small in large $`r`$. Since the coefficient of the leading $`1/r`$ piece, $`Y_{00}`$, is a constant, the boundary integral vanishes on the asymptotic two-sphere. Similar consideration starting with different $`ϵ_+`$ as in the derivation of the holomorphicity condition above leads us to

$$K_i|I^{(s)}|K_j=0.$$
(A.31)
for $`s=1,2,3`$.

Establishing $`(I^{(s)})_{}^{c}{}_{b}{}^{}T_{ca}=(I^{(s)})_{}^{c}{}_{a}{}^{}T_{cb}`$

For $`I^{(3)}`$ this condition is equivalent to the statement that $`T_{AB}`$=$`T_{\overline{A}\overline{B}}=0`$ which is true by definition. For $`I^{(2)}`$ consider the term with $`a,b`$ both being holomorphic indices $`A,B`$. We then have

$`I_{}^{(2)\overline{C}}{}_{B}{}^{}T_{\overline{C}A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3xI_{}^{(2)\overline{C}}{}_{B}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{C}}^{}\overline{a}\mathrm{\Psi }_A}`$ (A.32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\psi _B^TC\overline{a}\psi _A}`$
where we have used (A.1). This is symmetric in $`A,B`$ since both $`C`$ and the group generators are anti-symmetric. Other components and $`I^{(1)}`$ can be dealt with similarly.

## Appendix B

The supersymmetric quantum mechanics (5.1), which generalises that presented in , is as far as we know new. We show here that it can be obtained from a non-trivial, “Scherk-Schwarz”, dimensional reduction of a two-dimensional sigma model with (4,0) supersymmetry.

Let $`(\sigma ^0,\sigma ^1,\theta ^+)`$ be coordinates of two-dimensional (1,0) superspace and consider the following action

$$𝒮=\frac{1}{2}d^2\sigma 𝑑\theta ^+\left[iD_+z^m_=z^ng_{mn}+\psi _{}^a_+\psi _{}^bh_{ab}\right].$$
(B.1)
Here $`\sigma ^{}=(\sigma ^0+\sigma ^1)/2`$, $`\sigma ^==(\sigma ^0\sigma ^1)/2`$ and $`D_+=_{\theta ^+}i\theta ^+_{}`$. The scalar superfield $`z^m`$ is a map from (1,0) superspace to a target $``$ and the Grassmann odd superfield $`\psi _{}^a`$ takes values in a vector bundle over $``$. $`h_{ab}`$ is a fiber metric satisfying $`_ih_{ab}=0`$ and $`_+\psi _{}^a=D_+\psi _{}^a+A_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}D_+z^m\psi _{}^b`$, where $`A`$ is a connection on the vector bundle.

The component form of the action can be obtained by first expanding the superfields via

$`z^m`$ $`=`$ $`z^m+i\theta ^+\lambda _+^m`$
$`\psi _{}^a`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{}^a+\theta ^+f^a.`$ (B.2)
After eliminating the auxiliary fields $`f`$ via their equations of motion we obtain

$$𝒮=\frac{1}{2}d^2l[_{}z^m_=z^ng_{mn}+i\lambda _+^m_=\lambda _+^ng_{mn}+i\psi _{}^a_{}\psi _{}^bh_{ab}+\frac{1}{2}F_{mnab}\lambda _+^m\lambda _+^n\psi _{}^a\psi _{}^b],$$
(B.3)
where $`F`$ is the curvature of the connection $`A`$ and $`_=`$ and $`_{}`$ are the covariantization of $`_=`$ and $`_{}`$, respectively, with the pull back of the Christoffel symbols.

Let us suppose that the target manifold is hyper-Kähler and that the connection is tri-holomorphic so that the sigma model admits an extended (4,0) supersymmetry. Suppose in addition that the action is invariant under the symmetry transformations generated by a tri-holomorphic Killing vector field $`G^m`$:

$`\delta z^m`$ $`=`$ $`kG^m,`$
$`\delta \psi _{}^a`$ $`=`$ $`kT_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}\psi _{}^aA_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}\delta z^m\psi _{}^b,`$ (B.4)
where $`k`$ is a constant and the tensor $`T_{ab}=T_{ba}`$ must satisfy

$$G^kF_{kmab}=T_{ab;m},$$
(B.5)
which determines $`T`$ up to covariantly constant terms.

Ordinary dimensional reduction to a supersymmetric quantum mechanics is implemented by assuming that all of the fields are independent of the coordinate $`\sigma ^1`$. Scherk-Schwarz reduction is achieved by demanding the weaker condition that the Lagrangian is independent. Using the invariance under the symmetry transformations (Appendix B) this can be achieved by letting the $`\sigma ^1`$ dependence of the fields be given by

$`_1z^m`$ $`=`$ $`G^m,`$
$`_1\lambda _+^m`$ $`=`$ $`G_{}^{m}{}_{,n}{}^{}\lambda _+^n,`$
$`_1\psi _{}^a`$ $`=`$ $`T_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}\psi _{}^b+A_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}G^m\psi _{}^b.`$ (B.6)
After integrating over $`\sigma ^1`$ one then obtains the following action

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }dt[\dot{z}^m\dot{z}^ng_{mn}G^mG^ng_{mn}+i\lambda ^mD_t\lambda _+^ng_{mn}+i\lambda _+^m\lambda _+^nG_{m;n}`$ (B.7)
$`+i\psi _{}^a𝒟_t\psi _{}^bh_{ab}i\psi _{}^a\psi _{}^bT_{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{mnab}\lambda _+^m\lambda _+^n\psi _{}^a\psi _{}^b].`$
Identifying $`\lambda _+`$’s with $`\lambda `$’s, and $`\psi _{}`$’s with $`\psi `$’s, we recover precisely the effective action (3.20) that describes the dynamics of monopoles with fermionic contributions from the hypermultiplets.

To obtain the supersymmetric quantum mechanics when the hypermultiplets have non-zero expectation values, we generalise the above construction666Another generalization, is to reduce a model with torsion $`H=db`$. In the case that the Lie-derivative with respect to $`G`$ of the two-form $`b`$ vanishes the Scherk-Schwarz reduction proceeds in a straightforward manner. We do not present any details here as there is no obvious application to monopole dynamics. by performing Scherk-Schwarz reduction on a (4,0) model with potential . To do this we add a (1,0) supersymmetric term,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮=\frac{1}{2}d^2\sigma 𝑑\theta ^+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}v_a\psi _{}^a,$$
(B.8)
to (B.1) where $`v_a`$ is a section of the dual of the Index bundle. The combined quantum mechanics action is invariant under the symmetry transformations (Appendix B) provided that in addition to (B.5) the section satisfies

$$v^aT_{ab}+v_{b;k}G^k=0.$$
(B.9)
Since the action (B.8) does not contain any derivatives, the Scherk-Schwarz reduction is equivalent to ordinary dimensional reduction. After eliminating the auxiliary fields it leads to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S=\frac{1}{2}𝑑t[v_av_bh^{ab}+2iv_{a;m}\lambda ^m\psi ^a].$$
(B.10)
The combined action is automatically invariant under an $`N=1`$ supersymmetry. The extended $`N=4`$ supersymmetry of (B.7) will extend to that of the combined action under suitable conditions on the section $`v^a`$. The supersymmetry transformations are

$`\delta z^m`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ\lambda ^m+iϵ_sJ_{}^{(s)m}{}_{n}{}^{}\lambda ^n,`$
$`\delta \lambda ^m`$ $`=`$ $`(\dot{z}^mG^m)ϵ+J_{}^{(s)m}{}_{n}{}^{}(\dot{z}^nG^n)ϵ_siϵ_s\lambda ^k\lambda ^nJ_{}^{(s)l}{}_{k}{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ln}^m,`$
$`\delta \psi ^a`$ $`=`$ $`A_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}\delta z^m\psi ^b+ϵv^a+ϵ_st_{(s)}^a,`$ (B.11)
provided that the sections $`t_{(s)}^a,s=1,2,3`$ can be found satisfying

$`(v_at_{(s)}^a)_{;m}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`J_m^{(s)n}_nv^a`$ $`=`$ $`_mt_{(s)}^a,`$
$`G^nt_{(s);n}^a`$ $`=`$ $`T_{ab}t_{(s)}^b,`$ (B.12)
where $`J^{(s)}`$ are the three complex structures on the target manifold. Note that these conditions imply that the norm of $`v`$ and those of the $`t`$’s differ only by a constant.

Consider now the particular case that the bundle associated with the fermionic variables $`\psi ^a`$ has the structure group $`Sp(n)`$. In this case there exists four covariantly constant rank-two tensors; the identity $`I^{(0)}`$, and the three complex structures $`I^{(s)}`$. Let us write the section in terms of four vector fields $`K_i`$ via

$$v^a=\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}(I^{(i)})_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}K_i^b.$$
(B.13)
A solution for the three related sections $`t_{(s)}^a`$ is

$$t_{(s)}^a=\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}(I^{(i)})_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}(I^{(s)})_{}^{b}{}_{c}{}^{}K_i^c,$$
(B.14)
providing that the $`K_i`$’s satisfy

$`J_m^{(s)k}_k(I_a^{(s)b}K_{ib})`$ $`=`$ $`_mK_{ia}(\text{no sum on }s),`$
$`K_i^aI_{ab}^{(s)}K_j^b`$ $`=`$ $`\text{constant},`$
$`G^nK_{ia;n}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{ab}K_i^b,`$
$`(I^{(s)})_{}^{c}{}_{b}{}^{}T_{ca}`$ $`=`$ $`(I^{(s)})_{}^{c}{}_{a}{}^{}T_{cb}.`$ (B.15)
Note that the first equation implies that (anti-)holomorphic covariant derivative of (anti-)holomorphic part of $`K_i`$ vanishes. If we make further assumption the constants $`K_i^aI_{ab}^{(s)}K_j^b`$ actually vanishes, the supersymmetric potential terms are given by

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}\left(K_i^aK_{ia}+2iI_a^{(i)b}K_{ib;m}\lambda ^m\psi ^a\right),$$
(B.16)
which are precisely those arising from hypermultiplet vacuum expectation values that we established in section 4.


format: text

text:
# Approximation Errors

## Introduction

Draper  introduced an addition algorithm for a quantum computer that uses only Hadamard and controlled rotation gates. For an $`n`$-bit addition, his algorithm requires only $`2n`$ qubits, $`O(n^2)`$ gates in its full implementation, and allows for parallelization. He also cited Barenco, et. al., to appeal that an approximate quantum Fourier transform may be more accurate than a full quantum Fourier transform . In this paper, we investigate the error introduced by truncating the algorithm by removing all gates with tolerance less than a certain threshold, assuming that no decoherence is introduced into the computation. This work shows that the probability of error decreases rapidly as one adds more gates, so that reliable computation can be achieved even with relatively few controlled rotation gates used in the approximate algorithm. The reader is assumed to be familiar with Draper’s paper, as this work will draw heavily from it as a source of ideas.

From a high level, the full machinery of Draper’s algorithm goes per the following diagram, where $`|a`$ and $`|b`$ are both $`n`$-bit quantum registers, and $`QFT_{2^n}`$ is the quantum Fourier transform on $`n`$ qubits.

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}|b& & |b& & |b& & |b\\ |a& & QFT_{2^n}|a& & QFT_{2^n}|a+b& & |a+b\end{array}$$
(1)
Here $`a+b`$ represents the $`n`$-long bit string formed by the sum of $`a`$ and $`b`$ considered as numbers modulo $`2^n`$, not the vector sum of $`|a`$ and $`|b`$.

The $`QFT`$ algorithm used in this computation is a refinement due to Coppersmith that shows how the $`QFT`$ can be implemented using only Hadamard and controlled rotation gates . A controlled rotation gate is given by the function $`R_\theta `$, which is the action

$$R_\theta :|a|be^{i\theta ab}|a|b,$$

where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are either 0 or 1. We are supposing that we cannot perform a rotation $`R_\theta `$ for an angle $`|\theta |<2\pi /2^k`$ for some $`k`$ because such a gate may cost too much to manufacture, may not be reliable, or the computation may be faster because of a fewer number of gates. The important number here is $`k`$ because we are calculating the error introduced by truncating a computation by eliminating all gates $`R_\theta `$, where $`|\theta |<2\pi /2^k`$. We will call the maximal $`k`$ the threshold for our computation. We would like to replace Diagram 1 with the following diagram, where $`A`$ is the approximate quantum Fourier transform on $`n`$ qubits with $`k`$ as the threshold, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_b`$ represents controlled rotations conditioned on $`b`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}|b& & |b& & |b& & |b\\ |a& & A|a& & \mathrm{\Psi }_bA|a& & A^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_bA|a\end{array}$$

We want to ensure that the quantity

$$\left|a+b|A^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_bA|a\right|^2,$$

which is the probability that the the approximate addition algorithm yields the same result as the full implementation, is close to unity for a given threshold $`k`$.

## Notation and Background

A review of notation is needed at this point. We will follow Draper’s notation by defining $`e(t)=e^{2\pi it}`$, so that $`e(x+y)=e(x)e(y)`$, and $`e(x)=1`$ if and only if $`x`$ is an integer. We also define

$$0.a_na_{n1}\mathrm{}a_1=\frac{a_n}{2}+\frac{a_{n1}}{2^2}+\mathrm{}+\frac{a_1}{2^n},$$

where each $`a_i`$ is either $`0`$ or $`1`$. Note that this is equivalent to $`a/2^n`$, where

$$a=a_na_{n1}\mathrm{}a_1=a_n2^{n1}+a_{n1}2^{n2}+\mathrm{}+a_12^0.$$

Then if $`a`$ is an $`n`$-bit integer with $`n>k`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}e(a/2^k)& =& e(a_n2^{nk1}+a_{n1}2^{nk2}+\mathrm{}+a_{k+1}+a_k/2+\mathrm{}+a_1/2^k)\hfill \\ & =& e(a_k/2+a_{k1}/2^2+\mathrm{}+a_1/2^k)\hfill \\ & =& e(0.a_ka_{k1}\mathrm{}a_1).\hfill \end{array}$$

The quantum Fourier transform on an $`N`$-dimensional space evolves the basis state vector $`|a`$ to the state

$$QFT_N:|a\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}e^{2\pi iaj/N}|j,$$
(2)
where the orthonormal basis vectors of the space are enumerated $`|0`$, $`|1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`|N1`$. If $`N`$ is composite, say $`N=MK`$ for some integers $`M`$ and $`K`$, then we can break up the quantum Fourier transform into the tensor product of at least two distinct unentangled parts. By the division algorithm, we can let $`j=mK+k`$, where $`0m<M`$, and $`0k<K`$. We assume that we are using the positional notation with radix $`K`$, so that $`|j=|m|k`$. After substituting for $`j`$ and $`N`$, the sum in Equation 2 becomes

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill QFT_N|a& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{MK}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{M1}{}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{K1}{}}e^{2\pi ia(mK+k)/MK}|m|k\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{MK}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{M1}{}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{K1}{}}e^{2\pi iam/M}e^{2\pi iak/N}|m|k\hfill \\ & =\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{M1}{}}e^{2\pi iam/M}|m\right)\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{K1}{}}e^{2\pi iak/N}|k\right)\hfill \\ & =\left(QFT_M|a\right)\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{K1}{}}e^{2\pi iak/N}|k\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
Equation 3 deserves some commentary, in that we seem to be confusing mathematical notation for actual physical reality. The content of this equation is that we can take the $`N`$-dimensional space $`A_N`$ and decompose it as a tensor product $`A_MA_K`$. We then get the $`QFT`$ of $`|amodM`$ in $`A_M`$, and tensor that with the result of the operation specified in $`A_K`$, with the final result of the computation being the $`QFT`$ of $`|a`$ in $`A_N`$. Hopefully this sloppiness will not cause to much confusion to the reader, as it is a mathematical artifice too show that the quantum Fourier transform is not entangled. Now we assume that $`N=2^n`$ is a power of 2. We let $`K=2`$, and $`M=2^{n1}`$, and then substitute $`M`$ and $`K`$ into the Equation 3 above, finding the equation

$$QFT_{2^n}|a=\left(QFT_{2^{n1}}|a\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0+e(a/2^n)|1\right).$$
(4)
We continue inductively, eventually arriving at:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill QFT_{2^n}|a& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n}}\left(|0+e(a/2)|1\right)\left(|0+e(a/2^2)|1\right)\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \left(|0+e(a/2^n)|1\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
This formula allows an implementation of the $`n`$-bit quantum Fourier transform using a total of $`n`$ Hadamard gates, $`n(n1)/2`$ controlled rotation gates, and $`n/2`$ swap gates, as shown in Coppersmith’s paper .

## The Approximate QFT

The approximate quantum Fourier transform (which I call $`A`$ throughout this paper) is implemented by deleting all controlled rotation gates with a tolerance finer than a certain threshold. If the threshold is $`k`$, then the approximate QFT on $`n`$ qubits is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}& A|a=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n}}\left(|0+e(a/2)|1\right)\left(|0+e(a/2^2)|1\right)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\left(\right|0+e(a/2^k)|1)\left(\right|0+e(0.a_{k+1}a_k\mathrm{}a_2)|1)\hfill \\ & \left(\right|0+e(0.a_{k+2}a_k\mathrm{}a_3)|1)\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \left(\right|0+e(0.a_na_{n1}\mathrm{}a_{nk+1})|1).\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
Written this way, the approximate QFT can be put into a useful form for analysis. First, we need to introduce some new notation. Define $`Tr_k^m(a)`$, representing truncation, as being a function that takes the number

$$a=a_n2^{n1}+a_{n1}2^{n2}+\mathrm{}+a_12^0$$

and nonnegative integers $`k`$ and $`m`$, where $`mn`$, and yields the number

$$Tr_k^m(a)=0.\underset{k\text{ 0’s}}{\underset{}{00\mathrm{}0}}a_ma_{m1}\mathrm{}a_1,$$

so that this is the $`m`$ least significant digits of $`a`$ multiplied by $`2^{(m+k)}`$. Note that

$$0Tr_k^m(a)+Tr_k^m(b)Tr_k^m(a+b)2^k,$$
(7)
which captures the fact that carry bits propogate through the addition. The error is bounded above because the only possible non-zero difference between the sum of the truncations and the truncation of the sum is the number

$$0.\underset{k1\text{ 0’s}}{\underset{}{000000\mathrm{}0}}1=2^k.$$

From (7), it is easy to make a inductive argument to prove that

$$0\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}Tr_k^m(a_j)\right)Tr_k^m\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_j\right)(n1)2^k.$$
(8)
Also, it is easy to see that

$$\begin{array}{cc}e(a/2^m)\hfill & =e(0.a_ma_{m1}\mathrm{}a_1)\hfill \\ & =e(0.a_ma_{m1}\mathrm{}a_{mk+1}+Tr_k^{mk}(a)).\hfill \end{array}$$

We can therefore write the approximate quantum Fourier transform as

$$\begin{array}{cc}& A|a=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n}}\left(|0+e(a/2)|1\right)\left(|0+e(a/2^2)|1\right)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\left(|0+e(a/2^k)|1\right)\left(|0+e(a/2^{k+1}Tr_k^1(a))|1\right)\hfill \\ & \left(|0+e(a/2^{k+2}Tr_k^2(a))|1\right)\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \left(|0+e(a/2^nTr_k^{nk}(a))|1\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
## Rotation by $`b`$

We have seen how to compute the approximate quantum Fourier transform of a state vector $`|a`$. At this point, we want to see the action of controlled rotations conditioned on bits from $`b`$. If we take the last qubit in Equation 9, we see that after the application of the approximate QFT, its unnormalized state is

$$|\varphi _n=|0+e(0.a_na_{n1}\mathrm{}a_{nk+1})|1$$

and is rotated to the state

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_b|\varphi _n=|0+e(0.a_na_{n1}\mathrm{}a_{nk+1}+0.b_nb_{n1}\mathrm{}b_{nk+1})|1$$

by the action of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_b`$ . This state is equivalent to

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_b|\varphi _n=|0+e\left((a+b)/2^nTr_k^{nk}(a)Tr_k^{nk}(b)\right)|1.$$

Note that the correct state, i.e., if we were to perform an approximate QFT on the vector $`|a+b`$, is

$$|\psi _n=|0+e\left((a+b)/2^nTr_k^{nk}(a+b)\right)|1.$$

Similar statements hold for the other qubits. We discover the error introduced by using the approximate transform by rewriting this state as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Psi }_b|\varphi _n& =|\psi _n+\{e((a+b)/2^n)[e(Tr_k^{nk}(a)Tr_k^{nk}(b))\hfill \\ & e(Tr_k^{nk}(a+b))]|1\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`|\psi _n`$ will be evolved back to the correct answer of $`a+b`$ by the application of the inverse approximate QFT, $`A^{}`$. The remainder of the state vector enclosed in braces is an error term. There is also a normalization factor of $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ that I have not included.

After the application of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_b`$ and the approximate QFT, the $`a`$ register has been evolved to a state

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{\Psi }_bA|a=|\psi _1|\psi _2\mathrm{}|\psi _k(|\psi _{k+1}+|\gamma _{k+1})\hfill \\ & (|\psi _{k+2}+|\gamma _{k+2})\mathrm{}(|\psi _n+|\gamma _n),\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
where $`|\gamma _j`$ represents the error on qubit $`j`$. If we expand this expression out, we have $`2^{nk}`$ terms. There will be $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk}{m}\right)`$ terms with $`m`$ errors for each $`0mnk`$. We have the identity that

$$e^{i\theta }e^{i\alpha }=_\alpha ^\theta ie^{it}𝑑t.$$

So

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |e^{i\theta }e^{i\alpha }|& =\left|_\alpha ^\theta ie^{it}𝑑t\right|\hfill \\ & |_\alpha ^\theta |ie^{it}|dt|\hfill \\ & =|\theta \alpha |\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
for any $`\theta `$ and $`\alpha `$. Combining this with the inequality (7) yields that, for every $`j`$ such that $`nk<jn`$,

$$|\gamma _j\pi \sqrt{2}2^k.$$

We also know that

$$|a|b=|a|b,$$

and that $`|\psi _i=1`$ for every $`1in`$; therefore, the effect of having $`m`$ errors in a term is that the magnitude of the error on that term is equal to the product of the magnitudes of each of the $`m`$ errors. Since $`A`$ is unitary, the magnitude of the error vector is preserved when we apply $`A^{}`$. Using the triangle inequality ($`_ix_i_ix_i`$) to bound the error in the state given in Equation 10, we see that the magnitude of the error must be bounded above by

$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{nk}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk}{m}\right)(\pi \sqrt{2}2^k)^m=(1+\pi \sqrt{2}2^k)^{nk}1$$

The probability of error is this number squared. When we do a first-order expansion of this expression, we get

$$\pi (nk)2^k\sqrt{2}$$
(12)
as a rough estimate for the bound. Thus $`k`$ does not have to be very large compared to $`n`$ to maintain a very small probability of error in the computation. For example, if $`n=1000`$, and $`k=30`$, then the bound given in (12) is approximately $`4.0\times 10^6`$; the probability of getting an error is smaller than $`1.6\times 10^{11}`$. One can use (8) to prove that if we perform $`m`$ $`k`$-truncated additions—i.e., add $`m+1`$ numbers—the magnitude of the error vector is bounded above by

$$(1+\pi \sqrt{2}2^km)^{nk}1,$$

which also goes quickly to zero, and thus implies that there is a high probability of getting the correct answer when one uses a sufficient number of controlled rotation gates.

## Summary

We have derived a bound on the error introduced by truncating in Draper’s quantum addition algorithm. This bound goes quickly toward zero, and therefore promises that only a moderate number of rotation gates are required to ensure reliable addition if we use Draper’s algorithm in connection with reliable quantum computational gates.


text:
# References

International Journal of Modern Physics A,
c World Scientific Publishing Company

AdS/CFT DUALITY AND CONFORMALITY FOR

NON-ABELIAN ORBIFOLD

PAUL H. FRAMPTON

Institute of Field Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255

An outline of the conformality approach to the gauge hierarchy is given including the use of non-abelian orbifolds to give unified models of the left-right type.

One can identify four approaches to the hierarchy problem by different new (untested) physics at a TeV scale:

* Supersymmetry. GUT unification works better with TeV supersymmetry.
* Technicolor. New strong dynamics at a TeV scale.
* Large extra dimensions at a TeV scale.
* Conformality at a TeV scale.

Here, I discuss the fourth approach. It is motivated physically by the notion that at a TeV scale the standard model appears almost conformally invariant in the sense that the masses of the particles, as well as the QCD and weak scales appear almost vanishingly small. But the theory is not conformal invariant as it stands because the couplings still run. The conformality idea is to enrich the spectrum just so that the couplings cease to run at an infra-red fixed point of the renormalization group.

Nevertheless as will become clear there can still be a gauge coupling unification at the TeV scale in a larger gauge group. The disparity of the 321 couplings then arises from the group theory of the embedding in the larger group.

Using AdS/CFT duality, one arrives at a class of gauge field theories of special recent interest. The simplest compactification of a ten-dimensional superstring on a product of an AdS space with a five-dimensional spherical manifold leads to an $`𝒩=4SU(N)`$ supersymmetric gauge theory, well-known to be conformally invariant?. By replacing the manifold $`S^5`$ by an orbifold $`S^5/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ one arrives at less supersymmetries corresponding to $`𝒩=2,1\mathrm{or}0`$ depending on whether $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(2),SU(3),\mathrm{or}SU(3)`$ respectively, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is in all cases a subgroup of $`SU(4)SO(6)`$ the isometry of the $`S^5`$ manifold.

It was conjectured in ? that such $`SU(N)`$ gauge theories are conformal in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit. In ? it was conjectured that at least a subset of the resultant nonsupersymmetric $`𝒩=0`$ theories are conformal even for finite $`N`$. Some first steps to check this idea were made in ?. Model-building based on abelian $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ was studied further in ?,?,?, arriving in ? at an $`SU(3)^7`$ model based on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=Z_7`$ which has three families of chiral fermions, a correct value for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ and a conformal scale $`10`$ TeV.

The case of non-abelian orbifolds bases on non-abelian $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has now been studied?. We have considered all non-abelian discrete groups of order $`g<32`$. These are described in detail in ?,?. There are exactly 45 such non-abelian groups. Because the gauge group arrived at by this construction? is $`_iSU(Nd_i)`$ where $`d_i`$ are the dimensions of the irreducible representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, one can expect to arrive at models such as the Pati-Salam $`SU(4)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ type? by choosing $`N=2`$ and combining two singlets and a doublet in the 4 of $`SU(4)`$. Indeed we find that such an accommodation of the standard model is possible by using a non-abelian $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The procedures for building a model within such a conformality approach are: (1) Choose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$; (2) Choose a proper embedding $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(4)`$ by assigning the components of the 4 of $`SU(4)`$ to irreps of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, while at the same time ensuring that the 6 of $`SU(4)`$ is real; (3) Choose $`N`$, in the gauge group $`_iSU(Nd_i)`$.

We choose $`N=2`$ and aim at the gauge group $`SU(4)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)`$. To obtain chiral fermions, it is necessary? that the 4 of $`SU(4)`$ be complex $`\mathrm{𝟒}\mathrm{𝟒}^{}`$. Actually this condition is not quite sufficient to ensure chirality in the present case because of the pseudoreality of $`SU(2)`$. We must ensure that the 4 is not pseudoreal.

This last condition means that many of our 45 candidates for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ do not lead to chiral fermions. For example, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=Q_{2n}SU(2)`$ has irreps of appropriate dimensionalities for our purpose but it will not sustain chiral fermions under $`SU(4)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ because these irreps are all, like $`SU(2)`$, pseudoreal.***Note that were we using $`N3`$ then a pseudoreal 4 would give chiral fermions. Applying the rule that 4 must be neither real nor pseudoreal leaves a total of only 19 possible non-abelian discrete groups of order $`g31`$. The smallest group which avoids pseudoreality has order $`g=16`$ but gives only two families. The technical details of our systematic search iare in ?.

Here we mention only the simplest interesting non-abelian case which has $`g=24`$ and gives three chiral families in a Pati-Salam-type model?.

The first group that can lead to exactly three families occurs at order $`g=24`$ and is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=Z_3\times Q`$ where $`Q(Q_4)`$ is the group of unit quarternions which is the smallest dicyclic group $`Q_{2n}`$.

There are several potential models due to the different choices for the 4 of $`SU(4)`$ but only the case 4 = $`(1\alpha ,1^{^{}},2\alpha )`$ leads to three families.

Since $`Q\times Z_3`$ is a direct product group, we can write the irreps as $`r_i\alpha ^a`$ where $`r_i`$ is a $`Q`$ irrep and $`\alpha ^a`$ is a $`Z_3`$ irrep. We write $`Q`$ irreps as $`1,1^{^{}},1^{^{\prime \prime }},1^{^{\prime \prime \prime }},2`$ while the irreps of $`Z_3`$ are all singlets which we call $`1,\alpha ,|\alpha ^1`$. Thus $`Q\times Z_3`$ has twelve irreps in all and the gauge group will be of Pati-Salam type for $`N=2`$.

If we wish to break all supersymmetry, the 4 may not contain a singlet of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Due to permutational symmetry among the singlets it is sufficiently general to choose 4 = $`(1\alpha ^{a_1},1^{^{}}\alpha ^{a_2},2\alpha ^{a_3})`$ with $`a_10`$.

To fix the $`a_i`$ we note that the scalar sector of the theory which is generated by the 6 of $`SU(4)`$ can be used as a constraint since the 6 is required to be real. This leads to $`a_1+a_2=2a_3(\mathrm{mod}3)`$. Up to permutaions in the chiral fermion sector the most general choice is $`a_1=a_3=+1`$ and $`a_2=0`$. Hence our choice of embedding is

$$\mathrm{𝟒}=(1\alpha ,1^{^{}},2\alpha )$$
(1)
with

$$\mathrm{𝟔}=(1^{^{}}\alpha ,2\alpha ,2\alpha ^1,1^{^{}}\alpha ^1)$$
(2)
which is real as required.

We are now in a position to summarize the particle content of the theory. The fermions are given by

$$\underset{I}{}\mathrm{𝟒}\times R_I$$
(3)
where the $`R_I`$ are all the irreps of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=Q\times Z_3`$.

The scalars are given by

$$\underset{I}{}\mathrm{𝟔}\times R_I$$
(4)
As described in more detail in ? the scalars are suffcient to break the starting gauge symmetry $`SU(4)^3\times SU(2)^{12}`$ to the required 4-2-2 left-right structure, and with precisely three chiral families in 16-plets.