text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

During the last few years, the $`AdSCFT`$ correspondence has generated a lot of interest (see  for a review). However, most of the work focused on the $`AdS_5`$/$`SYM_4`$ correspondence because of the interest in describing strongly coupled 4 dimensional field theories and because (non)perturbative results in these field theories were known.

An interesting case of the correspondence is the one between string theory on $`AdS_7\times R^4`$ and the mysterious 6 dimensional (2,0) $`CFT`$. This theory is a fixed point of the renormalization group flow from the theory on N parallel M5 branes. Not too much is known about this $`CFT`$, and so there is no independent check of the $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence besides verifying conformal invariance and comparing the masses of the primaries with those obtained in the $`DLCQ`$ description of this $`CFT`$ .

There are however many interesting new features in this correspondence, one of which is the appearance in the 7 dimensional theory of a three-index antisymmetric tensor with a first order equation of motion (of “self-duality in odd dimensions” type - $`dA=mA`$). Finding its propagator and the corresponding $`CFT`$ two-point function presents some new challenges. The reason for studying it is twofold.

First, by analyzing correlators of the 3-form field we learn about $`CFT`$ correlators of the self-dual 3-form in $`6d`$. The (2,0) $`CFT`$ is hard to describe mostly because we don’t understand how to make a self-dual 3-form nonabelian. The study of these 3-forms via the $`AdSCFT`$ correspondence may be a step towards that. Second, two of us argued in a previous paper  that one needs to take a nonlinear ansatz for the embedding of AdS fields into the higher-dimensional theory (in this case M theory) for the $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence. If one were able to compute correlators independently on the $`CFT`$ side and compare them with the $`AdS`$ results obtained here, this would give further evidence for this statement.

We start by analyzing the propagator of $`p`$-forms in $`2p+1`$ dimensions, and for generality we look both at the case of self-duality in odd dimensions and at the propagator for the Maxwell action with a topological mass term, both of which are relevant in 7 dimensions. We extend the basis of maximally symmetric bitensors (first introduced by Allen and Jacobson ) with a bitensor constructed from contractions of the $`ϵ`$ symbol with derivatives of the $`AdS`$ chordal distance. We express the propagator ansatz in this basis, and use the equations of motion to compute it. We also present an extra possible term in the bitensor ansatz for the propagator of $`p`$-forms in $`2p`$ dimensions.

We then use the $`AdS_7`$ propagator for the “self-dual” 3-form to extract information about the 6 dimensional (2,0) $`CFT`$. The bulk to boundary propagator is obtained straightforwardly as a limit of the bulk to bulk propagator. Nevertheless, since the 3-form action is first order in derivatives, the quadratic action vanishes on-shell. In order to use the $`AdSCFT`$ correspondence, one has to supplement the action with a boundary term which will generate the correct $`CFT`$ 2-point function. This procedure was first introduced for spin 1/2 fields , used in a 3-point function calculation for interacting spinors-scalars by , and was later justified by Arutyunov and Frolov  and Henneaux  by enforcing the variational principle on a manifold with boundary. We also compute the 3-point functions of two 3-forms and a gauge field, and of two gauge fields and a 3-form. For their calculation we follow the conformal methods of Freedman et al . The results are given in (3.41) and (3.42).

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2.1 we discuss the propagator for the case of “self-duality in odd dimensions”; in section 2.2 we discuss the propagator for $`p`$-forms with a topological mass term, while in the last section dedicated to propagators, 2.3, we investigate the effect of the extra bitensors on the other propagators computed so far. In section 3.1 we study the 2-point function of the 3-form field and in section 3.2 the 3-point functions of two gauge fields, and a 3-form and two 3-forms and a gauge field. We finish with conclusions in section 4. We give some useful identities involving the chordal distance in Appendix A.1. In Appendix A.2 we derive the limits we need when computing the 2-point function, while in Appendix A.3 we included some integrals used for the 3-point functions.

## 2 Propagators

In the recent years a lot of papers  have been written computing propagators of various fields in $`AdS_{d+1}`$. In the cases of tensor propagators, the standard procedure for computing a propagator is to express it using a basis for maximally symmetric bitensors (first introduced by Allen and Jacobson ), and to use the equation of motion. Typically one obtains a system of equations which can be solved in a straightforward way.

Nevertheless, if we try to apply this procedure to a Lagrangian with a topological mass term, we run into trouble. The equations obtained by using the Allen-Jacobson (A-J) basis do not make any sense. We can also see easily that the propagator for a vector with a topological mass term in 3 flat dimensions (which can be computed in a straightforward fashion), contains a term which clearly cannot be expressed in terms of the A-J basis.

What is lacking in the A-J basis is a term which contains contractions of the $`ϵ`$ tensor with derivatives of the chordal distance. These contractions can only give a bitensor for $`d=2p`$ and for $`d+1=2p`$. This is consistent with the fact that we can only write a topological mass term for $`p`$ forms in these dimensions (as $`mAdA`$ or as $`m^2AA`$).

For $`d=2p`$ there are 2 types of equations of motion for $`p`$-forms which we can try to solve. The first one (also known as “self duality in odd dimensions” ) is:

$$\frac{m}{p!}ϵ_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _p}^{\mu _{p+1}\mathrm{}\mu _{d+1}}_{\mu _{p+1}}A_{\mu _{p+2}\mathrm{}\mu _{d+1}}=m^2A_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}J_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}$$
(2.1)
where $`J_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}`$ is a covariantly conserved current which couples to the $`p`$-form.

The second one, comes from adding a topological mass term in a Maxwell action, and it describes gauge invariant forms:

$$\frac{1}{p!}D^\lambda D_{[\lambda }A_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p]}=mϵ_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _p}^{\mu _{p+1}\mathrm{}\mu _{d+1}}D_{\mu _{p+1}}A_{\mu _{p+2}\mathrm{}\mu _{d+1}}J_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}$$
(2.2)
For $`d+1=2p`$ it is possible to add to a Lagrangian, besides the normal mass term $`m^2A^2`$, a term of the form $`\stackrel{~}{m}^2AA`$. While this is an interesting possibility, it does not seem to arise in physical situations (like compactifications of supergravity), and so we will not explore it completely here. Nevertheless we will comment in section 2.3 on the effect of such a term on the propagator. The complete investigation should be straightforward with the methods we have.

### 2.1 Self duality in odd dimensions

In Euclidean $`AdS_{d+1}`$ with the metric

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{z_0^2}(dz_0^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^ddz_i^2)$$
(2.3)
invariant functions and tensors are most easily expressed in terms of the chordal distance

$$u\frac{(z_0w_0)^2+(z_iw_i)^2}{2z_0w_0}$$
(2.4)
and derivatives thereof.

As explained in , when $`p`$ is odd, (2.1) can be interpreted as the square root of the equation of motion of a real massive form field, in Minkowski signature.

When $`p`$ is even, in order for (2.1) to be interpreted as the square root of an equation of motion with positive mass, a factor of $`i`$ has to be added to its left hand side. Equation (2.1) is now complex, and describes a complex field. As explained in , this description is equivalent to that of a real field satisfying the massive Proca equation, and therefore redundant. We will discuss however at the end of this section the propagator for this case.

Since we use Euclidean $`AdS`$, we need to analytically continue the equation of motion. Since we want the $`ϵ`$ symbol not to change, we have to change the equation of motion, multiplying by $`i`$ wherever $`ϵ`$ appears. The new equations describe a complex field, but they should describe a real field when continued back into Minkowski space.

Thus, the equation satisfied by the propagator is:

$`imϵ_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _p}^{\mu _{p+1}\mathrm{}\mu _{d+1}}D_{\mu _{p+1}}G_{\mu _{p+2}\mathrm{}\mu _{d+1};\mu _1^{}\mathrm{}\mu _p^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`m^2G_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p;\mu _1^{}\mathrm{}\mu _p^{}}`$ (2.5)
$``$ $`\delta (z,w)(g_{[\mu _1\mu _1^{}}g_{\mu _2\mu _2^{}}\mathrm{}g_{\mu _p]\mu ^{}_p})`$
where the square brackets in the source term denote antisymmetrization of unprimed indices, and $`m`$ is a dimensionless parameter.

Since the propagator is a maximally symmetric bitensor, conventional wisdom is to express it in terms of 2 antisymmetric bitensors:

$$T_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p;\mu _1^{}\mathrm{}\mu _p^{}}^1=_{\mu _1}_{\mu _1^{}}u\mathrm{}_{\mu _p}_{\mu _p^{}}u+\text{antipermutations of primed indices}$$
(2.6)
$$T_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p;\mu _1^{}\mathrm{}\mu _p^{}}^2=\frac{1}{(p1)!}(_{\mu _1}u_{\mu _1^{}}u_{\mu _2}_{\mu _2^{}}u\mathrm{}_{\mu _p}_{\mu _p^{}}u+\text{antipermutations of all indices})$$
(2.7)
Nevertheless, if we try to plug a combination of these two bitensors into (2.5) we obtain nonsense. We realized however that $`G`$ could contain another $`pp`$ bitensor, which can only exist for $`d=2p`$:

$$T_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p;\mu _1^{}\mathrm{}\mu _p^{}}^3=ϵ_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _p}^{\mu _{p+1}\mathrm{}\mu _{d+1}}_{\mu _{p+1}}_{\mu _1^{}}u\mathrm{}_{\mu _d}_{\mu _p^{}}u_{\mu _{d+1}}u$$
(2.8)
One may ask if there is yet another bitensor, obtained from $`T^3`$ by switching primed with unprimed indices. However, at a closer investigation this bitensor turns out to be proportional to $`T^3`$.

Thus, the propagator can be expanded as:

$$G_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p;\mu _1^{}\mathrm{}\mu _p^{}}(u)=T^1[G(u)+pH(u)]+T^2H^{}(u)+T^3K(u)$$
(2.9)
where the splitting of the coefficient of $`T^1`$ has been made knowing in advance that $`pH(u)T^1+H^{}(u)T^2`$ can be expressed as an antisymmetrized covariant derivative acting on a (p-1,p) bitensor, and thus it drops out when the kinetic operator is applied on it. For $`zw`$, the Euclidean continuation of the equation for the propagator can be expressed as $`dG=imG`$. We are using $`G`$ as both shorthand notation for the propagator bitensor, and as a scalar function of $`u`$. We can easily work out the actions of $`d`$ and $``$ on the terms of the propagator, using the formulas in the Appendix. Thus:

$`dT^1G=(1)^pT^3G^{}`$ (2.10)
$`d(T^1pH+T^2H^{})=0`$ (2.11)
$`d(T^3K)=T^1[u(2+u)K^{}+(dp+1)(1+u)K]T^2[(1+u)K^{}+(dp+1)K]`$
(2.12)
The equation for the propagator implies:

$`(1)^pG^{}=(im)K`$ (2.13)
$`u(2+u)K^{}+(dp+1)(1+u)K=(im)(G+pH)`$ (2.14)
$`K^{}(1+u)(dp+1)K=(im)H^{}`$ (2.15)
Equation (2.14) also contains a source term coming from the $`\delta `$ function term in (2.5). Combining (2.13) and (2.15) we obtain a relation between $`G`$ and $`H`$, which we can integrate once (fixing the integration constant so that both go to $`0`$ as $`u\mathrm{}`$) to give:

$$(1)^pm^2H=G^{}(1+u)+(dp)G$$
(2.16)
From (2.16), (2.13) and (2.14) we can obtain:

$$u(u+2)G^{\prime \prime }+(d+1)(1+u)G^{}+[p(dp)+(1)^pm^2]G=0$$
(2.17)
We can observe that for the cases when “self duality in odd dimensions” holds (odd $`p`$), $`G`$ and $`H`$ obey the same equations as in the case of the massive form propagator . This is not so surprising; after all, our equation of motion was the square root of the equation of motion for massive forms. Moreover, the source term in (2.17) coming from (2.5) is identical to the source term for the massive propagator. Thus, $`G`$ and $`H`$ will be the same as for massive forms in $`d=2p`$:

$$G=\frac{(1)^p\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d1}{2})}{4\pi ^{\frac{d+1}{2}}u^{\frac{d1}{2}}}\frac{C{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(m+1/2,m+1p,2m+1,\frac{2}{2+u})}{(2+u)^{m+1/2}}$$
(2.18)
where $`C`$ is a constant that normalizes the second fraction to 1 as $`u0`$We note that for cases of interest to the AdS/CFT correspondence the hypergeometric function simplifies to 1, since $`m=1`$ for $`AdS_5`$ and $`m=2`$ for $`AdS_7`$. (for the curious, $`C=2^m\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(p1/2)/[\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+p)]`$.) $`H`$ and $`K`$ are given by (2.16), and respectively (2.13). It is interesting to notice that $`K`$ satisfies the equation (2.17) for $`p+1`$ forms in $`2p+3`$, so it is - like G - a hypergeometric function. Nevertheless, its normalization is given by (2.13).

When $`p`$ is even, the extra $`i`$ in (2.1) makes the equation real in Euclidean coordinates. The factor $`(im)`$ from (2.13,2.14,2.15) becomes $`m`$, which has the effect of changing $`(1)^pm^2`$ to $`(1)^{p+1}m^2`$ in equations (2.16) and (2.17). Since $`p`$ is now even, the last term of (2.17) is the same as before, and (2.18) is unchanged.

### 2.2 Forms with a topological mass term

Unlike the previous case, when there was no gauge invariance, equation (2.2) describes gauge invariant forms. As explained in , working in the subspace of covariantly conserved currents makes gauge fixing unnecessary. The equation for the propagator is obtained from (2.2), remembering that Euclidean continuation introduces an $`i`$ multiplying the $`ϵ`$ tensors:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p!}}D^\lambda D_{[\lambda }G_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p];\mu ^{}_1\mathrm{}\mu ^{}_p}imϵ^{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{d+1}}D_{\mu _{p+1}}G_{\mu _{p+2}\mathrm{}\mu _{d+1};\mu _1^{}\mathrm{}\mu _p^{}}=`$
$`=\delta (z,w)(g_{[\mu _1\mu _1^{}}g_{\mu _2\mu _2^{}}\mathrm{}g_{\mu _p]\mu ^{}_p})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p1)!}}D_{[\mu _1^{}}S_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p;\mu _2^{}\mathrm{}\mu _p^{}]}`$ (2.19)
where the last term is a diffeomorphism whose contribution vanishes when integrated against a covariantly conserved source. Since $`S`$ can be expressed as:

$$S_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p;\mu _2^{}\mathrm{}\mu _p^{}}=S(u)[_{[\mu _1}_{\mu _2}_{\mu _2^{}}u\mathrm{}_{\mu _p]}_{\mu _p^{}}u]$$
(2.20)
the last term can be written as $`T^1pS+T^2S^{}`$. For $`zw`$, equation (2.19) can be written in a more compact notation as:

$$(1)^pddGimdG=T^1pS+T^2S^{}$$
(2.21)
We are expanding $`G`$ as in (2.9), remembering that the terms containing $`H`$ can be written as the total divergence, and thus they are gauge artifacts. Using the equations (2.10, 2.11, 2.12) we obtain after a few straightforward steps:

$`u(u+2)K^{\prime \prime }+(d+3)(1+u)K^{}+(1+p)(dp+1)K=(1)^p(im)G^{}`$ (2.22)
$`u(u+2)G^{\prime \prime }+(dp+1)(1+u)G^{}=im[u(u+2)K^{}+(dp+1)(1+u)K]+pS`$
(2.23)
$`(1+u)G^{\prime \prime }+(dp+1)G^{}=im[(1+u)K^{}+(dp+1)K]S^{}`$ (2.24)
As before, equation (2.23) contains a source term coming from the right hand side of (2.19). In order to find $`G`$ and $`K`$ we have to do some manipulations on the system (2.22, 2.23, 2.24). We first define $`F`$, such that $`F^{}K`$. Having done this we can integrate (2.22) and (2.24) once, setting the integration constants so that everything goes to $`0`$ as $`u\mathrm{}`$. We obtain

$$u(u+2)F^{\prime \prime }+(d+1)(1+u)F^{}+p(dp)F=(1)^p(im)G$$
(2.25)
$$(1+u)G^{}+(dp)G=im[(1+u)F^{}+(dp)F]S$$
(2.26)
We combine (2.23) with (2.26), and obtain:

$$u(u+2)G^{\prime \prime }+(d+1)(1+u)G^{}+p(dp)G=im[u(u+2)F^{\prime \prime }+(d+1)(1+u)F^{}+p(dp)F]$$
(2.27)
which by using (2.25) gives

$$u(u+2)G^{\prime \prime }+(d+1)(1+u)G^{}+[p(dp)+(1)^pm^2]G=0$$
(2.28)
Both (2.27) and (2.28) contain a source term at the right hand side. For odd $`p`$, (2.28) is the massive form propagator equation, and $`G`$ is given by (2.18). We will discuss the even $`p`$ situation later. Equation (2.27) implies that $`GimF`$ satisfies the massless propagator equation, with the same source term, so $`F`$ will be proportional to the difference between the massive and the massless propagator. This makes sense; as $`m0`$ we expect the propagator to approach the massless one, which does not contain $`K`$. Thus:

$$K=\frac{i}{m}(G^{}G_{m=0}^{})$$
(2.29)
where $`G_{m=0}`$ is given by setting $`m=0`$ in (2.18).

As promised before, we now investigate the situation of even $`p`$. Naively, our theory can be defined for any $`p`$. However, if we square the equation satisfied by the field, $`(1)^pddA=imdA`$ and call $`BdA`$, we obtain $`(1)^pddB=(1)^{p+1}m^2B`$ which describes a field of positive mass only in odd dimensions. One way to remedy this is to modify (2.19) by making the mass complex ($`mim`$). This equation now describes a complex Minkowski field of positive mass.

### 2.3 Odds and ends

There are two questions which we have not yet addressed. The first one has to do with the effect of the extra term in the bitensor ansatz on the other propagators computed so far. We can investigate the massive propagator, from which the massless one can be obtained as a limit. We can plug the ansatz (2.9) into the equation for the propagator:

$$(1)^pddG=m^2G$$
(2.30)
and obtain the equations for $`G`$ and $`H`$, in the normal fashion. The equation for $`K`$ is decoupled from the equations for $`G`$ and $`H`$. $`K`$ satisfies the same equation as $`G`$, but without a source term. Therefore $`K`$ is zero. In general, when the equation of motion contains an even number of $``$’s(or $`ϵ`$ symbols) the equation for $`K`$ decouples from the other equations, and $`K`$ vanishes because of the lack of a source term.

The second issue to address is the case $`d+1=2p`$. Adding to the massive form Lagrangian a term of the form $`\stackrel{~}{m}^2AA`$ is legitimate. The equation of motion becomes:

$$(1)^pddA=m^2A+\stackrel{~}{m}^2A$$
(2.31)
and the new ansatz for the propagator is:

$$G_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p;\mu _1^{}\mathrm{}\mu _p^{}}(u)=T^1[G(u)+pH(u)]+T^2H^{}(u)+T^4K(u)$$
(2.32)
where

$$T_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p;\mu _1^{}\mathrm{}\mu _p^{}}^4=ϵ_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _p}^{\mu _{p+1}\mathrm{}\mu _{d+1}}_{\mu _{p+1}}_{\mu _1^{}}u\mathrm{}_{\mu _{d+1}}_{\mu _p^{}}u$$
(2.33)
For $`\stackrel{~}{m}0`$ we obtain a set of coupled differential equations involving $`G,H`$ and $`K`$. We do not solve this case here, since the presence of an $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ term is more a logical possibility than something which arises naturals in a physical theory.

Also, this extra term has no effect on the other propagators computed so far. When $`\stackrel{~}{m}=0`$ the equation for $`K`$ decouples from the equations for $`G`$ and $`H`$, and thus $`K=0`$, in absence of a source term.

## 3 Correlators

We begin this section dedicated to computing correlators on $`AdS_7`$ involving the self-dual 3-form $`S_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ with a brief review of the correspondence between the fields of supergravity and the $`CFT`$ operators. The fields of maximally $`7d`$ gauged ($`SO(5)_g`$) sugra couple on the boundary (via the $`AdSCFT`$ correspondence) to the operators of the $`6d`$ (2,0) $`CFT`$. It is well known that the $`6d`$ (2,0) $`CFT`$ with gauge group $`SU(N)`$ has no known lagrangian formulation, but the abelian version corresponds to the tensor multiplet of (2,0) supersymmetry. The $`CFT`$ operators (characterized by their Lorentz ($`Spin(6)`$) and by their R-symmetry $`Sp(2)_RSO(5)`$ quantum numbers) are built out of the primary gauged invariant operators: $`\varphi ^A`$ (a vector under the R-symmetry group), $`\psi `$ (a spinor under the R-symmetry), $`H_{ijk}`$ (a singlet under the R-symmetry). These operators, which are all in the adjoint representation of $`SU(N)`$ transform under supersymmetry as a $`(2,0)`$ tensor multiplet . Below we list the supergravity fields and the $`CFT`$ operators to which they couple:

* the scalars $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^{i}{}_{A}{}^{}`$ in the coset $`Sl(5,R)/SO(5)_g`$ (with the group $`Sl(5,R)`$ broken after gauging to $`SO(5)_c`$) and in the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}`$ of $`SO(5)_g`$ $``$ $`tr(\varphi \varphi )`$
* the spin 1/2 fields $`\lambda _i`$ in the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ of $`SO(5)_g`$ $``$ $`tr(\psi \varphi )`$
* the self-dual 3-form $`S_{\mu \nu \rho }^A`$, in the $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ of $`SO(5)_g`$ $``$ $`tr(H_{ijk}\varphi ^A)𝒪_{ijk}^A`$
* the gauge fields $`B_\mu ^{AB}`$ in the adjoint $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ of $`SO(5)_g`$ couple to the $`R`$-current $``$ $`tr(\overline{\psi }\gamma _i\psi )J_i`$
* the four gravitini $`\psi _\mu `$ in the spinor $`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ representation of $`SO(5)_g`$ $``$ $`tr(\gamma ^{jk}\psi H_{ijk})`$
* the graviton $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, which is singlet under $`SO(5)_g`$, couples to the stress-energy tensor $``$ $`tr(H_{mjk}H_{njk})+\mathrm{}`$

### 3.1 2-point function

In the first section we derived the propagator for a self-dual form in odd dimensions. In particular, in 7 dimensions we have:

$$G(u)=cu^{5/2}(2+u)^{m1/2}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(m+1/2,m2;2m+1;2/(2+u))$$
(3.1)
with $`c`$ a constant. From the bulk propagator one can derive easily the bulk-to-boundary propagator:

$$S_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}(w^0,𝐰)=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}_{M_ϵ}d^6z\sqrt{h(z)}G_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3;\mu _1^{}\mu _2^{}\mu _3^{}}(w,z)(z^0)^ms^{\mu _1^{}\mu _2^{}\mu _3^{}}(𝐳)$$
(3.2)
where $`d^6z\sqrt{h(z)}`$ is the invariant volume element on the hypersurface $`M_ϵ=\{z^0=ϵ\}`$ and G(w,z) is the bulk-to-bulk propagator. The field $`S_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}(w)`$ as defined by (3.2) satisfies its field equation for any finite $`s_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}(𝐳)`$. Moreover, the only nonvanishing components of the $`s(𝐳)_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}`$ are the ones with indices “on the boundary” $`\{i,j,\mathrm{}\}`$. In the limit $`ϵ0`$ we have $`u\mathrm{}`$, $`G(u)cu^{m3}`$, $`H(u)(c/m)u^{m3}`$ and $`K(u)(i(m+3)c/m)u^{m4}`$. So,

$$S_{ijk}(w)=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}_{M_ϵ}d^6zG_{ijk;i^{}j^{}k^{}}(w,𝐳)s_{i^{}j^{}k^{}}(𝐳)$$
(3.3)
where the metric “on the boundary” (used here for raising and lowering the primed indices) is flat, $`g_{i^{}j^{}}(𝐳)=\eta _{i^{}j^{}}`$, while the bulk metric is $`AdS`$, $`g_{\mu _1\mu _2}(z)=(1/z^0)^2\eta _{\mu _1\mu _2}`$ and $`G(w,𝐳)`$ is the bulk-to-boundary propagator. Substituting the propagator expression into (3.3), and taking into account the various limits we get:

$`S_{ijk}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`c{\displaystyle }d^6z[6{\displaystyle \frac{m+3}{m}}s^{3+m}2^{m+3}{\displaystyle \frac{w_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{m}}{[ϵ^2+(𝐳𝐰)^2)]^{3+m}}}s_{ijk}(𝐳)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i(3+m)}{2m}}2^{m+4}{\displaystyle \frac{w_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{m+2}}{[w_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+(𝐳𝐰)^2]^{m+4}}}ϵ_{ijki^{}j^{}k^{}}s_{i^{}j^{}k^{}}(𝐳)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i(3+m)}{m}}2^{m+3}{\displaystyle \frac{w_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{m}}{[w_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+(𝐳𝐰)^2]^{m+3}}}ϵ_{ijki^{}j^{}k^{}}s_{i^{}j^{}k^{}}(𝐳)`$
$``$ $`18{\displaystyle \frac{m+3}{m}}(𝐰𝐳)_i(𝐰𝐳)_i^{}2^{m+4}{\displaystyle \frac{w_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{m}}{[w_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+(𝐳𝐰)^2]^{m+4}}}s_{i^{}jk}(𝐳)`$
$`+`$ $`3{\displaystyle \frac{i(3+m)}{m}}(𝐰𝐳)_i^{}(𝐰𝐳)_l2^{m+4}{\displaystyle \frac{w_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{m}}{[w_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+(𝐳𝐰)^2]^{m+4}}}ϵ_{ijkj^{}k^{}l}s_{i^{}j^{}k^{}}(𝐳)]`$
Use now the Schouten identity to rewrite the last term as

$`ϵ_{ijki^{}j^{}k^{}}s_{li^{}j^{}}(𝐳)(𝐰𝐳)_l(𝐰𝐳)_k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ljki^{}j^{}k^{}}s_{li^{}j^{}}(𝐰𝐳)_i(𝐰𝐳)_k^{}`$ (3.5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}ϵ_{ijki^{}j^{}l}s_{i^{}j^{}l}(𝐰𝐳)^2`$
and by rearranging the terms of (LABEL:intermediar) we finally get

$`S_{ijk}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`6c{\displaystyle d^6z\left(\frac{3+m}{m}\frac{2^{3+m}w_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{m}}{[w_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+(𝐳𝐰)^2]^{m+3}}\right)}`$
$`\left[\left(s_{ijk}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{3!}}ϵ_{ijki^{}j^{}k^{}}s_{i^{}j^{}k^{}}\right)6{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐰𝐳)_i(𝐰𝐳)_i^{}}{[w_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+(𝐳𝐰)^2]}}\left(s_{i^{}jk}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{3!}}ϵ_{i^{}jklmn}s_{lmn}\right)\right]`$
The value which $`S_{ijk}(w)`$ takes on the boundary is obtained from (LABEL:sijkfinal) with $`w^00`$. Using further the limits (A.11,A.14) we get the on-shell boundary value of the 7d self-dual tensor $`S_{ijk}(𝐰)`$:

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}ϵ^mS_{ijk}(ϵ,𝐰)=6c\pi ^3\frac{2^{m+3}}{m(m+1)(m+2)}\left(s_{ijk}(𝐰)+\frac{i}{3!}ϵ_{ijki^{}j^{}k^{}}s_{i^{}j^{}k^{}}(𝐰)\right)$$
(3.7)
We are not surprised to see that on the boundary $`S_{ijk}(𝐰)`$ is self-dual (after all, we knew that $`S_{ijk}(𝐰)`$ is source for a self-dual $`CFT`$ operator). It is interesting to note however, that even if we didn’t impose any restriction on $`s_{ijk}(𝐳)`$, the form of the bulk-to-bulk propagator determined that only the self-dual part of $`s_{ijk}(𝐳)`$ propagates in the bulk. Alternatively, this can be seen in the derivation of the bulk-to-boundary propagator in the footnote on page 11, as a constraint which relates the anti-self-dual part to the self-dual part.

The other on-shell components of $`S_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}(w)`$, namely $`S_{0ij}(w)`$, can be determined similarly, and we obtain the following bulk-to-boundary propagator:

$$G_{\mu \nu \rho ;lmn}(w;𝐳)^{A;B}=c_1\left[\frac{w^0}{(w𝐳)^2}\right]^m_{[\mu }\frac{(w𝐳)_i^{}}{[(w𝐳)^2]^3}\delta _{lmn}^{i^{}|\nu \rho ]}\delta _B^A$$
(3.8)
where the Kronecker delta symbols are antisymmetrized with strength one, and the indices $`lmn`$ are in the self-dual representation of the Lorentz group $`SO(6)`$. We normalize the bulk-to-boundary propagator such that for $`w^00`$, $`S_{ijk}(w^0)^ms_{ijk}^+(𝐰)`$, with $`s_{ijk}^+(𝐰)=\frac{1}{2}(s_{ijk}(𝐰)+\frac{i}{3!}ϵ_{ijki^{}j^{}k^{}}s_{i^{}j^{}k^{}}(𝐰))`$ self-dual. Thus $`c_1=(m+1)(m+2)(m+3)/\pi ^3`$. Furthermore, using a notation which was first introduced in a paper by Freedman et al. , we can rewrite the bulk-to-boundary propagator in a manifestly conformal-covariant form:

$$G_{\mu \nu \rho ;lmn}(w;𝐳)^{AB}=c_1\left[\frac{w^0}{(w𝐳)^2}\right]^m\frac{J_{\mu l}(w𝐳)}{(w𝐳)^2}\frac{J_{\nu m}(w𝐳)}{(w𝐳)^2}\frac{J_{\rho n}(w𝐳)}{(w𝐳)^2}\delta _B^A$$
(3.9)
where the symmetry in the indices $`\mu \nu \rho `$ and $`lmn`$ is the same on both sides. The tensor $`J_{\mu \nu }(w)`$ is related to the inversion $`w^\mu (1/w^2)w_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }`$ Jacobian

$$\frac{w^\mu }{w^\nu }=w^2J_{\mu \nu }(w^{})$$
(3.10)
Clearly, for a field obeying a first order differential equation, the bulk action is vanishing on-shell. This is a situation which was first encountered for spin 1/2 fields . The resolution which was proposed for obtaining non-zero 2-point functions (in accord with the $`CFT`$ calculations) was to supplement the bulk action with a boundary term which does not break the $`AdS_{d+1}`$ isometry group $`O(d+1,1)`$. This proposal was justified afterwards  by imposing the variational principle on a manifold with boundary. On the boundary, we need to specify only the self-dual piece of $`S_{ijk}^+`$  We can understand the result (LABEL:sijkfinal) from a different perspective. The (linearized) field equation in momentum space
$$\left[(x^0)^2_0^2x^0_0m(m\pm 2)(x^0)^2𝐤^2\right]S_{ijk}^\pm (x^0,𝐤)=0$$
has a unique solution (which falls off at infinity) written in terms of the modified Bessel function
$$S_{ijk}^\pm (x^0,𝐤)=\frac{x^0K_{m\pm 1}(x^0k)}{ϵK_{m\pm 1}(ϵk)}s_{ijk}^\pm (𝐤)$$
However, as observed in , there is a constraint (obtained from another field equation) which relates the self-dual to the anti-self-dual boundary values. In $`7d`$, the constraint yields
$$s_{ijk}^{}(𝐤)=\frac{K_{m1}(ϵk)}{K_{m+1}(ϵk)}\left(s_{ijk}^+(𝐤)\frac{6k_i^{}k_{[i}s_{jk]i^{}}^+(𝐤)}{k^2}\right)$$
Note that $`s_{ijk}^{}`$ vanishes if $`s_{ijk}^+`$ is kept finite for $`ϵ0`$. We finally get that on shell
$$S_{ijk}(x^0,𝐤)k^m\left(mK_m(x^0k)s_{ijk}^+(𝐤)+\frac{3x^0k_i^{}k_{[i}s_{jk]i^{}}^+(𝐤)K_{m1}(x^0k)}{k}\right)$$
which is nothing else but the Fourier transform of (LABEL:sijkfinal).  , and so, the anti-self-dual part is free to vary off-shell. Therefore, in order to cancel the remaining boundary term $`m/2S^+\delta S^{}`$ in the variation of the action, we will add the following boundary term to the $`7d`$ gauged sugra action:

$$𝒮_1=\frac{m}{4}\underset{ϵ0}{lim}_{M_ϵ}d^6z\sqrt{h(z)}S_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}(z)S^{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}(z)$$
(3.11)
where, as before, $`d^6z\sqrt{h(z)}`$ is the invariant volume element on the hypersurface $`M_ϵ=\{z^0=ϵ\}`$ infinitesimally close to the boundary of the $`AdS`$ space.

On-shell, $`𝒮_1`$ becomes:

$`𝒮_1={\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}c_1\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle _{M_ϵ}}d^6zS_{ijk}(z)ϵ^m{\displaystyle d^6w\frac{1}{(ϵ^2+𝐰^2)^{m+3}}}`$
$`\left(s_{ijk}^+(w)6{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐰𝐳)_i(𝐰𝐳)_i^{}}{[ϵ^2+(𝐳𝐰)^2]}}s_{i^{}jk}^+(w)\right)`$ (3.12)
where we used that $`lim_{ϵ0}ϵ^mS_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}(z)`$ is nonvanishing only for the $`S_{ijk}(z)`$ components. The limit was already evaluated in (3.7), and so we get:

$`𝒮_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3c_1^2m}{4(m+1)(m+2)(m+3)}}{\displaystyle }d^6z{\displaystyle }d^6ws_{ijk}^+(𝐳){\displaystyle \frac{1}{((𝐳𝐰)^2)^{m+3}}}(s_{ijk}^+(𝐰)`$
$`6{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐰𝐳)_i(𝐰𝐳)_i^{}}{(𝐳𝐰)^2}}s_{i^{}jk}^+(𝐰))`$
The generating functional of the $`CFT`$ operators is equal, by the $`AdSCFT`$ correspondence, to the supergravity partition function which in the classical limit is

$$Z_{AdS_7}[s_{ijk}]=\mathrm{exp}(𝒮_1𝒮_{7dsugra})$$
(3.14)
Thus, the 2-point function of the self-dual $`CFT`$ operator $`𝒪_{ijk}^A=tr(\varphi ^AH_{ijk})`$ is

$`𝒪_{ijk}^A(𝐳)𝒪_{lmn}^B(𝐰)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3c_1^2m}{2(m+1)(m+2)(m+3)}}\delta _B^A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{((𝐳𝐰)^2)^{m+3}}}\left(\delta _{lmn}^{ijk}6{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐰𝐳)^{[i}(𝐰𝐳)_i^{}}{(𝐳𝐰)^2}}\delta _{lmn}^{i^{}jk]}\right)`$
(3.15)
where the symmetry in the indices $`ijk`$ respectively $`lmn`$ is the same on both sides of (3.15). This is the 2-point function for a CFT operator with scaling dimension

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=p+m=3+m$$
(3.16)
in the self-dual tensorial representation of the (Euclidean) Lorentz group $`O(6)`$. In general for a $`CFT`$ operator with scaling dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and in some arbitrary representation of the Lorentz group, conformal invariance fixes the 2-point function to be

$$O(𝐳)O(𝐰)=\frac{1}{((𝐳𝐰)^2)^\mathrm{\Delta }}R(𝐰,𝐳)$$
(3.17)
where $`R(𝐰,𝐳)`$ is the representation matrix of the $`O(d)`$ element

$$R_j^i(𝐰,𝐳)=\delta _j^i\frac{2}{(𝐳𝐰)^2}(𝐰𝐳)^i(𝐰𝐳)_j$$
(3.18)
### 3.2 3-point functions: $`𝒪_{ijk}𝒪_{lmn}J_p`$ and $`𝒪_{ijk}J_mJ_n`$

For this section, the relevant part of the action of maximal $`(𝒩=4)`$ gauged $`7d`$ sugra is<sup>§</sup><sup>§</sup>§Euclidean signature: $`ϵiϵ`$:

$$d^7w[\frac{im}{48}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _7}S_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}^AF_{\mu _4\mathrm{}\mu _7}^A+\frac{1}{16\sqrt{3}}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _7}ϵ_{ABCDE}S_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}^AF_{\mu _4\mu _5}^{BC}F_{\mu _6\mu _7}^{DE}+\mathrm{}]$$
(3.19)
where $`F_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _4}^A=4(D_{[\mu _1}S_{\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4]}^A+gB_{[\mu _1}^{AB}S_{\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4]}^B)`$ is the gauge covariant field strength of $`S_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}^A`$, and $`F_{\mu \nu }^{AB}`$ is the gauge covariant field strength of the gauge fields $`B_\mu ^{AB}`$. The coupling constant is $`g`$ and it equals $`2m`$.

To compute the 3-point functions, inspired by , we use a conformal-covariant bulk-to-boundary propagator for the gauge fields

$$G_{\mu i}^{AB;CD}(w,𝐳)=c_2\left(\frac{w^0}{(w𝐳)^2}\right)^4\frac{J_{\mu i}(w𝐳)}{(w𝐳)^2}\delta _{CD}^{AB}$$
(3.20)
with $`c_2=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(d)}{2\pi ^{d/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)}`$. The 3-point function $`𝒪𝒪J`$ on the $`AdS`$ side of the correspondence reads:

$`𝒪_{ijk}^A(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})𝒪_{lmn}^B(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐})J_p^{CD}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{igmc_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}c_2}{12}}{\displaystyle d^7wϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _7}G_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3;ijk}^{EA}(w;𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})}`$ (3.21)
$`G_{\mu _4p}^{EF;CD}(w;𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑})G_{\mu _5\mu _6\mu _7;lmn}^{FB}(w;𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐})`$
$`+\mathrm{perm}.(ijklmn,𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐},AB)`$
Following  we will use conformal invariance to fix $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}=0`$, and we will make a change of variable by inverting the bulk and the boundary $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ points: $`w^\mu (1/w^2)w^\mu `$, $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏}(1/𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}(1/𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}`$. The inversion property which the tensors $`J_{\mu \nu }`$ satisfy will also be used:

$$J_{\mu i}(w𝐳)=J_{\mu \rho }(w^{})J_{\rho j}(w^{}𝐳^{})J_{ji}(𝐳^{})$$
(3.22)
Finally, we will combine the factors of $`J_{\mu _1i}(w^{}),\mathrm{}`$ with the “flat space” epsilon symbol into $`det[J(w^{})]ϵ_{ijk\nu _4\mathrm{}\nu _7}`$. The determinant can be easily evaluated (by induction, for example) to be -1. Substituting the various propagators into (3.21), and jumping the intermediary steps described above, the integral in the 3-point function becomes:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{igmc_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}c_2}{12}}{\displaystyle d^7w^{}\delta _{CD}^{AB}ϵ_{\nu _1\nu _2\nu _3p\nu _5\mathrm{}\nu _7}(w^0)^{2m+4}\frac{𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2(m+3)}}{(w^{}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏}^{})^{2(m+3)}}\frac{𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2(m+3)}}{(w^{}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}^{})^{2(m+3)}}}`$
$`J_{\nu _1i^{}}(w^{}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏}^{})J_{ii^{}}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏}^{})J_{\nu _2j^{}}(w^{}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏}^{})J_{jj^{}}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏}^{})J_{\nu _3k^{}}(w^{}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏}^{})J_{kk^{}}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏}^{})`$
$`J_{\nu _5l^{}}(w^{}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}^{})J_{ll^{}}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}^{})J_{\nu _6m^{}}(w^{}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}^{})J_{mm^{}}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}^{})J_{\nu _7n^{}}(w^{}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}^{})J_{nn^{}}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}^{})`$
$`+\mathrm{perm}.`$ (3.23)
where the factors of $`w^{}`$ canceled as expected. Furthermore, we shift the integration variable such that all dependence on $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}`$ and $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}`$ appears through $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}`$, and we use the integrals listed in Appendix 3. In the last step we restore the $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ dependence using the translational invariance of the 3-point function: $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}}^{}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑})^{}`$, $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}𝐭(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑})^{}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑})^{}`$, etc. Thus the 3-point function $`J_p^{CD}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑})𝒪_{ijk}^A(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})𝒪_{lmn}^B(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{igmc_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}c_2}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3}{10(m+3)^2(m+2)(m+1)}}\delta _{CD}^{AB}ϵ_{pj^{}k^{}rm^{}n^{}}(z_{13}z_{23})^{2(m+3)}`$
$`J_{ii^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}}^{})J_{jj^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}})J_{kk^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}})J_{ll^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}})J_{mm^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}})J_{nn^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}})𝐭^{2m}`$
$`\left((\delta _{rl^{}}𝐭_𝐢^{}+\delta _{ri^{}}𝐭_𝐥^{})2m6(\delta _{rl^{}}𝐭_𝐢^{}+\delta _{ri^{}}𝐭_𝐥^{}+\delta _{i^{}l^{}}𝐭_𝐫)6{\displaystyle \frac{𝐭_𝐢^{}𝐭_𝐥^{}𝐭_𝐫}{t^2}}(2m+2)\right)`$
This expression can be further simplified by using the self-duality in the indices $`(ijk)`$, $`(lmn)`$, and whenever the case, by rearranging indices with the Schouten identity. We obtain:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{gmc_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}c_2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3}{10(m+3)^2(m+2)(m+1)}}\delta _{CD}^{AB}(z_{13}z_{23})^{2(m+3)}`$
$`J_{jj^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}})J_{kk^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}})J_{mj^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}})J_{nk^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}})t^{2m2}`$
$`[(J_{ip}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}})J_{ll^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}})𝐭_𝐥^{}+J_{ii^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}})J_{lp}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}})𝐭_𝐢^{})((2m2`$
$`(2m+2))+({\displaystyle \frac{𝐭_𝐢^{}𝐭_𝐫𝐭_𝐩}{t^2}}J_{ii^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}})J_{lr}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐭_𝐥^{}𝐭_𝐫𝐭_𝐩}{t^2}}J_{ir}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}})J_{ll^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}}))(2m+2)]`$ (3.25)
Let’s now turn to the 3-point function $`𝒪JJ`$. The $`AdS`$ correlator is given by

$`𝒪_{ijk}^A(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})J_l^{BC}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐})J_m^{DE}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{3}}}c_1c_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}ϵ^{FGHIJ}{\displaystyle d^{d+1}ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta ϵ\eta \zeta }G_{\alpha \beta \gamma ;ijk}^{FA}(w;𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})}`$ (3.26)
$`_\delta G_{ϵ;l}^{GH;BC}(w;𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐})_\eta G_{\zeta ;m}^{IJ;DE}(w;𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐})`$
$`+\mathrm{perm}.(BCDE,lm,𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑})`$
In a manner entirely analogous to the previous calculation, we use conformal invariance to fix $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏}=0`$, and then invert bulk and boundary points. We use the inversion relation (3.22) and the fact that the curl of the gauge field propagator also transforms covariantly, according to

$$_{[\mu }G_{\nu i]}(w,𝐳)=w^2J_{\mu \rho }(w^{})w^2J_{\nu \sigma }(w^{})J_{ki}(𝐳^{})𝐳_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2(d1)}_{[\rho }^{}G_{\sigma ]k}(w^{},𝐳^{})$$
(3.27)
and again combine all the resulting factors of $`J_{\mu i}(w^{})`$ together with the $`ϵ`$ symbol into a determinant which gives $`1`$. The factors of w’ cancel again, and we are left with the 3-point function

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{3}}}c_1c_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}ϵ_{ABCDE}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{(d1)}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟑}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{(d1)}}}J_{ll^{}}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐})J_{mm^{}}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑})`$
$`{\displaystyle d^{d+1}wϵ^{ijk\delta ^{}ϵ^{}\eta ^{}\zeta ^{}}w_0^m_\delta ^{}^{}\left(\frac{w_0^{d2}}{(w^{}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}^{})^{2(d1)}}J_{ϵ^{}l^{}}(w^{},𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}^{})\right)}`$
$`_\eta ^{}^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{w_0^{d2}}{(w^{}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}^{})^{2(d1)}}}J_{\zeta ^{}m^{}}(w^{},𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}^{})\right)+\mathrm{perm}.`$ (3.28)
We then rewrite the summation over $`\delta ^{}ϵ^{}\eta ^{}\zeta ^{}`$ as summation over $`l^{\prime \prime },m^{\prime \prime },n^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`0`$ and notice that we can replace the partial derivatives $`_\delta ^{}^{}`$ and $`_\eta ^{}^{}`$, w.r.t. $`w^{}`$ with partial derivatives w.r.t. $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ respectively, if $`\delta ^{}`$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ are not zero. In the case neither is zero, both derivatives get out of the integral and then the antisymmetry kills them (the integral is a function of $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}`$, so the derivatives are the same). Thus only the case when one of the derivatives is w.r.t. $`w_0^{}`$ remains, and we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{3}}}c_1c_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}ϵ_{ABCDE}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{(d1)}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟑}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{(d1)}}}J_{ll^{}}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐})J_{mm^{}}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑})`$
$`ϵ^{ijkl^{\prime \prime }m^{\prime \prime }n^{\prime \prime }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{y^{n^{\prime \prime }}}}{\displaystyle d^{d+1}w^{}\frac{w_0^{m+2d3}}{(w^{}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}^{})^{2(d1)}(w^{}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}^{})^{2(d1)}}J_{l^{}l^{\prime \prime }}(w^{},𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐})}`$
$`((d2)w_0^2J_{m^{}m^{\prime \prime }}(w^{},𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}){\displaystyle \frac{2(d1)}{(w^{}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}^{})^2}}J_{m^{}m^{\prime \prime }}(w^{},𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑})`$
$`+4{\displaystyle \frac{(w^{}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}^{})^m^{}(w^{}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}^{})^{m^{\prime \prime }}}{(w^{}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}^{})^4}})`$ (3.29)
Further using the identity

$$\frac{(w^{}𝐳^{})^i(w^{}𝐳^{})^j}{(w^{}𝐳^{})^{2a}}=\frac{1}{4(a1)(a2)}\frac{}{z^i}\frac{}{z^j}\frac{1}{(w^{}𝐳^{})^{2(a2)}}+\frac{1}{2(a1)}\frac{\delta _{ij}}{(w^{}𝐳^{})^{2(a1)}}$$
(3.30)
and the fact that, by the same antisymmetry argument as above, all extra partial derivatives w.r.t. $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}`$ and $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}^{}`$ vanish, we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{3}}}c_1c_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}ϵ_{ABCDE}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{(d1)}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟑}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{(d1)}}}J_{ll^{}}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐})J_{mm^{}}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑})`$
$`ϵ^{ijkl^{}m^{}n^{\prime \prime }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t^{n^{\prime \prime }}}}t^{md}{\displaystyle \frac{(d2)^2}{d1}}[{\displaystyle \frac{d2}{d1}}C(m+2d5,d1,d1)`$
$`2C(m+2d3,d1,d)]`$ (3.31)
where the constant $`C(a,b,c)`$ is defined in (A.16). In the last step we restore the $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ dependence in $`<𝒪JJ>`$

$`𝒪_{ijk}^A(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})J_l^{BC}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐})J_m^{DE}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑})=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{3}}}c_1c_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{d/2}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m(d2)^2}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }(d))^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{m+2d4}{2}})\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{dm+2}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d+m2}{2}))^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(d+m2)}}`$
$`ϵ_{ABCDE}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{((𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})^2)^{(d1)}((𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})^2)^{(d1)}}}J_{ll^{}}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})J_{mm^{}}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})`$
$`ϵ^{ijkl^{}m^{}n^{\prime \prime }}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐭^{n^{\prime \prime }}}{t^{md+2}}}`$ (3.32)
where $`𝐭=(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})/(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})^2(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})/(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})^2`$.

However, our 3-point function computation was too naive, since we didn’t carefully impose that the sugra fields satisfy their field equations. By doing so, we will discover that the boundary term (3.11) will give contributions to both correlators $`<𝒪𝒪𝒥>`$ and $`<𝒪𝒥𝒥>`$.

To be able to appreciate this point, we will look at a simple example of a $`\lambda \varphi ^3`$ scalar field theory, (understanding that this will apply to the case of general fields)

$$S=d^{d+1}x[\frac{1}{2}((_\mu \varphi )^2+m^2\varphi ^2)+1/3\lambda \varphi ^3]$$
(3.33)
with equation of motion $`(\mathrm{}+m^2)\varphi =\lambda \varphi ^2`$. The solution which takes the boundary value $`\varphi _0(𝐲)`$ is of the type

$`\varphi (x)=\varphi ^{(0)}(x)+\varphi ^{(1)}(x)+\mathrm{}`$
$`\varphi ^{(0)}(x)={\displaystyle d^d𝐲G(x,𝐲)\varphi _0(𝐲)}`$ (3.34)
where $`G(x,𝐲)`$ is the bulk-to-boundary propagator and $`\varphi ^{(1)}`$ is zero on the boundary. In the $`AdSCFT`$ correspondence, the 3-point function will a priori have a contribution not only from the cubic term, $`\lambda (\varphi ^{(0)})^3`$, but also from the kinetic piece, because $`\varphi ^{(1)}(x)=\lambda d^{d+1}yG(x,y)(\varphi ^{(0)}(y))^2`$ ($`G(x,y)`$ is the bulk-to-bulk propagator). If we take into account the fact that $`\varphi ^{(0)}`$ satisfies the free equation of motion the bulk piece in the kinetic term vanishes. Moreover, the boundary term generated by partial integrations vanishes because $`\varphi ^{(1)}`$ is zero on the boundary . Hence the only contribution to the 3-point function comes from the cubic term in the action. Since we didn’t need the explicit form of $`\varphi ^{(1)}`$ for this argument, the same argument goes through for 3-point couplings to other fields (still no contribution from the $`\varphi `$ kinetic term).

Let us carry the same analysis when the kinetic action is linear in derivatives. All the terms in the action quadratic in $`\varphi `$ (including the interactions with other fields) don’t contribute to the 3-point functions if we use the complete equation of motion (unlike the previous case, there is no need for partial integration, so no boundary terms). In fact now we can use the complete equation of motion to replace the kinetic terms with interaction terms. So the net effect of the kinetic piece will be to modify the coefficients of the interaction terms. It would appear that in this case, all 3-point functions quadratic in $`\varphi `$ vanish! This is not so in general, since to make the 2-point function nonzero we need to add a (pseudo)boundary term to the action. There are two ways that this term can contribute. Either it is of the type $`d^{d+1}x_\mu (^\mu \varphi \mathrm{}.)`$ (real boundary term, but with an extra derivative on $`\varphi `$, so that we get a nonzero contribution if we replace $`\varphi `$ by $`\varphi ^{(1)}`$), or it is a pseudo-boundary term of the type $`d^{d+1}\delta (z_0ϵ)(\mathrm{})`$, defined on the “regulated” boundary $`z_0=ϵ`$. The latter happens in our case.

Consider the part of $`7d`$ gauged sugra action containing only the self-dual 3-form and the gauge fields:

$`{\displaystyle }d^7z\sqrt{G^1}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(F_{\mu \nu }^{AB})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}(S_{\mu \nu \rho }^A)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{im}{48\sqrt{G^1}}}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _7}(S_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}^AF_{\mu _4\mathrm{}\mu _7}^A`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{im}}ϵ_{ABCDE}S_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}^AF_{\mu _4\mu _5}^{BC}F_{\mu _6\mu _7}^{DE}))+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}{\displaystyle }_{M_ϵ}d^6z\sqrt{h(z)}(S_{\mu \nu \rho }^A)^2`$ (3.35)
Imposing that $`S_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ satisfies its field equation (to linear order in the coupling constant, and to second order in fields, since we are interested in 3-point functions) we obtain

$$S_{\mu \nu \rho }=S_{\mu \nu \rho }^{(0)}+S_{\mu \nu \rho }^{(1)}$$
(3.36)
where $`S^{(0)}`$ satisfies the linearized field equation, while $`S^{(1)}`$ is given by

$`S_{}^{(1)}{}_{\mu \nu \rho }{}^{A}(z)={\displaystyle d^7wG_{}^{(0)}{}_{\mu \nu \rho ;\mu ^{}\nu ^{}\rho ^{}}{}^{AA^{}}(z,w)ϵ^{\mu ^{}\nu \rho ^{}\mu _4\mathrm{}\mu _7}\frac{img}{6}B_{}^{(0)}{}_{\mu _4}{}^{AB}(w)S_{}^{(0)}{}_{\mu _5\mu _6\mu _7}{}^{B}(w)}`$
$`{\displaystyle d^7wϵ^{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}\rho ^{}\mu _4\mathrm{}\mu _7}G_{}^{(0)}{}_{\mu \nu \rho ;\mu ^{}\nu ^{}\rho ^{}}{}^{AA^{}}(z,w)\frac{1}{16\sqrt{3}}ϵ^{A^{}BCDE}F_{}^{(0)}{}_{\mu _4\mu _5}{}^{BC}(w)F_{}^{(0)}{}_{\mu _6\mu _7}{}^{DE}(w)}`$
(3.37)
Substituting (3.37) into (3.35) we see that the $`SBB`$ bulk term gets modifies by a factor 1/2 and becomes

$$d^7w\frac{1}{32\sqrt{3}}ϵ^{ABCDE}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _7}S_{}^{(0)}{}_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}{}^{A}F_{}^{(0)}{}_{\mu _4\mu _5}{}^{BC}F_{}^{(0)}{}_{\mu _6\mu _7}{}^{DE}$$
(3.38)
whereas the $`SSB`$ term gets killed, as we mentioned in the general discussion. The kinetic term for the $`B`$’s doesn’t contribute to the 3-point functions, because it has two derivatives, and the previous discussion applies. Finally, the $`S`$ boundary term yields a contribution to the 3-point functions from its $`S^{(0)}S^{(1)}`$ piece

$$\frac{m}{2}_{M_ϵ}d^6z\sqrt{h(z)}S_{\mu \nu \rho }^{(0)}{}_{}{}^{A}S_{}^{(1)\mu \nu \rho }{}_{}{}^{A}$$
(3.39)
which becomes a bulk integral after substituting (3.37)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}{\displaystyle }d^7zϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _7}S_{}^{(0)}{}_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}{}^{A}(z)({\displaystyle \frac{img}{6}}B_{}^{(0)}{}_{\mu _4}{}^{AB}(z)S_{}^{(0)}{}_{\mu _5\mu _6\mu _7}{}^{B}(z)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\sqrt{3}}}ϵ^{ABCDE}F_{}^{(0)}{}_{\mu _4\mu _5}{}^{BC}(z)F_{}^{(0)}{}_{\mu _6\mu _7}{}^{DE}(z))`$ (3.40)
We note here that it is crucial this was a pseudo-boundary term (defined at $`z_0=ϵ`$). If it was a real boundary term, one could have used that $`S^{(1)}=0`$ on the boundary to conclude that it doesn’t contribute. Adding (3.38) to (3.40) we get the corrected coefficients of the 3-point functions on the AdS side. Thus the (corrected) 3-point functions are:

$`J_p^{CD}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑})𝒪_{ijk}^A(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})𝒪_{lmn}^B(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐})=`$
$`2gm^2c_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}c_2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3}{10(m+3)^2(m+2)(m+1)}}\delta _{CD}^{AB}(z_{13}z_{23})^{2(m+3)}`$
$`J_{jj^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}})J_{kk^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}})J_{mj^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}})J_{nk^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}})t^{2m2}`$
$`\left[(J_{ip}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}})J_{ll^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}})𝐭_𝐥^{}+J_{ii^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}})J_{lp}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}})𝐭_𝐢^{})+(m+1){\displaystyle \frac{𝐭_𝐢^{}𝐭_𝐫𝐭_𝐩}{t^2}}J_{ii^{}}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}})J_{lr}(𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}})\right]`$
(3.41)
$`𝒪_{ijk}^A(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})J_l^{BC}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐})J_m^{DE}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑})=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{c_1c_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(m+1)\pi ^3m}{\sqrt{3}(5!)^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{m+8}{2}})\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{4m}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{4+m}{2}))^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(4+m)}}`$
$`ϵ_{ABCDE}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{((𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})^2)^{(d1)}((𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})^2)^{(d1)}}}J_{ll^{}}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})J_{mm^{}}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})`$
$`ϵ^{ijkl^{}m^{}n^{\prime \prime }}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐭^{n^{\prime \prime }}}{t^{md+2}}}`$ (3.42)
where in (3.41) we defined $`𝐭=𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}}^{}𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}}^{}`$, while in (3.42) we defined $`𝐭=𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟏}}^{}𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟑𝟏}}^{}`$.

Although we have worked with a generic $`m`$, the $`7d`$ gauged sugra action determines it exactly in units of $`AdS`$ radius. In the sugra action, the purely gravitational piece is $`1/2(R+\frac{15}{2}m^2)`$, whereas for unit $`AdS_7`$ the gravitational contribution is $`(R+30)`$. This implies $`m=2`$.

Finally, there is one more check on our correlators. The $`<J𝒪𝒪>`$ correlator must obey the Ward identity

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟑}}^{}{}_{}{}^{p}}}J_p^{CD}(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑})𝒪_{ijk}^A(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})𝒪_{lmn}^B(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐})=g\delta _{AE}^{CD}\delta (𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}})O_{ijk}^E(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})O_{lmn}^B(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐})`$
$`+g\delta _{BE}^{CD}\delta (𝐳_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}})O_{ijk}^A(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏})O_{lmn}^E(𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ (3.43)
Hence, the coefficients of $`<J𝒪𝒪>`$ and $`<𝒪𝒪>`$ correlators are interdependent. To simplify our calculations, we will verify the Ward identity for $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟏}=0`$, $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐲`$ at infinity and $`𝐳_\mathrm{𝟑}𝐱`$ at finite distance. Substituting the 3-point function (3.41) into the l.h.s. of (3.43) we get (for $`m=2`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^p}}J_p^{CD}(𝐱)𝒪_{ijk}^A(0)𝒪_{lmn}^B(𝐲)=4gmc_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}c_2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3}{10(m+3)(m+2)(m+1)}}\delta _{CD}^{AB}`$
$`J_{ll^{}}(𝐲)J_{mj}(𝐲)J_{nk}(𝐲)y^{2(m+3)}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^p}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_l^{}x_ix_p}{x^8}}\right)`$ (3.44)
Further using that

$$\frac{}{x^p}\left(\frac{x_l^{}x_ix_p}{x^8}\right)=\frac{\pi ^3}{6}\delta (𝐱)\delta _{l^{}i}$$
(3.45)
and by comparing with the r.h.s. of (3.43) we confirm the identity.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we have studied $`p`$-forms in $`AdS_{2p+1}`$. We have constructed the propagators for $`p`$-forms with topological mass terms and topological kinetic terms in $`AdS_{2p+1}`$ (the latter being the case of self-dual forms in odd dimensions). We have also found that the basis for maximally symmetric bitensors previously found by Allen and Jacobson is not complete is some situations, and found the missing bitensors.

For the $`AdSCFT`$ correspondence, we have analyzed the case of $`AdS_7`$ \- $`6d`$ (2,0) $`CFT`$ (similar computations go through for $`AdS_54dSYM`$). We have computed the two point function of the “self-dual” 3-form by adding a boundary term to the $`7d`$ gauged sugra action. We have also computed 3-point functions of two 3-forms and a gauge field, and two gauge fields and a 3-form by using methods similar to the ones of Freedman et al. . It is the hope of the authors that this calculation can shed some light on the $`6d`$ (2,0) $`CFT`$.

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge useful conversations with Joe Polchinski, Daniel Z. Freedman, Asad Naqvi, Peter van Nieuwenhuizen, Martin Roček, and Radu Roiban. The work of I.B. was supported in part by NSF grant PHY97-22022 and and the work of H.N. and D.V. by NSF grant 9722101.

## Appendix A

### A.1 Conventions and useful identities involving the chordal distance

We used the symbols $``$ and $`d`$ acting on forms, or on the unprimed indices of propagators, with the following normalization:

$$(A)^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}=\frac{1}{(dp)!}ϵ^{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{d+1}}A_{\mu _{p+1}\mathrm{}\mu _{d+1}}$$
$`(3)`$
$$(dA)_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p+1}}=\frac{1}{p!}D_{[\mu _1}A_{\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{p+1}]}$$
(A.1)
where the square brackets denote antisymmetrization of all unprimed indices.

In the computations the following identities were useful:

$`_\mu _\nu ^{}u={\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_0w_0}}[\delta _{\mu \nu ^{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(zw)_\mu \delta _{\nu ^{}0}}{w_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(wz)_\nu ^{}\delta _{\mu 0}}{z_0}}u\delta _{\mu 0}\delta _{\nu ^{}0}]`$ (A.2)
$`_\mu u={\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_0}}[(zw)_\mu /w_0u\delta _{\mu 0}]`$ (A.3)
$`_\nu ^{}u={\displaystyle \frac{1}{w_0}}[(wz)_\nu ^{}/z_0u\delta _{\nu ^{}0}]`$ (A.4)
$`D^\mu _\mu u=(d+1)(u+1)`$ (A.5)
$`^\mu u_\mu u=u(u+2)`$ (A.6)
$`D_\mu _\nu u=g_{\mu \nu }(u+1)`$ (A.7)
$`(^\mu u)(D_\mu _\nu _\nu ^{}u)=_\nu u_\nu ^{}u`$ (A.8)
$`(^\mu u)(_\mu _\nu ^{})u=(u+1)_\nu ^{}u`$ (A.9)
$`D_\mu _\nu _\nu ^{}u=g_{\mu \nu }_\nu ^{}u`$ (A.10)
### A.2 Limits

In this paragraph we present the arguments leading to the various limits taken in the body of this paper. First, we consider the limit

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{ϵ^{2m}}{(𝐱^2+ϵ^2)^{3+m}}=\frac{1}{m(m+1)(2+m)}Area(S_6)\delta ^6(x)$$
(A.11)
where $`Area(S_6)`$ is the area of a 6d sphere of radius 1. To derive this limit, use a scaling argument to show that $`d^6xϵ^{2m}/(𝐱^2+ϵ^2)^{3+m}`$ (with positive integrand) is independent of $`ϵ`$. It is also obvious that as long as the denominator is nonzero, the limit is vanishing. Thus, the limit is proportional to a delta function. The proportionality constant is determined by evaluating the integral $`d^6xϵ^{2m}/(𝐱^2+ϵ^2)^{3+m}`$ in spherical coordinates.

The limit

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{ϵ^{2m+2}}{(𝐱^2+ϵ^2)^{4+m}}=\frac{1}{(m+1)(m+2)(m+3)}Area(S_6)\delta ^6(𝐱)$$
(A.12)
follows from (A.11), by redefining $`mm+1`$.

Finally, we derive the limit

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{ϵ^{2m}𝐱^2}{(𝐱^2+ϵ^2)^{4+m}}=\frac{3}{m(m+1)(m+2)(m+3)}Area(S_6)\delta ^6(𝐱)$$
(A.13)
For the proof of this limit we consider again the integral $`d^6xϵ^{2m}𝐱^\mathrm{𝟐}/(𝐱^2+ϵ^2)^{4+m}`$. By the same scaling argument, it is clear that the result is independent of $`ϵ`$. The limit is zero, as long as the denominator is non-zero. By adding and subtracting $`ϵ^2`$ in the limit numerator and by making use of (A.11,A.12), we determine the proportionality constant on the r.h.s. (A.13).

As a consequence of (A.13) we obtain the following result:

$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle d^6xϵ^{2m}\frac{𝐱^i𝐱^j}{(𝐱^2+ϵ^2)^{4+m}}S_{jkl}(𝐱+𝐰)}`$ (A.14)
$`=`$ $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle _{S_6}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rr^5ϵ^{2m}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{(r^2+ϵ^2)^{4+m}}}𝐧_i𝐧_jS_{jkl}(𝐱+𝐰)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{m(m+1)(m+2)(m+3)}}{\displaystyle _{S_6}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r\delta (r)𝐧_i𝐧_jS_{jkl}(𝐱+𝐰)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m(m+1)(m+2)(m+3)}}Area(S_6)S_{ikl}(𝐰)`$
where $`𝐧_i=𝐱_i/|𝐱|`$.

### A.3 Integrals

In this paragraph we record the integrals needed in the computation of 3-point functions. We begin (for completeness) with the integral ()

$`I(a,b,c)(𝐭){\displaystyle d^7w\frac{(w^0)^a}{(w𝐭)^{2b}w^{2c}}}`$
$`=C(a,b,c)|𝐭|^{7+a2b2c}`$ (A.15)
where the constant $`C(a,b,c,)`$ is:

$`C(a,b,c)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{a}{2}+\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(b+c3\frac{a}{2}\frac{1}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)}}`$ (A.16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{a}{2}+3b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{a}{2}+3c)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(7+abc)}}`$
Then, the following integrals can be obtained from (A.15) by differentiating with respect to the vector $`𝐭`$:

$`J_i(a,b+1,c){\displaystyle d^7w\frac{(w^0)^aw_i}{(w𝐭)^{2(b+1)}w^{2c}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{_iI(a,b,c)}{2b}}+t_iI(a,b+1,c)`$ (A.17)
$`J_{i_1i_2}(a,b+2,c){\displaystyle d^7w\frac{(w^0)^aw_{i_1}w_{i2}}{(w𝐭)^{2(b+2)}w^{2c}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{_{i_1}_{i_2}I(a,b,c)}{2^2b(b+1)}}+t_{i_1}t_{i_2}I(a,b+2,c)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{i_1i_2}I(a,b+1,c)}{2(b+1)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(t_{i_1}_{i_2}+1more)I(a,b+1,c)}{2(b+1)}}`$ (A.18)
$`J_{i_1i_2i_3}(a,b+3,c){\displaystyle d^7w\frac{(w^0)^aw_{i_1}w_{i2}w_{i_3}}{(w𝐭)^{2(b+3)}w^{2c}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{_{i_1}_{i_2}_{i_3}I(a,b,c)}{2^3b(b+1)(b+2)}}+t_{i_1}t_{i_2}t_{i_3}I(a,b+3,c)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(t_{i_1}t_{i_2}_{i_3}+2more)I(a,b+2,c)}{2(b+2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(t_{i_1}_{i_2}_{i_3}+2more)I(a,b+1,c)}{2^2(b+1)(b+2)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(\delta _{i_1i_2}t_{i_3}+2more)I(a,b+2,c)}{2(b+2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\delta _{i_1i_2}_{i_3}I(a,b+1,c)+2more)}{2^2(b+1)(b+2)}}`$
(A.19)


format: text

text:
# The Edge-State Theory of Integer-Quantum-Hall-Effect to Insulator Transition

The conventional scaling theory of localization predicts that all electrons in a two-dimensional system are localized in the absence of a magnetic field. In the presence of a strong magnetic field, the energy spectrum becomes a series of disorder broadened Landau bands. The phenomenon of the integral quantum Hall effect (IQHE) indicates the existence of extended states at the center of each Landau band, separated by localized states at other energies. The integrally quantized plateaus are observed when the Fermi level lies in the localized states, with the value of the Hall resistance, $`R_H=h/ne^2`$, related to the number of extended bands ($`n`$) below the Fermi energy. As a function of the magnetic field, the Hall resistance jumps from one quantized value to another when the Fermi energy crosses an extended-state level.

In order to reconcile the presence of extended states at finite magnetic fields with the lack thereof at zero magnetic field, Khmelnitskii and Laughlin came up with a picture in which the extended states associated with Landau levels levitate due to disorder, eventually pushed to very high energies, leaving an Anderson insulator behind. Based on this physics, Kivelson, Lee and Zhang (KLZ) proposed a topological phase diagram as shown in Fig. 1(a). A crucial prediction of this phase diagram is that an IQHE state $`n`$ in general can only go into another IQHE states $`n\pm 1`$, and that a transition into an insulating state is allowed only from the $`n=1`$ state.

This phase diagram motivated numerous theoretical and experimental studies. . However, direct transitions from $`n=1,n=2,n=3,`$ and $`n=6`$ IQHE states to the insulator have been observed in recent experiments. The transition from $`n=2`$ IQHE state to the Anderson insulator may perhaps be related to the spin degeneracy in the lowest Landau level, but the other transitions are inconsistent with the KLZ phase diagram.

Recently, Liu, Xie and Niu studied numerically a tight-binding model of two-dimensional electrons in a magnetic field and a random potential. They found that the extended levels do not float up to infinity but are instead destroyed by strong disorder at a critical magnetic field. They calculated phase diagrams in the energy-field and energy-disorder planes, which may be combined to yield a non-nested phase diagram shown in Fig. 1(b) (solid line). In this phase diagram transitions from any IQHE state to the insulating phase are allowed when the disorder is increased at fixed B. The non-nested phase diagram of Fig. 1(b) was confirmed by recent calculations with an important modification on the lowest Landau level (dashed line), which is now in excellent agreement with experiments.

Thus far, none of the theoretical calculations in this context includes explicitly the edge states, whose consideration is crucial for transport in the QHE regime for the following reasons. First, as clarified by the Landauer approach,  and confirmed in numerous experiments, the Hall current is carried to a large extend by the edge states. On the QHE plateaus, backscattering is exponentially suppressed due to a spatial separation of edge states carrying current in opposite directions, which is responsible for the spectacular accuracy of the quantization of the Hall resistance. A non-zero longitudinal resistance owes its origin to an inter-edge backscattering. An insulator is obtained when the edge channels are fully reflected backwards, with the forward transmission coefficient becoming exponentially small. Thus, an IQHE to insulator transition occurs when the edge channels shut off. Furthermore, Landau level mixing due to disorder, relevant for the issue at hand, is expected to be particularly strong at the edges, because here the states from different LLs are close not only in space but also in energy. The goal of the present work is to investigate the mixing of edge states on the same edge of the sample relative to the mixing of edge states on opposite edges, responsible for inter-edge scattering.

We will work within a continuum model. A numerical study of a two-dimensional continuum model is difficult due to the limitation in computational power. Therefore, we study a narrow strip and ask: How does a quantum Hall state evolves as the magnetic field decreases or as disorder increases?

To be specific, we consider the system shown in Fig. 2, in which there are two edge states at each edge of the sample. The states on a given edge of the sample are “chiral”, i.e., carry current only in one direction, determined by the $`\stackrel{}{E}\times \stackrel{}{B}`$ drift, with the electric field provided by the confinement potential. The edge states carry current in opposite directions on the opposite sides of the sample. Each edge carries a current of $`\frac{|e|}{\mathrm{}}`$ per unit energy. The disorder causes couplings between the various edge states. The strength of the coupling depends on the overlap of the states, which increases with disorder. Coupling of the edge states on the same side by disorder gives only forward-scattering, which does not degrade the source-to-drain current. The only effect of such a scattering is an unimportant forward-scattering phase shift. The current can be diminished only by scattering between two edge states on the opposite sides – namely, backscattering. When the reflection coefficient becomes unity, the edge states shut off, no current flows through, and an insulator is obtained.

Clearly, an understanding the transition from QHE states to the insulator is intimately related to the evolution of the edge states as a function of disorder. Two different scenarios are possible. (i) The edge channels shut off one by one. This would correspond to the nested KLZ phase diagram. (ii) The edge channels shut off all at once. This would correspond to the non-nested phase diagram of Fig. 1(b). Which scenario occurs depends on the relative strengths of the couplings of edge channels on the same side and of edge channels on the opposite sides. The former scenario is likely when the coupling between the edges states on the same side is weak, whereas the latter scenario is expected to occur when the coupling between the edge states on the same side is strong. This is the physical picture that we propose as an explanation of the direct transition between high integer IQHE states and an insulator. In the remainder of the paper, we confirm this through an explicit calculation.

In Fig. 2, edge states 1 and 2 at bottom carry current from left to right, and edge states 1 and 2 on the top carry current in the opposite direction. Electrons can move from one side of the system to the other side through the four channels provided by the two edge states. Disorders may scatter electrons from one channel into another. Assume that $`A_1,A_2`$ and $`B_1^{},B_2^{}`$ are the amplitudes of wavefunction in edge states 1 and 2 going into the sample from the left-hand and right-hand sides of the system, respectively, and similarly, that $`B_1,B_2`$ and $`A_1^{},A_2^{}`$ are the amplitudes of wavefunction in edge states 1 and 2 coming out of the sample from the left-hand and right-hand sides of the system, respectively. These amplitudes are related by an S-matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}B_1\\ B_2\\ A_2^{}\\ A_1^{}\end{array}\right)=S\left(\begin{array}{c}B_1^{}\\ B_2^{}\\ A_2\\ A_1\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
or an M-matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}B_1^{}\\ B_2^{}\\ A_2^{}\\ A_1^{}\end{array}\right)=M\left(\begin{array}{c}B_1\\ B_2\\ A_2\\ A_1\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where

$$S=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}t_{11}^{}& t_{21}^{}& r_{21}& r_{11}\\ t_{12}^{}& t_{22}^{}& r_{22}& r_{12}\\ r_{12}^{}& r_{22}^{}& t_{22}& t_{12}\\ r_{11}^{}& r_{21}^{}& t_{21}& t_{11}\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
and the matrix $`M`$ can be obtained from $`S`$. Elements $`t_{ij}`$ and $`t_{ij}^{}`$ are the transmission coefficients of electron moving from edge state $`i`$ to state $`j`$ from left-hand side and right-hand side of the system, respectively, while $`r_{ij}`$ and $`r_{ij}^{}`$ are the reflection coefficients of electron moving from edge state $`i`$ to state $`j`$ in the left-hand side and right-hand side of the system, respectively. The probability conservation requires $`S`$ to be unitary. $`M`$ will be useful for the numerical calculations.

In order to model disorder, we introduce backscattering and forward-scattering of edge channels 1 and 2, characterized by $`r_{ij}`$ and $`t_{ij}(ij)`$. To resolve the question of whether the two channels switch off simultaneously or one by one, we define two localization lengths, $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _2`$. Assume that electrons have the same probability in both channels 1 and 2 at far left-hand side of the system. Then the probabilities to find electrons in channels 1 and 2 at right-hand side are proportional to $`|t_{11}|^2+|t_{21}|^2`$ and $`|t_{12}|^2+|t_{22}|^2`$, respectively. The localization lengths of channel 1 and channel 2 are then given by

$$\xi _1^1=\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(|t_{11}|^2+|t_{21}|^2)}{2L},$$
(4)
$$\xi _2^1=\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(|t_{12}|^2+|t_{22}|^2)}{2L},$$
(5)
where $`L`$ is the size of the system. The ratio $`\xi _1/\xi _2`$ vanishes when the two edge channels switch off separately (with channel 1 switching off first), and becomes unity when the two edge channels shut off at the same time.

The localization lengths of the two channels can be calculated by using the multiplicative property of the M-matrix. We first divide the system into many vertical slices. Each slice contains only very small number of disorders so that the partial $`S`$ matrix for each slice is close to the unit matrix. The backscattering is expected to be the strongest for the innermost edge channel. For simplicity, we assume that backward-scattering occurs only through edge channel 2, i.e. set $`r_{11}=0=r_{11}^{}`$. We further assume that randomness comes from the phase of each scattering process rather than its amplitude. Under these assumptions, the general unitary matrix $`S`$ becomes

$`S=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\sqrt{1t^2}& te^{i\varphi _1}& 0& 0\\ te^{i\varphi _1}& \sqrt{1t^2}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \sqrt{1t^2}& te^{i\varphi _2}\\ 0& 0& te^{i\varphi _2}& \sqrt{1t^2}\end{array}\right)\times `$

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \sqrt{1r^2}& re^{i\varphi _3}& 0\\ 0& re^{i\varphi _3}& \sqrt{1r^2}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
where $`r`$ measures the strength of backward-scattering in channel 2, and $`t`$ is the strength of forward-scattering from channel 1 to channel 2, and vice versa. The quantities $`t`$ and $`r`$ are chosen to be small in order to ensure that scattering in each slice is weak. Throughout this study, we set $`r=0.0002`$ and vary $`t`$. The ratio $`\alpha =t/r`$ measures the relative strength of backscattering and forward-scattering. $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2,`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ are random numbers. The random matrix determines the $`S`$ matrix of the system with disordered thin slice, which, in turn, gives a random $`M`$ matrix. The product of $`L`$ independent random matrices of this type is used to calculate localization lengths of edge states . The numerical result of $`\frac{\xi _2}{\xi _1}`$ vs $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ is plotted in Fig. 3.

The principal result is that $`\frac{\xi _2}{\xi _1}`$ changes from 0 to 1 when $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ increases from -1 to 4. $`\frac{\xi _2}{\xi _1}=0`$ means that channel 2 shuts off when channel 1 is still propagating from source to drain (or vice versa). This confirms that for small $`\alpha `$, the edge channels are blocked off one by one through backscattering. In this case, transitions of IQHE states to the insulator should be governed by the phase diagram of KLZ. On the other hand, for large $`\alpha `$, both edge channels shut off at the same time. It is remarkable that this happens even though the backscattering occurs in our model only in channel 2. This implies a direct transition from an arbitrary IQHE state to an insulator, consistent with the non-nested phase diagram of Fig. 1(b).

We would like to make several remarks. 1) In our approach, we only consider phase randomness due to disorder scattering. As usual, the amplitude randomness is not expected change the results. The structure of random matrix M is the same whether only phase randomness or both phase and amplitude randomness are taken into account. 2) The parameter $`\alpha `$ depends on the disorder potential, $`V(r)`$, as well as the sample width, $`W`$. Both forward and backward scatterings are proportional to the matrix element of the disorder potential between the two states involved, $`<\mathrm{\Psi }_1|V|\mathrm{\Psi }_2>`$. When $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ are the edge states on the same side of a sample, the matrix element, which characterizes the forward scattering, is proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(d^2/l_B^2)`$, where the distance $`d`$ between the centers of the two edge states is on the order of the magnetic length, $`l_B=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/eB}`$. The gaussian expression originates from the magnetic confinement on the Landau level wavefunction. On the other hand, when $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ correspond to the edge states on the opposite sides of the sample, the matrix element for backscattering is of order $`\mathrm{exp}(W/\xi _t)`$, where $`\xi _t`$ is a disorder dependent length characterizing the transverse extent of the edge state. (Even though the electronic wave function of a perfect system in a magnetic field is a gaussian, it has an exponential tail in the presence of disorder.) This exponential suppression of backscattering as a function of the width suggests that sufficiently wide samples are in the $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha >4`$ regime, governed by the non-nested phase diagram of Fig. 1b. Narrow samples, however, may be in the opposite regime. The actual width at which the crossover occurs depends on the disorder potential, but may be expected to be on the order of several magnetic lengths.

According to the picture presented here, a direct transition from an arbitrary IQHE state to an insulating state is intimately connected to the Landau level mixing at the edges of the sample. At first sight, this physics appears to bear no relation to the direct transitions seen in earlier numerical studies, because these studies employed periodic boundary conditions, i.e., the numerical samples had no edges due to a geometrical confinement. However, we believe that the underlying physics may be identical. Even though there are no real edges, internal edges, corresponding to equipotential contours, appear in the presence of disorder. When the disorder is sufficiently strong, the internal edges carry, in general, edge channels from several LL’s. The IQHE to insulator transition is a percolation transition in this picture, which has to do with the coupling between the network of internal edges. Again, if the channels from different LL’s are strongly coupled and behave effectively as a single edge channel, there would be a direct transition from IQHE to insulator.

In summary, we have investigated the role of edge states in disorder driven IQHE to insulator transition. We find that a direct transition from a general IQHE state to an insulator is possible when the edge channels of different Landau levels are strongly coupled.

X.R.W. would like to thank Mr. Xiong Gang for numerical assistance. We acknowledge support from UGC, Hong Kong, through RGC grant (X.R.W.), US DOE-98ER45687 and DOE-99ER45755(X.C.X.), NSF-DMR9705406, the Welch Foundation and China-NSF (Q.N), and NSF DMR-9986806 (J.K.J.).