text:
# Wess–Zumino terms and Duality

## Abstract

We show the equivalence between Stückelberg and Wess–Zumino methods of restoration of gauge symmetries of the anomalous, Abelian, effective action, in arbitrary even dimensions $`D=2k`$. We present dual version of Wess–Zumino terms with the compensating field described by a Kalb Ramond like $`p=2k2`$ form.

By now we known that the anomalous behavior of classical symmetries caused by quantum matter effects is encoded in the anomalous effective action either of gauge fields or gravity , . Anomalous effective action reflects the incompatibility of various classical symmetries at the quantum level. Therefore, the best one can do quantum mechanically is to preserve one of the symmetry on the expense of the other in non-chiral models, while in chiral models even this choice is not possible. Various proposals to restore broken symmetries at the quantum level have been put forward. One of these proposals, largely exploited in the literature, is based on ad hoc construction of additional local terms in the anomalous effective Lagrangian, known as Wess–Zumino terms , which restore the broken symmetry of the modified effective Lagrangian $`L_{inv}=L_{eff}+L_{WZ}`$.
On the other hand, another approach, apparently unrelated to Wess–Zumino idea, was introduced in order to make classical, massive, Proca theory gauge invariant, and is known as the Stückelberg compensating formalism .
We conjecture that both above-mentioned methods could be equivalent. Our motivation is that both methods achieve the same goal, i.e. to restore a broken gauge invariance of an Abelian vector theory.
In this letter we would like to clarify the conjectured equivalence between Stückelberg and Wess–Zumino methods. Let us start by recalling the Wess–Zumino idea of restoring gauge invariance in anomalous effective gauge theories. To maintain pedagogical transparency we shall start from the simple and well known $`2`$D effective anomalous Lagrangian of the Schwinger model  which is given by

$$L_{eff}=\frac{e^2}{4\pi }\left[F_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}F^{\mu \nu }2𝐚A^\mu A_\mu \right]$$
(1)
(1) was obtained from a Dirac fermion matter Lagrangian, having both vector and axial $`U(1)`$, classical, gauge symmetries. In order to treat the quantum breaking of classical symmetries on the same footing we have introduced an arbitrary, regularization dependent, parameter $`𝐚`$  in the effective Lagrangian (1). The effective Lagrangian $`L_{eff}`$ varies, under gauge transformation $`\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }A_\mu =_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }`$, as

$$\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }L_{eff}=\frac{e^2}{\pi }𝐚\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)_\mu A^\mu 0$$
(2)
Eq.(2) shows the gauge non-invariance of the $`2`$D effective Lagrangian, which is the origin of the gauge anomaly. One could object that the gauge invariance can be restored by a suitable choice of the arbitrary parameter $`𝐚`$ as $`𝐚=0`$. However, this choice would simply shift the anomaly from the vector to the axial current. We want to show how both  axial and vector symmetries can be restored simultaneously at the quantum level, for any choice of $`𝐚`$. Therefore, we shall keep the parameter $`𝐚`$ arbitrary throughout the paper.
In order to restore gauge invariance in (1), Wess and Zumino have proposed to construct a suitable, local, term whose gauge variation cancel the gauge variation of the effective Lagrangian. A straightforward guess for the Wess–Zumino Lagrangian would be

$$L_{WZ}𝐚\frac{e^2}{\pi }\varphi (x)_\mu A^\mu $$
(3)
where, one introduces the scalar field $`\varphi (x)`$ transforming as $`\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi (x)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ under gauge transformations. However, careful examination of such Wess–Zumino Lagrangian shows that it is gauge non-invariant, not only due to the non-invariance of $`\varphi `$, but also due to the explicit dependence on the gauge field $`A`$. Therefore, additional kinetic term for $`\varphi `$ field is needed to compensate non-invariance coming from the gauge field itself, leading to the correct form of the $`2`$D Wess–Zumino Lagrangian for the Schwinger model:

$$L\frac{e^2}{4\pi }\left[4𝐚\varphi (x)_\mu A^\mu +2𝐚\varphi \mathrm{}\varphi \right]$$
(4)
Once the modified effective Lagrangian $`L_{inv}`$ is defined as

$$L_{inv}L_{eff}+L_{WZ}=\frac{e^2}{4\pi }\left[F_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}F^{\mu \nu }2𝐚A^\mu A_\mu 4𝐚\varphi (x)_\mu A^\mu +2𝐚\varphi \mathrm{}\varphi \right]$$
(5)
then, one can verify that the addition of Wess–Zumino piece ensures the gauge invariance of the total effective Lagrangian for any choice of the parameter $`𝐚`$. In this way, the Wess–Zumino idea achieves its goal. On the other hand, a quick look at (5) shows that it can be re-written as

$$L_{inv}=\frac{e^2}{4\pi }\left[F_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}F^{\mu \nu }2𝐚(A^\mu ^\mu \varphi )(A_\mu _\mu \varphi )\right]$$
(6)
Thus, starting from gauge non-invariant Lagrangian (1), and making it gauge invariant following Wess–Zumino prescription, we got the invariant effective Lagrangian (6), which is nothing else but the gauge invariant massive Lagrangian originally proposed by Stückelberg for Proca theory. Reversing the conclusion, we have shown that the advocated Stückelberg origin of the Wess–Zumino terms leads to the equivalence of the two methods.
Encouraged by this toy model, one can proceed further and generalize the above result to any Abelian anomalous gauge theory. Notice that the relation between Wess–Zumino terms in the effective Lagrangian and Stückelberg mass term is specific to $`2`$D since it is only in $`2`$D that a quantum anomaly induces a mass term for the gauge field. Anomalies in higher dimensions do not give origin to the mass term, but a simple generalization of the Stückelberg idea allows to proceed along the same line as in $`2`$D to prove the equivalence of the Wess–Zumino and Stückelberg approach. In fact, Stückelberg compensation of non-invariant, Abelian, vector theories is achieved by the substitution of the complete field $`A_\mu `$ with the combination $`A_\mu _\mu \varphi `$, where $`\varphi `$ is a compensating scalar field transforming as $`\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi =\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. from the previous discussion it follows that to implement the compensation mechanism one needs the explicit form of the anomalous effective Lagrangian. Recently, we have obtained the general form of the anomalous Lagrangian in arbitrary even dimensional ($`D2k`$) space-time:

$`L_{eff}={\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{m_{max}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^{2m+1}e^{k2m}}{(2\pi )^k}}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k4m}\nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _{4m}}F_{\mu _3\mu _4}\mathrm{}F_{\mu _{2k4m1}\mu _{2k4m}}`$ (7)
$`\times F_{\nu _1\nu _2}^5\times \mathrm{}\times F_{\nu _{4m1}\nu _{4m}}^5\left[F_{\mu _1\mu _2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}\left(^\mu A_\mu ^5\right)2𝐚A_{\mu _1}A_{\mu _2}^5\right]`$ (8)
where, $`e`$ and $`g`$ are the vector and axial coupling constants. Except than in the very special $`2D`$ case, both the vector field $`A_\mu `$ and the axial field $`A_\mu ^5`$ are independent gauge potentials, corresponding to anomalous local symmetries. $`m_{max}`$ is a maximal integer number compatible with the restriction $`0m(k1)/2`$, imposed by the anomalous Feynman diagrams in even dimensions. Details can be found in Ref.. As a check, one can obtain the Schwinger model anomalous effective Lagrangian (1) by putting $`k=1`$, $`m=0`$ in (8) and exploiting the $`2D`$ relation $`A_\mu =ϵ_{\mu \nu }A^\nu ^5`$.
Now we are ready to address the Stückelberg derivation of Wess–Zumino terms in full generality. A gauge invariant Stückelberg Lagrangian can be obtained from (8) by replacing $`A_\mu `$ and $`A_\mu ^5`$ with the corresponding compensated potentials:

$`L_{inv}^{Stuck.}={\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{m_{max}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^{2m+1}e^{k2m}}{(2\pi )^k}}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k4m}\nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _{4m}}F_{\mu _3\mu _4}\mathrm{}F_{\mu _{2k4m1}\mu _{2k4m}}`$ (9)
$`\times F_{\nu _1\nu _2}^5\times \mathrm{}\times F_{\nu _{4m1}\nu _{4m}}^5\left[F_{\mu _1\mu _2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}^\mu \left(A_\mu ^5_\mu \varphi ^5\right)2𝐚\left(A_{\mu _1}_{\mu _1}\varphi \right)\left(A_{\mu _2}^5_{\mu _2}\varphi ^5\right)\right]`$ (10)
Dealing with two independent vector and axial vector gauge fields, one needs two, independent Stückelberg compensators $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^5`$. Straightforward manipulations of the above Lagrangian lead to the equivalent Wess–Zumino form:

$`L_{inv}`$ $`=L_{eff}+L_{WZ}`$ (12)
$`=L_{eff}+{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{m_{max}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^{2m+1}e^{k2m}}{(2\pi )^k}}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k4m}\nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _{4m}}F_{\mu _3\mu _4}\mathrm{}F_{\mu _{2k4m1}\mu _{2k4m}}`$
$`\times `$ $`F_{\nu _1\nu _2}^5\times \mathrm{}\times F_{\nu _{4m1}\nu _{4m}}^5\left[(𝐚1)F_{\mu _1\mu _2}\varphi ^5𝐚F_{\mu _1\mu _2}^5\varphi \right]`$ (14)
$`L_{eff}\left[X^{5\rho }_\rho \varphi ^5+X^\rho _\rho \varphi \right]`$
where, we neglected surface terms. In the Wess–Zumino part of the Lagrangian we have introduced the following definitions  Eq.(18) and eq.(16) are defined as the most general expressions which allow to transform $`ϵ\varphi F`$ into $`X\varphi `$ eq.(14). Dependence on the parameter $`m`$ counts the number of ways in which this can be done.

$`X^{5\rho }`$ $`2(𝐚1){\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{m_{max}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^{2m+1}e^{k2m}}{(2\pi )^k}}ϵ^{\rho \mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{2k4m}\nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _{4m}}F_{\mu _3\mu _4}\mathrm{}F_{\mu _{2k4m1}\mu _{2k4m}}`$ (16)
$`\times F_{\nu _3\nu _4}^5\mathrm{}F_{\nu _{4m1}\nu _{4m}}^5\left[A_{\mu _2}F_{\nu _1\nu _2}^5+{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{k}}\left(A_{\mu _2}^5F_{\nu _1\nu _2}A_{\mu _2}F_{\nu _1\nu _2}^5\right)\right]`$
and

$`X^\rho `$ $``$ $`2𝐚{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{m_{max}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^{2m+1}e^{k2m}}{(2\pi )^k}}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k4m}\nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _{4m}}F_{\mu _5\mu _6}\mathrm{}F_{\mu _{2k4m1}\mu _{2k4m}}F_{\nu _3\nu _4}^5\mathrm{}F_{\nu _{4m1}\nu _{4m}}^5`$ (17)
$`\times `$ $`\left[\delta _{\mu _3}^\rho F_{\nu _1\nu _2}^5A_{\mu _4}F_{\mu _1\mu _2}^5+{\displaystyle \frac{2m+1}{k}}\left(\delta _{\mu _1}^\rho A_{\mu _2}^5F_{\mu _3\mu _4}F_{\nu _1\nu _2}^5\delta _{\nu _1}^\rho A_{\nu _2}F_{\mu _3\mu _4}^5F_{\mu _1\mu _2}^5\right)\right]`$ (18)
One indeed recognizes the additional terms in (14) as Wess–Zumino terms. This gives the proof of equivalence of the two methods for arbitrary spacetime dimension. For the record, only the term $`X^{5\mu }`$ with $`𝐚=0`$ can be found in the literature. One is indeed free to preserve at the quantum level one of the two classical symmetries by a proper choice of the regularization method. Accordingly, the anomaly is conventionally shifted in the divergence of the axial current. However, we have proven that one can restore both symmetries simultaneously, for any value of $`𝐚`$, through the construction of independent Wess–Zumino terms. This result may be of particular importance for chiral models where none of the classical symmetries can be preserved at the quantum level .
In a recent paper we have studied a Proca theory where gauge symmetry is explicitly broken by a classical, mass term. This theory has been made gauge invariant by the introduction of the Stückelberg scalar compensator, and proven to be dual to the $`BF`$ model . On the other hand, in the first part of the present paper we have extended the notion of Stückelberg compensation to gauge non–invariant anomalous theories at the quantum level, and proven the equivalence between the Stückelberg and Wess–Zumino methods. Combining the results of the present paper and the ones in, we conjecture that the duality ideas of the latter should apply to the former. We mean that the scalar compensator in the Wess–Zumino terms, in (14), can be dualized to a Kalb–Ramond-like $`p=2k2`$ forms. In order to achieve this we adopt general dualization procedure described in . One starts from a suitably chosen parent Lagrangian $`L_P`$ which, in the present case, turns out to be of the form §§§We assign canonical dimensions (in units of mass) as follows: $`[A]=k1`$, $`[\varphi ]=k2`$.
This choice implies dimensional coupling constants $`[e]=[g]=2k`$, and Wess–Zumino terms $`[X]=k+2`$. Accordingly, kinetic terms have dimension $`2k`$. Moreover, in the parent Lagrangian we require $`[H]=k`$.

$`L_P=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2k1)!}}H_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}H^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{(2k1)!}}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k}}A_{\mu _{2k}}H_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}`$ (19)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2k1)!}}(MH^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}X^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}})F^{}{}_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}{}^{}(\varphi )`$ (20)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2k1)!}}H_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}^5H^{5\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_5}{(2k1)!}}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k}}A_{\mu _{2k}}^5H_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}^5`$ (21)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2k1)!}}(M_5H^{5\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_5}}X^{5\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}})F^{}{}_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}{}^{}(\varphi ^5)`$ (22)
where, $`X^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}`$ and $`X^{5\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}`$ are Hodge duals of (18) and (16). $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^5`$ are Stückelberg scalar compensators which will be dualized to Kalb–Ramond-like fields. $`H`$ and $`H^5`$ are a priori independent fields in the parent Lagrangian (22). We have also introduced dimensionless constants $`f`$, $`f_5`$ (numbers) in front of $`X`$ and $`X^5`$ in order to identify quantum  symmetry breaking terms at various stages of calculation. These factors are not present in the original Lagrangian (14). Thus, in order to achieve invariance of the anomalous theory we have to take $`f=f_5=1`$ when calculating appropriate variations.
It is worth mentioning the important point regarding the construction of $`L_P`$. The parent Lagrangian must have certain symmetry properties which will be reflected in the (dual) theories derived from it. Let us require the gauge invariance of the complete Lagrangian $`L_{inv}`$ as $`\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }L_{inv}\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }L_P+\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }L_{eff}=0`$ Then, it turns out that the variations of the terms involving classical mass parameters cancel among themselves in (22). On the other hand, variations of the (quantum) terms involving dimensionless $`f`$ and $`f_5`$ cancel against the variations of the effective Lagrangian (8).
The dualization proceeds as follows: varying (22) with respect to $`H`$ we find the solution

$`H^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}=M(ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}\mu _{2k}}A_{\mu _{2k}}F^{}{}_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}{}^{}(\varphi ))`$ (23)
$`H^{5\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}=M_5(ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}\mu _{2k}}A_{\mu _{2k}}^5F^{}{}_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}{}^{}(\varphi ^5))`$ (24)
and re-inserting the solution back into $`L_P`$ , we find the Stückelberg-like model

$`L_{VA}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}\left(A_\mu _\mu \varphi \right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{M_5^2}{2}}\left(A_\mu ^5_\mu \varphi ^5\right)^2`$ (25)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f(2k1)!}}F_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}^{}(\varphi )X^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_5(2k1)!}}F_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}^{}(\varphi ^5)X^{5\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}`$ (26)
The first two terms in the Lagrangian (26) are gauge invariant mass terms, while the last two terms correspond to Wess–Zumino terms of (14). In this way both classical and quantum non-invariances have been improved by the same scalar compensator $`\varphi `$ transforming as $`\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi =\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.
The Lagrangian dual to (26) is obtained by varying the parent Lagrangian (22) with respect to both scalars $`\varphi `$, $`\varphi ^5`$. In this way we get

$`H_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}\left(_{[\mu _1}B_{\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}]}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}X_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}\right)`$ (27)
$`H_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}^5={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_5}}\left(_{[\mu _1}B_{\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}]}^5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_5}}X_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}^5\right)`$ (28)
Re-inserting 27 and 28 back into (22) we find the dual Lagrangian:

$`L_{dual}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2k1)!M^2}}\left(_{[\mu _1}B_{\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}]}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}X_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}\right)^2`$ (29)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2k1)!}}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k}}\left(_{[\mu _1}B_{\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}]}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}X_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}\right)A_{\mu _{2k}}`$ (30)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2k1)!M_5^2}}\left(_{[\mu _1}B_{\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}]}^5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_5}}X_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}^5\right)^2+`$ (31)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2k1)!}}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k}}\left(_{[\mu _1}B_{\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}]}^5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_5}}X_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}^5\right)A_{\mu _{2k}}^5`$ (32)
which can be suitably re-written as

$$L_{dual}=L_{BF}+L_{WZ}$$
(33)
$`L_{BF}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2k1)!M^2}}\left[H_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}(B)\right]^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2k1)!}}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k}}H_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}(B)A_{\mu _{2k}}`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2k1)!M_5^2}}\left[H_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}^5(B)\right]^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2k1)!}}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k}}H_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}^5(B)A_{\mu _{2k}}^5`$
$`L_{WZ}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(X_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}\right)^2}{2M^2f^2(2k1)!}}+{\displaystyle \frac{X^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}}{f(2k1)!}}\left(ϵ_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}\mu _{2k}}A^{\mu _{2k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^2}}H_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}(B)\right)`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(X_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}^5\right)^2}{2M_5^2f_5^2(2k1)!}}+{\displaystyle \frac{X^{5\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}}{f_5(2k1)!}}\left(ϵ_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}\mu _{2k}}A^{5\mu _{2k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_5^2}}H_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k1}}^5(B)\right)`$
$`L_{dual}`$ has been split in two terms: $`L_{BF}`$ corresponds to the classical $`BF`$ (without quantum anomaly), which is dual to the mass term in (26); $`L_{WZ}`$ provides the dual version of the Wess–Zumino terms in (26). Thus, (32) and (26) are dual to each other, and we can summarize the effects of the dualization as follows:
Classical Stückelberg model Let us start without Wess–Zumino terms, or quantum anomaly in the effective Lagrangian. Only classical mass terms $`M`$ and $`M_5`$ break gauge symmetries. They are made invariant by the scalar compensator $`\varphi `$ a la’ Stückelberg in (26). Their dual form is given by (35) in terms of the $`BF`$ model, in agreement with the results in .
Quantum Stückelberg model Once classical mass terms are made gauge invariant, we switch on the quantum anomaly. In (26) the quantum non-invariance of the effective Lagrangian is improved by the Wess–Zumino terms expressed through $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^5`$. In the dual version of the theory (LABEL:lbd2) the scalar compensators $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi _5`$ are replaced by the rank $`p=2k2`$ Kalb–Ramond field $`B`$. One can see from (32) that the Kalb–Ramond-like field is  in fact a Stückelberg compensator of $`X(A)`$ in the dual version of the theory. As a compensator the $`B`$ field must vary under vector and axial vector gauge transformation  There is also an additional tensor gauge transformation of the $`p=2k2`$ Kalb–Ramond fields described as    $`\delta B_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k2}}=_{[\mu _1}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{2k2}]}`$  (39)   $`\delta B_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k2}}^5=_{[\mu _1}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{2k2}]}^5`$  (40)  which is still an invariance of the dual Lagrangian, and it is anomaly free. Furthermore, in case of classical duality there is no need for additional gauge transformations of $`B`$ since $`BF`$ term is automatically gauge invariant.. On general grounds, if $`\delta H(B)=f^1\delta X`$ and $`\delta X=\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }G(A,A^5)\right)`$, then, variation of Kalb–Ramond-like field is $`\delta B=f^1\mathrm{\Lambda }G(A,A^5)`$. The explicit form of $`G(A,A^5)`$ can be extracted from the transformations of $`B`$ under vector and axial vector symmetry. From (18) and (16) one finds

$`\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }B_{\alpha _3\mathrm{}\mu _{2k}}={\displaystyle \frac{2𝐚}{f}}\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{m_{max}}{}}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^{2m+1}e^{k2m}}{(2\pi )^k(2k2)!}}\delta _{[\alpha _3\mathrm{}\alpha _{2k4m}\mathrm{}\alpha _{2k}]}^{[\mu _3\mathrm{}\mu _{2k4m}\nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _{4m}]}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}{\displaystyle \frac{2m+1}{k}})\times `$ (42)
$`\times F_{\mu _3\mu _4}^5F_{\mu _5\mu _6}\mathrm{}F_{\mu _{2k4m1}\mu _{2k4m}}F_{\nu _1\nu _2}^5\mathrm{}F_{\nu _{4m1}\nu _{4m}}^5`$
$`\delta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_5}B_{\alpha _3\mathrm{}\mu _{2k}}={\displaystyle \frac{2𝐚}{f}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_5{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{m_{max}}{}}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^{2m+1}e^{k2m}}{(2\pi )^k(2k2)!}}\delta _{[\alpha _3\mathrm{}\alpha _{2k4m}\mathrm{}\alpha _{2k}]}^{[\mu _3\mathrm{}\mu _{2k4m}\nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _{4m}]}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2m+1}{k}}\right)`$ (44)
$`\times F_{\mu _3\mu _4}F_{\mu _5\mu _6}\mathrm{}F_{\mu _{2k4m1}\mu _{2k4m}}F_{\nu _1\nu _2}^5\mathrm{}F_{\nu _{4m1}\nu _{4m}}^5`$
$`\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }B_{\alpha _3\mathrm{}\mu _{2k}}^5={\displaystyle \frac{2(𝐚1)}{f_5}}\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{m_{max}}{}}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^{2m+1}e^{k2m}}{(2\pi )^k(2k2)!}}\delta _{[\alpha _3\mathrm{}\alpha _{2k4m}\mathrm{}\alpha _{2k}]}^{[\mu _3\mathrm{}\mu _{2k4m}\nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _{4m}]}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{k}}\right)`$ (46)
$`\times F_{\mu _3\mu _4}F_{\mu _5\mu _6}\mathrm{}F_{\mu _{2k4m1}\mu _{2k4m}}F_{\nu _1\nu _2}^5\mathrm{}F_{\nu _{4m1}\nu _{4m}}^5`$
$`\delta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_5}B_{\alpha _3\mathrm{}\mu _{2k}}^5={\displaystyle \frac{2(𝐚1)}{f_5}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_5{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{m_{max}}{}}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^{2m+1}e^{k2m}}{(2\pi )^k(2k2)!}}\delta _{[\alpha _3\mathrm{}\alpha _{2k4m}\mathrm{}\alpha _{2k}]}^{[\mu _3\mathrm{}\mu _{2k4m}\nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _{4m}]}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2m}{k}}\right)`$ (48)
$`\times F_{\mu _1\mu _2}F_{\mu _5\mu _6}\mathrm{}F_{\mu _{2k4m1}\mu _{2k4m}}F_{\nu _3\nu _4}^5\mathrm{}F_{\nu _{4m1}\nu _{4m}}^5`$
The above transformations guarantee the invariance of the complete Lagrangian $`\delta L_{inv}\delta L_{eff}+\delta L_{dual}=0`$, putting $`f=f_5=1`$. Equations (32) and (26) show the dualization “flipping” $`M1/M`$ and $`M_51/M_5`$, which forbids the massless limit in the dual version of the theory. In our model classical masses act as coupling constants in (22), and are reversed by the duality transformation.
For the sake of transparency, let us look at the four dimensional case ($`k=2`$, $`m=0`$) where (42), (44), (46) and (48) give

$`\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }B_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{𝐚}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{ge^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{(2\pi )^2}}F_{\mu \nu }^5`$ (49)
$`\delta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_5}B_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{𝐚}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{ge^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_5}{(2\pi )^2}}F_{\mu \nu }`$ (50)
$`\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }B_{\mu \nu }^5={\displaystyle \frac{𝐚1}{f_5}}{\displaystyle \frac{ge^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{(2\pi )^2}}F_{\mu \nu }`$ (51)
$`\delta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_5}B_{\mu \nu }^5=0`$ (52)
For the choice $`𝐚=0`$ the above formulae reproduce results of . One can verify that the gauge transformations of the Kalb–Ramond compensator in (52) agree with the ones found in supergravity . This result suggests both a natural SUSY extension of the gauge theory discussed in this paper, and gives further support to the role of the Kalb–Ramond fields as a Stückelberg compensator, i.e. field transforming under vector and axial vector gauge transformations.
In summary, we have shown the equivalence of the Stückelberg and Wess–Zumino methods to restore the gauge invariance of an anomalous Abelian theory of massive one-forms. Combining this equivalence with the results about classical duality between Stückelberg and $`BF`$ theories, we have found a new, dual, form of Wess–Zumino terms. Massless limits $`M0`$ , $`M_50`$ cannot be performed as a consequence of the flipping between “strong/weak coupling” regimes. Thus, in order to produce dual theory one has to have classical mass terms form the start.
The application of the method described in this letter to non–Abelian, anomalous gauge theories is currently under investigation. We are developing a non–Abelian dualization procedure acting on Yang–Mills fields coupled to Kalb–Ramond tensors. What we are looking for is the generalization of the anomalous effective action (8) in the non–Abelian case. Once this goal will be brought to a success, we shall be able to build up the non–Abelian version of the model discussed in this letter.


format: text

text:
# Remarks on the Schur–Howe–Sergeev Duality

## 1. Introduction

This is a sequel to , in which we studied the Howe duality between two general linear Lie superalgebras and other closely related multiplicity-free actions of a general linear Lie superalgebra, which generalize and unify several classical results, cf. Howe .

In this Letter, we construct a new Howe duality involving the queer Lie superalgebra $`q(n)`$. The queer Lie superalgebra $`q(n)`$ (cf., e.g., ) can be regarded as a true super analog of the general linear Lie algebra. We show that there is a mutually centralizing action of $`q(m)`$ and $`q(n)`$ on the symmetric algebra111In this Letter, we will freely suppress the term super. So in case when a superspace is involved, the terms symmetric, commute etc. mean supersymmetric, supercommute etc unless otherwise specified. of $`^{mn|mn}`$. A multiplicity-free decomposition of the $`q(m)\times q(n)`$-module $`S(^{mn|mn})`$ is explicitly obtained. To achieve this, we use a remarkable duality, due to Sergeev  between $`q(n)`$ and a finite group $`\stackrel{~}{H}_k`$, which generalizes the celebrated Schur duality. Here $`\stackrel{~}{H}_k`$ is a central extension of the hyperoctahedral group.

On the other hand, we show the $`(q(m),q(n))`$ Howe duality can be used to re-derive Sergeev duality as well. We also show that the zero-weight space of a $`q(n)`$-module with highest weight $`\lambda `$, given by a strict partition of $`n`$, is an irreducible module over the finite group $`\stackrel{~}{H}_n`$ parameterized by $`\lambda `$. All these are very much analogous to the classical picture in the general linear Lie algebra case, cf. . As is well known, there is no unique notion of a Weyl (super)group for a Lie superalgebra. Our results suggest that $`\stackrel{~}{H}_n`$ may be regarded as a Weyl supergroup for $`q(n)`$ in an appropriate sense.

It has been known  that the characters of the irreducible $`q(n)`$-modules under consideration in this letter are essentially the Schur Q-functions $`Q_\lambda `$ (cf. ). We remark that the difficult question of finding the character of a general finite-dimensional irreducible $`q(n)`$-module has been solved recently by Penkov and Serganova . The $`(q(m),q(n))`$-duality can now be interpreted as a representation theoretic realization of the following well known identity for Schur Q-functions (cf. Macdonald ):

$$\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1+x_iy_j}{1x_iy_j}=\underset{\lambda }{}2^{l(\lambda )}Q_\lambda (x)Q_\lambda (y),$$

where $`x=(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})`$, $`y=(y_1,y_2,\mathrm{})`$ and the summation is over all strict partitions.

In the case when $`n=1`$, the $`(q(m),q(n))`$ Howe duality essentially tells us that the $`k`$-th symmetric algebra of the natural representation of $`q(n)`$ is irreducible of highest weight $`(k,0,\mathrm{},0)`$. When $`m=n`$, the $`(q(m),q(n))`$ Howe duality implies the existence of a distinguished basis for the center of the universal enveloping algebra of $`q(n)`$ (also compare ) parameterized by strict partitions of length not exceeding $`n`$. It is a very interesting question to give a more precise description of this basis and its relation with symmetric functions as $`m`$ goes to infinity. The results of  and the present work also suggest that there are other Howe dual pairs involving various Lie superalgebras (cf. ) which deserve further study.

The plan of the letter is as follows. In Section 2 we recall some representation-theoretic background of the queer Lie superalgebras with emphasis on Schur–Sergeev duality. Section 3 is devoted to establishing the $`(q(m),q(n))`$-duality and to the study of its consequences.

## 2. The Schur–Sergeev duality

Let $`^{m|n}`$ denote the complex vector superspace of dimension $`m|n`$, and $`𝔤𝔩(m|n)`$ the Lie superalgebra of linear transformations of $`^{m|n}`$ (see, e.g., ). Choosing a homogeneous basis of $`^{m|n}`$ we may regard $`𝔤𝔩(m|n)`$ as the space of complex $`(m+n)\times (m+n)`$ matrices. In the case when $`m=n`$ consider an odd automorphism $`P:^{m|m}^{m|m}`$ with $`P^2=1`$. The linear transformations of $`𝔤𝔩(m|m)`$ preserving $`P`$ is a subalgebra of $`𝔤𝔩(m|m)`$, denoted by $`q(m)`$. We have $`q(m)=q(m)_{\overline{0}}q(m)_{\overline{1}}`$, with $`q(m)_{\overline{0}}`$ isomorphic to the general linear Lie algebra $`𝔤𝔩(m)`$ and $`q(m)_{\overline{1}}`$ isomorphic to the adjoint module of $`𝔤𝔩(m)`$ (cf. , ). Choosing $`P`$ to be the $`2m\times 2m`$ matrix

(2.1)
$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I\\ I& 0\end{array}\right)$$

with $`I`$ denoting the identity $`m\times m`$ matrix, we may identify $`q(m)`$ inside $`𝔤𝔩(m|m)`$ with the space of complex $`2m\times 2m`$ matrices of the form:

(2.2)
$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ B& A\end{array}\right),$$

where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are arbitrary complex $`m\times m`$ matrices. Of course the even elements of $`q(m)`$ are those for which $`B=0`$, while the odd elements are those for which $`A=0`$.

We will below recall some aspects of finite-dimensional irreducible representations of $`q(m)`$ (cf. ). Let $`𝔅`$ be the Borel subalgebra consisting of those matrices in (2.2) with $`A`$ and $`B`$ upper triangular. Furthermore, let $`𝔑`$ be the nilpotent subalgebra of $`𝔅`$ consisting of those matrices in (2.2) with $`A`$ and $`B`$ strictly upper triangular. The Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$ is the subalgebra of $`q(m)`$ consisting of those matrices in (2.2) with $`A`$ and $`B`$ diagonal. Taking a linear form $`\lambda `$ on $`𝔥_{\overline{0}}`$ we may consider the symmetric bilinear form on $`𝔥_{\overline{1}}`$ defined by $`(a|b)_\lambda :=\lambda ([a,b])`$, $`a,b𝔥_{\overline{1}}`$. Now if $`𝔥_{\overline{1}}^{}𝔥_{\overline{1}}`$ is a maximal isotropic subspace with respect to this bilinear form, we may extend $`\lambda `$ to a one-dimensional representation of $`𝔥_{\overline{0}}+𝔥_{\overline{1}}^{}`$ in a trivial way. Inducing from this we obtain an irreducible $`𝔥`$-module. This module has an odd automorphism if and only if the dimension of the quotient space $`𝔥_{\overline{1}}/\mathrm{ker}(|)_\lambda `$ is odd. We now can extend this irreducible $`𝔥`$-module to an irreducible $`𝔅`$-module by letting $`𝔑`$ act trivially. This way one obtains all finite-dimensional irreducible $`𝔅`$-modules. Inducing further we obtain the Verma module of $`q(m)`$ associated to the linear form $`\lambda 𝔥_{\overline{0}}^{}`$ and, thus, an irreducible $`q(m)`$-module of highest weight $`\lambda `$ by dividing by its maximal proper submodule. We note that an odd automorphism of an irreducible $`𝔥`$-module descends to an odd automorphism of this irreducible quotient. Thus one may associate to an $`m`$-tuple $`\lambda =(a_1,\mathrm{},a_m)`$ of complex numbers an irreducible representation $`U_m^\lambda `$ of highest weight $`\lambda `$, which is finite-dimensional if and only if $`a_ia_{i+1}_+`$ and $`a_i=a_{i+1}`$ implies that $`a_i=0`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},m1`$, cf. .

Recall a partition $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _l)`$ of length $`l`$ is called strict if $`\lambda _1>\lambda _2>\mathrm{}>\lambda _l>0.`$ We will identify $`\lambda `$ with $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _l,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ by adding zeros in the end and denote by $`|\lambda |`$ the sum $`\lambda _1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _l`$. We see that a partition $`\lambda `$ may be regarded as a highest weight of a finite-dimensional irreducible $`q(m)`$-module if and only if $`\lambda `$ is strict with length $`l(\lambda )`$ not exceeding $`m`$. Furthermore, we have :

(2.3)
$$\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Hom}_{q(m)}(U_m^\lambda ,U_m^\mu ))=\delta _{\lambda \mu }2^{\delta (l(\lambda ))},$$

where $`\mathrm{Hom}`$ is to be understood in the $`_2`$-graded sense, and the number $`\delta (l(\lambda ))`$ is $`0`$ for $`l(\lambda )`$ even and $`1`$ otherwise. More precisely, $`\mathrm{Hom}_{q(m)}(U_m^\lambda ,U_m^\mu ))`$ is isomorphic to $``$ in the case when $`l(\lambda )`$ is even and it is isomorphic to a Clifford superalgebra in one odd variable in the case $`l(\lambda )`$ is odd. We also recall that the character $`\mathrm{ch}U_m^\lambda `$ is defined as the trace of the diagonal matrix $`\mathrm{diag}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m;x_1,\mathrm{},x_m)`$ in $`q(m)`$ acting on $`U_m^\lambda `$.

We denote by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$ the group generated by $`1,z,a_1,\mathrm{},a_k`$ subject to the relations

$$z^2=1,a_i^2=z\mathrm{and}a_ia_j=za_ja_i,\mathrm{for}ij.$$

The symmetric group $`S_k`$ acts on $`\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$ via permutations of the elements $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_k`$ and we may thus form the semidirect product $`S_k\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$. We denote this semidirect product (again a finite group) by $`\stackrel{~}{H}_k`$ which is naturally $`_2`$-graded by putting $`p(a_i)=\overline{1}`$, $`p(z)=\overline{0}`$, and $`p(\sigma )=\overline{0}`$ for $`\sigma S_k`$. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{H}_k`$ is a finite supergroup in the sense of , i.e. this is a group with a subgroup of index two, whose elements we call even and by definition all other elements are odd (see Remark 2.1). In this letter we will only concern about the $`_2`$-graded spin modules222In  these are called negative supermodules. of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_k`$ (i.e. those $`_2`$-graded modules on which $`z`$ acts as $`1`$) which are equivalently modules over the group superalgebra $`𝔅_k=[\stackrel{~}{H}_k]/z=1`$.

###### Remark 2.1.

For a supergroup $`G`$ by $`G`$-module homomorphisms we will mean linear maps commuting with the respective group action. Explicitly this means that for a homogeneous linear map $`f:VW`$, where $`V`$ and $`W`$ are supermodules, to be a $`G`$-homomorphism we must have $`f(gv)=(1)^{p(f)p(g)}gf(v)`$, for all $`vV`$. Recall  that given two modules $`V`$ and $`W`$ over a supergroup $`G`$, the space $`\mathrm{Hom}_{}(V,W)`$ is naturally a $`G`$-module via the action $`(gT)(v):=(1)^{p(g)p(T)}gT(g^1v)`$, which amounts to giving $`VW`$ a $`G`$-module structure via the action $`g(vw)=(1)^{p(g)(p(v)+p(w))}gvgw`$. Thus in what follows the action on a tensor product of two $`G`$-modules will always be given this $`G`$-module structure. By $`G`$-invariants inside $`VW`$ we shall always mean the usual invariants, i.e. $`(VW)^G=\{\gamma VW|g\gamma =\gamma ,gG\}`$.

According to  and , the ($`Z_2`$-graded) irreducible spin modules of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_k`$ are also parameterized by strict partitions. For strict partitions $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ let $`T_k^\lambda `$ and $`T_k^\mu `$ denote the corresponding irreducible spin modules over $`\stackrel{~}{H}_k`$. We have (, ) :

(2.4)
$$\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Hom}_{\stackrel{~}{H}_k}(T_k^\lambda ,T_k^\mu ))=\delta _{\lambda \mu }2^{\delta (l(\lambda ))},$$

where $`\mathrm{Hom}`$ is again to be understood in the $`_2`$-graded sense. Furthermore it is known (cf. ) that the character value of $`T_k^\lambda `$ is real and thus $`T_k^\lambda `$ is self-contragredient.

Let us now consider the natural action of $`q(m)`$ on $`^{m|m}`$. We may form the $`k`$-fold tensor product $`^k^{m|m}`$, on which $`q(m)`$ acts naturally. In addition we have an action of the finite supergroup $`\stackrel{~}{H}_k`$: the symmetric group in $`k`$ letters acts on $`^k^{m|m}`$ by permutations of the tensor factors with appropriate signs (corresponding to the permutations of odd elements in $`^{m|m}`$). However, we also have an action of $`a_i`$ on $`^k^{m|m}`$ by means of exchanging the parity of $`i`$-th copy of $`^{m|m}`$ via the odd automorphism of $`^{m|m}`$ given by the matrix $`P`$ of (2.1). More explicitly, $`a_i`$ transforms the vector $`v_1\mathrm{}v_{i1}v_i\mathrm{}v_k`$ in $`^k^{m|m}`$ into $`(1)^{p(v_1)+\mathrm{}+p(v_{i1})}v_1\mathrm{}v_{i1}P(v_i)\mathrm{}v_k`$.

The following remarkable theorem is due to Sergeev , which will be referred to as (Schur–)Sergeev duality throughout the Letter. We refer the reader to  for definitions and properties of the Schur $`Q`$-functions $`Q_\lambda `$.

###### Theorem 2.1 (Sergeev).

The actions of $`q(m)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_k`$ on the space $`^kC^{m|m}`$ commute and $`^k^{m|m}`$ is completely reducible over $`q(m)\times \stackrel{~}{H}_k`$. Explicitly we have

$$\stackrel{k}{}^{m|m}\underset{\lambda }{}2^{\delta (l(\lambda ))}U_m^\lambda T_k^\lambda ,$$

where $`\lambda `$ is summed over all strict partitions with $`|\lambda |=k`$ and $`l(\lambda )m`$. Furthermore, the character $`\mathrm{ch}U_m^\lambda `$ is given by $`2^{\frac{\delta (l(\lambda ))l(\lambda )}{2}}Q_\lambda (x)`$.

###### Remark 2.2.

The expression $`2^{\delta (l(\lambda ))}U_m^\lambda T_k^\lambda `$ above has the following meaning. Suppose $`A`$ and $`B`$ are two superalgebras and $`V_A`$ and $`V_B`$ are irreducible modules over $`A`$ and $`B`$ such that $`\mathrm{Hom}_A(V_A,V_A)`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}_B(V_B,V_B)`$ are both isomorphic to the Clifford superalgebra in one odd variable. We remark that in the language of  (respectively ) this is to say that $`V_A`$ and $`V_B`$ are irreducible, but not absolutely irreducible (respectively are of $`Q`$-type). It is known that $`V_AV_B`$ as a module over $`AB`$ is not irreducible, but decomposes into a direct sum of two isomorphic copies (via an odd isomorphism) of the same irreducible representation (see, e.g., ). In our particular setting when $`l(\lambda )`$ is odd both $`T_k^\lambda `$ and $`U_m^\lambda `$ are such modules by (2.3) and (2.4). So in this case we mean to take one copy inside their tensor product.

## 3. The $`(q(m),q(n))`$ Howe duality

Recall that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$ acts on $`^k^{m|m}`$ and $`^k^{n|n}`$ and hence the diagonal subgroup $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Pi }_k\mathrm{\Pi }_k\times \mathrm{\Pi }_k`$ acts on their tensor product

$$(\stackrel{k}{}^{m|m})(\stackrel{k}{}^{n|n})\stackrel{k}{}(^{m|m}^{n|n})$$

(see Remark 2.1). So does the symmetric group $`S_k`$. This gives rise to the diagonal action of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_k`$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

As a module over $`q(m)\times q(n)`$, we have

$$(\stackrel{k}{}(^{m|m}^{n|n}))^{\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{~}{H}_k)}S^k(^{mn|mn}),$$

where $`()^{\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{~}{H}_k)}`$ denotes the space $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{~}{H}_k)`$-invariants.

###### Proof.

Recall that $`P`$ is the odd automorphism given by the matrix (2.1). Consider first $`(^{m|m}^{n|n})^{\mathrm{\Delta }P}`$, that is, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(P)(=P\times P)`$-invariants in $`^{m|m}^{n|n}`$. Letting $`v_m^{m|0}`$ and $`v_n^{n|0}`$, it is clear that this space consists of elements of the form $`v_mv_n+P(v_m)P(v_n)`$ and $`v_mP(v_n)+P(v_m)v_n`$, and hence is isomorphic to $`^{mn|mn}`$. Therefore, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$ is a subgroup (since all elements are now even) of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(S_k\mathrm{\Pi }_k)`$ generated by the $`k`$ copies of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(P)`$’s, we have

$`({\displaystyle \stackrel{k}{}}^{m|m}^{n|n})^{\mathrm{\Delta }(S_k\mathrm{\Pi }_k)}`$
$`(({\displaystyle \stackrel{k}{}}^{m|m}^{n|n})^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Pi }_k})^{\mathrm{\Delta }S_k}`$
$`({\displaystyle \stackrel{k}{}}((^{m|m}^{n|n})^{\mathrm{\Delta }P}))^{\mathrm{\Delta }S_k}`$
$`({\displaystyle \stackrel{k}{}}^{mn|mn})^{S_k}`$
$`S^k(^{mn|mn}).`$
Let $`x_1^i,\mathrm{},x_m^i`$, $`\xi _1^i,\mathrm{},\xi _m^i`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ denote the standard coordinates of $`^{mn|mn}`$. We may then identify $`S(^{mn|mn})`$ with the polynomial algebra generated by $`x_i`$ and $`\xi _j`$. Introduce the following first order differential operators:

$`A^{pq}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}(x_i^p{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_i^q}}+\xi _i^p{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi _i^q}}),1p,qn,`$
(3.1) $`B^{pq}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}(x_i^p{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi _i^q}}\xi _i^p{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_i^q}}),1p,qn,`$
$`A_{pq}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(x_p^j{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_q^j}}+\xi _p^j{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi _q^j}}),1p,qm,`$
(3.2) $`B_{pq}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(x_p^j{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi _q^j}}+\xi _p^j{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_q^j}}),1p,qm.`$
The following lemma can be proved directly.

###### Lemma 3.2.

The operators $`A_{pq}`$ and $`B_{pq}`$, for $`1p,qm`$, form a copy of $`q(m)`$, while $`A^{pq}`$ and $`B^{pq}`$, for $`1p,qn`$, form a copy of $`q(n)`$. Furthermore, they define a commuting action of $`q(m)`$ and $`q(n)`$ in $`S(^{mn|mn})`$.

###### Theorem 3.1.

The action of $`q(m)\times q(n)`$ on $`S(^{mn|mn})`$ is multiplicity-free. More precisely we have the following decomposition:

$$S^k(^{mn|mn})\underset{\lambda }{}2^{\delta (l(\lambda ))}U_m^\lambda U_n^\lambda ,$$

where $`\lambda `$ is summed over all strict partitions of length not exceeding $`\mathrm{min}(m,n)`$.

###### Proof.

By Schur–Sergeev duality (Theorem 2.1) we have

$$\stackrel{k}{}^{m|m}\underset{\lambda }{}2^{\delta (l(\lambda ))}U_m^\lambda T_k^\lambda ,$$

as $`q(m)\times \stackrel{~}{H}_k`$ module, where the summation is over strict partitions $`\lambda `$ with length $`l(\lambda )m`$. Therefore combined with Lemma 3.1 this gives us

$`S^k(^{mn|mn})`$ $`(({\displaystyle \stackrel{k}{}}^{m|m})({\displaystyle \stackrel{k}{}}^{n|n}))^{\mathrm{\Delta }(S_k\mathrm{\Pi }_k)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\mu }{}}2^{\delta (l(\lambda ))}2^{\delta (l(\mu ))}(U_m^\lambda T_k^\lambda U_n^\mu T_k^\mu )^{\mathrm{\Delta }(S_k\mathrm{\Pi }_k)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\mu }{}}2^{\delta (l(\lambda ))}2^{\delta (l(\mu ))}(U_m^\lambda U_n^\mu )(T_k^\lambda T_k^\mu )^{\mathrm{\Delta }(S_k\mathrm{\Pi }_k)}.`$
Now by (2.4) and the fact that irreducible $`\stackrel{~}{H}_k(=S_k\mathrm{\Pi }_k)`$-modules are self-contragredient we have

$`S^k(^{mn|mn})`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}2^{\delta (l(\lambda ))}2^{2\delta (l(\lambda ))}U_m^\lambda U_m^\lambda `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}2^{\delta (l(\lambda ))}U_m^\lambda U_m^\lambda ,`$
where the summation is over all strict partitions of length $`\mathrm{min}(m,n)`$. ∎

Comparing the characters of both sides of the $`(q(m),q(n))`$-duality (Theorem 3.1) we obtain, by using Theorem 2.1, that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1+x_iy_j}{1x_iy_j}=\underset{\lambda }{}2^{\delta (l(\lambda ))}2^{\frac{\delta (l(\lambda ))l(\lambda )}{2}}Q_\lambda (x)2^{\frac{\delta (l(\lambda ))l(\lambda )}{2}}Q_\lambda (y),$$

which is equivalent to

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1+x_iy_j}{1x_iy_j}=\underset{\lambda }{}2^{l(\lambda )}Q_\lambda (x)Q_\lambda (y),$$

where the summation is over all strict partitions of length $`\mathrm{min}(m,n)`$. This identity of Schur $`Q`$-functions is well known (see e.g. ) and Theorem 3.1 provides a representation-theoretic interpretation of it.

The next corollary is immediate from Theorem 3.1.

###### Corollary 3.1.

The images of the universal enveloping algebras of $`q(m)`$ and $`q(n)`$ in the endomorphism algebra of $`S^k(^{mn|mn})`$ are mutual centralizers.

When $`n=1`$ the $`(q(m),q(n))`$-duality reads

$$S^k(^{m|m})\frac{1}{2}(U_m^{(k)}U_1^{(k)}),$$

where $`(k)`$ above denotes the one-part partition. Since $`U_1^{(k)}`$ is a two-dimensional module, the right-hand side is exactly $`U_m^{(k)}`$ as a $`q(m)`$-module. Hence we have established the following.

###### Proposition 3.1.

The $`k`$-th symmetric tensor of $`^{m|m}`$ is the irreducible $`q(m)`$-module $`U_m^{(k)}`$, associated to the one-part partition $`(k)`$.

###### Remark 3.1.

Another proof of Proposition 3.1 goes as follows. Recalling that $`S^k(^{m|n})=_{i=0}^kS^i^m\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ki}^n`$, we have therefore $`\mathrm{ch}S^k(^{m|m})=_{i=0}^kh_ie_{ki}=q_k`$ (see  pp. 261 for notation), which coincides with $`Q_{(k)}`$. Here $`h_i`$ and $`e_i`$ denote the $`i`$-th complete and respectively elementary symmetric functions. But $`\mathrm{ch}U_m^{(k)}=Q_{(k)}`$ by  and so $`S^k(^{m|m})U_m^{(k)}`$.

###### Remark 3.2.

Given a left module $`M`$ over a Lie superalgebra $`𝔤`$, we can make $`M`$ into a right module by defining $`mx:=(1)^{p(m)p(x)}xm`$, for $`mM`$ and $`x𝔤`$. Now if $`M`$ in addition has a left module structure over another Lie superalgebra $`𝔤^{}`$ such that the action of $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔤^{}`$ commute, then the so induced right action of $`𝔤`$ on M will not commute with the left action of $`𝔤`$ (in the super-sense), but rather they will commute with each other in the usual sense. Thus the induced right action of $`q(n)`$ above has the result that it commutes with the left action of $`q(m)`$ in the usual sense.

Let $`GL(n)`$ be the Lie group whose Lie algebra is the even part of the Lie superalgebra $`q(n)`$ and let $`A_n`$ denote its diagonal torus. Given a $`q(n)`$-module (or a $`GL(n)`$-module) $`U`$, we call the subspace $`U^{A_n,\mathrm{det}}`$ inside $`U`$, which transforms under the action of $`A_n`$ by the determinant character, the zero-weight space of $`U`$.

###### Theorem 3.2.

The $`(q(m),q(n))`$ Howe duality implies the Sergeev duality.

###### Theorem 3.3.

Given a strict partition $`\lambda `$ of $`n`$, the zero weight space of $`U_n^\lambda `$ admits a natural action of the finite group $`\stackrel{~}{H}_n`$, and it is isomorphic to the irreducible module $`T_n^\lambda `$.

###### Proof.

We will establish Theorem 3.2 and Theorem 3.3 together. The argument we will present follows closely the one used in  to derive the Schur duality from the $`(𝔤𝔩(m),𝔤𝔩(n))`$-duality.

The $`(q(m),q(n))`$-duality says that $`S(^{m|m}^n)_\lambda 2^{\delta (l(\lambda ))}U_m^\lambda U_n^\lambda `$, where the summation is over all strict $`\lambda `$ with $`l(\lambda )\mathrm{min}(m,n)`$. Observe that the space $`^n^{m|m}^{m|m}^n`$ may be identified with the zero-weight space $`S(C^{m|m}^n)^{A_n,\mathrm{det}}`$. Putting these together we have

(3.3)
$$\stackrel{n}{}^{m|m}\underset{\lambda }{}2^{\delta (l(\lambda ))}U_m^\lambda (U_n^\lambda )^{A_n,\mathrm{det}},$$

where $`\lambda `$ runs over all strict partitions $`n`$. So to recover Theorem 2.1 it suffices to show that $`(U_n^\lambda )^{A_n,\mathrm{det}}`$ is isomorphic to the irreducible $`\stackrel{~}{H}_n`$-module $`T_n^\lambda `$, which is the contents of Theorem 3.3.

First note that the normalizer of $`A_n`$ acts on the $`A_n`$-weight spaces by permutation. Since the determinant character is invariant under permutation of weights, we see that $`(U_n^\lambda )^{A_n,\mathrm{det}}`$ is invariant under the action of $`S_n`$. Now the induced right action (see Remark 3.2) of the operators $`B^{ii}`$ (see (3.1)) when acting on $`(U_n^\lambda )^{A_n,\mathrm{det}}`$ satisfy the commutation relations of the $`a_i`$’s in $`\stackrel{~}{H}_n`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. This action of the $`B^{ii}`$’s combined with the action of $`S_n`$ then gives a right action of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_n`$ on $`(U_n^\lambda )^{A_n,\mathrm{det}}`$.

Set $`n=m`$ in the remainder of the proof. (However, it is convenient to continue making the distinction between $`n`$ and $`m`$.) Consider

(3.4)
$$(\stackrel{n}{}^{m|m})^{A_m,\mathrm{det}}\underset{\lambda }{}2^{\delta (l(\lambda ))}(U_m^\lambda )^{A_m,\mathrm{det}}(U_n^\lambda )^{A_n,\mathrm{det}}.$$

Recall that $`x_1^i,\mathrm{},x_m^i`$, $`\xi _1^i,\mathrm{},\xi _m^i`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},n)`$ are the standard coordinates of $`^{mn|mn}^{m|m}^n`$. It is not difficult to see that the space $`(^n^{m|m})^{A_m,\mathrm{det}}`$ inside $`S(^{m|m}^n)^{A_m,\mathrm{det}}`$, which is $`S(^{m|m}^n)^{A_m\times A_n,\mathrm{det}\times \mathrm{det}}`$, may be identified with the space spanned by vectors of the form $`v_1^{\sigma _1}v_2^{\sigma _2}\mathrm{}v_n^{\sigma _n}`$, where $`v`$ denotes either $`x`$ or $`\xi `$ and $`\sigma `$ is a permutation of $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Thus this space is in bijection with the space $`𝔅_n=[\stackrel{~}{H}_n]/z=1`$. On this space the normalizer of $`A_m`$ acts, and so we obtain an action of the symmetric group $`S_m`$. We also have an action of $`B_{jj}`$ (see (3.2)), which gives rise to the action of $`a_j`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{H}_m`$, for $`j=1,\mathrm{},m`$. This action combined with that of $`S_m`$ gives a left action of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_m`$ on $`(U_m^\lambda )^{A_m,\mathrm{det}}`$. Furthermore the induced right action of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_n`$ above and this action commute in the usual sense according to Remark 3.2.

Also our left action of $`S_n`$ permutes the upper indices of the vector $`v_1^{\sigma _1}v_2^{\sigma _2}\mathrm{}v_n^{\sigma _n}`$, whereas the left action of the $`a_i`$’s changes the parity of $`v_i^{\sigma _i}`$. Thus this is the left regular action of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_n`$. Our right action of $`S_n`$, on the other hand, permutes the lower indices of $`v_1^{\sigma _1}v_2^{\sigma _2}\mathrm{}v_n^{\sigma _n}`$, whereas our right action of $`a_i`$ changes the parity of $`v_i^{\sigma _i^1}`$. Thus our right action is the right regular representation of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_n`$. From the general theory of finite supergroup , the left-hand side of (3.4), which is isomorphic to $`𝔅_n`$ under the left and right actions of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_n`$, is equal to the summation $`_\lambda 2^{\delta (l(\lambda ))}T_n^\lambda T_n^\lambda `$ over all strict partitions of $`n`$. Decomposing $`(U_m^\lambda )^{A_m,\mathrm{det}}`$ in the right-hand side of (3.4) into a direct sum of irreducible $`\stackrel{~}{H}_m`$-modules, we see that this is only possible when each $`(U_m^\lambda )^{A_m,\mathrm{det}}`$ itself is irreducible as a $`\stackrel{~}{H}_m`$-module. Comparing with (3.3), we see that this irreducible module is isomorphic to $`T_n^\lambda `$. ∎

In  Sergeev computed the center of the universal enveloping algebra $`U(q(m))`$ of the Lie superalgebra $`q(m)`$. We will see that a different description of it can also be obtained from the $`(q(m),q(n))`$-duality.

Recall that for a finite-dimensional Lie superalgebra $`𝔤`$ we have $`S(𝔤)^𝔤Z(U(𝔤))`$ as a $`𝔤`$-module (cf. ), the center of the universal enveloping algebra of $`𝔤`$. Now replacing $`q(n)`$ and $`^{n|n}`$ in the $`(q(m),q(n))`$-duality by $`q(m)`$ and $`^{m|m}`$, the action contragredient to the natural action of $`q(m)`$, we have

$$S^k(^{m|m}^{m|m})^{\mathrm{\Pi }_k}2^{\delta (l(\lambda ))}\underset{\lambda }{}U_m^\lambda U_m^\lambda .$$

However, from our earlier description of $`(^{m|m}^{m|m})^{\mathrm{\Delta }P}`$, we see that, as a $`q(m)`$-module, it is isomorphic to the adjoint representation of $`q(m)`$. Thus

$`S(q(m))^{q(m)}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}2^{\delta (l(\lambda ))}(U_m^\lambda U_m^\lambda )^{\mathrm{\Delta }q(m)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}2^{\delta (l(\lambda ))}\mathrm{Hom}_{q(m)}(U_m^\lambda ,U_m^\lambda ),`$
where the summation is over all strict partitions $`\lambda `$ with $`l(\lambda )m`$. Thus combined with (2.3) we have proved the following proposition.

###### Proposition 3.2.

The center of the universal enveloping algebra of $`q(m)`$ admits a distinguished basis parameterized by strict partitions of length less than or equal to $`m`$.

Acknowledgment. After we completed this work, we came across a preprint of Sergeev,‘An analog of the classical invariant theory for Lie superlagebras’, math.RT/9810113, where he independently obtained the $`(q(m),q(n))`$ Howe duality (i.e. Theorem 3.1 in this Letter). The other results of this Letter seem to be new.


text:
# References

CERN-TH/2000-280

A no-go theorem for string warped compactifications
S. Ivanov1 and G. Papadopoulos2
1. Department of Mathematics

University of Sofia

“St. Kl. Ohridski”
2. CERN

Theory Division

1211 Geneva, 23

Switzerland

Abstract

We give necessary conditions for the existence of perturbative heterotic and common sector type II string warped compactifications preserving four and eight supersymmetries to four spacetime dimensions, respectively. In particular, we find that the only compactifications of heterotic string with the spin connection embedded in the gauge connection and type II strings are those on Calabi-Yau manifolds with constant dilaton. We obtain similar results for compactifications to six and to two dimensions.

In past few years there has been interest in investigating perturbative  and non-perturbative string warped compactifications . One of the attractive features of such compactifications is the appearance of a scalar potential in the effective low dimensional effective action depending on some of moduli fields. This leads to the lifting of some of the flat directions of the associated compactifications without a warp factor. The presence of the potential can be understood in various ways. One way is that in warped compactifications some ten- or eleven-dimensional supergravity form field strengths receive an expectation value. Therefore one can view the presence of the potentials as a consequence of a Scherk-Schwarz type of mechanism. Another feature of these warped compactifications is that they preserve a fraction of spacetime supersymmetry. Warped compactifications have also been related to Randall-Sundrum type of senario .

Warped compactifications of the perturbative heterotic string and of the common sector of type II strings have been investigated sometime ago by Strominger in . This was achieved by allowing the dilaton to be a non-constant function of the compact space. Necessary conditions were given for the existence of such compactifications. In particular it was shown that the compact manifold of such warped compactification is a 2n-dimensional hermitian, but no Kähler, manifold equipped with a holomorphic (n, 0)-form. Therefore it is required that the Hodge number $`h^{n,0}=\mathrm{dim}H^{n,0}`$ of the compact manifold is $`h^{n,0}1`$.

In this paper, we shall investigate the conditions for the existence of holomorphic $`(n,0)`$-forms on hermitian manifolds using the Gauduchon theorem -. We shall assume the following:

* The solution associated with the warped compactification is a smooth and the internal manifold is compact.
* For compactifications to four-dimensions the solution preserves four and eight supersymmetries for the heterotic and type II strings, respectively. The non-vanishing fields are those of the common sector.
* The dilaton is a globally defined scalar function on the compact space.

Then we shall show that there are restrictions for the existence of such forms which manifest themselves as conditions on the string three-form field strength $`H`$ and its exterior derivative $`dH`$. In particular, we shall find that heterotic warped compactifications with the spin connection embedded in the gauge connection and type II string warped compactifications are ruled out. So the only compactifications of these systems with four and eight remaining supersymmetries in four dimensions, respectively, are the standard Calabi-Yau compactifications for which dilaton is constant and the string three-form field strength vanishes. Recently other no-go theorems have appeared in the literature for Randall-Sundrum  and warped compactifications ; see also .

We shall begin our analysis with a summary of the relevant results of . Then after giving some definitions of various curvature tensors associated with hermitian geometry, we shall present our main result. This is an inequality involving the length of the torsion of the Chern connection and the scalar derived by taking twice the trace of $`dH`$ with the complex structure of the hermitian manifold. We shall then explore this inequality in the context of both heterotic and type II strings. We shall conclude with some remarks regarding the relationship between the Killing spinor equation associated with the gravitino and that associated with the dilatino. In particular, we shall argue that the former does not always imply the latter.

The string compactifications we consider involve supergravity solutions for which the non-vanishing bosonic fields are those of the NS$``$NS sector, ie the metric $`G`$, the dilaton $`\varphi `$ and the string three-form field strength $`H`$. In type II strings, $`H`$ is closed but in the heterotic string due to the anomaly cancellation mechanism, $`dH0`$. In what follows, we shall be mainly concerned with compactifications of the heterotic string though our results can be easily adapted to the type II strings. The relevant heterotic Killing spinor equations in the string frame are

$`\widehat{}\eta `$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^M_M\varphi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNR}H_{MNR})\eta =0,`$ (0.1)
where $`M,N,R=0,\mathrm{},9`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^M`$ are the gamma matrices of spacetime and $`\widehat{}`$ is a connection with torsion $`H`$, ie

$$\widehat{}_MY^N=_MY^N+\frac{1}{2}H_{MR}{}_{}{}^{N}Y_{}^{R};$$
(0.2)
$`Y`$ is a vector field. The gamma matrices have been chosen to be hermitian along the space directions and antihermitian along the time direction. The spinor $`\eta `$ is in the Majorana-Weyl representation of the spin group $`\mathrm{Spin}(1,9)`$. In the heterotic string, there is an additional Killing spinor equation associated with the gaugino. However this will not enter in our investigation and it will be only very briefly mentioned later. In the case of type II strings there are two additional Killing spinor equations to (0.1) but again do not enter in our analysis. It has been shown in  that for warped compactifications to $`\text{}^{2(5n)}`$, the solution for the background in the string frame can be written as

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`ds^2(\text{}^{2(5n)})+ds^2(M)`$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (y)`$
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}H(y)_{ijk}dy^idy^jdy^k,`$ (0.3)
where $`\{y^i;i=1,\mathrm{},2n\}`$ are the coordinates of the 2n-dimensional compact space $`M`$ and $`ds^2(M)`$ is the metric on $`M`$. The manifold $`M`$ is even-dimensional and this will be explained shortly. The warp factor is not apparent in the string frame but in the Einstein frame because the dilaton is not taken to be constant, the spacetime metric becomes

$$ds_E^2=e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }ds^2,$$
(0.4)
where $`ds_E^2`$ is the Einstein metric.

For the first Killing spinor equation in (0.1) to have solutions, the holonomy of the connection $`\widehat{}`$ has to be an appropriate subgroup of $`SO(1,9)`$. For the compactifications (0.3) we are considering, the non-trivial part of the connection $`\widehat{}`$ is given by a connection on the compact manifold $`M`$ which we shall denote with the same letter. Therefore for the first Killing spinor equation in (0.1) to have solutions, we take the holonomy of $`\widehat{}`$ to be in $`SU(n)`$. This in particular implies that for compactifications to four dimensions $`(n=3)`$, four supersymmetries will be preserved. The solutions of this Killing spinor equation are $`\widehat{}`$-parallel spinors which can be identified with the singlets in the decomposition of the Majorana-Weyl spinor representation of $`SO(1,9)`$ under $`SU(n)`$. In addition it was shown in  that $`M`$ is a hermitian manifold, i.e. $`M`$ admits a complex structure and it is equipped with a compatible hermitian metric. The complex structure is given in terms of a killing spinor $`\eta _+`$ as

$$J^i{}_{j}{}^{}=i\eta _+^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^i{}_{j}{}^{}\eta _{+}^{},$$
(0.5)
satisfying

$$\widehat{}_kJ^i{}_{j}{}^{}=0,$$
(0.6)
i.e. it is parallel with respect to the $`\widehat{}`$ connection. The torsion of the connection $`\widehat{}`$ is determined in terms of the metric and the complex structure on $`M`$ as

$$H_{ijk}=3J^m{}_{[i}{}^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{|m|jk]},$$
(0.7)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}=g_{ik}J^k_j`$ is the Kähler form of $`M`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is its exterior derivative, $`(d\mathrm{\Omega })_{ijk}=3_{[i}\mathrm{\Omega }_{jk]}`$ and $`ds^2(M)=g_{ij}dy^idy^j`$ is the metric on $`M`$. In mathematics $`\widehat{}`$ has appeared sometime ago in the context of hermitian manifolds  and recently it is called Bismut connection , and in physics has appeared in the context of supersymmetric sigma models . Hermitian manifolds equipped with the Bismut connections are also called KT (Kähler with torsion) manifolds .

Let us now investigate the second Killing spinor equation associated with the dilatino. For the compactifications we are considering, this Killing spinor equation for $`\eta _+`$ becomes

$$\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^i_i\varphi \frac{1}{6}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ijk}H_{ijk}\right)\eta _+=0.$$
(0.8)
Next we multiply this equation from the left and its conjugate from the right with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^m`$, respectively. After contracting the two equations with $`\eta _+^{}`$ and $`\eta _+`$ appropriately and then substracting them, we get schematically

$$\eta _+^{}\left([\mathrm{\Gamma }^m,d\varphi ]\frac{1}{6}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^m,H\}\right)\eta _+=0.$$
(0.9)
After some gamma matrix algebra, this equation gives

$$\theta _i=2_i\varphi ,$$
(0.10)
where $`\theta _i`$ is the so called Lee form of $`J`$ defined as

$$\theta _i=^k\mathrm{\Omega }_{km}J^m{}_{i}{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}J^m{}_{i}{}^{}H_{mkn}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{kn}.$$
(0.11)
We remark that the field and Killing spinor equations of supergravity theory are well-defined if we take the dilaton to be locally defined on $`M`$ and therefore $`\theta `$ to be closed but not exact. However in the supergravity action, $`\varphi `$ appears without a derivative acting on it and therefore in order the Lagrangian to be a scalar, $`\varphi `$ is required to be a globally defined scalar on $`M`$. In many backgrounds that arise in the worldsheet-conformal field theory approach to strings, $`\varphi `$ is only locally defined function on the background. For example, the background associated with the Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) model on $`S^1\times S^3`$ is supersymmetric, in the supergravity sense, if one introduces a dilaton which depends linearly on the angular coordinate of $`S^1`$ factor. Such a dilaton is not globally defined on $`S^1\times S^3`$; though is well-defined in the universal cover of $`S^1\times S^3`$ which is the near horizon geometry of the NS5-brane. As we shall see in conformal field theory, a more general situation can arise.

The key observation in  is that the existence of a solution to the supergravity Killing spinor equations implies the presence of a holomorphic $`(n,0)`$-form on $`M`$. To see this observe that $`M`$ admits a $`\widehat{}`$-parallel $`(n,0)`$-form $`ϵ`$ because of the requirement that the holonomy of $`\widehat{}`$ is in $`SU(n)`$. Next we assume that $`\varphi `$ is a globally-defined scalar on $`M`$ and write the form

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=e^{2\varphi }ϵ.$$
(0.12)
Then using $`\widehat{}ϵ=0`$,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{\beta }\gamma }^\gamma =\theta _{\overline{\beta }},$$

as it can be verified with an explicit computation, and (0.10), we find

$`_{\overline{\beta }}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}`$ $`=`$ $`2_{\overline{\beta }}\varphi \stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}+n\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{\beta }[\alpha _1}^\gamma \stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{|\gamma |\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _n]}`$ (0.13)
$`=`$ $`2_{\overline{\beta }}\varphi \stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{\beta }\gamma }^\gamma \stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}`$
$`=`$ $`2_{\overline{\beta }}\varphi \stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}+\theta _{\overline{\beta }}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}=0,`$
where $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{}\alpha _n,\gamma ,\delta =1,\mathrm{},n`$ are holomorphic indices with respect to $`J`$. So $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ is holomorphic. This concludes our summary of the warped string compactifications.

There are obstructions to the existence of holomorphic $`(n,0)`$-forms on hermitian manifolds. In particular, we shall show there does not exist such a holomorphic (n,0)-form for a large class of the compactifications we have described. For this, we first define the Chern connection $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ on $`M`$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{}_iY^j=_iY^j+\frac{1}{2}J^m{}_{i}{}^{}(d\mathrm{\Omega })_{mkn}^{}g^{nj}Y^k,$$
(0.14)
where $`Y`$ is a vector field of $`M`$. This connection is compatible with the metric ($`\stackrel{~}{}g=0`$), the complex structure ($`\stackrel{~}{}J=0`$) and the holomorphic structure of the tanget bundle of $`M`$ (ie the curvature of the Chern connection is a (1,1)-form on $`M`$). The torsion of the Chern connection is

$$C_{ijk}=\frac{1}{2}\left(J^m{}_{i}{}^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{mjk}+J^m{}_{j}{}^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{imk}\right),$$
(0.15)
which can be expressed in terms of the string three-form $`H`$ as

$$C_{ijk}=\frac{1}{4}(J^m{}_{i}{}^{}J_{}^{n}{}_{j}{}^{}H_{mnk}^{}H_{ijk}).$$
(0.16)
Observe that if the torsion of the Chern connection vanishes, then the manifold $`M`$ is Kähler and consequently $`H`$ also vanishes. Next we define

$$b=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{R}_{ijkl}\mathrm{\Omega }^{ij}\mathrm{\Omega }^{kl},$$
(0.17)
and

$$u=\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{R}_{ijkl}\mathrm{\Omega }^{ij}\mathrm{\Omega }^{kl},$$
(0.18)
where $`\widehat{R}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ are the curvature tensors of the Bismut and Chern connections on $`M`$, respectively. Moreover a computation reveals that

$$2u=b+C_{ijk}C^{ijk}+\frac{1}{4}dH_{ijkl}\mathrm{\Omega }^{ij}\mathrm{\Omega }^{kl}.$$
(0.19)
(For the derivation of this see .) Of course if the holonomy of the Bismut connection is contained in $`SU(n)`$, then $`b=0`$.

Necessary conditions on the compact hermitian manifold $`M`$ for the existence of a holomorphic $`(n,0)`$-form, or more generally for the existence of a holomorphic sections of a holomorphic line bundle over $`M`$, can be derived by the application of the Gauduchon plurigenera theorem ; for applications of other vanishing theorems  see . These conditions are expressed in terms of the Gauduchon metric. For this, we first observe that given a hermitian manifold $`M`$ with complex structure $`J`$ and metric $`g`$, one can find another hermitian structure on $`M`$ with the same complex structure but with metric which is related to $`g`$ by a conformal rescaling, i.e. metric $`e^wg`$ where $`w`$ is a function on $`M`$. It has been shown by Gauduchon  that it is possible to always find a metric $`h`$ within the conformal class of $`g`$ such that

$$(^{(h)})^i\theta _i^{(h)}=0,$$

where $`^{(h)}`$ is the Levi-Civita connection of the metric $`h`$ and $`\theta ^{(h)}`$ is the Lee form with respect to the metric $`h`$. The metric $`h`$ that fixes the conformal gauge is called Gauduchon metric.

The proof for the existence of the Gauduchon metric can be summarized as follows: Let $`(z^1,\mathrm{},z^n)`$ be a holomorphic coordinate system on a compact hermitian 2n-dimensional manifold $`(M,J,g)`$. We consider the complex Laplacian operator $`L_{(g)}`$ acting on smooth functions $`f`$ as

$$L_{(g)}(f)2g^{\alpha \overline{\beta }}_\alpha _{\overline{\beta }}f.$$
(0.20)
The operator $`L`$ can be rewritten as

$$L_{(g)}(f)=\mathrm{\Delta }f+2g^{\alpha \overline{\beta }}_\alpha f\theta _{\overline{\beta }},$$
(0.21)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the standard Laplacian associated with the Levi-Civita connection of $`g`$ and $`\theta `$ is the Lee form. The formal adjoint operator $`L_{(g)}^{}`$ of $`L_{(g)}`$ is given by

$$L_{(g)}^{}(f)=\mathrm{\Delta }f2g^{\alpha \overline{\beta }}_\alpha f\theta _{\overline{\beta }}2^\alpha \theta _\alpha f,$$
(0.22)
where $``$ is the Levi-Civita connection of $`g`$. In particular, we have

$$L_{(g)}^{}(1)=2^\alpha \theta _\alpha .$$
(0.23)
The corresponding operators with respect to a conformally equivalent metric $`\overline{g}=e^{\frac{2}{n1}w}g`$ are given by

$`L_{(\overline{g})}(f)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{2}{n1}w}L_{(g)}(f)`$
$`L_{(\overline{g})}^{}(f)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{2n}{n1}w}L_{(g)}^{}(e^{2w}f).`$ (0.24)
If $`L_{(g)}^{}(e^{2w})=0`$ admits a positive solution, then

$$L_{(\overline{g})}^{}(1)=2_{(\overline{g})}^\alpha \theta _\alpha ^{(\overline{g})}=0.$$
(0.25)
Thus such $`\overline{g}`$ is the Gauduchon metric, $`\overline{g}=h`$.

Gauduchon  showed that the equation $`L_{(g)}^{}(f)=0`$ does admit a unique positive solution, up to a constant scale, by using the following consequence of steps:

* (i) If $`f`$ is in the kernel, $`\mathrm{Ker}L_{(g)}`$, of $`L_{(g)}`$, $`L_{(g)}(f)=0`$, then $`f`$ is constant. This follows from the Hopf maximal principle. Roughly if $`f`$ is not constant, then $`f`$ has a strict maximal point $`p`$ on the compact manifold $`M`$ and so $`L_{(g)}(f)|_p=\mathrm{\Delta }f|_p>0`$ which leads to a contradiction.
* (ii) The index of $`L_{(g)}`$ vanishes, $`\mathrm{Index}L_{(g)}=\mathrm{dimKer}L_{(g)}\mathrm{dimKer}L_{(g)}^{}=0`$. This is because the principal symbols of $`L_{(g)}`$ and of $`L_{(g)}^{}`$ are the same as that of the standard Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Thus using (i), we conclude that $`\mathrm{dimKer}L_{(g)}^{}=1`$.
* (iii) If a function $`f`$ is in the image of $`L_{(g)}`$, $`f\mathrm{Im}L_{(g)}`$, then $`f`$ necessarily changes sign as a consequence of the maximum principle. Indeed let us suppose that $`f=L_{(g)}k`$ for some smooth function $`k`$ on $`M`$. Then $`k`$ has at least a maximum and at least a minimum point in $`M`$. If $`p`$ is a maximum, then $`f(p)=L_{(g)}(k)|_p=\mathrm{\Delta }k|_p>0`$. Now if $`p`$ is a minimum, then $`f(p)=L_{(g)}(k)|_p=\mathrm{\Delta }k|_p<0`$. Therefore $`f`$ changes sign.
* (iv) If $`f\mathrm{Ker}L_{(g)}^{}`$, then $`f`$ is nowhere zero. For this observe that $`\mathrm{Ker}L_{(g)}^{}`$ is orthogonal to $`\mathrm{Im}L_{(g)}`$. Now suppose that $`f`$ changes sign, then one could find $`f^{}`$ which is either positive or negative function of $`M`$ orthogonal to $`f`$. Such function $`f^{}`$ then is in $`\mathrm{Im}L_{(g)}`$ and so it contradicts (iii).

So from (iv) one concludes that there is solution of $`L_{(g)}^{}(f)=0`$ which is a negative or positive function on $`M`$. Observe that if $`f`$ is negative, then $`f`$ is a positive solution. Next from (ii) one concludes that the solution is unique up to a constant scale. Hence, the Gauduchon metric exists and it is unique up to a homothetic transformation.

Now we are ready to state the Gauduchon plurigenera theorem . For this let us denote with $`u^{(h)}`$ the scalar $`u`$ in (0.18) evaluated for the Gauduchon metric $`h`$. If on a compact hermitian manifold

$$_M\sqrt{h}d^{2n}yu^{(h)}0,$$
(0.26)
then the $`mth`$-plurigenus $`p_m(J)=dimH^0(M,𝒪(K^m))\{0,1\},m>0`$. Moreover, if the inequality in (0.26) is strict, then $`p_m(J)=0,m>0`$. In particular $`h^{n,0}=p_1(J)`$ and this gives necessary conditions for the existence of holomorphic (n,0)-forms.

To briefly explain the proof of the plurigenera theorem, let $`\lambda `$ be a holomorphic (n,0)-form. Then we find that

$$0=_{\overline{\beta }}\lambda _{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}=\stackrel{~}{}_{\overline{\beta }}\eta _{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}$$
(0.27)
by the properties of the Chern connection $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. Next we apply the complex Laplacian $`L_{(g)}`$ to $`\frac{1}{2}|\lambda |^2`$, where

$$|\lambda |^2=\lambda _{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}\lambda ^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}$$
(0.28)
is the square norm of $`\lambda `$, and get

$`L_{(g)}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\lambda |^2)`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\overline{\beta }\alpha }_{\overline{\beta }}(\stackrel{~}{}_\alpha \lambda _{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}\lambda ^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n})`$ (0.29)
$`=`$ $`g^{\overline{\beta }\alpha }\stackrel{~}{}_{\overline{\beta }}\stackrel{~}{}_\alpha \lambda _{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}\lambda ^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}+|\stackrel{~}{}\lambda |^2=2u|\lambda |^2+|\stackrel{~}{}\lambda |^2.`$
We have used the Ricci identities for the Chern connection to derive the latter equality.

Now if $`u0`$, then $`L_{(g)}(\frac{1}{2}|\lambda |^2)0`$. Applying the Hopf maximum principle, we find that either $`\lambda =0`$ if $`u>0`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{}\lambda =0`$ if $`u=0`$. Hence, in the first case $`h^{n,0}=0`$ and $`h^{n,0}1`$ in the second. This observation suffices to show one of the main results of this letter as we shall see below. However the conditions for the existence of holomorphic sections for line bundles can be put in the form of (0.26) as follows:

Let $`(,\mu )`$ be a holomorphic line bundle over a compact hermitian manifold $`(M,g,J)`$ with fibre metric $`\mu `$. We define the function $`u^{(\mu )}`$ as the trace over the $`M`$ indices with respect to $`g`$ of the curvature of the canonical Chern connection of $`(,\mu )`$. For the canonical bundle, ie the bundle of (n,0)-forms on $`M`$, the function $`\mu `$ is locally given by $`\mu =\mathrm{det}(g)=\mathrm{det}(g_{\alpha \overline{\beta }})`$. The curvature of the canonical bundle is

$$\stackrel{~}{R}_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}=i_\alpha _{\overline{\beta }}\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{det}(g))$$
(0.30)
and

$$u^{(\mu )}=\frac{i}{2}g^{\alpha \overline{\beta }}\stackrel{~}{R}_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \overline{\beta }}_\alpha _{\overline{\beta }}\mathrm{log}\mu .$$
(0.31)
Observe that if $`\mu ^{}=e^w\mu `$ is another fibre bundle metric, then $`u^{(\mu ^{})}=u^{(\mu )}+L_{(g)}(w)`$. Suppose that $`f_o`$ is a smooth positive function on $`M`$ satisfying $`L^{}f_o=0`$. Gauduchon  showed using the properties of the kernel of $`L^{}`$ that the average value

$$v_{(g)}()=\mathrm{Vol}_{(g)}^1(M)_M\sqrt{g}d^{2n}yf_ou^{(\mu )}$$
(0.32)
is independent of the choosen bundle metric $`\mu `$, where $`\mathrm{Vol}_{(g)}(M)`$ is the volume of $`M`$ with respect to the metric $`g`$. Moreover there exist a canonical bundle metric $`\mu _o`$ with $`u^{(\mu _o)}=v_g()`$, constant. But the existence of holomorphic sections of a holomorphic bundle $``$ does not depend on the choice of fibre metric $`\mu `$, thus it only depends on the sign of the constant $`u^{(\mu _o)}`$. In the case of interest where the line bundle $``$ is a positive power of the canonical line bundle, the constant

$$v_g()=\mathrm{Vol}_{(h)}^1(M)_M\sqrt{h}d^{2n}yu^{(h)}$$
(0.33)
where $`h`$ is the Gauduchon metric. From this one can immediately derive the plurigenera theorem as stated in (0.26).

To apply the above results to string theory, we observe that if the string metric $`g`$ on $`M`$ is related to the Gauduchon metric $`h`$ by $`g=e^fh`$, then we have

$$2e^fu=2u^{(h)}+n(n1)h^{ij}(\theta ^{(h)})_i_jf\mathrm{\Delta }^{(h)}f,$$
(0.34)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(h)}`$ is the Laplacian of $`h`$. Using (0.34)and (0.19), and after integrating by parts, we find that

$`{\displaystyle _M}\sqrt{h}d^{2n}yu^{(h)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}\sqrt{h}d^{2n}ye^fu`$ (0.35)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _M}\sqrt{g}d^{2n}ye^{(n1)f}\left(C_{ijk}C^{ijk}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}dH_{ijkl}\mathrm{\Omega }^{ij}\mathrm{\Omega }^{kl}\right).`$
This is our main equation. Further, the torsion $`C`$ of the Chern connection can be expressed in terms of the string three-form $`H`$ using (0.16) but the above expression will suffice.

Now consider warped compactifications of the heterotic string with compact space the hermitian, but no Kähler manifold, $`M`$ and with spin connection embedded in the gauge one. If this is the case, then $`dH=0`$ and so

$$_M\sqrt{h}d^{2n}yu^{(h)}=\frac{1}{2}_M\sqrt{g}d^{2n}ye^{(n1)f}C_{ijk}C^{ijk}>0.$$
(0.36)
From the Gauduchon theorem stated above we conclude that $`h^{n,0}=0`$ and a holomorphic $`(n,0)`$ form on $`M`$ cannot exist. Thus there are no warped compactifications of the heterotic string with the spin connection embedded in the gauge one. The same applies for warped compactifications of type II strings for which $`H`$ is closed, $`dH=0`$. From these, one concludes that the only compactifications involving the common sector of type II strings and perturbative heterotic string for which the spin connection is embedded in the gauge connection are those on Calabi-Yau manifolds . In particular the dilaton is constant and so there is no warp factor in the metric. We remark that the same result can be derived without using the plurigenera theorem. In particular from (0.19), $`dH=0`$ and the reasoning below equation (0.29) we can conclude that $`h^{n,0}=0`$ unless $`C=0`$ and the manifold is a Calabi-Yau space.

The only remaining possibility for existence of warped perturbative string compactifications is that of heterotic strings for which the spin connection is not embedded in the gauge connection and so $`dH0`$. A necessary condition for having $`h^{n,0}=1`$ as required is that

$$_M\sqrt{g}d^{2n}ye^{(n1)f}\left[C_{ijk}C^{ijk}+\frac{1}{4}dH_{ijkl}\mathrm{\Omega }^{ij}\mathrm{\Omega }^{kl}\right]0.$$
(0.37)
From the heterotic string one-loop anomaly cancellation formula

$$dH=\lambda \left[\mathrm{Tr}(R^{}R^{})\mathrm{Tr}(FF)\right],$$
(0.38)
we have

$$(dH)_{ijkl}\mathrm{\Omega }^{ij}\mathrm{\Omega }^{kl}=\frac{\lambda }{2}\left(\mathrm{Tr}R_{ij}^{}R^{ij}\mathrm{Tr}F_{ij}F^{ij}\right),$$
(0.39)
where $`\lambda `$ is a constant that depends on the string tension, $`R^{}`$ is the curvature of the connection with torsion $`H`$, $`F`$ is the curvature of a vector bundle on $`M`$ and the trace is taken in the gauge indices which have been suppressed. Observe that only the zeroth order term of $`H`$ in $`\lambda `$ contributes in the one-loop anomaly and that $`dH=0+𝒪(\lambda )`$. To derive (0.39), we have used the fact that $`\widehat{R}_{ij,kl}=R_{kl,ij}^{}`$ and therefore both $`R^{}`$ and $`F`$ are (1,1)-forms on $`M`$ which in addition satisfy $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{ij}F_{ij}{}_{a}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}=\mathrm{\Omega }^{ij}R_{ij}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{l}=0`$. These conditions on $`F`$ are derived by solving the Killing spinor equations associated with the gaugino. (Global anomaly cancellation requires that $`dH`$ is exact.) Now whether or not (0.37) is satisfied depends on the details of the choice of the gauge connection and that of the hermitian structure on $`M`$.

For compactifications to six dimensions, if $`dH=0`$ then the only compactifications are those on $`K_3`$ with constant dilaton . On the other hand if $`dH0`$, then the string metric $`g`$ is in the same conformal class as the $`K_3`$ metric. The latter of course can be identified with the Gauduchon metric. Therefore $`u^{(h)}=0`$ and there is a holomorphic $`(2,0)`$\- form which is that of $`K_3`$.

We shall conclude with a remark regarding the relationship between the first and second Killing spinor equations in (0.1). In particular we show that the first Killing spinor equation does not always imply the second. To derive this, we shall construct an example of a manifold that solves the first Killing spinor equation but not the second. For this we take $`M=SU(2)\times SU(2)=S^3\times S^3`$; This is a group manifold model as those in . Moreover let as denote the left-invariant one-forms on $`M`$ with $`\{(\sigma ^r,\overline{\sigma }^r);r=0,1,2\}`$, where $`\sigma ^r`$ are associated with the first $`SU(2)`$ in $`M`$ and $`\overline{\sigma }^r`$ with the second. In particular, we have

$$d\sigma ^r=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^r{}_{st}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{s}\sigma ^t$$
(0.40)
and similarly for $`\overline{\sigma }^r`$. The metric on $`M`$ can be chosen to be

$$ds^2=\delta _{rs}\sigma ^r\sigma ^s+\delta _{rs}\overline{\sigma }^r\overline{\sigma }^s.$$
(0.41)
(There is a two parameter family of bi-invariant metrics on $`M`$ but this choice will suffice for our purpose.) The Kähler form of the metric that we shall consider is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\sigma ^0\overline{\sigma }^0+\sigma ^1\sigma ^2+\overline{\sigma }^1\overline{\sigma }^2$$
(0.42)
In particular we find that the string form field strength in this case is

$$H=\sigma ^0\sigma ^1\sigma ^2\overline{\sigma }^0\overline{\sigma }^1\overline{\sigma }^2.$$
(0.43)
The Bismut connection is the left-invariant connection on the group $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ and so it has holonomy group the identity. Thus its holonomy is contained in $`SU(3)`$ and the first Killing spinor equation has the required solutions. It remains to see whether the second Killing spinor equation can be solved as well. For this we shall attempt to verify the equation $`\theta _i=2_i\varphi `$. To do this we compute the Lee form $`\theta `$ and find

$$\theta =\sigma ^0\overline{\sigma }^0.$$
(0.44)
Thus $`d\theta 0`$ and so the second Killing spinor equation is not satisfied. The manifold $`M=SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ is associated with a two-dimensional $`N=2`$ superconformal theory, for example that of a WZW model with target space $`M`$. Of course such conformal theories do not have the appropriate central charge to serve as string backgrounds, i.e. the dilaton field equation is not satisfied. Nevertheless, it is surprising that there is no choice of a dilaton for the above complex structure, even after adding for example background charges, for which the associated supergravity background preserves some of the spacetime supersymmetry. However if the complex structure $`J`$ is chosen in a different way, then by adding two appropriate background charges, the resulting background can be thought of as having geometry $`S^1\times S^3\times S^1\times S^3`$ which preserves some spacetime supersymmetry. However the dilaton $`\varphi `$ in this case depends linearly on the two angular coordinates of $`S^1\times S^1`$ and so it is not a well-defined function on $`S^1\times S^3\times S^1\times S^3`$ leading to a $`d\varphi `$ which is a closed but not an exact one-form. This is similar to the case of $`S^1\times S^3`$ WZW background that has already been explained. Alternatively, one can consider the universal cover $`\text{}\times S^3\times \text{}\times S^3`$ of $`S^1\times S^3\times S^1\times S^3`$. In such case the dilaton is a well-defined function on this background but the solution is non-compact. All these are in accordance with our main result that there are no common sector type II and heterotic string warped compactifications with the spin connection embedded in the gauge one preserving appropriate supersymmetry.

Acknowledgments: We would like to thank G.W. Gibbons and A. Tseytlin for helpful discussions. S.I is supported by the contracts MM 809/1998 of the Ministry of Science and Education of Bulgaria, 238/1998 of the University of Sofia “St. Kl. Ohridski” and EDGE, Contract HPRN-CT-2000-0010. G.P. is supported by a University Research Fellowship from the Royal Society. This work is partially supported by SPG grant PPA/G/S/1998/00613.