text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

During the last few years D-branes on group manifolds have received a great deal of attention (see, e.g.,  and the references therein). Using methods from CFT one obtains a microscopic decription of various D-branes on group manifolds in terms of conformally invariant boundary states. Therefore the group manifolds provide an ideal laboratory for the study of quantum D-branes on general curved backgrounds.

Recently, the study of boundary conditions that preserve various symmetries on the boundary of sigma models representing open strings - has revealed a close connection to the geometry of the targetspace. The present letter may be viewed as an application of results from those studies.

Here we study D-branes on group manifolds which preserve a certain amount of world-sheet supersymmetry, in particular we focus on the N=2 case. It turns out that for the WZW model N=2 supersymmetry alone imposes strong restrictions on the possible gluing conditions of the affine currents and that these restrictions have a nice algebraic description. The study in this letter is confined to the case where the gluing conditions imposed on the affine currents are given in terms of a constant map $`R_B^A`$. Although this restriction is not necessary, the case of constant $`R_B^A`$ is the most interesting from the CFT point of view. In this study we apply our previous results  for D-branes of general N=(2,2) supersymmetric sigma model to the WZW model.

The letter is organised as follows. In Section 2 we review the N=(2,2) supersymmetry for the WZW models and briefly explain how N=2 supersymmetry is related to the Manin triple $`(𝐠,𝐠_{},𝐠_+)`$. In Section 3 using the N=2 on-shell transformations we study the requirements which need to be imposed on the gluing conditions of the affine currents to preserve half of the world-sheet supersymmetry. In analogy with the Kähler case we introduce two type of branes: A-type and B-type. Both types of branes have an algebraic description in terms of the Manin triple. In Section 4 we analyse the N=2 superconformal boundary conditions by imposing boundary conditions on the N=2 currents. Finally, in Section 5, we summarize the results and give some examples.

## 2 N=2 WZW models

First, let us recall the description of N=2 supersymmetry for non-linear sigma models with torsion  (for a recent discussion see ). The N=1 superfield bulk action for the real scalar superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu `$ is

$$S=d^2\sigma d^2\theta D_+\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu D_{}\mathrm{\Phi }^\nu (g_{\mu \nu }(\mathrm{\Phi })+B_{\mu \nu }(\mathrm{\Phi })),$$
(2.1)
where we assume that $`HdB0`$. This action is manifestly supersymmetric under one supersymmetry because of its N=1 superfield form. Further (2.1) admits an additional nonmanifest supersymmetry of the form

$$\delta _2\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu =ϵ_2^+D_+\mathrm{\Phi }^\nu J_{+\nu }^\mu (\mathrm{\Phi })+ϵ_2^{}D_{}\mathrm{\Phi }^\nu J_\nu ^\mu (\mathrm{\Phi }).$$
(2.2)
Classically this ansatz is unique for dimensional reason. The standard on-shell N=2 supersymmetry requires $`J_{\pm \nu }^\mu `$ to be complex structures, i.e.

$$J_{\pm \lambda }^\mu J_{\pm \nu }^\lambda =\delta _\nu ^\mu $$
(2.3)
and

$$𝒩_{\mu \nu }^\rho (J_\pm )=J_{\pm \mu }^\gamma _{[\gamma }J_{\pm \nu ]}^\rho J_{\pm \nu }^\gamma _{[\gamma }J_{\pm \mu ]}^\rho =0.$$
(2.4)
Invariance of the action (2.1) under the transformations (2.2) requires the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ to be Hermitian with respect to both complex structures

$$J_{\pm \rho }^\mu g_{\mu \nu }J_{\pm \lambda }^\nu =g_{\rho \lambda }$$
(2.5)
and the complex structures to be covariantly constant with respect to different connections

$$_\rho ^{(\pm )}J_{\pm \nu }^\mu J_{\pm \nu ,\rho }^\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \sigma }^{\pm \mu }J_{\pm \nu }^\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \nu }^{\pm \sigma }J_{\pm \sigma }^\mu =0,$$
(2.6)
where we have defined the two affine connections as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \nu }^{\pm \mu }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \nu }^\mu \pm g^{\mu \sigma }H_{\sigma \rho \nu },$$
(2.7)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \nu }^\mu `$ the Christoffel connection for the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. Using (2.6) the inegrability condition (2.4) may be rewritten in alternative form

$$H_{\delta \nu \lambda }=J_{\pm \delta }^\sigma J_{\pm \nu }^\rho H_{\sigma \rho \lambda }+J_{\pm \lambda }^\sigma J_{\pm \delta }^\rho H_{\sigma \rho \nu }+J_{\pm \nu }^\sigma J_{\pm \lambda }^\rho H_{\sigma \rho \delta }.$$
(2.8)
To summarize, the transformation (2.2) is a second supersymmetry provided that (2.3), (2.5), (2.6) and (2.8) are satisfied.

We now turn to N=2 supersymmetric WZW models. The WZW models represent a special class of non-linear sigma models defined over a group manifold $``$ of some Lie group $`𝒢`$. The isometry group, $`𝒢\times 𝒢`$ is generated by the left and right invariant Killing vectors $`l_A^\mu `$ and $`r_A^\mu `$ respectively, where $`A=1,2,\mathrm{},dim𝒢`$. They satisfy

$$\{l_A,l_B\}=f_{AB}^Cl_C,\{r_A,r_B\}=f_{AB}^Cr_C,\{l_A,r_B\}=0,$$
(2.9)
where $`\{,\}`$ is the Lie bracket for the vector fields. We restrict ourselves to semi-simple Lie groups, so that the Cartan-Killing metric $`\eta _{AB}`$ has an inverse $`\eta ^{AB}`$ and can be used to raise and lower Lie algebra indices. Both $`l_A^\mu `$ and $`r_A^\mu `$ can be regarded as veilbeins, with inverses $`l_\mu ^A`$, $`r_\mu ^A`$ respectively. To define the sigma model, we choose the invariant metric

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{\rho ^2}l_\mu ^Al_\nu ^B\eta _{AB}=\frac{1}{\rho ^2}r_\mu ^Ar_\nu ^B\eta _{AB}$$
(2.10)
while $`H_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ is proportional to the structure constants of the corresponding Lie algebra $`𝐠`$

$$H_{\mu \nu \rho }=\frac{1}{2}kl_\mu ^Al_\nu ^Bl_\rho ^Cf_{ABC}=\frac{1}{2}kr_\mu ^Ar_\nu ^Br_\rho ^Cf_{ABC}$$
(2.11)
and where $`\rho `$ and $`k`$ are constants and $`k`$ must satisfy a quantization condition. If $`\rho ^2=\pm 1/k`$ then $`H_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ is the parallelizing torsion on the group manifold and this is also precisely the relation bewteen the coupling constants that holds at the conformally invariant fixed-point of the beta-functions. Since we are interested in the conformal model, in the following discussion we set $`\rho ^2=1/k`$ and $`k=1`$ because in our calculations $`k`$ appears only as overall factor. We are thus interested in the sigma model (2.1) with $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`H_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ given by (2.10) and (2.11). Using the above properties we see that the left and right invariant Killing vectors satisfy the following equations

$$_\rho ^{()}l_A^\mu =0,_\rho ^{(+)}r_A^\mu =0,$$
(2.12)
where $`_\rho ^{(\pm )}`$ are the affine connections defined in (2.7). Due to (2.12) there are chiral (antichiral) Lie algebra valued currents

$$𝒥_{}^A=l_\mu ^AD_{}\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu ,𝒥_+^A=r_\mu ^AD_+\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu ,$$
(2.13)
such that $`D_{}𝒥_\pm ^A=0`$. The components of these currents are defined as follows

$$j_\pm ^A=𝒥_\pm ^A|,k_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}^A=iD_\pm 𝒥_\pm ^A|.$$
(2.14)
Instead of using coordinates $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu `$, the group manifold can be parametrized by group elements in some representation with the generators $`T_A`$ satisfying

$$[T_A,T_B]=f_{AB}^CT_C,tr(T_AT_B)=\kappa \eta _{AB}.$$
(2.15)
However in this letter we will not use the parametrization in terms of group elements.

The problem of N=2 supersymmetry for the WZW models was first addressed in -. However, we will not follow the original presentation.

Let us assume that the complex structures in (2.2) have the form

$$J_\nu ^\mu =l_A^\mu J_B^Al_\nu ^B,J_{+\nu }^\mu =r_A^\mu J_B^Ar_\nu ^B$$
(2.16)
where $`J_B^A`$ is a constant matrix acting on the Lie algebra. The relations (2.6) are then automatically satisfied. The remaining properties (2.3), (2.5) and (2.8) may be rewritten in terms of $`J_B^A`$ as follows

$$J_C^AJ_B^C=\delta _B^A$$
(2.17)
$$J_A^C\eta _{CD}J_B^D=\eta _{AB}$$
(2.18)
$$f_{ABC}=J_A^DJ_B^Lf_{DLC}+J_B^DJ_C^Lf_{DLA}+J_C^DJ_A^Lf_{DLB}$$
(2.19)
Thus we have to construct a $`J_B^A`$ on the Lie algebra $`𝐠`$ with properties (2.17)-(2.19). That is possible only for even dimensional Lie algebras. $`J_B^A`$ has as eigenvalues $`\pm i`$ and we choose a basis $`T_A=(T_a,T_{\overline{a}})`$ on the Lie algebra $`𝐠`$ such that $`J_B^A`$ is diagonal: $`J_b^a=i\delta _b^a`$, $`J_{\overline{b}}^{\overline{a}}=i\delta _{\overline{b}}^{\overline{a}}`$. In this basis eq. (2.18) leads to $`\eta _{ab}=\eta _{\overline{a}\overline{b}}=0`$ and the (2.19) gives $`f_{abc}=f_{\overline{a}\overline{b}\overline{c}}=0`$. Taken together, this implies that $`f_{ab}^{\overline{c}}=0`$ and $`f_{\overline{a}\overline{b}}^c=0`$. Therefore $`\{T_a\}`$ and $`\{T_{\overline{a}}\}`$ form Lie subalgebras $`𝐠_+`$ and $`𝐠_{}`$ correspondingly. These subalgebras are also maximally isotropic subspaces with the respect to $`\eta `$. Thus the complex structures on the even dimensional group is related to a decomposition of Lie algebra $`𝐠`$ into two maximally isotropic sublagebras with respect to $`\eta `$ such that $`𝐠=𝐠_{}𝐠_+`$ as a vector space. Such a structure is called a Manin triple $`(𝐠,𝐠_{},𝐠_+)`$ and was initially introduced by Drinfeld in the context of completly integrable systems and quantum groups . The relevance of the Manin triples to the N=2 supersymmetry on the group manifolds was pointed out in .

In the general situation the relation (2.16) should be replaced by the following

$$J_\nu ^\mu =l_A^\mu J_B^Al_\nu ^B,J_{+\nu }^\mu =r_A^\mu \stackrel{~}{J}_B^Ar_\nu ^B$$
(2.20)
where $`J_B^A`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}_B^A`$ should each satisfy the relations (2.17)-(2.19) and thus they should be identified with different Manin triples. Therefore, in the general case, the left and right supersymmetries may correspond to different Manin triples (however with respect to the same ad-invariant bilinear nondegenerate form $`\eta `$). Here we only consider the situation where left and right supersymmetries correspond to the same Manin triple.

## 3 N=2 boundary conditions

In this section we discuss the boundary conditions of N=2 WZW models from the point of view of N=2 supersymmetry. In the next section we address the N=2 superconformal boundary conditions.

Since the classical model does not have a dimensionful parameter the most general local classical boundary condition for the fermions is given by the following expression333We found it convenient to introduce the parameter $`\eta _1`$ which takes on the values $`\pm 1`$ and correspond to the choice of spin structure.

$$\psi _{}^\mu =\eta _1R_\nu ^\mu (X)\psi _+^\nu $$
(3.1)
In terms of the fermionic component (2.14) of the N=1 affine currents, equation (3.1) can be rewritten as

$$j_{}^A=\eta _1R_B^A(X)j_+^B$$
(3.2)
where $`R_\nu ^\mu =l_A^\mu R_B^Ar_\nu ^B`$. In what follows we focus on the case when $`R_B^A`$ is independent of $`X`$. This is the case usually considered in the study of boundary CFT.

We want to understand what kind of restrictions should be imposed on $`R_B^A`$ for N=2 supersymmetry to be preserved. In components the manifest on-shell supersymmetry transformations are

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\delta _1X^\mu =(ϵ_1^+\psi _+^\mu +ϵ_1^{}\psi _{}^\mu )\hfill \\ \delta _1\psi _+^\mu =iϵ_1^+_{++}X^\mu +ϵ_1^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho }^\mu \psi _{}^\rho \psi _+^\nu \hfill \\ \delta _1\psi _{}^\mu =iϵ_1^{}_=X^\mu ϵ_1^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho }^\mu \psi _{}^\rho \psi _+^\nu \hfill \end{array}$$
(3.3)
and the nonmanifest supersymmetry transformations (2.2) are

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\delta _2X^\mu =ϵ_2^+\psi _+^\nu J_{+\nu }^\mu +ϵ_2^{}\psi _{}^\nu J_\nu ^\mu \hfill \\ \delta _2\psi _+^\mu =iϵ_2^+_{++}X^\nu J_{+\nu }^\mu ϵ_2^{}J_\sigma ^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho }^\sigma \psi _{}^\rho \psi _+^\nu +ϵ_2^+J_{+\nu ,\rho }^\mu \psi _+^\nu \psi _+^\rho +ϵ_2^{}J_{\nu ,\rho }^\mu \psi _{}^\nu \psi _+^\rho \hfill \\ \delta _2\psi _{}^\mu =iϵ_2^{}_=X^\nu J_\nu ^\mu +ϵ_2^+J_{+\sigma }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho }^\sigma \psi _{}^\rho \psi _+^\nu +ϵ_2^+J_{+\nu ,\rho }^\mu \psi _+^\nu \psi _{}^\rho +ϵ_2^{}J_{\nu ,\rho }^\mu \psi _{}^\nu \psi _{}^\rho .\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.4)
Starting from the fermionic ansatz (3.1) and applying both supersymmetry transformations, (3.3) and (3.4) we should get the bosonic boundary conditions. The result of the first transformation is

$$_=X^\mu R_\nu ^\mu _{++}X^\nu +2i(P_\gamma ^\sigma _\sigma R_\nu ^\mu +P_\rho ^\mu g^{\rho \delta }H_{\delta \sigma \gamma }R_\nu ^\sigma )\psi _+^\gamma \psi _+^\nu =0$$
(3.5)
where $`ϵ_1^+=\eta _1ϵ_1^{}`$. The second supersymmetry gives

$`_=X^\mu +(\eta _1\eta _2)J_\lambda ^\mu R_\sigma ^\lambda J_{+\nu }^\sigma _{++}X^\nu +i[(\eta _1\eta _2)J_\lambda ^\mu _\rho ^{()}R_\nu ^\mu J_{+\gamma }^\rho +`$
$`+(\eta _1\eta _2)J_\lambda ^\mu R_\sigma ^\lambda J_{+\rho }^\sigma H_{\nu \gamma }^\rho +J_\lambda ^\mu _\rho ^{(+)}R_\nu ^\lambda J_\sigma ^\rho R_\gamma ^\sigma H_{\rho \sigma }^\mu R_\gamma ^\sigma R_\nu ^\rho ]\psi _+^\gamma \psi _+^\nu =0`$ (3.6)
where $`ϵ_2^+=\eta _2ϵ_2^{}`$ and we have used the property (2.6). The boundary conditions (3.5) and (3.6) should be equivalent. Starting from the X-part we get the condition

$$J_\nu ^\mu R_\lambda ^\nu =(\eta _1\eta _2)R_\nu ^\mu J_{+\lambda }^\nu .$$
(3.7)
In analogy with the Kähler case we use the notation “A-type” condition when $`\eta _1\eta _2=1`$ and “B-type” when $`\eta _1\eta _2=1`$.

Using the (3.7) the equation (3.6) is rewritten as

$`_=X^\mu R_\nu ^\mu _{++}X^\nu +i[(\eta _1\eta _2)J_\lambda ^\mu _\rho ^{()}R_\nu ^\mu J_{+\gamma }^\rho +`$
$`+(\eta _1\eta _2)J_\lambda ^\mu _\rho ^{(+)}R_\nu ^\lambda R_\sigma ^\rho J_{+\gamma }^\sigma R_\lambda ^\mu H_{\nu \gamma }^\lambda H_{\rho \sigma }^\mu R_\gamma ^\sigma R_\nu ^\rho ]\psi _+^\gamma \psi _+^\nu =0`$ (3.8)
Using (2.8) we further rewrite (3.8) as

$$_=X^\mu R_\nu ^\mu _{++}X^\nu +2iJ_{+\gamma }^\sigma J_{+\nu }^\lambda \left(P_\sigma ^\rho _\rho R_\lambda ^\mu +P_\varphi ^\mu H_{\rho \sigma }^\varphi R_\lambda ^\rho \right)\psi _+^\gamma \psi _+^\nu =0$$
(3.9)
Comparing the two-fermion terms of (3.5) and (3.9) we get

$$P_{[\gamma |}^\sigma _\sigma R_{|\nu ]}^\mu +P_\rho ^\mu H_{\rho \sigma [\gamma }R_{\nu ]}^\sigma J_{+[\gamma }^\sigma J_{+\nu ]}^\lambda \left(P_\sigma ^\rho _\rho R_\lambda ^\mu +P_\varphi ^\mu H_{\rho \sigma }^\varphi R_\lambda ^\rho \right)=0.$$
(3.10)
Using the projectors $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm ^+=1/2(I\pm iJ_+)`$ we rewrite the above condition as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\pm [\gamma }^{+\sigma }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\pm \nu ]}^{+\lambda }\left(P_\sigma ^\rho _\rho R_\lambda ^\mu +P_\varphi ^\mu H_{\rho \sigma }^\varphi R_\lambda ^\rho \right)=0$$
(3.11)
Thus, using only the supersymmetry transformations we have obtained two conditions on $`R_\nu ^\mu `$, (3.7) and (3.11). In turn the condition (3.7) implies

$$J_C^AR_B^C=(\eta _1\eta _2)R_C^AJ_B^C$$
(3.12)
Assuming that $`R_B^A`$ is constant (3.11) implies

$$R_M^Af_{BN}^M+R_B^CR_N^Mf_{CM}^A=J_B^SJ_N^L\left(R_M^Af_{SL}^M+R_S^CR_L^Mf_{CM}^A\right)$$
(3.13)
To better understand the meaning of the conditions (3.12) and (3.13) we choose the basis adapted to the Manin triple $`(𝐠,𝐠_{},𝐠_+)`$ discussed in the previous section. For B-type conditions, (3.12) implies that $`R_{\overline{b}}^a=R_b^{\overline{a}}=0`$. Taking this into account we rewrite the condition (3.13) as follows

$$R_b^cR_n^mf_{cm}^a+R_m^af_{bn}^m=0$$
(3.14)
$$R_{\overline{b}}^{\overline{c}}R_{\overline{n}}^{\overline{m}}f_{\overline{c}\overline{m}}^{\overline{a}}+R_{\overline{m}}^{\overline{a}}f_{\overline{b}\overline{n}}^{\overline{m}}=0.$$
(3.15)
We conclude that $`R_b^a`$ is a Lie algebra automorphism for $`𝐠_+`$ (more presicely, $`[T_a,T_b]=f_{ab}^cT_c`$) and that $`R_{\overline{b}}^{\overline{a}}`$ is a Lie algebra automorphism for $`𝐠_{}`$.

For the A-type boundary conditions, (3.12) yields that $`R_b^a=R_{\overline{b}}^{\overline{a}}=0`$. Taking this into account we rewrite the condition (3.13) as

$$R_b^{\overline{c}}R_n^{\overline{m}}f_{\overline{c}\overline{m}}^{\overline{a}}+R_m^{\overline{a}}f_{bn}^m=0,$$
(3.16)
$$R_{\overline{b}}^cR_{\overline{n}}^mf_{cm}^a+R_{\overline{m}}^af_{\overline{b}\overline{n}}^{\overline{m}}=0.$$
(3.17)
We conclude that $`R_b^{\overline{a}}`$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism from $`𝐠_+`$ to $`𝐠_{}`$ and $`R_{\overline{b}}^a`$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism from $`𝐠_{}`$ to $`𝐠_+`$.

We summarize the results. For the B-type supersymmetry we have the following boundary conditions

$$j_{}^a=\eta _1R_b^aj_+^b,k_=^a=R_b^ak_{++}^b,j_{}^{\overline{a}}=\eta _1R_{\overline{b}}^{\overline{a}}j_+^{\overline{b}},k_=^{\overline{a}}=R_{\overline{b}}^{\overline{a}}k_{++}^{\overline{b}},$$
(3.18)
where $`R_b^a`$ is a Lie algebra automorphism for $`𝐠_{}`$ and $`R_{\overline{b}}^{\overline{a}}`$ is a Lie algebra automorphism for $`𝐠_+`$. For the A-type supersymmetry the boundary conditions are

$$j_{}^a=\eta _1R_{\overline{b}}^aj_+^{\overline{b}},k_=^a=R_{\overline{b}}^ak_{++}^{\overline{b}},j_{}^{\overline{a}}=\eta _1R_b^{\overline{a}}j_+^b,k_=^{\overline{a}}=R_b^{\overline{a}}k_{++}^b,$$
(3.19)
where $`R_{\overline{b}}^a`$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism from $`𝐠_{}`$ to $`𝐠_+`$ and $`R_b^{\overline{a}}`$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism from $`𝐠_+`$ to $`𝐠_{}`$. It is important to stress that the requirement of conformal invariance does not enter here. In our derivation we used only the supersymmetry transformations and the assumption that $`R_B^A`$ is a constant.

In the above derivation we analysed the problem first in terms of $`X^\mu `$ and $`\psi _\pm ^\mu `$ and then expressed the results in terms of the affine currents. Of course we could first rewrite the supersymmetry transformations in terms of the affine currents and then the analyse the boundary condition for the affine currents. The result would not change. For the sake of completeness we also record the supersymmetry transformations in terms of affine currents.

The manifest supersymmetry

$$\delta _1𝒥_\pm ^A=iϵ_1^+Q_+𝒥_\pm ^A+iϵ_1^{}Q_{}𝒥_\pm ^A$$
(3.20)
with $`Q_\pm `$ defined in (A.24) can be written in the components as follows

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\delta _1j_\pm ^A=iϵ_1^\pm k_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}^A\hfill \\ \delta _1k_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}^A=ϵ_1^\pm _{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}j_\pm ^A\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.21)
where we have used the equations of motion. Using the definition (2.13) of N=1 affine currents we can write the nonmanifest supersymmetry (2.2) (on-shell) as

$$\delta _2𝒥_\pm ^A=ϵ_2^\pm J_B^AD_\pm 𝒥_\pm ^Bϵ_2^\pm f_{MK}^AJ_B^K𝒥_\pm ^B𝒥_\pm ^M.$$
(3.22)
In components the transformation (3.22) become

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\delta _2j_\pm ^A=iϵ_2^\pm J_B^Ak_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}^Bϵ_2^\pm f_{MK}^AJ_B^Kj_\pm ^Bj_\pm ^M\hfill \\ \delta _2k_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}^A=ϵ_2^\pm J_B^A_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}j_\pm ^Bϵ_2^\pm f_{K[B}^AJ_{M]}^Kk_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}^Mj_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}^B\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.23)
Now starting from $`j_{}^A=\eta _1R_B^Aj_+^B`$ and using the transformations (3.21) and (3.23) we easily rederive the previous results (3.12) and (3.13).

In fact the transformations (3.21) and (3.23) can be “complexified” in the Manin basis. Introducing $`\delta =\delta _1+\delta _2`$ and $`ϵ^\alpha =ϵ_1^\alpha +iϵ_2^\alpha `$ we can write the transformation as follows

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\delta j_\pm ^a=iϵ^\pm k_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}^a\pm \frac{1}{2}(ϵ^\pm \overline{ϵ}^\pm )f_{bc}^aj_\pm ^bj_\pm ^c\hfill \\ \delta k_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}^a=\overline{ϵ}^\pm _{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}j_\pm ^a\pm (ϵ^\pm \overline{ϵ}^\pm )f_{bc}^ak_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}^cj_\pm ^b\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.24)
(with a similar expression for the $`\overline{a}`$-part).

## 4 N=2 supreconformal boundary conditions

In this section we incorporate the requirement of conformal invariance into the boundary conditions. We derive the N=2 superconformal boundary conditions by imposing appropriate boundary conditions on the conserved (2,2) currents ($`T_{\pm \pm }`$, $`G_\pm ^1`$, $`G_\pm ^2`$, $`J_\pm `$). The N=1 superfield and component forms of these currents can be found in . Here we present them in terms of the fermionic and bosonic affine currents, $`j_\pm ^A`$ and $`k_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}^A`$. Using results from  and the definitions (2.14) it is a straightforward exercise to write the N=2 currents as

$$T_{++}=k_{++}^A\eta _{AB}k_{++}^B+ij_+^A\eta _{AB}_{++}j_+^B+ik_{++}^Aj_+^Bj_+^Cf_{ABC},$$
(4.1)
$$T_{}=k_=^A\eta _{AB}k_=^B+ij_{}^A\eta _{AB}_=j_{}^Bik_=^Aj_{}^Bj_{}^Cf_{ABC},$$
(4.2)
$$G_+^1=j_+^A\eta _{AB}k_{++}^B+\frac{i}{3}j_+^Aj_+^Bj_+^Cf_{ABC},$$
(4.3)
$$G_{}^1=j_{}^A\eta _{AB}k_=^B\frac{i}{3}j_{}^Aj_{}^Bj_{}^Cf_{ABC},$$
(4.4)
$$G_+^2=j_+^AJ_{AB}k_{++}^B,$$
(4.5)
$$G_{}^2=j_{}^AJ_{AB}k_=^B,$$
(4.6)
$$J_+=j_+^Aj_+^BJ_{AB},J_{}=j_{}^Aj_{}^BJ_{AB}.$$
(4.7)
We define the following linear combinations of $`G_\pm ^i`$

$$𝒢_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(G_\pm ^1+iG_\pm ^2),\overline{𝒢}_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(G_\pm ^1iG_\pm ^2)$$
(4.8)
Using the properties of Manin triple $`(𝐠,𝐠_{},𝐠_+)`$ we write $`𝒢_\pm `$ and $`\overline{𝒢}_\pm `$ as follows

$$𝒢_\pm =j_\pm ^a\eta _{a\overline{b}}k_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}^{\overline{b}}\pm \frac{i}{2}j_\pm ^aj_\pm ^{\overline{b}}j_\pm ^{\overline{c}}f_{a\overline{b}\overline{c}}\pm \frac{i}{2}j_\pm ^aj_\pm ^bj_\pm ^{\overline{c}}f_{ab\overline{c}},$$
(4.9)
$$\overline{𝒢}_\pm =j_\pm ^{\overline{a}}\eta _{\overline{a}b}k_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}^b\frac{i}{2}j_\pm ^aj_\pm ^bj_\pm ^{\overline{c}}f_{ab\overline{c}}\frac{i}{2}j_\pm ^aj_\pm ^{\overline{b}}j_\pm ^{\overline{c}}f_{a\overline{b}\overline{c}}.$$
(4.10)
We see that once we have a Lie algebra $`𝐠`$ with invariant inner product $`\eta `$ (given by $`\eta _{AB}`$) and a Manin triple $`(𝐠,𝐠_{},𝐠_+)`$ defined with respect to $`\eta `$ we may define the N=2 currents (4.1), (4.2), (4.7), (4.9) and (4.10). In fact they will obey the correct N=2 alegbra444One should keep in mind that there are two sets of bosonic affine currents which differ by the two-fermion term.,  and .

To ensure N=2 superconformal symmetry on the boundary we have to impose the following conditions555Classically these conditions make sense only on-shell since the currents are defined modulo the equations of motion. on the currents (4.1)–(4.7),

$$T_{++}T_{}=0,G_+^1\eta _1G_{}^1=0,$$
(4.11)
$$G_+^2\eta _2G_{}^2=0,J_+(\eta _1\eta _2)J_{}=0.$$
(4.12)
The conditions (4.11) ensure N=1 superconformal invariance. Starting from the ansatz $`j_{}^A=\eta _1R_B^Aj_+^B`$ with constant $`R_B^A`$ and solving the conditions (4.11) we derive the bosonic counterpart

$$k_=^A=R_B^Ak_{++}^B,$$
(4.13)
together with the additional properties

$$R_A^C\eta _{CD}R_B^D=\eta _{AB},f_{ABC}+R_A^LR_B^MR_C^Nf_{LMN}=0$$
(4.14)
Thus N=1 superconformal invarince implies that $`R_B^A`$ should be a Lie algebra automorphism. Solving the conditions (4.12) we arrive at the condition

$$J_C^AR_B^C=(\eta _1\eta _2)R_C^AJ_B^C.$$
(4.15)
As one would expect the conditions (4.14) and (4.15) are stronger than the conditions (3.12) and (3.13) which come from the N=2 supersymmetry alone. The difference is the condition $`R_A^C\eta _{CD}R_B^D=\eta _{AB}`$. Thus adding this condition to (3.12) and (3.13) we recover (4.14) and (4.15).

The conserved currents $`J_\pm `$ generate two R-rotations which act trivially on the bosonic fields but non-trivially on the fermions. Because of the boundary condition $`J_+(\eta _1\eta _2)J_{}=0`$ only one combination of these R-rotations survives as a symmetry in the presence of a boundary. Thus for the B-type we have the following R-symmetry

$$\{\begin{array}{c}j_+^A\mathrm{cos}\alpha j_+^A+\mathrm{sin}\alpha J_B^Aj_+^B\hfill \\ j_{}^A\mathrm{cos}\alpha j_{}^A+\mathrm{sin}\alpha J_B^Aj_{}^B\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.16)
and for the A-type

$$\{\begin{array}{c}j_+^A\mathrm{cos}\alpha j_+^A+\mathrm{sin}\alpha J_B^Aj_+^B\hfill \\ j_{}^A\mathrm{cos}\alpha j_{}^A\mathrm{sin}\alpha J_B^Aj_{}^B\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.17)
In the Manin basis these rotations are $`(j_\pm ^ae^{i\alpha }j_\pm ^a,j_\pm ^{\overline{a}}e^{i\alpha }j_\pm ^{\overline{a}})`$ and $`(j_\pm ^ae^{\pm i\alpha }j_\pm ^a,j_\pm ^{\overline{a}}e^{i\alpha }j_\pm ^{\overline{a}})`$ respectively.

## 5 Summary and discussion

We consider a WZW model defined over a connected Lie group $`𝒢`$, such such that its Lie algebra $`𝐠`$ comes equipped with a symmetric ad-invariant nondegenerate bilinear form $`(T_A,T_B)=\eta _{AB}`$ and can be decomposed into a pair of maximally isotropic subalgebras $`𝐠_{}`$, $`𝐠_+`$ with respect to $`\eta `$ and $`𝐠`$ as a vector space is the direct sum of $`𝐠_{}`$ and $`𝐠_+`$. This ordered triple of algebras $`(𝐠,𝐠_{},𝐠_+)`$ is called a Manin triple. It is easy to see that the dimensions of sublagebras $`𝐠_{}`$, $`𝐠_+`$ are equal and that the bases $`\{T_a\}`$, $`\{T^a\}`$ may be choosen such that

$$(T_a,T_b)=0,(T_a,T^b)=\delta _a^b,(T^a,T^b)=0.$$
(5.18)
The algebraic structure of $`𝐠`$ is completely determined by the structures of the maximal isotropic subalgebras in the basis (5.18)

$$[T_a,T_b]=f_{ab}^cT_c,[T^a,T^b]=f_c^{ab}T^c,[T_a,T^b]=f_{ca}^bT^c+f_a^{bc}T_c.$$
(5.19)
Introducing the corresponding affine fermionic and bosonic currents $`(j_{\pm a},k_{{}_{\stackrel{++}{=}}{}^{}a})`$ and $`(j_\pm ^a,k_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}^a)`$ we construct the N=(2,2) currents ($`T_{\pm \pm }`$, $`G_\pm ^1`$, $`G_\pm ^2`$, $`J_\pm `$) as defined in (4.1), (4.2), (4.7), (4.9) and (4.10) correspondently. In the presence of a boundary, appropriate gluing conditions should be imposed on the affine currents. There are two ways of gluing the fermionic currents: the first is

$$j_{}^a=\eta _1R_b^aj_+^b,$$
(5.20)
which we call the B-type and the second is

$$j_{}^a=\eta _1R^{ab}j_{+b},$$
(5.21)
which we call the A-type. To preserve half of the bulk supersymmetry the gluing matrix should satisfy the following: $`R_b^aAut(𝐠_{})`$ for the B-type and $`R^{ab}Hom(𝐠_{},𝐠_+)`$ for the A-type. Gluing conditions must also be imposed on the bosonic affine currents. In addition conformal invariance requires $`R`$ to preserve the form $`\eta `$. Therefore, for both A- and B-types, superconformal boundary conditions require $`RAut(𝐠)`$.

It is easy to give the example of the B-type brane with $`R=I`$ which would correspond the branes localized along conjugacy classes . However it is a bit problematic to give a simple example of the A-type brane since it would depend on the definition of the form $`\eta `$. We hope to come back to these examples elsewhere.

Acknowledgements: UL acknowledges support in part by EU contract HPNR-CT-2000-0122 and by VR grant 650-1998368. MZ acknowledges support in part by EU contract HPRN-CT-2002-00325.

## Appendix A (1,1) supersymmetry

In this we collect our conventions on the N=1 supersymmetry which we use through the text.

We deal with real (Majorana) two-component spinors $`\psi ^\alpha =(\psi ^+,\psi ^{})`$. Spinor indices are raised and lowered by the second-rank antisymmetric symbol $`C_{\alpha \beta }`$, which defines the spinor inner product:

$$C_{\alpha \beta }=C_{\beta \alpha }=C^{\alpha \beta },C_+=i,\psi _\alpha =\psi ^\beta C_{\beta \alpha },\psi ^\alpha =C^{\alpha \beta }\psi _\beta .$$
(A.22)
Throughout the paper we use $`(++,=)`$ as worldsheet indices, and $`(+,)`$ as two-dimensional spinor indices. We also use superspace conventions where the pair of spinor coordinates of the two-dimensional superspace are labelled $`\theta ^\pm `$, and the covariant derivatives $`D_\pm `$ and supersymmetry generators $`Q_\pm `$ satisfy

$`D_+^2`$ $`=`$ $`i_{++},D_{}^2=i_=\{D_+,D_{}\}=0`$ (A.23)
$`Q_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`iD_\pm +2\theta ^\pm _{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}`$ (A.24)
where $`_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}=_0\pm _1`$. In terms of the covariant derivatives, a supersymmetry transformation of a superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is then given by

$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }`$ $``$ $`i(\epsilon ^+Q_++\epsilon ^{}Q_{})\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (A.25)
$`=`$ $`(\epsilon ^+D_++\epsilon ^{}D_{})\mathrm{\Phi }+2i(\epsilon ^+\theta ^+_{++}+\epsilon ^{}\theta ^{}_=)\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (A.26)
The components of a superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are defined via projections as follows,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }|X,D_\pm \mathrm{\Phi }|\psi _\pm ,D_+D_{}\mathrm{\Phi }|F_+,`$ (A.27)
where a vertical bar denotes “the $`\theta =0`$ part of ”. Thus, in components, the $`(1,1)`$ supersymmetry transformations are given by

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\delta X^\mu =ϵ^+\psi _+^\mu ϵ^{}\psi _{}^\mu \hfill \\ \delta \psi _+^\mu =iϵ^+_{++}X^\mu +ϵ^{}F_+^\mu \hfill \\ \delta \psi _{}^\mu =iϵ^{}_=X^\mu ϵ^+F_+^\mu \hfill \\ \delta F_+^\mu =iϵ^+_{++}\psi _{}^\mu +iϵ^{}_{}\psi _+^\mu \hfill \end{array}$$
(A.28)


format: text

text:
# Exotic nuclear phases in the inner crust of neutron stars in the light of Skyrme-Hartree-Fock theory

## Abstract

The bottom part of the neutron star crust is investigated using the Skyrme-Hartree-Fock approach with the Coulomb interaction treated beyond the Wigner-Seitz approximation. A variety of nuclear phases is found to coexist in this region. Their stability and relative energies are governed by the Coulomb, surface and shell energies. We have also found that a substantial contribution is coming from the spin-orbit interaction.

The crust of a neutron star with a typical mass of $`1.4\mathrm{M}_{}`$, contains only $`1.2\%`$ of the total stellar mass. Nevertheless its structure is important for understanding of several observational issues and thus provides a motivation for theoretical studies (see e.g.  and references therein).

According to various theoretical models in the inner part of the crust, due to high density and pressure, the nuclei forming a crystalline lattice are immersed in a neutron gas. The electrons at these densities are ultrarelativistic particles and are assumed to form a uniform background.

In the bottom part of the inner crust the interplay between the Coulomb and the surface energies leads to the appearance of various nuclear phases, characterized by different shapes. The early predictions, based on the liquid drop or Thomas-Fermi models, with quite restrictive symmetry conditions, lead to the considerations of five phases, formed in the region where the nucleon density varies from $`0.03`$ to $`0.1`$ fm<sup>-3</sup>. These are: spherical nuclei, rods (“spaghetti” phase), slabs (“lasagna” phase), tubes and bubbles (see  and references therein).

These approaches however provided an oversimplified description of the system. First, due to the Wigner-Seitz approximation which has been used, there is no distinction between phases resulting from different lattice geometries, second, the quantum effect associated with the shell correction energy has been neglected, and last but not least, the symmetry conditions, which admit only spherical, cylindrical and planar structures, are not sufficient to describe properly the variety of nuclear shapes present in the crust.

Our approach, which is free from the aforementioned limitations, can shed some light on the complexity of the inner crust structure. The ground and excited (isomeric) states of neutron-proton-electron ($`npe`$) matter have been determined by the Skyrme-Hartree-Fock method. We have solved the HF equations by discretization in coordinate space, within a cubic box and with periodic boundary conditions imposed on the nucleon wave functions . The details of this approach have been described in Ref..

In the HF approximation, the total energy of a nuclear system is, in general, a functional of three local densities: total nucleon density $`\rho (𝐫)=\rho _p(𝐫)+\rho _n(𝐫)`$, total kinetic density $`\tau (𝐫)=\tau _p(𝐫)+\tau _n(𝐫)`$ and total spin-orbit density $`𝐉(𝐫)=𝐉_p(𝐫)+𝐉_n(𝐫)`$. Each of the densities is in turn expressed through the single-particle wave functions $`\varphi _i^q(𝐫,\sigma )`$:

$$\rho _q(𝐫)=\underset{i,\sigma }{}n_i^q\varphi _i^q(𝐫,\sigma )^2,$$
(1)
$$\tau _q(𝐫)=\underset{i,\sigma }{}n_i^q\varphi _i^q(𝐫,\sigma )^2,$$
(2)
$$𝐉_q(𝐫)=i\underset{i,\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}n_i^q\varphi _i^q(𝐫,\sigma )\varphi _i^q(𝐫,\sigma ^{})\times \sigma 𝝈\sigma ^{}(q=\text{n,p}),$$
(3)
where $`\frac{1}{2}\sigma `$ ($`\sigma =\pm 1`$) is the spin projection on the $`z`$-axis, and $`n_i^q`$ is the occupation factor, which is $`1`$ below the Fermi level and zero otherwise.

The Skyrme energy functional can be written as:

$`E_{sk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\tau +B_1\rho ^2+B_2(\rho _p^2+\rho _n^2)+B_3\rho \tau +B_4(\rho _p\tau _p+\rho _n\tau _n)+`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`B_5\rho ^2\rho +B_6(\rho _p^2\rho _p+\rho _n^2\rho _n)+B_7\rho ^{2+\gamma }+`$
$`+`$ $`B_8\rho ^\gamma (\rho _p^2+\rho _n^2)+B_9(\rho 𝐉+\rho _p𝐉_p+\rho _n𝐉_n)]d^3r.`$
The coefficients $`B_i`$ depend on the Skyrme force parameters . It is useful to distinguish the following contributions to the Skyrme energy functional:

$`E_{sksurf}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \left(B_5\rho ^2\rho +B_6(\rho _p^2\rho _p+\rho _n^2\rho _n)\right)d^3r},`$ (5)
$`E_{so}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \left(B_9(\rho 𝐉+\rho _p𝐉_p+\rho _n𝐉_n)\right)d^3r},`$ (6)
where $`E_{sksurf}`$ contains the contribution to the surface energy and $`E_{so}`$ is the spin-orbit term.

For a correct description of $`npe`$ matter one has to add to the Skyrme energy functional the Coulomb term and the kinetic energy of electrons:

$$E=E_{sk}+E_{Coul}+E_{el},$$
(7)
where the direct Coulomb energy has been calculated by solving the Poisson equation with periodic boundary conditions. The Coulomb exchange term for both protons and electrons has been treated in the Slater approximation.

Typical results for two values of the average total density $`\rho _{av}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle _V}(\rho _p+\rho _n)d^3r`$, and the proton-to-nucleon ratio ($`Z/A`$) ensuring the $`\beta `$ stability condition, are shown in Fig. 1. The total energy densities have been plotted with respect to the value of the spherical system $`Q_p=0`$.

The energy density has several local minima, corresponding to various nuclear shape and lattice geometries. It was shown in Ref. that the relative position of various nuclear configurations is a sensitive function of the density. It is a consequence of the shell effects associated with unbound neutrons . Hence different nuclear phases may coexist in the same density range. There is an obvious larger variety of nuclear shapes than it was predicted in the previous approaches ( and references therein).

In the lower subfigures of Fig. 1, the contributions from the Coulomb energy, the $`E_{sksurf}`$ term and the spin-orbit term, have been shown. One can make the following observations:

* The Coulomb energy decreases as a function of $`Q_p`$ for small values of quadrupole moment and then increases slightly for large $`Q_p`$ values. This is related to the fact that large $`Q_p`$ values correspond to the configuration where the nuclei from neighboring cells join each other. Hence the configuration favored by the Coulomb interaction consists of deformed nuclei, but not necessarily in the shape of rods or slabs.
* The part of the surface energy coming from the $`E_{sksurf}`$ term follow approximately the behavior of the term $`E_{sk}E_{so}`$. It suggests that the surface energy dominates the behavior of $`E_{sk}`$ as a function of the deformation.
* The amplitude of variation of the spin-orbit term $`E_{so}`$ is of the same order as the $`E_{sk}E_{so}`$. The spin-orbit energy is a sensitive function of $`Q_p`$ and clearly have a direct influence on the appearance and depths of local minima of the total energy curve. One has to remember that this term gives the substantial contribution to the shell energy.

Finally one has to mention that the pairing correlation were not included in the above calculations. The pairing would smooth the total energy curve and thus its role in the inner edge of the neutron star crust needs a thorough examination.


text:
# Graded Lie Algebra Generating of Parastatistical Algebraic Structure This project supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China and LWTZ 1298.

## 1 Introduction

Generalized statistics and supersymmetry are two main interests of theoretical physics in recent years. Generalized statistics first was introduced in the form of parastatistics as an exotic possibility extending the Bose and Fermi statistics . A basic idea of supersymmetry is the mixture of particles of different statistics, normally taken to be bosons and fermions . Though supersymmetry and parastatistics may be unified in the form of parasupersymmetry , nevertheless, by the algebraic construction, the two concepts seem to be independent.

It is well known that mathematical basis of supersymmetry is $`Z_2`$ graded Lie algebra. In this kind of Lie algebra, although not only commutators but also anticommutators are involved, the basic algebraic structure is still bilinear. The characteristic of algebraic relations of parastatistics, however, is trilinear commutation relations, or double commutators and anticommutators. This will cause some intrinsic difficulties to formulating the parasupersymmetric theories within a framework of the usual $`Z_2`$ graded Lie algebra.

In order to provide a suitable framework to describe parasupersymmetric theories, we introduce a new kind of graded Lie algebra (maybe call it $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra) in this letter, which can be considered as a generalization or extension of the ordinary $`Z_2`$ graded Lie algebra. In contrast with the latter in which there are only two subspaces (bose and fermi or even and odd subspaces), the former has four subspaces which can be called bose, fermi, parabose and parafermi subspaces respectively (see the last section for the reason). We would like to point out that by choosing appropriate bose subspace of the $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra and using relevant Jacobi identities, one can derive all the algebraic relations of a system consisting of parabosons and parafermions. Therefore, one may analyse supersymmetric properties of such a parasystem more effectively and more conveniently on the basis of $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra.

This letter is arranged as follows. In section 2 we introduce a formal definition of the $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra and discuss main differences between $`Z_2`$ and $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebras. As an example, in section 3 we choose an algebra $`u(1,1)`$ as the bose subspace of $`Z_{2,2}`$ and construct a whole $`Z_{2,2}`$ grading of $`u(1,1)`$ by virtue of the generalized Jacobi identities. Then in section 4 we demonstrate the derived $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra include all the algebraic relations of parastatistics for a system with one parabose and one parafermi degree of freedom. Some remarks are also in the last section.

## 2 $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra

Let $`𝐋`$ be a vector space over a field $`𝐊`$, which is a direct sum of four subspaces $`L_{ij}`$ (i,j=0,1), i.e.,

$$𝐋=L_{00}L_{01}L_{10}L_{11}.$$
(1)
For any two generators (vectors) in $`𝐋`$, we define a composition (or product) rule, written $``$, with the following properties

(i) Closure: For $`u,v𝐋`$, we have $`uv𝐋`$, i.e.,

$$𝐋\times 𝐋𝐋.$$
(2)
(ii) Bilinearity: For $`u,v,w𝐋`$, $`c_1,c_2𝐊`$, we have

$`(c_1u+c_2v)w=c_1uw+c_2vw,`$
$`w(c_1u+c_2v)=c_1wu+c_2wv.`$ (3)
(iii) Grading: For $`uL_{ij},vL_{mn},(i,j,m,n=0,1)`$, we have

$$uv=wL_{(i+m)mod2,(j+n)mod2}.$$
(4)
For instance, $`L_{00}\times L_{00}L_{00}`$, $`L_{01}\times L_{10}L_{11}`$, $`L_{10}\times L_{11}L_{01}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$.

(iv) Supersymmetrization: For $`uL_{ij},vL_{mn}`$, we have

$$uv=(1)^{g(u)g(v)}vu,$$
(5)
here we assign to any $`uL_{ij}`$ a degree $`g(u)=(i,j)`$ which satisfies

$$g(u)g(v)=(i,j)(m,n)=im+jn,$$
(6)
and

$$g(u)+g(v)=(i,j)+(m,n)=(i+m,j+n),$$
(7)
where $`vL_{mn}`$. Obviously, the $`g(u)`$ looks like a two-dimensional vector and the expressions in Eqs.(6)-(7) are exactly dot product and additive operations of the two-dimensional vectors.

(v) Generalized Jacobi identities: For $`uL_{ij},vL_{kl},wL_{mn},(i,j,k,l,m,n=0,1)`$, we have

$$u(vw)(1)^{g(u)g(w)}+v(wu)(1)^{g(v)g(u)}+w(uv)(1)^{g(w)g(v)}=0.$$
(8)
It is easily to know that there are totally 20 different possibilities for constructing the generalized Jacobi identities from 4 subspaces of $`𝐋`$ $`(C_4^1+C_4^1C_3^2+C_4^3=20).`$

This completes the definition of $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra. We now discuss it in more detail. Firstly, we define the product on $`𝐋`$ $`(:𝐋\times 𝐋𝐋)`$ as

$$:uv=uv(1)^{g(u)g(v)}vu,$$
(9)
for $`u,v𝐋`$. One can convince oneself that the composition law (8) is a product which satisfies all conditions of the product of a $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra as defined by Eqs.(2-7). Then we consider this product separately on the subspaces $`L_{00},L_{01},L_{10},L11`$, and between them. Let generators $`X_{ij}andX_{ij}^{}`$ belong to the subspace $`L_{ij}`$.According to Eqs.(4) and (9), we can write out the following ten products for ten different generator combinations

$``$ $`:L_{00}\times L_{00}L_{00},X_{00}X_{00}^{}=[X_{00},X_{00}^{}];`$ (10)
$``$ $`:L_{01}\times L_{01}L_{00},X_{01}X_{01}^{}=\{X_{01},X_{01}^{}\};`$
$``$ $`:L_{10}\times L_{10}L_{00},X_{10}X_{10}^{}=\{X_{10},X_{10}^{}\};`$
$``$ $`:L_{11}\times L_{11}L_{00},X_{11}X_{11}^{}=[X_{11},X_{11}^{}]:`$
$``$ $`:L_{00}\times L_{01}L_{01},X_{00}X_{01}=[X_{00},X_{01}];`$
$``$ $`:L_{00}\times L_{10}L_{10},X_{00}X_{10}=[X_{00},X_{10}];`$
$``$ $`:L_{00}\times L_{11}L_{11},X_{00}X_{11}=[X_{00},X_{11}];`$
$``$ $`:L_{01}\times L_{10}L_{11},X_{01}X_{10}=[X_{01},X_{10}];`$
$``$ $`:L_{01}\times L_{11}L_{10},X_{01}X_{11}=\{X_{01},X_{11}\};`$
$``$ $`:L_{10}\times L_{11}L_{01},X_{10}X_{11}=\{X_{10},X_{11}\}.`$
Thus we see that the $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra indeed generalizes and extends the notion of $`Z_2`$ graded Lie algebra in two aspects. One is about the grading. In $`Z_2`$ case there are only two subspaces, and in $`Z_{2,2}`$ case fouer ones, which require the grading of $`Z_{2,2}`$ must be some kind of double grading, or twofold grading. Another is the definition of the degree. In $`Z_2`$ case the degree is a number (taken value 0 or 1), and in $`Z_{2,2}`$ case the degree is a two-dimensional vector (taken value from the set of (0,0), (0,1), (1,0) and (1,1)). Here we want to point out that there exists also a significant difference between these two graded Lie algebras concerning the generalized Jacobi identities. Mathematically, there are only four possibilities to generate Jacobi-like identities for three generators $`u,vandw`$ in terms of commutators or anticommutators, i.e.,

$`[u,[v,w]]+[v,[w,u]]+[w,[u,v]]=0,`$
$`[u,\{v,w\}]+[v,\{w,u\}]+[w,\{u,v\}]=0,`$
$`[u,\{v,w\}]+\{v,[w,u]\}\{w,[u,v]\}=0,`$
$`[u,[v,w]]+\{v,\{w,u\}\}\{w,\{u,v\}\}=0.`$ (11)
Notice that only the first three kinds of identities in Eq.(11) appear in the generalized Jacobi identities of $`Z_2`$ graded Lie algebra, however, all the four kinds of identities can be found in the structure of the generalized Jacobi identities of $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra.

## 3 $`Z_{2,2}`$ grading of u(1,1) algebra

As an example, we discuss the $`Z_{2,2}`$ grading of u(1,1) algebra, which has four generators $`X_\mu ,(\mu =1,2,3,4)`$. To do this, we take the u(1,1) algebra as the subspace $`L_{00}`$, in which the product is

$$:L_{00}\times L_{00}L_{00},[X_\mu ,X_\nu ]=C_{\mu \nu \lambda }X_\lambda .$$
(12)
$`C_{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ are the structure constants of the u(1,1) algebra, whose nonzero components are $`C_{122}=C_{212}=1,C_{133}=C313=1,C_{231}=C_{321}=2`$. We denote generators of $`L_{01},L_{10}andL_{11}`$ by $`Q_\alpha (\alpha =1,\mathrm{},dimL_{01}),Y_i(i=1,\mathrm{},dimL_{10})andZ_j(j=1,\mathrm{},dimL_{11})`$, respectively.According to the product rules in Eq.(10), we may introduce the following coefficient matrices $`K_\mu ,H_\mu ,s_\mu ,t_\mu ,u_\mu ,v_\mu ,l_\alpha ,m_\alpha andn_\alpha `$, to write explicitly out these products

$`\{Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta \}=(H_\mu )_{\alpha \beta }X_\mu ,\{Y_i,Y_j\}=(s_\mu )_{ij}X_\mu ,[Z_i,Z_j]=(t_\mu )_{ij}X_\mu ,`$
$`[X_\mu ,Q_\alpha ]=(K_\mu )_{\alpha \beta }Q_\beta ,[X_\mu ,Y_i]=(u_\mu )_{ij}Y_j,[X_\mu ,Z_i]=(v_\mu )_{ij}Z_j,`$
$`[Q_\alpha ,Y_i]=(l_\alpha )_{ij}Z_j,\{Q_\alpha ,Z_i\}=(m_\alpha )_{ij}Y_j,\{Y_i,Z_j\}=(n_\alpha )_{ij}Q_\alpha .`$ (13)
Among these matrices, $`H_\mu (\mu =1,2,3,4)`$ are symmetric $`dimL_{01}\times dimL_{01}`$ matrices, $`s_\mu `$ are symmetric $`dimL_{10}\times dimL_{10}`$ ones, and $`t_\mu `$ are antisymmetric $`dimL_{11}\times dimL_{11}`$ ones. From the third line of Eq.(13), we observe that the matrices $`l_\alpha ,m_\alpha andn_\alpha `$ are square matrices only if $`dimL_{10}=dimL_{11}`$, so we consider just this case in what follows. Of course, these matrices are restricted by the generalized Jacobi identities. Considering all the possible generalized Jacobi identities, we find that these matrices must satisfy the following constraint relations

$`[K_\mu ,K_\nu ]=C_{\mu \nu \lambda }K_\lambda ,[u_\mu ,u_\nu ]=C_{\mu \nu \lambda }u_\lambda ,[v_\mu ,v_\nu ]=C_{\mu \nu \lambda }v_\lambda ,`$
$`K_\mu H_\nu +(K_\mu H_\nu )^T=C_{\mu \lambda \nu }H_\lambda ,u_\mu s_\nu +(u_\mu s_\nu )^T=C_{\mu \lambda \nu }s_\lambda ,`$
$`v_\mu t_\nu +t_\nu (v_\mu )^T=C_{\mu \lambda \nu }(t_\lambda )^T,l_\alpha v_\mu u_\mu l_\alpha =(K_\mu )_{\alpha \beta }l_\beta ,`$
$`u_\mu n_\alpha +n_\alpha (v_\mu )^T=(K_\mu )_{\alpha \beta }^Tn_\beta ,s_\mu (m_\alpha )^T+l_\alpha t_\mu =(H_\mu )_{\alpha \beta }n_\beta ,`$
$`l_\alpha (n_\beta )^T+n_\beta (l_\alpha )^T=(K_\mu )_{\alpha \beta }s_\mu ,l_\alpha m_\beta +l_\beta m_\alpha =(H_\mu )_{\alpha \beta }u_\mu ,`$
$`(n_\alpha )_{ji}(l_\alpha )_{kl}+(n_\alpha )_{ki}(l_\alpha )_{jl}=(s_\mu )_{jk}(v_\mu )_{il},`$
$`(n_\alpha )_{ji}(m_\alpha )_{kl}(n_\alpha )_{jk}(m_\alpha )_{il}=(t_\mu )_{ki}(u_\mu )_{jl},`$
$`(H_\mu )_{\alpha \beta }(K_\mu ))\gamma \delta +(H_\mu )_{\beta \gamma }(K_\mu )_{\alpha \delta }+(H_\mu )_{\gamma \alpha }(K_\mu )_{\beta \delta }=0,`$
$`(s_\mu )_{ij}(u_\mu )_{kl}+(s_\mu )_{jk}(u_\mu )_{il}+(s_\mu )_{ki}(u_\mu )_{jl}=0,`$
$`(t_\mu )_{ij}(v_\mu )_{kl}+(t_\mu )_{jk}(v_\mu )_{il}+(t_\mu )_{ki}(v_\mu )_{jl}=0,`$ (14)
where the notation ”T” means transpose of a matrix, and the ranges of the indices are $`\mu ,\nu ,\lambda =1,2,3,4`$; $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta =1,\mathrm{},dimL_{01}`$; $`i,j,k,l=1,\mathrm{},dimL_{10}(=dimL_{11})`$, respectively. Carefully observing these relations, we realize that $`K_\mu `$ and $`H_\mu `$ have to be $`dimL_{01}\times dimL_{01}`$ matrices, and all the other ones are $`dimL_{10}\times L_{10}`$. For the simplist nontrivial case, i.e., $`dimL_{01}=4`$ and $`dimL_{10}=dimL_{11}=2`$, by using the trial-and-error method, we find out the following solutions of these matrices

$`K_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right),K_2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),`$ (23)
$`K_3=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),K_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right);`$ (32)
$`H_1=2\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),H_2=2\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),`$ (41)
$`H_3=2\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),H_4=2\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right);`$ (50)
$$s_1=4\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 1\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),s_2=4\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),s_3=4\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right),s_4=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right);$$
(51)
$$t_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),t_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),t_3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),t_4=4\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 1\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right);$$
(52)
$$u_1=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right),u_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),u_3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),u_4=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right);$$
(53)
$$v_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),v_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),v_3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),v_4=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right);$$
(54)
$$l_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),l_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),l_3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right),l_4=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right);$$
(55)
$$m_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),m_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),m_3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),m_4=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right);$$
(56)
$$n_1=2\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right),n_2=2\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),n_3=2\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),n_4=2\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(57)
By checking straightforwardly one will believe that these matrices satisfy all of the constraint relations (14). Thus we obtain the $`Z_{2,2}`$ grading of $`u(1,1)`$ algebra. It has 12 generators: $`X_\mu `$ and $`Q_\alpha `$ for $`\mu ,\alpha =1,2,3,4`$, and $`Y_i`$ and $`Z_j`$ for $`i,j=1,2`$, which satisfy the following nonzero commutation and anticommutation relations

$$[X_1,X_2]=X_2,[X_1,X_3]=X_3,[X_2,X_3]=2X_1;$$
(58)
$`\{Q_1,Q_2\}=2X_12X_4,\{Q_1,Q_4\}=2X_3,`$
$`\{Q_3,Q_4\}=2X_1+2X_4,\{Q_2,Q_3\}=2X_2;`$ (59)
$$\{Y_1,Y_1\}=4X_2,\{Y_1,Y_2\}=4X_1,\{Y_2,Y_2\}=4X_3;$$
(60)
$$[Z_1,Z_2]=4X_4;$$
(61)
$`[X_1,Q_1]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_1,[X_1,Q_2]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_2,[X_1,Q_3]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_3,`$
$`[X_1,Q_4]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_4,[X_2,Q_1]=Q_3,[X_2,Q_4]=Q_2,`$
$`[X_3,Q_2]=Q_4,[X_3,Q_3]=Q_1,[X_4,Q_1]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_1,`$
$`[X_4,Q_2]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_2,[X_4,Q_3]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_3,[X_4,Q_4]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_4;`$ (62)
$`[X_1,Y_1]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Y_1,[X_1,Y_2]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Y_2,`$
$`[X_2,Y_2]=Y_1,[X_3,Y_1]=Y_2;`$ (63)
$$[X_4,Z_1]=\frac{1}{2}Z_1,[X_4,Z_2]=\frac{1}{2}Z_2;$$
(64)
$`[Q_1,Y_1]=Z_2,[Q_2,Y_2]=Z_1,`$
$`[Q_3,Y_2]=Z_2,[Q_4,Y_1]=Z_1;`$ (65)
$`\{Q_1,Z_1\}=Y_2,\{Q_2,Z_2\}=Y_1,`$
$`\{Q_3,Z_1\}=Y_1,\{Q_4,Z_2\}=Y_2;`$ (66)
$`\{Y_1,Z_1\}=2Q_2,\{Y_1,Z_2\}=2Q_3,`$
$`\{Y_2,Z_1\}=2Q_4,\{Y_2,Z_2\}=2Q_1.`$ (67)
## 4 Algebraic structure of parastatistics

If we identify the generators $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_2`$ in the subspace $`L_{10}`$ with parabose creation and annihilation operators $`a^{}`$ and $`a`$ respectively, meanwhile, identify the generators $`Z_1`$ and $`Z_2`$ in the subspace $`L_{11}`$ with parafermi creation and annihilation operators $`f^{}`$ and $`f`$ respectively, we will obtain a whole algebraic structure of a system with one paraboson and one parafermion from the $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra of $`u(1,1)`$ (Eqs.(24)-(33)). In fact, in this case, according to Eqs.(26) and (27), the four generstors $`X_\mu `$ in the subspace $`L_{00}`$ can be written as

$$X_1=\frac{1}{4}\{a^{},a\},X_2=\frac{1}{2}a^2,X_3=\frac{1}{2}a^2,X_4=\frac{1}{4}[f^{},f],$$
(68)
and the four generators $`Q_\alpha `$ in the $`L_{01}`$ subspace will have the forms

$$Q_1=\frac{1}{2}\{a,f\},Q_2=\frac{1}{2}\{a^{},f^{}\},Q_3=\frac{1}{2}\{a^{},f\},Q_4=\frac{1}{2}\{a,f^{}\},$$
(69)
from Eq.(33). Obviously, here $`X_1`$ and $`X_4`$ are hermite operators, $`X_2`$, $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_3`$ are hermitian conjugate to $`X_3`$, $`Q_2`$ and $`Q_4`$ respectively. Then the Eq.(29) will give standard trilinear algebraic relations for paraboson

$$[\{a^{},a\},a^{}]=2a^{},[\{a^{},a\},a]=2a,[a^2,a]=2a^{},[a^2,a^{}]=2a,$$
(70)
and the Eq.(30) will give standard trilinear algebraic relations for parafermion

$$[[f^{},f],f^{}]=2f^{},[[f^{},f],f]=2f.$$
(71)
It is worth pointing out that the Eqs.(31) and (32) will lead to

$`[\{a,f\},a^{}]=2f,[\{a^{},f\},a]=2f,`$
$`\{\{a,f\},f^{}\}=2a,\{\{a,f^{}\},f\}=2a,`$ (72)
together with the adjoint ones, which are exactly algebraic relations between paraboson and parafermion with same parastatistical order $`p`$ . The remaining relations of the $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra (i.e., Eqs.(24), (25) and (28)) just mean that the generators $`X_\mu `$ and $`Q_\alpha `$ form a ordinary $`Z_2`$ graded Lie algebra. Usually the generators $`X_\mu `$ and $`Q_\alpha `$ are called bose and fermi (or even and odd) generators, and the subspaces $`L_{00}`$ and $`L_{01}`$ the bose and fermi subspaces, respectively. Therefore, it is reasonable to call the subspaces $`L_{10}`$ and $`L_{11}`$ the parabose and parafermi subspaces respectively.

In summary, we generalize the $`Z_2`$ graded Lie algebra to a more complicated grading scheme, $`Z_{2,2}`$ grading, in this letter. By choosing appropriately the bose subspace of the $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra, and using the generalized Jacobi identities, one may derive all parastatistical algebraic relations. It is worth mentioning that Biswas and Soni also pointed out that the even and odd generators made up of parabosons and parafermions may give operator realizations of graded Lie algebras . The key difference between Ref.(5) and this letter is we generalize the ordinary $`Z_2`$ grading to a new $`Z_{2,2}`$ grading, so that all of the parastatistical algebraic relations can automatically appear in our structure. The $`Z_{2,2}`$ graded Lie algebra also provides a more potential framework to inverstigate various possible supersymmetric problem, such as supersymmetry between boson and parafermion , bosob and paraboson , and so on. Work in this direction is on progrees.