text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In a recent paper , the present authors introduced a new first order formalism that is able of generating second order world volume actions of the Born–Infeld type for $`p`$-branes. This construction allows for a description within the standard framework of rheonomy of those $`\kappa `$-supersymmetric boundary actions that function as sources for supergravity $`p`$–solutions in the bulk. Furthermore in this approach the $`\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathrm{R})`$ duality symmetry can be manifest at all levels. These features are very much valuable and quite essential in order to discuss various questions relative to the microscopic interpretation of classical $`p`$–solutions like the $`D3`$–brane with flux on smooth ALE manifolds  and other issues in the general quest of the gauge/gravity correspondence. The new formulation which, in our opinion, is particularly compact and elegant is based on the introduction of an additional auxiliary field, besides the world volume vielbein, and on the enlargement of the local symmetry from the Lorentz group to the general linear group:

$$\mathrm{SO}(1,\mathrm{d}1)\stackrel{\text{enlarged}}{}\mathrm{GL}(\mathrm{d},)$$
(1.1)
Within this new formalism in  we constructed the first order version of the $`\kappa `$–supersymmetric action for a $`D3`$–brane. This choice was not random rather it was rooted in the main motivations to undertake such a new construction. Indeed we needed a suitable formulation of the $`D3`$–brane action holding true on a generic background in order to apply it to the aforementioned $`D3`$–brane bulk solution with flux  or to more complicated ones. However, as for the the solution in , the task was not exhausted once we had the $`D3`$-brane action. Indeed this latter accounts only for the source of the Ramond-Ramond $`A^{[4]}`$–form with self dual field strength but not for the source of the doublet $`\{B^{[2]},C^{[2]}\}`$ of $`2`$–forms whose flux is trapped on the homology $`2`$–cycles of the transverse ALE manifold. The source of such fields can only be accounted for by the presence of $`5`$–branes whose world-volume sweeps both the world volume of the $`D3`$–brane and the ALE $`2`$–cycles. Hence we need to extend our first order formalism also to $`5`$–branes and this is what we do in the present paper.

It was noted already in  that the a $`D5`$ brane wrapped on a $`2`$–cycle of the ALE manifold cannot be the direct source of the smooth, fractional brane like solution of . The reason is simple. In the solution of  the dilaton field is constant and therefore there is no source for its field equation. On the other hand the $`D5`$–brane couples to the dilaton and contributes such a source. It is only in the orbifold limit that such a coupling vanishes together with the vanishing of the homology cycle trapping the flux of the $`2`$–forms. In order to reproduce the correct boundary action for the smooth supersymmetric boundary solution of  we need a $`5`$–brane that has vanishing coupling to the dilaton field. As we are going to show in a next coming publication  such a brane exists and it is a mixture of $`D5`$–branes on which closed fundamental strings can annihilate and of $`D5^{}`$–branes where such annihilation occurs for closed $`D`$-strings. To describe the world–volume action of such an object we need an explicitly $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$-covariant formulation of the $`5`$ brane that depends on two vectors $`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that transform in the fundamental representation of $`\text{SL}(2,)`$. In this paper using the first order rheonomic formalism of  and relying on a dual formulation of type IIB supergravity we construct the required $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ covariant $`5`$–brane action.

## 2 Type IIB supergravity with dual $`6`$–form potentials

In the appendix $`B`$ of  we gave a short but comprehensive summary of type IIB supergravity in the rheonomic approach. This summary was entirely based on the original papers by Castellani and Pesando  but it also contained some new useful results, in particular the transcription of the curvatures from the complex $`\mathrm{SU}(1,1)`$ basis to the real $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ basis and a comparison of the supergravity field equations as written in the rheonomy approach and as written in string text–books like Polchinsky’s .

In order to deal with $`5`$–branes we need to include also the $`7`$–form field strengths that are dual to the $`3`$–form field strengths originally used in  and summarized in . This amounts to extending the original Free Differential Algebra of type IIB supergravity with the $`6`$–form generators that are associated with the new cohomology classes of such an algebra. This is the exact analogue of the procedure which leads to the extended Free Differential Algebra of M-theory  containing both the $`3`$–form (source of $`M2`$-branes) and the $`6`$–form (source of the $`M5`$-branes). This latter arises by including the new generator associated with the cohomology $`7`$–cocycle of the original Free Differential Algebra of M–theory in its $`3`$–form formulation .

In our case the new complete form of the curvatures is the following one:

$`R^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟V^{\underset{¯}{a}}i\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{a}}\psi `$ (2.1)
$`R^{\underset{¯}{ab}}`$ $`=`$ $`d\omega ^{\underset{¯}{ab}}\omega ^{\underset{¯}{ac}}\omega ^{\underset{¯}{db}}\eta _{\underset{¯}{cd}}`$ (2.2)
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`𝒟\psi d\psi \frac{1}{4}\omega ^{\underset{¯}{ab}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}\psi \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}Q\psi `$ (2.3)
$`_{[3]}^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}dA_{[2]}^\alpha +2i\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^\alpha \overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{a}}\psi ^{}V^{\underset{¯}{a}}+2\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^\alpha \overline{\psi }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{a}}\psi V^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$ (2.4)
$`_{[5]}`$ $`=`$ $`dC_{[4]}+\frac{1}{16}\mathrm{i}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\sqrt{2}A_{[2]}^\alpha _{[3]}^\beta +\frac{1}{6}\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{abc}}\psi V^{\underset{¯}{a}}V^{\underset{¯}{b}}V^{\underset{¯}{c}}`$ (2.5)
$`+\frac{1}{8}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\sqrt{2}A_{[2]}^\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^\beta \overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{a}}\psi ^{}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^\beta \overline{\psi }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{a}}\psi \right)V^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$
$`𝒟\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`d\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\omega ^{\underset{¯}{ab}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{ab}}\lambda \mathrm{i}\frac{3}{2}Q\lambda `$ (2.6)
$`𝒟\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pm ^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`d\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pm ^\alpha \mathrm{i}Q\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pm ^\alpha .`$ (2.7)
$`_{[7]}^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`dC_{[6]}^\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^\alpha \overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5}\psi ^{}V^{a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^\alpha \overline{\psi }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5}\psi V^{a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5}`$ (2.8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_1a_2a_3}\psi V^{a_1a_2a_3}\sqrt{2}A_{[2]}^\alpha `$
$`+40\sqrt{2}dA_{[2]}^\alpha C_{[4]}`$
the novelty being the expression of the $`_{[7]}^\alpha `$ curvature. Its definition is a direct consequence of the following Fierz identities:

$`\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\psi ^{}\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^a`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\psi \overline{\psi }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\psi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_1a_2a_3}\psi \overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{a_3}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[a_1}\psi \overline{\psi }_{a_2]}\psi ^{}`$
$`\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5}\psi ^{}\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{a_1}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[a_2a_3a_4}\psi \overline{\psi }\gamma _{a_5]}\psi ^{}`$
$`\overline{\psi }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5}\psi \overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{a_1}`$ $`=`$ $`4\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[a_2a_3a_4}\psi \overline{\psi }^{}\gamma _{a_5]}\psi `$ (2.9)
From eq.s (2.8) and (2.5) one obtains the supersymmetry transformation rules of the background fields relevant in establishing the $`\kappa `$-supersymmetry transformation rules against which the $`5`$-brane action is invariant.

## 3 Establishing the $`\kappa `$-supersymmetric action of the $`5`$–brane

Next, following the general scheme outlined in  we apply the new first order formalism to the case $`d=6`$ in order to derive the $`\kappa `$-supersymmetric action of a $`5`$–brane. As extensively discussed in , the $`\kappa `$–supersymmetry transformations just follow, via a suitable projection, from the bulk supersymmetries as derived from supergravity, type IIB theory, in this case. The latter has a duality symmetry with respect to an $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ group of transformations that acts non linearly on the two scalars of massless spectrum, the dilaton $`\varphi `$ and the Ramond scalar $`C_0`$. Indeed these two parametrize the coset manifold $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)/\mathrm{O}(2)`$ and actually correspond to its solvable parametrization. Because of the special relevance of this issue in the context of our problem, we recall below such a solvable parametrization. This also helps to fix the notations.

$`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ Lie algebra

$$[L_0,L_\pm ]=\pm L_\pm ;[L_+,L_{}]=2L_0$$
(3.1)
with explicit $`2`$–dimensional representation:

$$L_0=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right);L_+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right);L_{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right);$$
(3.2)
Coset representative of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)/\mathrm{O}(2)`$ in the solvable parametrization

$$𝕃(\phi ,C_{[0]})=\mathrm{exp}\left[\phi L_0\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[C_{[0]}e^\phi L_{}\right]=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}[\phi /2]& 0\\ C_{[0]}e^{\phi /2}& \mathrm{exp}[\phi /2]\end{array}\right)$$
(3.3)
where $`\phi (x)`$ and $`C_{[0]}`$ are respectively identified with the dilaton and with the Ramond-Ramond 0-form of the superstring massless spectrum. The isomorphism of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ with $`\mathrm{SU}(1,1)`$ is realized by conjugation with the Cayley matrix:

$$𝒞=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \mathrm{i}\\ 1& \mathrm{i}\end{array}\right)$$
(3.4)
Introducing the $`\mathrm{SU}(1,1)`$ coset representative

$$\mathrm{SU}(1,1)\mathrm{\Lambda }=𝒞𝕃𝒞^1$$
(3.5)
from the left invariant $`1`$–form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1d\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we can extract the $`1`$-forms corresponding to the scalar vielbein $`P`$ and the $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ connection $`Q`$

The $`\mathrm{SU}(1,1)/\mathrm{U}(1)`$ vielbein and connection

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^1d\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{i}Q& P\\ P^{}& \mathrm{i}Q\end{array}\right)$$
(3.6)
Explicitly

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill P& =& \frac{1}{2}\left(d\phi \mathrm{i}e^\phi dC_{[0]}\right)\hfill & \text{scalar vielbein}\hfill \\ \hfill Q& =& \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{exp}[\phi ]dC_{[0]}\hfill & \mathrm{U}(1)\text{-connection}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.7)
As stressed in the introduction the $`5`$–brane action we want to write, not only should be cast into first order formalism, but should also display manifest covariance with respect to $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$. This covariance relies on introducing two vectors with two components $`q_\alpha `$ and $`p_\alpha `$ that transform in the fundamental representation of $`\mathrm{SU}(1,1)`$ and expresse the charges carried by the $`D5`$ brane with respect to the $`2`$–forms $`A_{[2]}^\alpha `$ of bulk supergravity (both the Neveu Schwarz $`B_{[2]}`$ and Ramond–Ramond $`C_{[2]}`$). According to the geometrical formulation of type IIB supergravity summarized above we set:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill A^\mathrm{\Lambda }& =& (B_{[2]},C_{[2]})\hfill & ;& \hfill A^\alpha & =& 𝒞_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha A^\mathrm{\Lambda }\hfill \\ \hfill A^{\alpha =1}& =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(B_{[2]}iC_{[2]})\hfill & ;& \hfill A^{\alpha =2}& =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(B_{[2]}+iC_{[2]})\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.8)
In terms of these objects we write down the complete action of the $`D5`$–brane as follows:

$``$ $`=`$ $`\rho \mathrm{\Pi }_i^{\underset{¯}{a}}V^{\underset{¯}{b}}\eta _{\underset{¯}{ab}}\eta ^{i\mathrm{}_1}e^\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}e^\mathrm{}_6ϵ_{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_6}+\rho a_1\mathrm{\Pi }_i^{\underset{¯}{a}}\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{\underset{¯}{b}}\eta _{\underset{¯}{ab}}h^{ij}e^\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}e^\mathrm{}_6ϵ_{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_6}`$ (3.9)
$`+\rho a_2\left[\text{det}\left(h^1+\mu \right)\right]^\alpha e^\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}e^\mathrm{}_6ϵ_{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_6}`$
$`+\rho a_3^{ij}F^{[2]}e^\mathrm{}_3e^\mathrm{}_6ϵ_{ij\mathrm{}_3\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_6}`$
$`+\nu FFF+a_5p_\alpha A^\alpha FF+a_6C_{[4]}F+a_7\stackrel{~}{q}_\alpha C_{[6]}^\alpha `$
where :

$$q_\alpha p_\beta ϵ^{\alpha \beta }=1$$
(3.10)
$`q_\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(q_1,q_1^{})`$, $`p_\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(p_1,p_1^{})`$ (see appendix B) and where $`\rho =\rho (\varphi )`$ is a function of the dilaton to be determined, $`C_{[4]}`$ is the $`4`$–form potential, and $`C_{[6]}^\alpha `$ are the dual potentials to the $`A_{[2]}^\alpha `$ forms. The coefficients

$$\alpha =\frac{1}{4}a_1=\frac{1}{12}a_2=\frac{1}{3}a_3=\frac{5}{4}$$
(3.11)
where already determined in paper . The coefficients $`a_5,a_6,\nu `$ are new and they must be fixed by to be $`\kappa `$–supersymmetry. The first two are numerical, while $`\nu `$ is also a function of the bulk scalars to be determined through $`\kappa `$-supersymmetry.

In the action (3.9)

$$F^{[2]}F_{[G]}+q_\alpha A^\alpha $$
(3.12)
is the field strength of the world–volume gauge field and depends on the charge vector $`q_\alpha `$. The physical interpretation of $`F^{[2]}`$ is as follows. By definition a $`Dp`$–brane is a locus in space–time where open strings can end or, in the dual picture, boundaries for closed string world–volumes can be located. The type IIB theory contains two kind of strings, the fundamental strings and the $`D`$-strings which are rotated one into the other by the $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ group. Correspondingly a $`D5`$ brane can be a boundary either for fundamental or for $`D`$–strings or for a mixture of the two. The charge vectors $`q_\alpha `$ and $`p_\alpha `$ just express this fact. Furthermore the definition (3.12) of $`F^{[2]}`$ encodes the following idea: the world–volume gauge $`1`$-form $`A^{[1]}`$ is just the parameter of a gauge transformation for the $`2`$–form $`q_\alpha A^\alpha `$, which in a space–time with boundaries can be reabsorbed everywhere except on the boundary itself. Note that if we take $`q_\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$ and $`p_\alpha =\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(1,1)`$ we obtain :

$$q_\alpha A^\alpha =B_{[2]};p_\beta A^\beta =C_{[2]}$$
(3.13)
### 3.1 $`\kappa `$–supersymmetry

Next we want to prove that with an appropriate choice of $`\nu ,a_5`$, $`a_6`$ and $`a_7`$ the action (3.9) is invariant against bulk supersymmetries characterized by a projected spinor parameter. For simplicity we do this in the case of the choice $`\stackrel{~}{q}_\alpha =q_\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$ and $`p_\alpha =\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(1,1)`$ . For other choices of the charge type the modifications needed in the prove will be obvious from its details.

To accomplish our goal we begin by writing the supersymmetry transformations of the bulk differential forms $`V^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$, $`B_{[2]}`$, $`C_{[2]}`$, $`C_{[4]}`$ and $`C_{[6]}`$ which appear in the action. From the rheonomic parametrizations of the curvatures recalled in  we immediately obtain:

$`\delta V^{\underset{¯}{a}}=\text{i}\frac{1}{2}\left(\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{a}}\psi +\overline{ϵ}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{a}}\psi ^{}\right)`$
$`\delta B_{[2]}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}i[(\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2)\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{a}}\psi ^{}V^{\underset{¯}{a}}+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2)\overline{ϵ}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{a}}\psi V^{\underset{¯}{a}}]`$
$`\delta C_{[2]}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}[(\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^1\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2)\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{a}}\psi ^{}V^{\underset{¯}{a}}+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2)\overline{ϵ}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{a}}\psi V^{\underset{¯}{a}}]`$
$`\delta C_{[4]}=\underset{\delta C_{[4]}^{}}{\underset{}{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{abc}}\psi \overline{ϵ}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{abc}}\psi ^{})V^{\underset{¯}{abc}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[B_{[2]}\delta C_{[2]}C_{[2]}\delta B_{[2]}]`$ (3.14)
and :

$`\delta C_{[6]}`$ $`=g_1C_{[4]}\delta F_{[2]}+g_2F_{[2]}\delta C_{[4]}^{}+\delta C_{[6]}^{}`$ (3.15)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\delta C_{[6]}^1+\delta C_{[6]}^2)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{2}}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2)\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{a_1\mathrm{}a_5}}\psi ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{2}}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2)\overline{ϵ}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{a_1\mathrm{}a_5}}\psi V^{\underset{¯}{a_1\mathrm{}a_5}}+`$
$`+20\sqrt{2}\delta C_{[4]}^{}F_{[2]}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}40}\sqrt{2}C_{[4]}\delta F_{[2]}`$
Note that in writing the above transformations we have neglected all terms involving the dilatino field. This is appropriate since the background value of all fermion fields is zero. The gravitino $`1`$–form $`\psi `$ is instead what we need to keep track of. Proving $`\kappa `$–supersymmetry is identical with showing that all $`\psi `$ terms cancel against each other in the variation of the action. Relying on (3.14) the variation of the W.Z.T term is as follows:

$`\delta (\nu FFF+a_5C_{[2]}FF+a_6C_{[4]}F+a_7C_{[6]})=`$
$`=3\nu FF\delta F{\displaystyle \frac{3g_1a_7}{16}}FF\delta C_{[2]}+(g_2g_1)a_7F\delta C_{[4]}^{}+a_7\delta C_{[6]}^{}`$ (3.16)
for $`a_5=\frac{g_1a_7}{16}`$ , $`a_6=g_1a_7`$ , $`g_1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}40}\sqrt{2}`$ and $`g_2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}20}\sqrt{2}`$ .
And with such a choice the complete variation of the Lagrangian under a supersymmetry transformation of arbitrary parameter is:

$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\psi +\delta _\psi ^{}`$
$`\delta _\psi `$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}!i(h^1)^{ij}(\overline{ϵ}\gamma _i\psi )+(\mu _3^{ij}+\mu _4\stackrel{~}{FF}^{ij})(\overline{ϵ}^{}\gamma _i\psi )+`$
$`+(g_1g_2){\displaystyle \frac{a_7}{3}}\stackrel{~}{F}^{klmj}(\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{klm}\psi )+a_7\mu _6(\overline{ϵ}^{}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^j\psi )]\mathrm{\Omega }^{[5]}_j`$
$`\delta _\psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}!i(h^1)^{ij}(\overline{ϵ}^{}\gamma _i\psi ^{})+(\mu _1^{ij}+\mu _2\stackrel{~}{FF}^{ij})(\overline{ϵ}\gamma _i\psi ^{})+`$ (3.17)
$`(g_1g_2){\displaystyle \frac{a_7}{3}}\stackrel{~}{F}^{klmj}(\overline{ϵ}^{}\gamma _{klm}\psi ^{})+a_7\mu _5(\overline{ϵ}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^j\psi ^{})]\mathrm{\Omega }^{[5]}_j`$
where :

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill \mu _1& =& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4\hspace{0.17em}4}!ia_3(\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2)\hfill & ;& \hfill \mu _2& =& 4[3\nu i(\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2)\frac{3}{16}g_1a_7(\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^1\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2)]\hfill \\ \hfill \mu _3& =& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4\hspace{0.17em}4}!ia_3(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2)\hfill & ;& \hfill \mu _4& =& 4[3\nu i(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2)\frac{3}{16}g_1a_7(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2)]\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.18)
Recalling eq.s (3.5) and (3.3) the above eq.s (3.18) become:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill \mu _1& =& 5!ie^{\varphi /2}\hfill & ;& \hfill \mu _2& =& \frac{3}{4}g_1a_7e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}\hfill \\ \hfill \mu _3& =& 5!ie^{\varphi /2}\hfill & ;& \hfill \mu _4& =& \frac{3}{4}g_1a_7e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.19)
where we have chosen:

$`\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1a_7}{16}}C_{[0]}={\displaystyle \frac{g_1a_7}{16}}\text{Re}𝒩`$ (3.20)
In the above equation we have introduced the complex kinetic matrix which would appear in a $`d=4`$ gauge theory with scalars sitting in $`\mathrm{SU}(1,1)/\mathrm{U}(1)`$ and determined by the classical Gaillard–Zumino general formula <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1For a general discussion of the Gaillard-Zumino formula see for instance   applied to the specific coset:

$$𝒩=\text{i}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2}\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{Re}𝒩=C_0\hfill & \\ \text{Im}𝒩=e^\varphi \hfill & \end{array}$$
(3.21)
It is convenient to rewrite the full variation (3.17) of the Lagrangian in matrix form in the $`2`$–dimensional space spanned by the fermion parameters $`(ϵ,ϵ^{})`$ :

$$\delta =\delta _\psi +\delta _\psi ^{}=(\overline{ϵ},\overline{ϵ}^{})A\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi \\ \psi ^{}\end{array}\right)$$
(3.22)
$`A_p=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}5!i\gamma _p20\sqrt{2}a_7\stackrel{~}{F}^{klmj}h_{jp}\gamma _{klm}& & \left(5!ie^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}^{ij}\gamma _i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}30}\sqrt{2}a_7e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}\stackrel{~}{FF}^{ij}\gamma _i\frac{2}{\sqrt{2}}a_7e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^j\right)h_{jp}\\ \left(5!ie^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}^{ij}\gamma _i+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}30}\sqrt{2}a_7e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}\stackrel{~}{FF}^{ij}\gamma _i+\frac{2}{\sqrt{2}}a_7e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^j\right)h_{jp}& & 5!i\gamma _p+20\sqrt{2}a_7\stackrel{~}{F}^{klmj}h_{jp}\gamma _{klm}\end{array}\right)`$ (3.23)
where $`A=A_p\mathrm{\Omega }_{[5]}^p`$, and $`e^ie^je^ke^le^mϵ^{ijklmp}\mathrm{\Omega }_p^{[5]}`$ denotes the quadruplet of five–volume forms
The matrix $`A_p`$ is a tensor product of a matrices in spinor space and $`2\times 2`$ matrices in the space spanned by $`(ϵ,ϵ^{})`$. It is convenient to spell out this tensor product structure which is achieved by the following rewriting:

$$A_p=f_1\gamma _p11+f_2\stackrel{~}{F}^{klmj}h_{jp}\gamma _{klm}\sigma _3+f_3e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}^{ij}h_{jp}\gamma _i\sigma _1+(f_4\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^jh_{jp}+f_5e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}\stackrel{~}{FF}^{ij}\gamma _ih_{jp})\sigma _2$$
(3.24)
where :

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccc}\hfill f_1& =& 5!i\rho \hfill & ;& \hfill f_2& =& 20\sqrt{2}a_7\hfill & ;& \hfill f_3& =& 5!i\rho \hfill & ;& \hfill f_4& =& \frac{2}{\sqrt{2}}ia_7e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}\hfill & ;& \hfill f_5& =& 30i\sqrt{2}a_7\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.25)
and:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{\gamma }^i& & ϵ^{lmnpqi}\gamma _{lmnpq}\hfill & ;& \hfill \stackrel{~}{F}^{klmp}& & \frac{1}{2}F_{ij}ϵ^{ijklmp}\hfill & ;& \hfill (\stackrel{~}{FF})_{ij}& & \frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijlmpq}F^{lm}F^{pq}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.26)
now using the solution of the first order equations already determined in , namely

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{G}=\eta & & \\ =\frac{1}{\mu ^2}h^1F\eta & & \\ h\eta =(11\frac{1}{\mu ^2}F\eta F\eta )\left[\text{det}\left(\eta \frac{1}{\mu }F\right)\right]^{1/2}& & \end{array}$$
(3.27)
or, in more compact form:

$$h=(\eta \frac{1}{\mu ^2}F^2)\left[\text{det}\left(\eta \frac{1}{\mu }F\right)\right]^{1/2}$$
(3.28)
we can set

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\varphi /2}=\sqrt{\text{Im}𝒩}`$
$`\widehat{F}`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{\text{Im}𝒩}F`$
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}`$ (3.29)
and we obtain:

$`e^{\varphi /2}^{ij}h_{jp}=e^{\varphi /2}e^\varphi (Fh^1)^{ij}h_{jp}\widehat{F}_p^i`$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}^{klmp}=e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}\stackrel{~}{\widehat{F}}^{klmp}`$
$`e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}(\stackrel{~}{FF})_{ij}=e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}(\stackrel{~}{\widehat{F}\widehat{F}})_{ij}`$ (3.30)
This observation further simplifies the expression of $`A_k`$ which can be rewritten as:

$$A_p=e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}[z_1\gamma _p11+z_2\stackrel{~}{\widehat{F}}^{klmj}h_{jp}\gamma _{klm}\sigma _3+z_3(\stackrel{~}{\widehat{F}\widehat{F}})^{ij}\gamma _ih_{jp}\sigma _2+z_4\widehat{F}_p^i\gamma _i\sigma _1+z_5\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^jh_{jp}\sigma _2]$$
(3.31)
where :

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccc}\hfill z_1=f_1& ;& z_2=f_2\hfill & ;& \hfill z_3=f_5& ;& z_4=f_3\hfill & ;& \hfill z_5=f_4.& & & & & & & & & & \end{array}$$
(3.32)
We introduce :

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{(1)}^p=\stackrel{~}{\widehat{F}}^{klmp}\gamma _{klm}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{pij}F_{ij}`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{(2)}^p=(\stackrel{~}{\widehat{F}\widehat{F}})^{ip}\gamma _i`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{(3)}^p=F_p^i\gamma _i`$ (3.33)
and we obtain :

$$A_p=e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}[z_1\gamma _p11+z_2\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)j}h_{jp}\sigma _3+z_3\mathrm{\Pi }^{(2)j}h_{jp}+z_4\mathrm{\Pi }_p^{(3)}\sigma _1+z_5\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^jh_{jp}\sigma _2]$$
(3.34)
Just as in the case of the $`D3`$–brane discussed in , the proof of $`\kappa `$–supersymmetry can now be reduced to the following simple computation. Assume we have a matrix operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with the following properties:

\[a\] $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=11`$
\[b\] $`\mathrm{\Gamma }A_k=A_k`$ (3.35)
It follows that

$$P=\frac{1}{2}(11\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(3.36)
is a projector since $`P^2=P`$ and that

$$PA_k=\frac{1}{N}(11\mathrm{\Gamma })A_k=0$$
(3.37)
Therefore if we use supersymmetry parameters $`(\overline{\kappa },\overline{\kappa }^{})=(\overline{ϵ},\overline{ϵ}^{})P`$ projected with this $`P`$, then the action is invariant and this is just the proof of $`\kappa `$–supersymmetry.

The appropriate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the following:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{N}[(\omega _{[6]}+\omega _{[2]})\sigma _2+(\omega _{[4]}+\omega _{[0]})\sigma _3]$$
(3.38)
where:

$`\omega _{[6]}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _6ϵ^{ijklmn}\gamma _{ijklmn}`$
$`\omega _{[4]}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _4ϵ^{ijklmn}\widehat{F}_{ij}\gamma _{klmn}`$
$`\omega _{[0]}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _0ϵ^{ijklmn}\widehat{F}_{ij}\widehat{F}_{kl}\widehat{F}_{mn}`$
$`\omega _{[2]}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _2ϵ^{ijklmn}\widehat{F}_{ij}\widehat{F}_{kl}\gamma _{mn}`$
$`N`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\text{det}\left(11\pm \widehat{F}\right)\right]^{1/2}`$ (3.39)
and the coefficients are fixed to:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccc}\hfill \alpha _6& =& \frac{i}{6!}\hfill & ;& \hfill \alpha _4& =& \frac{1}{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}4}!}\hfill & ;& \hfill \alpha _0& =& \frac{1}{48}\hfill & ;& \hfill \alpha _2& =& \frac{i}{16}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.40)
This choice suffices to guarantee property \[a\] in the above list. An outline of the details of the calculation leading to such a result is given below. We have:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}\left[\omega _{[6]}^2+\omega _{[2]}^2+\omega _{[6]}\omega _{[2]}+\omega _{[2]}\omega _{[6]}+\omega _{[4]}^2\omega _{[0]}^2+2\omega _{[4]}\omega _{[0]}\right]\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}1_{2\times 2}`$ (3.41)
$`+\left[\omega _{[6]}\omega _{[4]}\omega _{[4]}\omega _{[6]}+\omega _{[6]}\omega _{[0]}\omega _{[0]}\omega _{[6]}\right]\sigma _2\sigma _3=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}\left[\omega _{[6]}^2+\omega _{[2]}^2+2\omega _{[6]}\omega _{[2]}+\omega _{[4]}^2\omega _{[0]}^2+2\omega _{[4]}\omega _{[0]}\right]\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}1_{2\times 2}`$
and by straightforward manipulations we obtain

$`\omega _{[6]}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(\alpha _6)^2(6!)^2`$
$`\omega _{[4]}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(4!)^2(\alpha _4)^2\widehat{F}_{a_1a_2}\widehat{F}_{a_3a_4}\gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3a_4}2(4!)^2(\alpha _4)^2Tr(\widehat{F}^2)`$
$`\omega _{[2]}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4(\alpha _2)^2}{9\alpha _0\alpha _4}}\omega _{[4]}\omega _{[0]}32(\alpha _2)^2\left[Tr(\widehat{F}^2)Tr(\widehat{F}^2)2Tr(\widehat{F}^4)\right]`$
$`\omega _{[6]}\omega _{[2]}`$ $`=`$ $`2(6!)\alpha _6\alpha _2\widehat{F}_{a_1a_2}\widehat{F}_{a_3a_4}\gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3a_4}`$ (3.42)
Using the following identities on determinants

$$\text{det}\left(11\pm \widehat{F}\right)=1\frac{1}{2}Tr(\widehat{F}^2)+\frac{1}{8}\left[Tr(\widehat{F}^2)\right]^2\frac{1}{4}Tr(\widehat{F}^4)+\text{det}(\widehat{F})$$
(3.43)
and

$`\text{det}(\widehat{F})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}Tr(\widehat{F}^6){\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}\left[Tr(\widehat{F}^2)\right]^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left[Tr(\widehat{F}^2)\right]\left[Tr(\widehat{F}^4)\right]=`$ (3.44)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}ϵ_{a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5a_6}\widehat{F}^{a_1a_2}\widehat{F}^{a_3a_4}\widehat{F}^{a_5a_6}\right)=\omega _{[0]}^2`$ (3.45)
$`\left(\widehat{F}\stackrel{~}{\widehat{F}\widehat{F}}\right)_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\left(ϵ_{a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5a_6}\widehat{F}^{a_1a_2}\widehat{F}^{a_3a_4}\widehat{F}^{a_5a_6}\right)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}1_{ab}=4\omega _{[0]}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}1_{ab}`$ (3.46)
that are just consequences of $`\widehat{F}=\widehat{F}^T`$ being antisymmetric property $`[a]`$ is proved.

Let us now turn to supersymmetry, namely to property $`[b]`$ :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }A_p=A_p$$
(3.47)
We need to calculate the products of the matrices $`\omega _{[i]}`$ $`(i=6,4,2)`$ defined above with the gamma matrix structures appearing in the matrix $`A_p`$. Explicitly for $`\omega _{[6]}`$ and omitting the simbol “ $`\widehat{}`$ “ we find:

$`\omega _{[6]}\gamma _a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{5!}}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_a`$
$`\omega _{[6]}\mathrm{\Pi }_{(1)}^{b_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3!}{2}}iF_{b_2b_3}\gamma ^{b_1b_2b_3}`$
$`\omega _{[6]}\mathrm{\Pi }_{(2)}^{b_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{5!}}(\stackrel{~}{FF})^{b_1b_2}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{b_1}`$
$`\omega _{[6]}\mathrm{\Pi }_{(3)}^{b_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{5!}}F^{b_1b_2}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{b_1}`$
$`\omega _{[6]}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{b_1}`$ $`=`$ $`5!i\gamma ^{b_1}`$ (3.48)
while for $`\omega _{[4]}`$ we obtain

$`\omega _{[4]}\gamma _{b_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}\stackrel{~}{F}^{a_1a_2a_3a_4}\gamma _{a_1a_2a_3a_4b_1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{b_1a_2a_3a_4}\gamma ^{a_2a_3a_4}`$
$`\omega _{[4]}\mathrm{\Pi }_{(1)}^{b_4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}F_{a_3a_4}F_{a_5a_6}\gamma ^{b_4a_3a_4a_5a_6}3F^{b_5b_6}F^{b_3b_4}\gamma _{b_5b_6b_3}3Tr(F^2)\gamma ^{b_4}+6(F^2)_{b_6}^{b_5}\gamma ^{b_6}`$
$`\omega _{[4]}\mathrm{\Pi }_{(2)}^{b_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{a_1a_2a_3a_4}(\stackrel{~}{FF})_{b_1}^{b_2}\gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3a_4b_1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{a_1a_2a_3a_4}(\stackrel{~}{FF})^{a_1b_2}\gamma ^{a_2a_3a_4}`$
$`\omega _{[4]}\mathrm{\Pi }_{(3)}^{b_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{a_1a_2a_3a_4}F_{b_1}^{b_2}\gamma ^{a_1a_2a_3a_4b_1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}F^{a_5a_6}F^{a_1b_2}\gamma _{a_1a_5a_6}`$
$`\omega _{[4]}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{b_6}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5!}{2}}F_{b_4b_5}\gamma ^{b_6b_4b_5}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}!F^{b_5b_6}\gamma _{b_5}`$ (3.49)
and finally for $`\omega _{[2]}`$ we have:

$`\omega _{[2]}\gamma _{b_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}(\stackrel{~}{FF})_{a_1a_2}\gamma _{b_1}^{a_1a_2}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}(\stackrel{~}{FF})_{b_1a_2}\gamma ^{a_2}`$
$`\omega _{[2]}\mathrm{\Pi }_{(1)}^{b_4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}(\stackrel{~}{FF})_{a_1a_2}\stackrel{~}{F}^{b_1b_2b_3b_4}\gamma _{b_1b_2b_3}^{a_1a_2}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}i(\stackrel{~}{FF})_{a_1a_2}\stackrel{~}{F}^{a_1b_2b_3b_4}\gamma _{b_2b_3}^{a_2}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}i(\stackrel{~}{FF})_{a_1a_2}\stackrel{~}{F}^{a_1a_2b_3b_4}\gamma _{b_3}`$
$`\omega _{[2]}\mathrm{\Pi }_{(2)}^{b_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}(\stackrel{~}{FF})_{a_1a_2}F^{b_1b_2}\gamma _{b_1}^{a_1a_2}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}(\stackrel{~}{FF})_{b_1a_2}(\stackrel{~}{FF})^{b_1b_2}\gamma ^{a_2}`$
$`\omega _{[2]}\mathrm{\Pi }_{(3)}^{b_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}(\stackrel{~}{FF})_{a_1a_2}F^{b_1b_2}\gamma _{b_1}^{a_1a_2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[F(\stackrel{~}{FF})]_{a_2}^{b_2}\gamma ^{a_2}`$
$`\omega _{[2]}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{b_6}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}i(\stackrel{~}{FF})_{a_1a_2}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{a_1a_2b_6}`$ (3.50)
With these relations we determine the values of the parameter $`a_7=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}i`$ from the supersymmetry relation \[b\] (3.35) and the projector (3.38).

## 4 Outlook and conclusions

In this paper we have applied the new first order formalism for $`p`$–brane world volume actions introduced by us in  to the case of $`5`$ branes. The motivations for such a calculation were already discussed in the introduction and are not repeated here. We recall the essential features of the new formalism that we have adopted and that allows to reproduce the Born–Infeld second order action via the elimination of a set composed by three auxiliary fields:

* $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$
* $`h^{ij}`$ (symmetric)
* $`^{ij}`$ (antisymmetric)

Distinctive properties are:

1. All fermion fields are implicitly hidden inside the definition of the $`p`$–form potentials of supergravity
2. $`\kappa `$–supersymmetry is easily proven from supergravity rheonomic parametrizations
3. The action is manifestly covariant with respect to the duality group $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ of type IIB supergravity.
4. The action functional can be computed on any background which is an exact solution of the supergravity bulk equations.

Of specific interest in applications are precisely the last two properties. Putting together our result we can summarize the $`D5`$ brane action we have found as follows:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\text{Im}𝒩}}}\mathrm{\Pi }_i^{\underset{¯}{a}}V^{\underset{¯}{b}}\eta _{\underset{¯}{ab}}\eta ^{i\mathrm{}_1}e^\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{}e^\mathrm{}_6ϵ_{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_6}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\sqrt{\text{Im}𝒩}}}\mathrm{\Pi }_i^{\underset{¯}{a}}\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{\underset{¯}{b}}\eta _{\underset{¯}{ab}}h^{ij}e^\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}e^\mathrm{}_6ϵ_{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_6}`$ (4.1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\sqrt{\text{Im}𝒩}}}\left[\text{det}\left(h^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\text{Im}𝒩}}}\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{4}}e^\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}e^\mathrm{}_6ϵ_{\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_6}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4\sqrt{\text{Im}𝒩}}}^{ij}F^{[2]}e^\mathrm{}_3\mathrm{}e^\mathrm{}_6ϵ_{ij\mathrm{}_3\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_6}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}i\text{Re}𝒩FFF+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}ip_\beta A^\beta FF+40iC_{[4]}F+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}iq_\alpha C_{[6]}^\alpha `$
where:

$`F`$ $``$ $`F_{[G]}+q_\alpha A^\alpha `$
$`𝒩`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^\alpha }{q_\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^\beta }}`$
$`A^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(B_{[2]}iC_{[2]},B_{[2]}+iC_{[2]})`$
$`q_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(p+iq,piq)`$
$`p_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(r+is,ris)`$
$`1`$ $`=`$ $`q_\alpha p_\beta ϵ^{\alpha \beta }`$ (4.2)
In the particular case of $`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{1,0\}`$ that implies $`q_\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,1)`$ and $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{0,1\}`$ that implies $`p_\alpha =\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(1,1)`$ we have:

$$𝒩=\text{i}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2}=ie^\varphi +C_{[0]}$$
(4.3)
As many times stressed, our specific interest in the above action is given by its evaluation on the background provided by the bulk solution found in  which describes a $`D3`$–brane with an $`^2\times ALE`$ transverse manifold and a $`2`$–form flux trapped on a homology $`2`$–cycle of the ALE. Combining this with the world volume action of a $`D3`$–brane obtained in  we will finally obtain the appropriate source term of that exact solution which was so far missing. Alternatively by expanding (4.1) for small fluctuations around the same background we can use it as a token to explore the gauge/gravity correspondence. The key point is to reconcile this with the fact there is no running dilaton in the bulk solution of . This will achieved by an appropriate choice of the charge vectors $`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, thanks to present manifestly $`SL(2,R)`$-covariant formulation. Such applications are postponed to a forthcoming paper.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Marco Billó, Emiliano Imeroni, Alberto Lerda, Igor Pesando, and Antonio Rago for many important and clarifying discussions about this work.

## Appendix A Rheonomic parametrization of the type IIB supergravity curvatures

In order to obtain the supersymmetry transformation rules used in the text one needs the rheonomic parametrizations of the curvatures. For simplicity we write them only in the complex basis and we disregard the bilinear fermionic terms calculated by Castellani and Pesando. We have:

$`R^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{\underset{¯}{ab}}V^{\underset{¯}{a}}V^{\underset{¯}{b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{a_1a_4}}\psi V^{\underset{¯}{a_5}}\left(F_{\underset{¯}{a_1a_5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5!}}ϵ_{\underset{¯}{a_1a_{10}}}F_{\underset{¯}{a_6a_{10}}}\right)`$ (A.2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{a_1a_4}}\psi ^{}V_{\underset{¯}{a_1}}+9\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{a_2a_3}}\psi ^{}V^{\underset{¯}{a_4}}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^\alpha _{\underset{¯}{a_2a_4}}^\beta ϵ_{\alpha \beta }`$
$`+\text{fermion bilinears}`$
$`_{[3]}^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`_{\underset{¯}{abc}}^\alpha V^{\underset{¯}{a}}V^{\underset{¯}{b}}V^{\underset{¯}{c}}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^\alpha \overline{\psi }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{ab}}\lambda ^{}V^{\underset{¯}{a}}V^{\underset{¯}{b}}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^\alpha \overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{ab}}\lambda V^{\underset{¯}{a}}V^{\underset{¯}{b}}`$ (A.3)
$`_{[5]}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\underset{¯}{a_1a_5}}V^{\underset{¯}{a_1}}\mathrm{}V^{\underset{¯}{a_5}}`$ (A.4)
$`𝒟\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`𝒟_{\underset{¯}{a}}\lambda V^{\underset{¯}{a}}+\mathrm{i}P_{\underset{¯}{a}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{a}}\psi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{a_1a_3}}\psi ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^\alpha _{\underset{¯}{a_1a_3}}^\beta `$ (A.5)
$`𝒟\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^\alpha P_{\underset{¯}{a}}V^{\underset{¯}{a}}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^\alpha \overline{\psi }^{}\lambda `$ (A.6)
$`𝒟\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^\alpha P_{\underset{¯}{a}}^{}V^{\underset{¯}{a}}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^\alpha \overline{\psi }\lambda ^{}`$ (A.7)
$`R^{\underset{¯}{ab}}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{\underset{¯}{cd}}^{\underset{¯}{ab}}V^{\underset{¯}{c}}V^{\underset{¯}{d}}+\text{fermionic terms}`$ (A.8)
$`_{[7]}^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}!}}ϵ^{\underset{¯}{abcd_1\mathrm{}d_7}}_{\underset{¯}{abc}}^\alpha V_{\underset{¯}{d_1}}\mathrm{}V_{\underset{¯}{d_7}}+\mathrm{}`$ (A.9)
## Appendix B $`\text{SL}(2,)`$ and $`\text{SU}(1,1)`$ covariant formalism for D-branes

We define a two component vector for the fields $`B_{[2]}`$ and $`C_{[2]}`$:

$$A^\mathrm{\Sigma }=(B_{[2]},C_{[2]})$$
(B.1)
The variation of this vector and $`𝒩`$ under $`SL(2,R)`$ are :

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}B_{[2]}^{}\\ C_{[2]}^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}p& q\\ r& s\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}B_{[2]}\\ C_{[2]}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}pB_{[2]}+qC_{[2]}\\ rB_{[2]}+sC_{[2]}\end{array}\right)$$
(B.2)
$$𝒩^{}=\frac{s𝒩+r}{q𝒩+p}=\frac{sq(C_{[0]}^2+e^{2\varphi })+(sp+rq)C_{[0]}+rp+ie^\varphi }{q^2(C_{[0]}^2+e^{2\varphi })+2qpC_{[0]}+p^2}$$
(B.3)
We can see that there is a subgroup of $`\text{SL}(2,)`$ that leaves invariant the Lagrangian.
If we take the element :

$$T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ r& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(B.4)
we obtain for D3-brane (we have the same results for D5-brane) :

$`B_{[2]}^{}=B_{[2]},C_{[2]}^{}=rB_{[2]}+C_{[2]}`$
$`𝒩^{}=𝒩+r`$
$`Im(𝒩^{})=Im(𝒩),Re(𝒩^{})=Re(𝒩)+r`$ (B.5)
$`\delta _T_{B.I}=0`$
$`_{W.Z.T}^{}=\frac{3}{4}i[\text{Re}𝒩+r]B_{[2]}B_{[2]}+\frac{3}{4}i[C_{[2]}+rB_{[2]}]B_{[2]}+6iC_{[4]}=_{W.Z.T}`$ (B.6)
this is a one-parameter subgroup of $`\text{SL}(2,)`$
Now we introduce e covariant formalism for $`\text{SL}(2,)`$ covariance; in particular we introduce two vectors $`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that transform in the fundamental representation of $`\text{SL}(2,)`$. In analogy with $`\phi _i\widehat{n}_i`$ in field theory, where $`\widehat{n}_i`$ is a fix vector and $`\phi _i`$ is a scalar field in the fundamental representation of SO(N), to do this we replace in the Lagrangian :

$`B_{[2]}q_\mathrm{\Lambda }A^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`C_{[2]}p_\mathrm{\Lambda }A^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (B.7)
where $`A^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is definite in (B.1).
The vectors $`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ have this general form :

$`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(p,q)`$
$`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(r,s)`$ (B.8)
with the constrain :

$$q_\mathrm{\Lambda }p_\mathrm{\Sigma }ϵ^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}=1$$
(B.9)
This is actually the condition that the determinant of a general element of $`\text{SL}(2,)`$ is equal to one.
We have in total only three real parameters but as we will see in the $`\text{SU}(1,1)`$ formalism one of those is connected to the invariance (B.6).
We must introduce also the covariant form of $`𝒩`$, but, to do this, is suitable to pass at the $`\text{SU}(1,1)`$ formalism. We pass to $`\text{SU}(1,1)`$ formalism using the Cayley matrix :

$$C_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& i\\ 1& i\end{array}\right)$$
(B.10)
and the inverse matrix :

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Lambda }=(C^1)_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ i& i\end{array}\right)$$
(B.11)
In this way we have that :

$`q_\alpha =\stackrel{~}{C}_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Lambda }q_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`p_\alpha =\stackrel{~}{C}_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Lambda }p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`A^\alpha =C_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha A^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
(B.12)
and :

$$q_\alpha A^\alpha =\stackrel{~}{C}_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Sigma }q_\mathrm{\Sigma }C_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha A^\mathrm{\Lambda }=(C^1)_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Sigma }C_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha A^\mathrm{\Lambda }=q_\mathrm{\Lambda }A^\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(B.13)
From (B.1), (B.8), (B.12)

$`A^\alpha =C_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\alpha A^\mathrm{\Sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(B_{[2]}iC_{[2]},B_{[2]}+iC_{[2]})`$
$`q_\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(p+iq,piq)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(q_1,q_1^{})`$
$`p_\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(r+is,ris)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(p_1,p_1^{})`$ (B.14)
The vectors $`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ transform in the fundamental representation of SL(2,R) as :

$`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=q_\mathrm{\Sigma }U_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$
$`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=p_\mathrm{\Sigma }U_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (B.15)
and in the formalism of SU(1,1) the vectors $`q_\alpha `$ and $`p_\alpha `$ transform as :

$`q_\alpha ^{}=q_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(C^1)_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Sigma }=q_\mathrm{\Lambda }U_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }(C^1)_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Sigma }=q_\beta C_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\beta U_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }(C^1)_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (B.16)
so the relation between SU(1,1) and SL(2,R) is :

$$U_\alpha ^\beta =C_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\beta U_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }(C^1)_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Sigma }=(CUC^1)_\alpha ^\beta $$
(B.17)
$$U_\beta ^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& i\\ 1& i\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}p& q\\ r& s\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ i& i\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}pir+iq+s& piriqs\\ p+ir+iqs& p+iriq+s\end{array}\right)$$
(B.18)
The property (B.14) is invariant under SU(1,1), in fact :

$`q_\alpha ^{}=q_\beta U_\alpha ^\beta `$
$`q_\alpha ^{}=q_\beta ^{}\left(U_\alpha ^\beta \right)^{}`$
$`q_1^{}=q_1^{}\left(U_1^1\right)^{}+q_2^{}\left(U_1^2\right)^{}=q_1^{}\left(U_1^1\right)^{}+q_1\left(U_1^2\right)^{}`$ (B.19)
on the other side we have that $`q_2^{}=q_1\left(U_2^1\right)+q_2\left(U_2^2\right)=q_1\left(U_2^1\right)+q_1^{}\left(U_2^2\right)`$ and so if we want that $`q_2^{}=q_1^{}`$ we must have that $`\left(U_1^2\right)^{}=U_2^1`$ and $`\left(U_1^1\right)^{}=U_2^2`$, but this is exactly the property of SU(1,1) how we can see in (B.18).
The Levi-Civita tensor becomes :

$$ϵ^{\alpha \beta }=C_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha C_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\beta ϵ^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(B.20)
and it is very simple to verify that the constrain now is :

$$q_\alpha p_\beta ϵ^{\alpha \beta }=1$$
(B.21)
The covariant formulation of the $`𝒩`$ matrix is:

$$𝒩=i\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2}=ie^\varphi +C_{[0]}\frac{p_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^\alpha }{q_\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^\beta }$$
(B.22)
The condition (B.21) says that

$$psqr=1$$
(B.23)
Now we can see some examples.
$``$ If $`p0`$

$$s=\frac{1}{p}+\frac{qr}{p}$$
(B.24)
and so

$$p_\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(r+i\frac{1}{p}+i\frac{qr}{p},ri\frac{1}{p}i\frac{qr}{p})=\frac{i}{p\sqrt{2}}(1,1)+\frac{r}{p}q_\alpha \stackrel{~}{p}_\alpha +\frac{r}{p}q_\alpha $$
(B.25)
The $`𝒩`$ matrix became

$$𝒩=\frac{r}{p}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^\alpha }{q_\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^\beta }$$
(B.26)
and it is very simple to see that the parameter $`r`$ disapperaes from the Lagrangian, infact it is the parameter of the invariance (B.4). How we said before only two parameters ($`p`$ and $`q`$ in this case) are independent and produce $`\text{SL}(2,)`$ covariant Lagrangianes.
$``$ If $`p=0`$

$`q_\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{iq}{\sqrt{2}}}(1,1)`$ (B.27)
$`p_\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(r+is,ris)`$ (B.28)
from (B.21) or (B.23)

$`r={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}`$ (B.29)
and

$$p_\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\frac{1}{q}+is,\frac{1}{q}is)=\frac{is}{\sqrt{2}}(1,1)\frac{1}{q\sqrt{2}}(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})\frac{s}{q}q_\alpha +\stackrel{~}{p}_\alpha $$
(B.30)
The $`𝒩`$ matrix now is

$$𝒩=\frac{s}{q}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^\alpha }{q_\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^\beta }=\frac{s}{q}\frac{1}{q^2𝒩}$$
(B.31)
and

$`q_\alpha A^\alpha =qC_{[2]}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{p}_\alpha A^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}B_{[2]}`$ (B.32)
In this case the invariance parameter is $`s`$, the only independent parameter is $`q`$ and the Lagrangian is that we can obtain with the duality:

$$D=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(B.33)
At this point we can ask to ourself what is the relaction between $`p0`$ and $`p=0`$. If we start from the SL(2,R) vectors $`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(1,0)`$ and $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(0,1)`$ we can see that the stability group of $`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is $`T`$ of (B.4) :

$`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=(1,0)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ r& 1\end{array}\right)=(1,0)`$ (B.36)
$`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=(0,1)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ r& 1\end{array}\right)=r(1,0)+(0,1)=p_\mathrm{\Lambda }+rq_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (B.39)
Now we transform $`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with the duality $`U=D`$ of (B.33) and obtain $`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=(0,1)`$ and $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=(1,0)`$, contemporary :

$`T_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(U^1TU\right)_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& r\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (B.42)
this transformations are the stability group of $`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=(0,1)`$, in fact :

$`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=(0,1)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& r\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)=(0,1)`$ (B.45)
$`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=(1,0)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& r\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)=(1,0)+r(0,1)=p_\mathrm{\Lambda }+rq_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (B.48)
but as you can see in (B.50) $`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=(0,1)q_\alpha =\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(1,1)`$ and $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=(1,0)p_\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,1)`$ when we pass to SU(1,1) formalism, and so B.48 become exactly the relations (B.27), (B.30) if we take $`q=1`$.

### B.1 Particular choice of $`q_\alpha `$ and $`p_\alpha `$

$``$ For :

$`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(1,0)q_\alpha =q_\mathrm{\Lambda }(C^1)_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(1,1)`$
$`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(0,1)p_\alpha =p_\mathrm{\Lambda }(C^1)_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}(1,1)`$
we have :

$`q_\alpha A^\alpha =B_{[2]}`$
$`p_\alpha A^\alpha =C_{[2]}`$
$`q_\alpha p_\beta ϵ^{\alpha \beta }=1`$ (B.49)
$``$ For :

$`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(0,1)q_\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}(1,1)`$
$`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(1,0)p_\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$ (B.50)
we have :

$`q_\alpha A^\alpha =C_{[2]}`$
$`p_\alpha A^\alpha =B_{[2]}`$ (B.51)
$$𝒩𝒩_{Dual}=\frac{1}{𝒩}$$
(B.52)
and

$`Im(𝒩_{Dual})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^\varphi +C_{[0]}^2e^\varphi }}`$
$`Re(𝒩_{Dual})={\displaystyle \frac{e^\varphi C_{[0]}}{e^\varphi +C_{[0]}^2e^\varphi }}`$ (B.53)
### B.2 Invariant Tensors under $`\text{SU}(1,1)`$

The invariant tensors under $`\text{SU}(1,1)`$ are the metric $`\eta ^{\alpha \beta }`$ and the tensor $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta }`$, in fact :

$`U^TϵU=ϵ`$ (B.54)
$`U^{}\eta U=\eta `$ (B.55)
where we defined :

$$\eta ^{\alpha \beta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)ϵ^{\alpha \beta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(B.57)
In the $`\text{SU}(1,1)`$ formalism the scalar product is :

$`q^\alpha p_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`q_\alpha ^{}\eta ^{\alpha \beta }p_\beta =q_1^{}p_1q_2^{}p_2`$
$`q^\alpha q_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`q_\alpha ^{}\eta ^{\alpha \beta }q_\beta =|q_1|^2|q_2|^2`$
$`A^\alpha q_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`A_\alpha ^{}\eta ^{\alpha \beta }q_\beta `$ (B.58)
we have introduced the vectors $`q_\alpha `$, $`p_\alpha `$, and the form $`A^\alpha `$ and so the vector $`A_\alpha `$ is :

$$A_\alpha =\eta _{\alpha \beta }A^\beta $$
(B.59)
## Appendix C Notations and Conventions

General adopted notations for first order actions are the following ones:

$`d`$ $`=`$ dimension of the world-volume $`𝒲_d`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ dimension of the bulk space–time $`_D`$
$`V^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$ $`=`$ vielbein $`1`$–form of bulk space–time
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_i^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`D\times d\text{matrix. }0\text{–form auxiliary field}`$
$`h^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`d\times d\text{symmetric matrix. }0\text{–form auxiliary field}`$
$`e^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ vielbein $`1`$–form of the world-volume
$`\eta _{\underset{¯}{ab}}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{diag}\{+,\underset{D1times}{\underset{}{,\mathrm{},}}\}=\text{flat metric on the bulk}`$
$`\eta ^{\underset{¯}{ij}}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{diag}\{+,\underset{d1times}{\underset{}{,\mathrm{},}}\}=\text{flat metric on the world–volume}`$
The supersymmetric formulation of type IIB supergravity we rely on is that of Castellani and Pesando  that uses the rheonomy approach . Hence, as it is customary in all the rheonomy constructions, the adopted signature of space–time is the mostly minus signature:

$$\eta _{\underset{¯}{ab}}=\text{diag}\{+,\underset{\text{9 times}}{\underset{}{,\mathrm{},}}\}$$
(C.2)
The index conventions are the following ones:

$`\underset{¯}{a,b,c,\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,1,2,\mathrm{},9\text{Lorentz flat indices in }D=10`$
$`i,j,k,\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,\mathrm{},d\text{Lorentz flat indices on the world-volume}`$ (C.3)
$`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`1,2\mathrm{SU}(1,1)\text{ doublet indices}`$
$`A,B,C,\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`1,2\mathrm{O}(2)\text{ indices for the scalar coset}`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`1,2\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathrm{R})\text{ doublet indices}`$ (C.4)
For the gamma matrices our conventions are as follows:

$$\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{a}},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{b}}\}=2\eta ^{\underset{¯}{ab}}$$
(C.5)
The convention for constructing the dual of an $`\mathrm{}`$–form $`\omega `$ in D–dimensions is the following:

$$\omega =\omega _{\underset{¯}{i_1\mathrm{}i_{\mathrm{}}}}V^{\underset{¯}{i_1}}\mathrm{}V^{\underset{¯}{i_{\mathrm{}}}}\omega =\frac{1}{(D\mathrm{})!}ϵ_{\underset{¯}{a_1\mathrm{}a_D\mathrm{}b_1\mathrm{}b_{\mathrm{}}}}\omega ^{\underset{¯}{b_1\mathrm{}b_{\mathrm{}}}}V^{\underset{¯}{a_1}}\mathrm{}V^{\underset{¯}{a_D\mathrm{}}}$$
(C.6)
Note that we also use $`\mathrm{}`$–form components with strength one: $`\omega =\omega _{\underset{¯}{i_1\mathrm{}i_{\mathrm{}}}}V^{\underset{¯}{i_1}}\mathrm{}V^{\underset{¯}{i_{\mathrm{}}}}`$ and not with strength $`\mathrm{}!`$ as it would be the case if we were to write $`\omega =\frac{1}{\mathrm{}!}\omega _{\underset{¯}{i_1\mathrm{}i_{\mathrm{}}}}V^{\underset{¯}{i_1}}\mathrm{}V^{\underset{¯}{i_{\mathrm{}}}}`$ When it is more appropriate to use curved rather than flat indices then the convention for Hodge duality is summarized by the formula:

$$(dx^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}dx^{\mu _n})=\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(g)}}{(10n)!}G^{\mu _1\nu _1}\mathrm{}G^{\mu _n\nu _n}ϵ_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{10n}\nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _n}dx^{\rho _1}\mathrm{}dx^{\rho _{10n}}$$
(C.7)


format: text

text:
# Critical Temperature of the Deconfining Phase Transition in (2+1)d Georgi-Glashow Model

## I Introduction

Confining gauge theories generally become deconfined at high temperatures. The deconfining phase transition in QCD is the subject of intensive experimental and lattice studies. While some general features of this phase transition can be extracted from symmetry arguments SvetitskyYaffe , the details cannot be studied analytically due to strong coupling effects resulting from the non-perturbative nature of the phase transition. Therefore it is instructive to investigate theories where deconfinement happens in the weak-coupling regime and hence can be studied quantitatively. One example of such theory, the (2+1)-dimensional SU(2) Georgi-Glashow model, is considered in this paper. The model consists of a SU(2) gauge theory coupled to a scalar (Higgs) field in the adjoint representation with a non-zero VEV $`v`$. By studying this model one may hope to find certain features of the deconfining phase transitions which this model shares with QCD. At zero temperature the (2+1)-dimensional SU(N) Georgi-Glashow model could be related through dimensional reduction to high temperature SU(N) gauge theory in four dimensions lattice ; Nadkarni .

It has been shown by Polyakov Polyakov  that ’t Hooft–Polyakov monopoles thp  \[which are instantons in (2+1)d\] give rise to the area law for Wilson loops, i.e., confinement. From the symmetry properties of the Polyakov loops SvetitskyYaffe  it follows that the Georgi-Glashow model must possess a sharp deconfining phase transition at some temperature. The first analytical attempt to find the temperature of the phase transition in the limit of the small gauge coupling $`gv`$ was made by Agasyan and Zarembo AZ . Following Polyakov  they argued that at low temperatures ($`TM_W`$) the theory is equivalent to a 2-dimensional gas of monopoles interacting with each other via (almost massless) Coulomb photons. (Remember that the original SU(2) symmetry is broken to U(1).) The phase transition in the monopole gas would occur through the binding of monopoles and anti-monopoles into pairs similar to Berezinsky-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) phase transition bkt . From this picture they found the critical temperature to be $`T_c=g^2/(2\pi )`$ AZ , where $`g`$ is the dimensionful gauge coupling. A criticism of this treatment was subsequently raised by Dunne, Kogan, Kovner, and Tekin DKKT . They argued that the correct description of the low temperature limit of the Georgi-Glashow model should include $`W`$ bosons interacting with each other and with the monopoles by exchanging photons. The model thus reduced to a two-dimensional gas of point charges ($`W`$’s) and monopoles. The presence of thermally excited $`W`$ bosons decreased the critical temperature by a factor of two yielding $`T_c=g^2/(4\pi )`$ DKKT . The authors of DKKT  also showed that the $`W`$’s are required for the phase transition to be of the $`Z_2`$ universality class, in agreement with symmetry arguments SvetitskyYaffe .

In this paper we re-examine the calculation of the critical temperature. We shall show that it actually depends on both the gauge coupling $`g`$ and the ratio between the Higgs mass $`m_H`$ and the gauge boson mass $`m_W`$. Specifically, our result reads

$$T_c=\frac{g^2}{4\pi }\frac{ϵ+2}{2ϵ+1},$$
(1)
where $`ϵ=ϵ(m_H/m_W)`$ is a function of the ratio of Higgs and $`W`$ masses $`M_H`$ and $`M_W`$ defining the monopole action bps ; kz

$$S_0=\frac{4\pi v}{g}ϵ\left(\frac{m_H}{m_W}\right).$$
(2)
When $`m_Hm_W`$, which is the limit where the Bogomolny-Prasad-Sommerfield (BPS) bound bps  on the monopole action is saturated, $`ϵ(0)=1`$ and $`T_c`$ in Eq. (1) coincides with the value found in Ref. DKKT . Outside this limit, our result disagrees with both Refs. DKKT  and AZ .

Our derivation of Eq. (1) is based on what we believe to be the correct interpretation of the renormalization group approach initiated in Ref. DKKT . To make the paper self-contained, we will provide alternative derivations for many facts already known in Refs. AZ ; DKKT . Readers already familiar with Refs. AZ ; DKKT  can jump directly to Sec. V, which is the core of our paper where Eq. (1) is derived.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we formulate the Georgi-Glashow model, mostly in order to introduce notations. In Sec. III we rewrite the partition function in term of a 2d Coulomb gas of electric and magnetic charges. In Sec. IV we show that the Coulomb gas, in its turn, can be recast into a field theory. We give two equivalent representations of this theory in terms of bosonic and fermionic variables. Our bosonic field theory is different from the one used in DKKT . Sec. V is devoted to the renormalization group analysis of the field theory where we determine the value of the critical temperature. Comparison with earlier works and a simple physical argument rederiving Eq. (1) are given in Sec. VI. In the Appendix we review the free massless scalar in two dimensions and show how a bosonic theory for the gas of electric and magnetic charges is constructed.

## II The model

In this paper we shall work mostly in Euclidean space. The Georgi-Glashow model is a SU(2) gauge theory where the gauge symmetry is partially broken by a triplet scalar,

$$L=\frac{1}{2}(D_\mu \varphi ^a)^2+\lambda (|\varphi |^2v^2)^2+\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^2$$
(3)
In the unitary gauge where $`\varphi ^1=\varphi ^2=0`$, the photon field $`A^3`$ is perturbatively massless, while $`W^\pm =A^1\pm iA^2`$ are massive gauge bosons with the mass $`m_W=gv`$ and are charged with respect to the photon field. The theory contains two dimensionless parameters: $`g/v`$, which is the expansion parameter of the perturbation theory, and $`m_H/m_W\sqrt{\lambda }/v`$. We shall assume $`g/v1`$ and $`m_H/m_W`$ parametrically of order one, that is $`m_Wm_Hg^2`$.

The model contains a classical solution — the ’t Hooft–Polyakov “monopole”, which is really an instanton in (2+1)d. (We shall use the terms “monopole” and “instanton” interchangeably.) At large distances, in the unitary gauge, the U(1) field of the instanton is

$$F_{\mu \nu }^3=\frac{e}{4\pi }ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }\frac{x_\lambda }{x^2},$$
(4)
where $`e`$ is the magnetic charge of the monopole,

$$e=\frac{4\pi }{g}.$$
(5)
In our case $`ge`$ is twice larger than the Dirac quantum $`2\pi `$. The monopole action is given by Eq. (2) and is large at weak coupling $`g/v1`$; correspondingly the density of instantons is exponentially small, $`e^{S_0}`$. Due to the contributions of these instantons to the partition function, photon acquires a mass $`m_\gamma `$ which is exponentially suppressed, $`m_\gamma e^{S_0/2}`$.

In the Euclidean formalism, one puts the field theory at a finite temperature $`T`$ by making the Euclidean time direction periodic with the period $`\beta =1/T`$. It turns out that the interesting physics of deconfinement occurs at temperature of order $`g^2`$, which is much smaller than $`W`$ and Higgs masses but is much larger than the photon mass $`m_\gamma `$. We shall concentrate on the behavior of the theory at such temperatures.

## III Coulomb gas representation

Our goal is to rewrite the partition function of the Georgi-Glashow model at finite temperature $`T`$ such that $`m_\gamma Tm_Wm_H`$ in terms of an effective two-dimensional theory. Extending Ref. Polyakov , our first step is to rewrite the partition function in terms of a two-dimensional Coulomb gas of monopoles and $`W`$ bosons,

$$Z=\underset{M,N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{M!N!}\underset{e_i,g_j}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}d^2x_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}d^2y_je^{S(\stackrel{}{x}_i,e_i;\stackrel{}{y}_j,g_j)}$$
(6)
where $`S(\stackrel{}{x}_i,e_i;\stackrel{}{y}_j,g_j)`$ is the effective action of a system of $`M`$ monopoles located at the (2d) positions $`\stackrel{}{x}_i`$ with magnetic charges $`e_i`$, and $`N`$ $`W`$-bosons located at positions $`\stackrel{}{y}_j`$ with electric charges $`g_j`$. The sum over $`e_i,g_j`$ in Eq. (6) goes over different signs of the $`W`$-boson and monopole charges. The effective action is the sum of three contributions,

$$S(\stackrel{}{x}_i,e_i;\stackrel{}{y}_j,g_j)=S_{\mathrm{mon}}(\stackrel{}{x}_i,e_i)+S_W(\stackrel{}{y}_j,g_j)+S_{\mathrm{int}}(\stackrel{}{x}_i,e_i;\stackrel{}{y}_j,g_j)$$
(7)
where $`S_{\mathrm{mon}}`$ is the part of the action coming solely from the monopoles, $`S_W`$ is coming solely from the $`W`$’s, and $`S_{\mathrm{int}}`$ represents the interaction between the monopoles and the $`W`$’s.

The explicit form of each term in Eq. (7) can be found from physically intuitive arguments. For $`S_{\mathrm{mon}}`$, we notice that the monopole gas is effectively two-dimensional because our assumption about the temperature $`Tg^2m_\gamma e^{S_0/2}`$ makes the size of the compactified time direction ($`1/T`$) much smaller than the average distance between the monopoles ($`e^{S_0/2}`$). Thus, the monopoles interact via the 2d Coulomb potential AZ , and

$$S_{\mathrm{mon}}(\stackrel{}{x}_i,e_i)=MS_0\frac{e^2T}{2\pi }\underset{ij}{}e_ie_j\mathrm{ln}(T|\stackrel{}{x}_i\stackrel{}{x}_j|),\underset{i}{}e_i=0.$$
(8)
Here $`e_i=\pm 1`$ are the signs of the monopole charges, which are measured in the units of $`e`$ defined in Eq. (5). The action in Eq. (8) integrated over all monopoles spatial positions is finite only when the total magnetic charge vanishes; otherwise it is logarithmically divergent. The reason why $`T`$ appears in the argument of the logarithms in Eq. (8) is that $`T^1`$ is the smallest distance where the inter-monopole potential is logarithmic.

Turning to $`W`$ bosons, we notice that since $`TM_W`$ the $`W`$’s are almost static. As they carry U(1) electric charges they also form a Coulomb gas. We can visualize the worldlines of the $`W`$ bosons as small circles wrapping around the Euclidean time direction; at distances large compared to $`\beta =1/T`$, the ensemble of such circles are indistinguishable from a gas of point-like objects. The action $`S_W`$ is simply the exponent in the Boltzmann suppression factor, i.e., $`E_W/T`$ where $`E_W`$ is the energy of the $`W`$ configuration. Therefore for almost static $`W`$’s

$$S_W(\stackrel{}{y}_j,g_j)=N\frac{m_W}{T}\frac{g^2}{2\pi T}\underset{ij}{}g_ig_j\mathrm{ln}(T|\stackrel{}{y}_i\stackrel{}{y}_j|),g_i=\pm 1,\underset{i}{}g_i=0.$$
(9)
The first term in the right hand side comes from the static energy, and the second term from the interaction between the $`W`$’s. Although the contribution of $`W`$ bosons to the free energy is exponentially suppressed by $`e^{m_W/T}`$, they can still destroy confinement, since confinement in this model is due to instantons and the density of instantons is also exponentially suppressed (DKKT , also see below).

The origin of the interaction term $`S_{\mathrm{int}}`$ is less trivial: it is due to the complex phases acquired by the $`W`$ bosons along their trajectories (which are closed time loops) in the U(1) field created by the monopoles. This purely imaginary contribution to the effective action of the Coulomb gas has been explicitly computed in ref. AZ  to be

$$S_{\mathrm{int}}=2i\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}e_ig_j\theta (\stackrel{}{x}_i\stackrel{}{y}_j)$$
(10)
where $`\theta (\stackrel{}{x}_i\stackrel{}{y}_j)`$ is the angle between the vector connecting the monopole at $`\stackrel{}{x}_i`$ and the $`W`$ boson at $`\stackrel{}{y}_j`$ and a chosen spatial direction (say, the $`x_2`$ axis). The sum in Eq. (10) does not depend on the choice of the reference direction if the gas is electrically or magnetically neutral, or both. Thus it is always well-defined when $`S_{\mathrm{mon}}`$ and $`S_W`$ are finite.

Equation (10) can be derived in a simple, almost geometrical, way. Let us consider a simple case of one monopole and and a pair of $`W^+`$ and $`W^{}`$ bosons. First we “unwind” the time direction, so that we have $`W`$ bosons move along finite time intervals in the field of an infinite number of monopoles, positioned periodically along the time axis. It is obvious from Fig. 1 that the phase obtained by a $`W`$ boson in this case is the same as when it moves along an infinite temporal trajectory in the field of a single monopole.

Now the total phase obtained by a pair of $`W^+`$ and $`W^{}`$ bosons is proportional to the magnetic flux passing through the two-dimensional surface stretched between the worldlines of the two bosons (see Fig. 2). If we surround the monopole by a sphere, then the flux is proportional to the area between the two meridians as shown in Fig. 2. Projected to the equator plane, one sees that flux is indeed proportional to the angle between the line connecting the monopoles to the $`W^+`$ and $`W^{}`$ bosons, in agreement with Eq. (10). The coefficient 2 in Eq. (10) is due to the fact that the U(1) charge of $`W`$ bosons is twice the elementary value.

Gathering all terms, we arrive to the Coulomb-gas representation of the partition function of the Georgi-Glashow models at temperatures large compared to $`m_\gamma `$, but small compared to $`m_W`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Z& =\underset{MN}{}\frac{\zeta _0^M}{M!}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_0^N}{N!}\underset{e_i=\pm 1}{}\underset{g_j=\pm 1}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}d^2x_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}d^2y_j\mathrm{exp}[\frac{e^2T}{2\pi }\underset{i<j}{\overset{M}{}}e_ie_j\mathrm{ln}(T|\stackrel{}{x}_i\stackrel{}{x}_j|)\hfill \\ & +\frac{g^2}{2\pi T}\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}g_ig_j\mathrm{ln}(T|\stackrel{}{y}_i\stackrel{}{y}_j|)+2i\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}e_ig_j\theta (\stackrel{}{x}_i\stackrel{}{y}_j)].\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
Here $`\zeta _0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_0`$ are the instanton and $`W`$ fugacities, respectively. They have dimension 2 and are both exponentially suppressed,

$`\zeta _0`$ $``$ $`T^2e^{S_0},`$ (12a)
$`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_0`$ $``$ $`T^2e^{m_W/T}.`$ (12b)
(The pre-exponents will not be needed for our computation of $`T_c`$.) We put the subscript “0” in the notations because these fugacities serve as the initial conditions for the renormalization group in Sec. V. The sums over $`e_i`$ and $`g_i`$ are restricted to configurations with zero total electric and magnetic charges.

## IV Effective field theories

In this section we (re)derive effective bosonic and fermionic theories describing a 2d gas of electric and magnetic charges. Our bosonic Lagrangian is different from the one obtained by the authors of DKKT .

### IV.1 Bosonic theory

By using the result of Appendix A, one can write each term in the sum (11) as a multipoint Green’s function,

$$Z=\underset{MN}{}\frac{\zeta _0^M}{M!}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_0^N}{N!}\underset{e_i=\pm 1}{}\underset{g_j=\pm 1}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}d^2x_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}d^2y_j\text{T}\underset{i}{}e^{ie_i\beta \mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{x}_i)}\underset{j}{}e^{ig_j\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{\Theta }(\stackrel{}{y}_j)},$$
(13)
where we have introduced

$$\beta =e\sqrt{T},\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\frac{g}{\sqrt{T}},$$
(14)
and the average is taken in the free massless bosonic field theory with the ultraviolet cutoff at the scale $`T`$. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a (scalar) bosonic field and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the dual field.

One can now perform the summation over $`e_i`$ and $`g_j`$ and over $`M`$ and $`N`$ in Eq. (13). The result reads

$$Z=T\mathrm{exp}\left[d^2x\left(2\zeta _0\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{\Phi }+2\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_0\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{\Theta }\right)\right].$$
(15)
The right hand side, according to the well-known formula of perturbation theory, is equal to

$$Z=\frac{\mathrm{Tr}e^{HT}}{\mathrm{Tr}e^{H_0T}},$$
(16)
where $`T`$ is the total Euclidean time and

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\left[\frac{1}{2}(_x\mathrm{\Phi })^2+\frac{1}{2}(_x\mathrm{\Theta })^2\right]},`$ (17)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\left[\frac{1}{2}(_x\mathrm{\Phi })^2+\frac{1}{2}(_x\mathrm{\Theta })^2+2\zeta _0\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{\Phi }+2\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_0\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{\Theta }\right]}.`$ (18)
Thus, our problem is reduced to finding the ground state energy of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ from Eq. (18), defined with an ultraviolet cutoff at $`T`$.

One can construct a (Euclidean) Lagrangian corresponding to the Hamiltonian of Eq. (18) by requiring that the free part of the Lagrangian gives the same correlation functions as in Eqs. (54) and (55). The result is

$`_b={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_x\mathrm{\Phi })^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_x\mathrm{\Theta })^2i_x\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau \mathrm{\Theta }+2\zeta _0\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{\Phi }+2\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_0\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{\Theta },`$ (19)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ should now be understood as two independent fields. Note that the Lagrangian in Eq. (19) is different from the one derived in DKKT . The main difference is that our Lagrangian (19) is written for two independent scalar fields and the Lagrangian used in DKKT  employs a scalar field $`\chi `$ and its dual field $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ satisfying the duality condition

$`_\mu \stackrel{~}{\chi }=iϵ_{\mu \nu }_\nu \chi .`$ (20)
However, the duality condition (20) implies $`^2\chi =^2\stackrel{~}{\chi }=0`$, that is the dual field in the sense of Eq. (20) exists only for harmonic functions. It is therefore difficult to define Feynman functional integrals over $`\chi `$ for the partition function employing the Lagrangian which uses both fields $`\chi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ since the integration would have to be restricted to harmonic functions only.

Defining a vector field

$`C_\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Phi }iϵ_{\mu \nu }_\nu \mathrm{\Theta }`$ (21)
the Lagrangian of Eq. (19) could be rewritten in a more Lorentz (rotational)-invariant form

$`_b={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \mathrm{\Theta })^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(n_\mu C_\mu )^2+2\zeta _0\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{\Phi }+2\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_0\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{\Theta },`$ (22)
where $`n_\mu `$ is a unit vector in a randomly chosen direction in the $`(\tau ,x)`$ plane. Putting $`n_\mu =(0,1)`$ one would obtain the Lagrangian in Eq. (19).

In the limit of no monopoles we put $`\zeta _0=0`$ in Eq. (22). Integrating out the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ field yields us the Lagrangian of the sine-Gordon theory for the 2d gas of $`W`$ bosons

$`_{SG}^W={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \mathrm{\Theta })^2+2\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_0\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{\Theta }.`$ (23)
Similarly putting $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_0=0`$ in Eq. (22) would eliminate $`W`$ bosons from the theory and would give us a sine-Gordon theory for monopole gas, similar to AZ

$`_{SG}^{mon}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^2+2\zeta _0\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (24)
The exact solution for the $`S`$-matrix of the sine-Gordon theory is known SG  and the exact expression for the soliton mass has been found Zamolodchikov , allowing for quantitative study of the limits shown in Eqs. (23) and (24) along the lines of AZ . An exact solution of the full theory given by Eq. (22) has not been found. This will prevent us from making quantitative predictions about the behavior of the string tension around $`T_c`$ but will not interfere with our determination of $`T_c`$ itself.

Polyakov loops play the role of the order parameter of the deconfining phase transition SvetitskyYaffe . To compute the correlation function of two Polyakov loops, one inserts two fundamental charges into the Coulomb gas (11). This means that Polyakov loop $`P(\stackrel{}{x})`$ is mapped to the operator $`e^{i\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{\Theta }/2}`$ of the effective theory, so that AZ ; DKKT

$$P(\stackrel{}{x})P^{}(0)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{\Theta }(\stackrel{}{x})\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{\Theta }(0)\right)$$
(25)
where the average in the right hand side is taken in the theory described by Eq. (18).

### IV.2 Fermionic theory

It is easy to apply the bosonization rules Mandelstam  to map the bosonic theory (18) onto a fermionic theory. We noticed above that without the $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_0\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{\Theta }`$ term the Lagrangian of Eq. (22) reduces to a sine-Gordon theory given by Eq. (24). As was shown in Mandelstam  the sine-Gordon theory is equivalent to the massive Thirring model with Dirac mass term. Mandelstam’s rules Mandelstam  map $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_0\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{\Theta }`$ onto a Majorana mass term. Thus, the fermionic effective theory is given by the Lagrangian

$$_f=\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu _\mu \psi +\frac{G}{2}(\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi )^2+m\overline{\psi }\psi +\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{2}(\overline{\psi }^c\psi +\overline{\psi }\psi ^c)$$
(26)
where $`\psi ^c=C\overline{\psi }^T`$ is charge-conjugated to $`\psi `$. In the chiral basis

$$\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1\\ \psi _2\end{array}\right),\psi _c=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \psi _1^{}\\ \hfill \psi _2^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(27)
The four-fermion coupling $`G`$ is related to the parameters of the bosonic theory by

$$1+\frac{G}{\pi }=\frac{4\pi }{\beta ^2}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }^2}{4\pi },$$
(28)
while the fermion bare masses are

$$m\frac{\zeta _0}{T},\stackrel{~}{m}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_0}{T}.$$
(29)
One can check by an explicit calculation that the Lagrangian (26) gives the partition function of Eq. (11).

Defining real Majorana fermion fields DKKT

$$P=\frac{\psi +\psi ^c}{2},Q=\frac{\psi \psi ^c}{2i}$$
(30)
we can rewrite the Lagrangian of Eq. (26) as

$`_f=\overline{P}\gamma _\mu _\mu P+\overline{Q}\gamma _\mu _\mu Q\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}G\overline{P}P\overline{Q}Q+(m+\stackrel{~}{m})\overline{P}P+(m\stackrel{~}{m})\overline{Q}Q.`$ (31)
The physical meaning of the Lagrangian in Eq. (31) will be clarified in the next Section.

The bosonic theory (19), and, therefore, the partition function, is symmetric under duality transformation $`\zeta _0\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_0`$ and $`\beta \stackrel{~}{\beta }`$, or, equivalently under $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Theta }`$. The duality transformation $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Theta }`$ corresponds to $`\psi _1\psi _1`$, $`\psi _2\psi _2^{}`$. This transformation interchanges the Dirac and Majorana mass terms, and the U(1) and U(1)<sub>A</sub> currents $`j^\mu =\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi `$ and $`j^{5\mu }=\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5\psi `$. Naively under this transformation the interaction term changes sign, $`GG`$, which is not consistent with $`\beta \stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ in Eq. (28). This is because the symmetry between the Dirac and Majorana mass terms in Eq. (26) is broken by the implicit procedure of regularization: when computing the loop graphs in the theory (26) one should use a regularization scheme which preserves the conservation of $`j^\mu `$ when $`\stackrel{~}{m}=0`$, e.g., the Pauli-Villars scheme with a fermion with large Dirac mass ZJ . Using a different regularization scheme, for instance the Pauli-Villars scheme with a heavy Majorana fermion, would result in a relation between fermionic and bosonic couplings different from Eq. (28) ZJ .

## V Renormalization group, mass gap and critical temperature

### V.1 Review of RG in sine-Gordon theory

At any temperature, the correlation length of the Georgi-Glashow model is equal to the inverse mass gap in the effective theories (22) and (26). The fact that there are two perturbations on top of the free bosonic theory in Eq. (22) is crucial for the existence of a critical point with infinite correlation length (zero mass gap). To understand the mechanism of the disappearance of the mass gap, let us recall how the gap emerges when there is only one perturbation.

We suppose, for a moment, that $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_0=0`$. Then our theory is reduced to the sine-Gordon (SG) model of Eq. (24). The full spectrum of the SG theory is known SG ; Zamolodchikov , but for our purposes we only need a method for a parametric estimate of the gap. The Wilson renormalization group (RG) can be employed to this end. In this procedure we decrease the ultraviolet cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by successively integrating out the modes with momenta above the cutoff, but below the value of the cutoff at the previous RG step. Since the fugacity $`\zeta _0`$ will run with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we will denote the renormalized fugacity by the function $`\zeta (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

When $`\zeta `$ is small, the perturbation is small and the RG equation for $`\zeta `$ is set solely by the conformal dimension of the operator $`\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{\Phi }`$ RG ; ZJ

$$\frac{}{\lambda }\frac{\zeta }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}=(2\mathrm{\Delta })\frac{\zeta }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2},\lambda =\mathrm{ln}\frac{T}{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\beta ^2}{4\pi },$$
(32)
which has an obvious solution

$$\frac{\zeta }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}=\frac{\zeta _0}{T^2}\left(\frac{T}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{2\mathrm{\Delta }},\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\beta ^2}{4\pi }.$$
(33)
We have written the RG equation at the leading order in the dimensionless coupling $`\zeta /\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ which controls the conformal perturbation theory. If $`\beta ^2>8\pi `$ the perturbation is irrelevant since $`\zeta /\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ is smaller than $`\zeta _0/T^2`$ for all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<T`$. In the case of $`\beta ^2<8\pi `$ where the perturbation is relevant, there exists a scale where $`\zeta /\mathrm{\Lambda }^21`$ and the perturbation is no longer small. Our RG equation (32) is not valid beyond this point. The theory becomes strongly coupled at this scale and one can expect the emergence of a mass gap. Thus the mass gap is of the order

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }T\left(\frac{\zeta _0}{T^2}\right)^{1/(2\mathrm{\Delta })}Te^{S_0/(2\mathrm{\Delta })}$$
(34)
which agrees parametrically with the result of Zamolodchikov ; SG . The nature of the RG method does not allow the reproduction of the pre-exponents in Ref. Zamolodchikov , for which one actually needs the exact expression for the $`S`$-matrix of the theory.

### V.2 Renormalization group and criterion for $`T_c`$

Now we consider our case, where both perturbations are present \[see Eqs. (18) and (22)\]. We now have two RG equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\mathrm{\Delta }){\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}},\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \frac{e^2T}{4\pi }}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi T}{g^2}}`$ (35a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4\pi T}}.`$ (35b)
with solutions

$$\frac{\zeta }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}=\frac{\zeta _0}{T^2}\left(\frac{T}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{2\mathrm{\Delta }},\frac{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_0}{T^2}\left(\frac{T}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}.$$
(36)
Noting that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=1`$, one can immediately distinguish three temperature regimes.

* $`T<g^2/(8\pi )`$. In this case $`\mathrm{\Delta }<\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}>2`$. The operator $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is irrelevant and can be ignored. The infrared properties of the theory is the same as of the sine-Gordon theory (24) and hence the theory has a mass gap AZ ; Zamolodchikov .
* $`T>g^2/(2\pi )`$. In this case $`\mathrm{\Delta }>2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}<\frac{1}{2}`$, the operator $`\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{\Phi }`$ is irrelevant and the theory is in the massive phase of the SG theory of Eq. (23).
* $`g^2/(8\pi )<T<g^2/(2\pi )`$. In this case both perturbations are relevant.

The critical point should be in the regime (iii) which we now consider. If we follow the Wilson RG procedure, then at first, when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }T`$, both perturbations are small. As one decreases $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ both perturbations become more and more important. However, if at some scale one perturbation is of order one while the other is still small, then one can conclude that the theory has a mass gap. Indeed, suppose that at some $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\zeta /\mathrm{\Lambda }^21`$ while $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }/\mathrm{\Lambda }^21`$. In this case the theory is a SG model with a very small perturbation $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }`$. Since the SG is fully gapped, the perturbation theory over $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ is non-degenerate and does not destroy the existence of the gap. The same happens when $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ becomes $`1`$ when $`\zeta /\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ is still small. Therefore, the theory can be critical only when $`\zeta /\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ are of order one at the same energy scale.

In Fig. 3 we illustrate what happens at $`T_c`$. At the scale $`T=T_c`$ we chose the monopole fugacity $`\zeta `$ to be much smaller than the $`W`$ fugacity $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }`$. (In principle it can be the other way around as well.) However, $`\zeta `$ runs faster than $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }`$, so that at some scale $`\mu `$ the two fugacities become equal and are of the order $`\mu ^2`$. In other words, the perturbative expansion over the two fugacities breaks down at the same scale $`\mu `$ where $`\zeta /\mu ^2\stackrel{~}{\zeta }/\mu ^21`$. We can guess that when this condition is satisfied the gap disappears.

If our guess is correct, then $`T_c`$ can be found be requiring the existence of a scale $`\mu `$ where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (\mu )}{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(\mu )}{\mu ^2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}.`$ (37)
Using Eq. (12) in Eq. (37) yields

$$e^{S_0}\left(\frac{T}{\mu }\right)^{2\beta ^2/4\pi }e^{M_W/T}\left(\frac{T}{\mu }\right)^{2\stackrel{~}{\beta }^2/4\pi }1.$$
(38)
Solving this equation, taking into account Eqs. (2) and (14), we then find our final result for $`T_c`$,

$$T_c=\frac{g^2}{4\pi }\frac{ϵ+2}{2ϵ+1},$$

and an estimate for the non-perturbative scale $`\mu `$ at the critical temperature

$$\mu T\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2ϵ+1}{3}\frac{4\pi v}{g}\right),TT_c.$$
(39)
We notice, however, that the RG procedure above does not prove that the temperature found above is the critical temperature: it merely says that if the theory becomes critical at some temperature, then this temperature should be given by Eq. (1).

To argue that the mass gap vanishes at $`T_c`$ the fermionic Lagrangian of Eq. (31) becomes useful. This can be seen most clearly in the limit of the light Higgs, $`m_Hm_W`$ DKKT . (We still have $`m_Hg^2`$, or, equivalently, $`m_H/m_Wg/v`$, so that one loop corrections to the monopole action (2) would be finite and Eq. (2) would still be valid KS .) Then $`T_c=g^2/(4\pi )`$ with $`\beta ^2=\stackrel{~}{\beta }^2=4\pi `$, which leads to $`G=0`$ \[see Eq. (28)\]. The Lagrangian (31) becomes that of a theory with two free Majorana fermions with masses $`m_P=m+\stackrel{~}{m}`$ and $`m_Q=|m\stackrel{~}{m}|`$. Using Eq. (29) with the critical temperature condition Eq. (37) we may argue that at $`T_c`$ one may get $`m=\stackrel{~}{m}`$. When $`m=\stackrel{~}{m}`$ we obtain $`m_P=2m`$ and $`m_Q=0`$. One of the Majorana fermions is massless, and the other one is massive. The existence of the massless Majorana fermion near the phase transition is in agreement with the Ising nature of the phase transition DKKT . Notice that, strictly speaking, the RG equations can give us $`m_P\mu `$, but cannot show that $`m_Q=0`$. In the bosonic language, there is no mass gap when $`\beta ^2=\stackrel{~}{\beta }^2=4\pi `$ and $`\zeta _0=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_0`$ Ogilvie .

When the ratio $`m_H/m_W`$ is large, the fermion coupling $`G`$ is also large. While we do not know the exact mass spectrum of the theory (31), one may guess that qualitatively the picture does not change. This means that near $`T_c`$ the theory contains two Majorana fermions: a very light one with some mass $`m_Q`$, and another one with mass $`m_P\mu m_{}`$. Because $`G0`$ the two fermions interact with each other. However, at energy much below $`\mu `$, the heavier fermion $`P`$ decouples, leaving the dynamics to be completely determined by the lighter fermion $`Q`$. Since in 2d there is no relevant or marginal self-coupling of one Majorana fermion (e.g., $`(\overline{Q}Q)^2=0`$), the dynamics below $`\mu `$ is determined by one free Majorana fermion, as in the limit $`m_H/m_W0`$.

### V.3 Correlation length, critical region, etc.

It is instructive to find the behavior of the correlator of two Polyakov loops when $`T`$ is very close to $`T_c`$. This correlator has various behaviors at different length scales:

* At very large distances $`|\stackrel{}{x}|M^1`$, where $`M`$ is the mass gap in the theory,

$`P(\stackrel{}{x})P(0)e^{Mx}.`$ (40)
* In the intermediate range $`\mu ^1|\stackrel{}{x}|M^1`$, where $`\mu `$ is defined in Eq. (39), the correlator behaves that that of the order parameter in the critical Ising model, so that

$`P(\stackrel{}{x})P(0)|\stackrel{}{x}|^{1/4}.`$ (41)
* At distances $`T^1|\stackrel{}{x}|M^1`$, the effective theory is the theory of one massless scalar field, and the behavior of the Polyakov loop correlator is determined by the conformal dimension of the operator $`e^{i\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{\Theta }/2}`$,

$$P(\stackrel{}{x})P(0)|\stackrel{}{x}|^{(2ϵ+1)/(2ϵ+4)}.$$
(42)

It is interesting that this model has Ising-type behavior only at distances larger than $`\mu ^1`$, which is a length scale exponentially large compared to the inverse temperature. At distances between $`T^1`$ and $`\mu ^1`$ the correlator of Polyakov loops has a power-law behavior, but with the critical exponent in Eq. (42) which does not have an absolute fixed value and can vary continuously depending on $`m_H/m_W`$.

From the discussion above it also follows that the critical region, i.e., the range of temperatures where the model exhibits the Ising-like behavior, is very narrow. For a temperature $`T`$ to be in this region, the fugacities $`\zeta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }`$ should become large ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$) almost at the same scale, where “almost” means a mismatch by a factor not much larger than one. This gives

$$\frac{|TT_c|}{T_c}\frac{g}{v}$$
(43)
as the critical region. Deep inside this region, the correlation length exhibits the Ising behavior with the critical index $`\nu =1`$:

$`\xi |TT_c|^1.`$ (44)
Outside the critical region, the correlation length is set by the energy scale at which one of the perturbations $`\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{\Theta }`$ becomes large. Thus,

$$\xi \{\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{T}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi ϵgv}{g^22\pi T}\right),T<T_c\text{}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{T}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{4\pi gv}{8\pi Tg^2}\right),T>T_c.\hfill \end{array}$$
(45)
One can see from Eq. (45) that as the temperature increases, the correlation length first increases exponentially from $`m_\gamma ^1e^{S_0/2}`$ at small $`T`$ to $`\mu ^1`$ when $`T`$ is near the critical region, and then decreases exponentially as $`T`$ grows past the critical region. Inside the critical region itself, $`\xi `$ in Eq. (45) has the same exponential factor as $`\mu ^1`$ in Eq. (39) but the prefactor of the expression for $`\xi `$ diverges at $`T_c`$. Finally we note that in our model, the correlation length of Eq. (45) is exponentially large for all $`Tm_Wgv`$.

## VI Discussion and Conclusion

We have shown that the phase-transition temperature of the Georgi-Glashow model is given by Eq. (1). The critical temperature is of order $`g^2`$ and also depends on the ratio $`m_H/m_W`$ via the function $`ϵ(m_H/m_W)`$ defining the monopole action through Eq. (2). In the Georgi-Glashow model $`ϵ`$ runs from $`ϵ(0)=1`$ to $`ϵ(\mathrm{})1.787`$ bps ; kz . If we formally take $`ϵ0`$ limit in Eq. (1), which of course can never be physically realized in Georgi-Glashow model, we get $`T_c=g^2/(2\pi )`$. This is the value of the critical temperature suggested in Ref. AZ . This is not surprising since when $`ϵ0`$ the monopole fugacity becomes $`\zeta _01`$ while the $`W`$ bosons’ fugacity is still small $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_01`$, so that the $`W`$ bosons are completely outnumbered by the monopoles and the problem reduces to physics of monopole-only gas considered in Ref. AZ . In the opposite unphysical limit of $`ϵ\mathrm{}`$, the critical temperature in Eq. (1) becomes $`T_c=g^2/(8\pi )`$. In this limit there is no monopoles and the phase transition temperature is simply that of the BKT phase transition for the 2d gas of $`W`$’s.

In the light Higgs limit $`g/vm_H/m_W1`$ corresponding to $`ϵ=1`$ our critical temperature from Eq. (1) becomes $`T_c=g^2/(4\pi )`$ in agreement with Ref. DKKT . For other values of $`ϵ`$, or, equivalently, for not extremely small values of the ratio $`m_H/m_W`$, our critical temperature is different from the one found in DKKT .

The methods used in our paper are almost identical to those of Ref. DKKT . The crucial difference is that in Ref. DKKT  the RG equation is run to $`\lambda =\mathrm{ln}(T/\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{}`$, reaching what the authors of DKKT  interpret to be a fixed point at $`\zeta =\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=\mathrm{}`$. In contrast, in our paper the RG equation is used only up to the point where one of the fugacities is of order one. Strictly speaking, the RG equations are derived at the leading order of perturbation theory in $`\zeta /\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, and thus cannot be used outside the regime $`\zeta /\mathrm{\Lambda }^2,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }/\mathrm{\Lambda }^21`$.

There exists an intuitive argument leading to our result (1). According to this argument, the phase transition occurs when the densities of monopoles and $`W`$ bosons are equal DKKT . Naively the instanton density is $`e^{S_0}`$, but in 2d the instanton action acquires a logarithmic contribution from distances between $`1/T`$ and the mean inter-instanton distance $`l_{mon}`$. Therefore $`l_{mon}`$ can be obtained from the consistency condition equating the monopole density obtained from geometric considerations $`1/l_{mon}^2`$ to the same density obtained from the modified monopole action. The condition reads

$$\frac{1}{l_{mon}^2}T^2\mathrm{exp}\left[S_0\frac{e^2T}{4\pi }\mathrm{ln}(Tl_{mon})\right].$$
(46)
Analogously, the mean distance between the $`W`$ bosons $`l_W`$ is given by

$$\frac{1}{l_W^2}T^2\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{m_W}{T}\frac{g^2}{4\pi T}\mathrm{ln}(Tl_W)\right].$$
(47)
Solving Eqs. (46) and (47) for $`l_{mon}`$ and $`l_W`$, and requiring $`l_m=l_W`$, one then obtains Eq. (1).<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2Almost the same argument was given in Ref. DKKT , but the logarithmic terms in the exponents were missing.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors thank Guy Moore, Larry Yaffe, and especially Alex Kovner for informative discussions. The work of Yu. K. is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-97ER41014 and by the BSF grant $`\mathrm{\#}`$ 9800276 with Israeli Science Foundation, founded by the Israeli Academy of Science and Humanities. The work of D. T. S. is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DOE-ER-41132 and by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

## Appendix A Free massless boson in 2d

We consider a free massless boson in two dimensions,

$$S=d^2x\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^2.$$
(48)
Although Eq. (48) is invariant under O(2) rotations, we can choose an arbitrary direction to be the Euclidean time axis, and quantize the theory canonically. The canonical commutation relation reads

$$[\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau ,x),_\tau \mathrm{\Phi }(\tau ,y)]=\delta (xy),$$
(49)
and the Hamiltonian is

$$H=\frac{1}{2}𝑑x[(_\tau \mathrm{\Phi })^2+(_x\mathrm{\Phi })^2].$$
(50)
We introduce a field $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ defined as follows,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(\tau ,x)=i\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{x}{}}𝑑y_\tau \mathrm{\Phi }(\tau ,y).$$
(51)
Since $`\tau `$ is the Euclidean time, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a Hermitian operator. By definition, $`_x\mathrm{\Theta }=i_\tau \mathrm{\Phi }`$. One also finds $`_\tau \mathrm{\Theta }=i_x\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by using the free field equation satisfied by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Thus, $`_\mu \mathrm{\Theta }=iϵ_{\mu \nu }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }`$. We will say that $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is dual to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The commutation relation between $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ can also be found from the definition of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ (51),

$$[\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau ,x),\mathrm{\Theta }(\tau ,y)]=i\theta (yx).$$
(52)
In other words, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ are mutually non-local. The Hamiltonian (50) can be written in a form symmetric under duality transformation $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Theta }`$,

$$H=\frac{1}{2}𝑑x\left[(_x\mathrm{\Phi })^2+(_x\mathrm{\Theta })^2\right].$$
(53)
Since (48) is a free field theory, the Euclidean Green’s functions can be easily computed,

$`\text{T}\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{\Phi }(0)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{T}\mathrm{\Theta }(\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{\Theta }(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}(m|\stackrel{}{x}|)`$ (54)
$`\text{T}\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{\Theta }(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}\mathrm{sgn}(\tau )\mathrm{arccos}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{\sqrt{\tau ^2+x^2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}\theta (\stackrel{}{x})`$ (55)
where $`\stackrel{}{x}=(\tau ,x)`$ and $`m`$ is a small infrared regulator. In Eq. (55) the value of $`\mathrm{arccos}`$ is taken to be in $`(0,\pi )`$. The function $`\theta (\stackrel{}{x})`$ is the angle between the vector $`\stackrel{}{x}=(\tau ,x)`$ and the $`x`$ axis, and runs between $`\pi `$ to $`\pi `$. The discontinuity of (55) at $`\tau =0`$, $`x<0`$ is due to the Euclidean time ordering,

$$\text{T}\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,x)\mathrm{\Theta }(0,0)\text{T}\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,x)\mathrm{\Theta }(0,0)=[\mathrm{\Phi }(0,x),\mathrm{\Theta }(0,0)]=i\theta (x),$$
(56)
with $`\theta `$ here being the $`\theta `$-function. The presence of a cut along the spatial axis means that the correlator (55) is not invariant under O(2) rotations in the Euclidean space-time. This is not surprising, since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ are not mutually local.

The following correlator can now be easily computed

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{T}\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}e^{i\beta _i\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{x}_i)}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i\stackrel{~}{\beta }_j\mathrm{\Theta }(\stackrel{}{y}_j)}& =\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m}\right)^{((_i\beta _i)^2+(_j\stackrel{~}{\beta }_j)^2)/4\pi }\mathrm{exp}[\underset{i<j}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{\beta _i\beta _j}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }|\stackrel{}{x}_i\stackrel{}{x}_j|)\hfill \\ & +\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i\stackrel{~}{\beta }_j}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }|\stackrel{}{y}_i\stackrel{}{y}_j|)i\underset{i,j}{\overset{M,N}{}}\frac{\beta _i\stackrel{~}{\beta }_j}{2\pi }\theta (\stackrel{}{x}_i\stackrel{}{y}_j)]\hfill \end{array}$$
(57)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the ultraviolet cutoff. The $`m`$ dependence tells us that the correlation function vanishes in the limit $`m0`$ unless $`_i\beta _i=_j\stackrel{~}{\beta }_j=0`$ (charge neutrality). The dependence of the correlator on the ultraviolet cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_i+\underset{j}{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_j\underset{i}{}\frac{\beta _i^2}{4\pi }+\underset{j}{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_j^2}{4\pi }$$
(58)
is the sum of the conformal dimensions of the operators in the correlator (57). The correlator (57) does not have branch cuts if all products $`\beta _i\stackrel{~}{\beta }_j`$ are multiple of $`2\pi `$; in this case, the result does not depend on the choice of the time axis. This is due to the fact that the operators in the correlator (57) are mutually local. For the correlator in Eq. (13) $`\beta \stackrel{~}{\beta }=4\pi `$ and the partition function is indeed independent of the choice of the time axis.