text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Local couplings have always been a useful tool for defining local operators in quantum field theory . They came back to the center of interest from string theory and served for understanding the non-renormalization theorems of chiral vertices in supersymmetric theories . Even more it turned out that local couplings allow to prove rather easily the Adler-Bardeen non-renormalization theorem  by giving a precise definition for the renormalization of the topological term $`\stackrel{~}{G}G`$ . In this way local gauge coupling in supersymmetric gauge theories yields also the non-renormalization of the coupling beyond one loop order , but it is seen that the renormalization of the topological term also induces a one-loop anomaly in presence of local coupling .

By now one has applied the construction to supersymmetric gauge theories in the Wess-Zumino gauge . There the anomaly could be be put into the Ward identity of supersymmetry as obtained out of a generalized Slavnov–Taylor identity. Its coefficient has been calculated as a function of the one-loop corrections to the topological term  and it turns out to be independent of the gauge parameter and the scheme. It has been also related to the ratio of the one and 2-loop $`\beta `$ function of the gauge coupling of pure super-Yang-Mills theories.

In the present paper we repeat the analogous analysis for pure super-Yang-Mills theories formulated in terms of superfields, hence with linear realization of supersymmetry, which permits BPHZ or Wilsonian regularization as an invariant scheme of supersymmetry. We also modify the introduction of the local coupling: We couple the gauge invariant Lagragians of the super-Yang-Mills action to a chiral and an antichiral field as in the Wess-Zumino gauge, but define the gauge coupling by a constant shift in the lowest component of the external fields. Then the renormalization of the coupling is related to the renormalization of the external fields by the shift equation.

For the supersymmetric invariant schemes it turns out that the anomaly is shifted to other symmetry identities. We consider two versions (section 4 and 5): In the first one the anomaly induces non-holomorphic terms in that equation which defines the non-renormalization of the topological term, in the second the shift equation that relates the renormalization of external fields to the renormalization of the gauge coupling is modified by the anomaly. Accordingly we find in the first version non-holomorphic terms in external fields in the $`\beta `$ function, whereas the second version yields a holomorphic $`\beta `$ function in the external fields (section 6). From the construction we finally deduce a closed expression for the gauge $`\beta `$ function  and identify the coefficient of the anomaly with the scheme and gauge independent ratio $`\beta _{g^2}^{(2)}/\beta _{g^2}^{(1)}`$. In the Appendix we construct the complete basis of invariant operators, which contribute in the Callan–Symanzik equation. A discussion of previous results and a comparison with the Wess-Zumino gauge can be found in the conclusions.

## 2 Super-Yang-Mills with local gauge coupling

For introducing the local gauge coupling we proceed similar as in the Wess Zumino gauge . We introduce a chiral and antichiral field $`𝜼`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$,

$$𝜼=\eta +\theta \chi +\theta ^2f,\overline{𝜼}=\overline{\eta }+\overline{\theta }\overline{\chi }+\overline{\theta }^2\overline{f},$$
(1)
and couple them to the gauge invariant Lagrangians $`W^\alpha W_\alpha `$ and $`\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha }}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SYM}}=\frac{1}{128}\mathrm{Tr}(𝑑S𝜼W^\alpha W_\alpha +𝑑\overline{S}\overline{𝜼}\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha }}).$$
(2)
with $`W^\alpha `$ the supersymmetric field strength tensor:

$`W^\alpha \overline{D}\overline{D}(e^\varphi D^\alpha e^\varphi ),`$ (3)
with $`\varphi =\varphi _a\tau _a\text{and}\mathrm{Tr}\tau _a\tau _b=\delta _{ab}.`$
In this form the action does not have a well-defined free field action for the vector superfield. There are two possibilities to proceed: First we could redefine the vector superfield

$$\varphi (𝜼+𝜼)^1\varphi $$
(4)
identifying the real part of the lowest component with the local coupling. This is analogous to the construction of the Wess-Zumino gauge. Alternatively – and this is the procedure we will follow in the present paper – we can shift the lowest component of the external superfields fields by a constant, which is the gauge coupling:

$$𝜼\widehat{𝜼}=𝜼+\frac{1}{2g^2},\overline{𝜼}\widehat{\overline{𝜼}}=\overline{𝜼}+\frac{1}{2g^2}.$$
(5)
Then (2) has a well defined free field action and we can treat $`𝜼`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$ as ordinary external fields.

The fields $`𝜼`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$ are dimensionless. As such they can appear in arbitrary powers in higher orders of perturbation theory. However, as they have been introduced here they satisfy several constraints which restrict their appearance in higher orders:

1. The property that the gauge coupling has been introduced by a shift in the lowest component of the dimensionless superfield gives rise to the identity:

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(𝑑S\frac{\delta }{\delta 𝜼}+𝑑\overline{S}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{𝜼}}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }=g^4_{g^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(6)
It relates the renormalization of the gauge coupling to the renormalization of the external fields and makes $`𝜼`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$ to local supercouplings.
2. The loop expansion is a power series expansion in the coupling. This property follows from simple inspection of loop diagrams and can be summarized in the topological formula,

$$N_{g^2}=(N_𝜼+N_{\overline{𝜼}})+(l1),$$
(7)
which is valid in the present form for diagrams with external vector legs and $`𝜼`$ insertions. (For the generalization see (18).)
3. Most important for the non-renormalization properties is the identification of the imaginary part of the field $`\eta `$ with a space–time dependent $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ angle:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SYM}}=\frac{1}{416}\mathrm{Tr}d^4x(\frac{1}{g^2(x)}+i\mathrm{\Theta }+\frac{1}{g^2}+𝒪(\theta ))W^\alpha W_\alpha |_{\theta ^2}+\text{c.c.},$$
(8)
with

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=i(\eta \overline{\eta }).$$
(9)
The $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ angle couples to a total derivative, which is expressed in the identity:

$$𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SYM}}\left(𝑑S\frac{\delta }{\delta 𝜼}𝑑\overline{S}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{𝜼}}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SYM}}=0.$$
(10)
This identity together with the topological formula defines the renormalization of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ angle in presence of the local coupling and yields the non-renormalization of the topological term .

The identity (10) and eq. (7) govern the dependence on the superfields $`𝜼`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$ of the naively formulated perturbation theory. They lead together to the holomorphic action of symmetric counterterms, which is claimed in the literature, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{SYM}}=\frac{1}{128}\mathrm{Tr}𝑑S(\widehat{𝜼}+z^{(1)})W^\alpha W_\alpha +\text{c.c}$$
(11)
Thus the non-renormalization properties of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ angle govern the renormalization of the coupling in loop orders $`l2`$ and yield the generalized non-renormalization theorem of the coupling. These findings are in complete analogy to the results of the Wess-Zumino gauge . Without anomaly the counterterm action (11) could be considered as an effective action for supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories, but there is an anomaly which makes quantization and renormalization non-trivial.

## 3 The Slavnov–Taylor identity

For quantization we have to add to the classical action (2) the gauge fixing term. We choose the following form,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}=\mathrm{Tr}𝑑V(𝜼+\overline{𝜼}+\frac{1}{g^2})\left(\xi B\overline{B}+\frac{1}{8}DDB\varphi +\frac{1}{8}\overline{D}\overline{D}\overline{B}\varphi \right),$$
(12)
which satisfies the defining properties of the Yang-Mills action eqs. (6), (7) and (10) without modifications. Then one replaces gauge transformations by BRS-transformations (see  for details):

$`𝐬\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`Q_s(\varphi ,c_+,\overline{c}_+)=c_++\overline{c}_++{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\varphi ,c_+\overline{c}_+]+𝒪(\varphi ^2),`$
$`𝐬c_+`$ $`=`$ $`c_+c_+,𝐬\overline{c}_+=\overline{c}_+\overline{c}_+,`$
$`𝐬c_{}`$ $`=`$ $`B,𝐬\overline{c}_{}=\overline{B},`$ (13)
$`𝐬B`$ $`=`$ $`0,𝐬\overline{B}=0.`$
The Faddeev-Popov ghosts $`c_+`$ and their corresponding antighost $`c_{}`$ as well as the Lagrange multiplier field $`B`$ are chiral fields, the respective complex conjugate fields are antichiral. Having formulated the gauge fixing with Lagrange multiplier fields $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$, BRS transformations are off-shell nilpotent on all fields. Then the ghost and gauge-fixing part can be written as a BRS variation and as such it is BRS invariant:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ghost}}=𝐬\mathrm{Tr}𝑑V(𝜼+\overline{𝜼}+\frac{1}{g^2})\left(\frac{\xi }{2}c_{}\overline{B}+\frac{1}{8}DDc_{}\varphi +\text{c.c}\right).$$
(14)
We want to mention that the extension of the gauge fixing to local coupling is not unique, but can be modified in different ways. We choose one form, which is most practicable for deriving the Callan–Symanzik equation, and quote, that the terms of the gauge fixing being BRS variations cannot have any influence on physical quantities as the gauge $`\beta `$ function or the anomaly coefficients.

One still has to couple the non-linear BRS-transformations to external fields

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ext}.\mathrm{f}.}=\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle 𝑑VY_\varphi 𝐬\varphi }+\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle 𝑑SY_c𝐬c_+}+\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle 𝑑\overline{S}\overline{Y}_c𝐬\overline{c}_+}.`$ (15)
Then one can express BRS invariance of the classical action in the Slavnov-Taylor (ST) identity, which takes the conventional form:

$`𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle 𝑑V\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}}{\delta \rho }\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}}{\delta \varphi }}+\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle 𝑑S\left(\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}}{\delta Y_c}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}}{\delta c_+}+B\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}}{\delta c_{}}\right)}`$ (16)
$`+\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle 𝑑\overline{S}\left(\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}}{\delta \overline{Y}_c}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}}{\delta \overline{c}_+}+\overline{B}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}}{\delta \overline{c}_{}}\right)}=0.`$
The classical action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ comprises the Yang-Mills part (2), the gauge fixing and ghost part (14) and the external field part (15):

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SYM}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ghost}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ext}.\mathrm{f}.}.$$
(17)
It is immediately verified that the complete classical action satisfies the shift equation of the local coupling (6) and the defining equation of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ angle (10). The topological formula including all fields has its final form:

$`N_{g^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(l)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(N_𝜼+N_{\overline{𝜼}}+N_{Y_\varphi }+N_{Y_c}+N_{\overline{Y}_c}+(l1)\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(l)}.`$ (18)
## 4 The anomaly

For constant coupling it is well known  that super-Yang-Mills theory rendered massive by supersymmetric mass terms for vector and Faddeev-Popov fields is renormalizable in the asymptotic sense, i.e. for momenta much larger than the mass parameters of the model. For the extended model with local coupling we can proceed in the same way: We add to the classical action a vector mass term in agreement with equations (6),(10) and (18):

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi ,\mathrm{mass}}=𝑑V(𝜼+\overline{𝜼}+\frac{1}{g^2})M^2\varphi ^2.$$
(19)
Since the Faddeev-Popov ghosts are chiral fields, it is not possible to add a mass term in agreement with (10) and (6). We choose the following form,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{mass},\varphi \pi }=𝑑Sm^2(𝜼+\frac{1}{2g^2})c_{}c_+𝑑\overline{S}m^2(\overline{𝜼}+\frac{1}{2g^2})\overline{c}_{}\overline{c}_+,$$
(20)
which yields a soft breaking of the identity (10) in the classical action, i.e., the identity (10) only holds up to soft terms

$$𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}=𝑑Sm^2c_{}c_++𝑑\overline{S}m^2\overline{c}_{}\overline{c}_+0.$$
(21)
Having avoided the off-shell infrared problem of supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories  by introducing the soft breaking terms of gauge symmetry one can establish the ST identity up to soft terms in renormalized perturbation theory,

$`𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ $``$ $`0.`$ (22)
The supersymmetry Ward identities

$`𝒲_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`0,\overline{𝒲}_{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }=0,`$ (23)
and the global Ward identity of gauge symmetry hold including the soft terms.

The introduction of the multiplets $`𝜼`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$ does not change these identities as long as one uses a manifest supersymmetric formulation of the theory, i.e. superfields and supergraphs and a respective invariant scheme as for example the BPHZL scheme, and establishes the ST identity by adding the necessary non-invariant counterterms. Thus, the crucial equation for the anomaly is the identity of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ angle (10). We have shown in the Wess-Zumino gauge  that with unbroken supersymmetry an anomalous term appears in the $`𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}`$ identity in one-loop order ($`\widehat{𝜼}=𝜼+\frac{1}{2g^2}`$),

$`𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_\eta ^{(1)}}{256}}\left({\displaystyle 𝑑S\widehat{𝜼}^1W^\alpha W_\alpha }{\displaystyle 𝑑\overline{S}\widehat{\overline{𝜼}}^1\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha }}}\right)+𝒪(\mathrm{}^2).`$ (24)
The right-hand-side is BRS invariant and supersymmetric and satisfies the equation (6) and the topological formula (18) in one-loop order. However it cannot be considered as an ordinary scheme dependent breaking since it is the variation of a field monomial which depends on the logarithm of the coupling

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑S\widehat{𝜼}^1W^\alpha W_\alpha }{\displaystyle 𝑑\overline{S}\widehat{\overline{𝜼}}^1\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha }}}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}\left({\displaystyle 𝑑S\mathrm{ln}\widehat{𝜼}W^\alpha W_\alpha }+{\displaystyle 𝑑\overline{S}\mathrm{ln}\widehat{\overline{𝜼}}\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha }}}\right).`$
The respective counterterm does not fulfil the topological formula. As such it cannot be generated in the subtraction procedure of ultraviolet divergences, since all diagrams depend on powers of the coupling and satisfy the topological formula in a trivial way. From eq. (25) it is possible to prove with the same algebraic methods as in  that the coefficient of the anomaly is gauge and scheme independent.

In the Wess-Zumino gauge the coefficient $`r_\eta ^{(1)}`$ has been calculated from scheme independent and convergent one-loop expressions by using gauge invariance in presence of local couplings . There it has been shown that the anomaly is determined by the one-loop correction to the topological term. It is evident from the construction that it is also the topological term which induces the anomaly in the supersymmetric gauge. The anomalous breaking (24) just describes the adjustment of a finite counterterm to the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ angle in lowest order. For the direct computation of the anomaly coefficient in the supersymmetric gauge one had to proceed in the same scheme-independent way as in the Wess-Zumino gauge. As we will illustrate below, it is possible to shift the anomaly in the supersymmetric gauge to gauge symmetry or to the shift equation of the gauge coupling. Since the consistent supersymmetric schemes, the BPHZ and the Wilsonian regularization, fail to be gauge invariant the anomaly can appear in the ST identity and even in the shift equation. The specific form depends not only on the regularization scheme, but also on the explicit form of the gauge fixing and of the soft breaking terms. Hence, in a specific scheme the coefficient cannot be determined immediately from eq. (24), but we have first to establish the ST identity as well as the equation (6). For this reason we will circumvent the direct calculation and determine the coefficient implicitly from the 2-loop $`\beta `$ function constructed in the section 6.

For illustrating that the anomaly can appear in the ST identity we add to the vertex functional $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of (24) the counterterm,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ct},\mathrm{noninv}}=\frac{r_\eta ^{(1)}}{256}\mathrm{Tr}\left(𝑑S\mathrm{ln}(2\widehat{𝜼})W^\alpha W_\alpha 𝑑V\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{𝜼}+\widehat{\overline{𝜼}})e^\varphi D^\alpha e^\varphi W_\alpha +\text{c.c}\right).$$
(26)
The resulting vertex functional satisfies the $`𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}`$ identity, but breaks the ST identity. Indeed one verifies that the first term cancels the anomaly in (24) whereas the second generates a breaking in the ST identity for local coupling. It is evident that the sum of the two terms does not depend on the logarithm of the coupling and satisfies the topological formula. Since gauge invariance is a fundamental symmetry we will not consider the anomaly in the ST identity in the further discussion, but it might appear there in a specific subtraction scheme and a specific calculation.

It is also interesting that one is able to shift the anomaly to the shift equation (6). Again we start from (24) and add the following counterterm:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ct},\mathrm{noninv}}^{}=\frac{r_\eta ^{(1)}}{256}\mathrm{Tr}\left(𝑑S(\mathrm{ln}(2𝜼+\frac{1}{g^2})+\mathrm{ln}g^2)W^\alpha W_\alpha +\text{c.c}\right).$$
(27)
This counterterm also satisfies the topological formula, i.e. it is independent of $`\mathrm{ln}g`$. The first term cancels the anomaly in (24), the second term now produces a breaking in (6),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle 𝑑S\frac{\delta }{\delta 𝜼}}+{\displaystyle 𝑑\overline{S}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{𝜼}}}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`g^4_{g^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}{\displaystyle \frac{r_\eta ^{(1)}}{256}}\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle 𝑑Sg^2W^\alpha W_\alpha }+\text{c.c}\right)`$ (28)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ct},\mathrm{noninv}}^{}+𝒪(\mathrm{}^2).$$
(29)
In the following we will consider the two versions for the appearance of the anomaly: First we take the anomaly in the $`𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}`$ identity (24) and leave the shift equation of the coupling (6) in its classical form, and second we take the anomaly in the shift equation (28) and take the $`𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}`$ identity in its classical form (21).

## 5 Renormalization

For proceeding with renormalization one has to absorb the anomalous breaking into the symmetry identities. In the Wess-Zumino gauge where the anomaly appeared as a breaking of supersymmetry this was achieved by redefining the supersymmetry transformations. Accordingly, in the supersymmetric gauge where supersymmetry and the ST identity are imposed in their classical form (see (22) and (23)) we have to modify the operators $`𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}`$ or the shift equation (6), respectively.

First we consider the anomaly in (24). There the anomalous breaking can be written into the form of an operator acting on the classical super-Yang-Mills action (2):

$$𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\frac{r_\eta ^{(1)}}{2}\delta 𝒲\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SYM}},$$
(30)
with

$$\delta 𝒲=𝑑S\left(𝜼+\frac{1}{2g^2}\right)^1\frac{\delta }{\delta 𝜼}𝑑\overline{S}\left(\overline{𝜼}+\frac{1}{2g^2}\right)^1\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{𝜼}}.$$
(31)
Modifying the gauge fixing in an appropriate way (see (60) with (59) and for $`H=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }=0`$) one is able to establish the identity

$$𝒲_{r_\eta }^{\eta \overline{\eta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}+\frac{r_\eta ^{(1)}}{2}\delta 𝒲\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }0,$$
(32)
to all orders of perturbation theory. It defines together with the ST identity, the topological formula (18) and the classical shift equation (6),

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(𝑑S\frac{\delta }{\delta 𝜼}+𝑑\overline{S}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{𝜼}}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }=g^4_{g^2}\mathrm{\Gamma },$$
(33)
the 1PI Green functions of the supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory with local coupling.

If we take the form (28) for the anomaly then we are able to write

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(𝑑S\frac{\delta }{\delta 𝜼}+𝑑\overline{S}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{𝜼}}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}=g^4_{g^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}r_\eta ^{(1)}g^6_{g^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SYM}}.$$
(34)
Again modifying the gauge fixing by counterterms we are able to impose the anomalous shift equation

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(𝑑S\frac{\delta }{\delta 𝜼}+𝑑\overline{S}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{𝜼}}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }=g^4(1+r_\eta ^{(1)}g^2)_{g^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }$$
(35)
Now this equation defines together with the classical $`𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}`$ identity

$$𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }0,$$
(36)
a different but equivalent set of 1PI Green functions of supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory with local coupling.

Implicitly both equations (32) and (35) define a specific normalization for the coupling in loop orders $`l2`$. General normalization conditions can be obtained by carrying out redefinitions of the field $`𝜼`$,

$$\widehat{𝜼}\widehat{𝜼}+\underset{l2}{}z^{(l)}\widehat{𝜼}^{l+1},\widehat{\overline{𝜼}}\widehat{\overline{𝜼}}+\underset{l2}{}z^{(l)}\widehat{\overline{𝜼}}^{l+1},$$
(37)
in version (32) or redefinitions of the coupling,

$$g^2g^2+\underset{l2}{}z^{(l)}g^{2l},$$
(38)
in version (35). These redefinitions modify the explicit form of the $`𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}`$ identity (32) or of the shift equation (35) but leave the respective non-anomalous identities in their classical form.

We want to conclude the section with the proof that the term (24) is indeed the only anomaly appearing in perturbation theory. For this purpose we again impose (33) in its classical form and list all possible terms which contribute to the breaking of the $`𝒲_{r_\eta }^{\eta \overline{\eta }}`$ identity in general loop order $`l`$. Having established the ST identity asymptotically the hard breakings are $`𝐬_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}}`$-invariant and supersymmetric. Using parity conservation as well as the topological formula we have the following list of terms ($`n,k1`$ in perturbation theory):

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SYM}}^{(l)}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle 𝑑S\widehat{𝜼}^lW^\alpha W_\alpha }{\displaystyle 𝑑\overline{S}\widehat{\overline{𝜼}}^l\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha }}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\varphi ^k}^{(l)}`$ $``$ $`𝐬_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}}\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle 𝑑V(\widehat{𝜼}\widehat{\overline{𝜼}})^{2n1}(\widehat{𝜼}+\widehat{\overline{𝜼}})^{l2n}Y_\varphi \varphi ^k},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_c^{(l)}`$ $``$ $`𝐬_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}}\mathrm{Tr}({\displaystyle 𝑑S\widehat{𝜼}^{l1}Y_cc_+}{\displaystyle 𝑑\overline{S}\widehat{\overline{𝜼}}^{l1}\overline{Y}_c\overline{c}_+}).`$ (39)
Except for the first class terms with $`l=1`$ all terms are variations of counterterms satisfying the topological formula,

$`𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle 𝑑S\widehat{𝜼}^{l+1}W^\alpha W_\alpha }+{\displaystyle 𝑑\overline{S}\widehat{\overline{𝜼}}^{l+1}\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha }}}`$ $`=`$ $`(l1)\mathrm{\Delta }_{SYM}^{(l)},`$
$`𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}𝐬_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}}\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle 𝑑V(\widehat{𝜼}\widehat{\overline{𝜼}})^{2n}(\widehat{𝜼}+\widehat{\overline{𝜼}})^{l+12n}\rho \varphi ^k}`$ $`=`$ $`4n\mathrm{\Delta }_{\varphi ^k}^{(l)},`$
$`𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}𝐬_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}}\mathrm{Tr}({\displaystyle 𝑑S\widehat{𝜼}^l\sigma c_+}+{\displaystyle 𝑑\overline{S}\widehat{\overline{𝜼}}^l\overline{\sigma }\overline{c}_+})`$ $`=`$ $`l\mathrm{\Delta }_c^{(l)}.`$ (40)
Thus the only anomaly is the one-loop anomaly of eq. (25).

## 6 The gauge $`\beta `$ function

The construction with local coupling provides restrictions on the coefficient functions of the renormalization group and Callan–Symanzik equation. We focus on the construction of the Callan–Symanzik (CS) equation, but want to mention that the coefficient functions of the renormalization group equation are related to the ones of the CS equation in any mass-independent scheme.

In the classical action dilatations are broken by the non-BRS-invariant vector and ghost masses:

$$\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}0\mu _\mu m_m+M_M+\kappa _\kappa $$
(41)
where $`m,M`$ are the ghost and vector mass parameters, and $`\kappa `$ is a normalization point. In higher orders asymptotic scale invariance is broken by the dilatation anomalies,

$$\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }[\mathrm{\Delta }_m]_4\mathrm{\Gamma },$$
(42)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m`$ are integrated field monomials of dimension 4 and with quantum numbers of the classical action. From algebraic consistency one obtains that the breaking is invariant with respect to the defining symmetries of the model: They satisfy the topological formula (18), they are invariant with respect to the linearized ST operator $`𝐬_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and are supersymmetric (see (22), (23)):

$$𝐬_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left([\mathrm{\Delta }_m]_4\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)0,𝒲_\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_m=\overline{𝒲}_{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Delta }_m=0.$$
(43)
The dependence on the external fields $`𝜼`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$ is restricted by the $`𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}`$ identity in its anomalous (32) or non-anomalous, classical (36) version, i.e.,

$`𝒲_{r_\eta }^{\eta \overline{\eta }}([\mathrm{\Delta }_m]_4\mathrm{\Gamma })0,`$ or $`𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}([\mathrm{\Delta }_m]_4\mathrm{\Gamma })0.`$ (44)
The relation of external fields to the local coupling is then defined by the classical identity (33) or the anomalous identity (35), respectively.

Absorbing the hard insertions order by order into differential operators which are symmetric under the defining symmetries in the same way as the insertions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m`$ one obtains the CS operator with $`\beta `$ functions and anomalous dimensions and the construction finally yields the CS equation of super-Yang-Mills theories with local coupling:

$$𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }0\text{with}𝒞=\mu _\mu +𝒪(\mathrm{}).$$
(45)
The most important result of the present construction with local coupling is the constraint on the $`\beta `$ function of the gauge coupling. It is evident from the construction that there is only one symmetric differential operator of the superfields $`𝜼`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$ satisfying the constraints of the $`𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}`$ identity. For the version (32) where the $`𝒲^{\eta \overline{\eta }}`$ identity is broken by non-holomorphic contributions the corresponding symmetric CS operator is also non-holomorphic:

$$𝒟_\eta =𝑑S\left(\frac{\delta }{\delta 𝜼}+\frac{r_\eta ^{(1)}}{2}(𝜼+\frac{1}{2g^2})^1\right)\frac{\delta }{\delta 𝜼}.$$
(46)
For the version (35), however, the symmetric differential operator of the external field is given by the holomorphic function

$$𝒟_\eta =𝑑S\frac{\delta }{\delta 𝜼}.$$
(47)
The operator $`𝒟_\eta `$ is the only symmetric differential operator that is not a variation under BRS and it is for this reason singled out from the additional unphysical field redefinitions which we construct in the appendix.

Hence one has

$$𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\mu _\mu \frac{1}{2}\widehat{\beta }_\eta ^{(1)}(𝒟_\eta +𝒟_{\overline{\eta }})+\text{BRS var.})\mathrm{\Gamma }0.$$
(48)
To obtain the $`\beta `$ function of the gauge coupling $`g`$ we use the shift equation of the coupling in its classical form (33) or in its anomalous form (28) and eliminate the integrated derivative with respect to external fields by the derivative of the gauge coupling:

$$(𝒟_\eta +𝒟_{\overline{\eta }})\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{\begin{array}{c}2g^4(1+r_\eta ^{(1)}g^2)_{g^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }r_\eta ^{(1)}\left(𝑑S\frac{g^2𝜼}{𝜼+(2g^2)^1}+\text{c.c.}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{for (}\text{46}\text{)}\hfill \\ 2g^4(1+r_\eta ^{(1)}g^2)_{g^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{for (}\text{47}\text{)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(49)
From this expression we can read off the $`\beta `$-function of super-Yang-Mills theories in its closed form :

$$\beta _{g^2}=\widehat{\beta }_\eta ^{(1)}g^4(1+r_\eta ^{(1)}g^2).$$
(50)
Hence the identity (32) and (35) induce both a pure two-loop $`\beta `$ function, which is determined by the characteristic one-loop coefficients, the one-loop $`\beta `$ function and the anomaly coefficient $`r_\eta ^{(1)}`$. Higher orders are scheme dependent and can be constructed by carrying out finite redefinitions of the superfield $`𝜼`$ (37) or of the coupling (38). They induce modifications of anomalous symmetry identities as well as modifications of the corresponding $`\beta `$ functions. In general these redefinitions are defined by physical normalization conditions on the coupling.

## 7 Discussion and conclusions

The external fields $`𝜼`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$ are used to define insertions of the gauge invariant and supersymmetric Yang-Mills Lagrangian,

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta 𝜼}\mathrm{\Gamma }[W^\alpha W_\alpha ]\mathrm{\Gamma }+\text{BRS var.},$$
(51)
and serve as such for a definition of the corresponding local operators. Having consistently constructed the vertex functional $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with these external fields, then one has also uniquely defined the corresponding insertions. In the conclusions we want to discuss the results of the paper from the point of renormalized insertions which allows a direct comparison with previous results on the topic .

The $`\theta ^2`$ component of $`W^\alpha W_\alpha `$ in superspace contains the topological term $`\stackrel{~}{G}G`$. In presence of local couplings, i.e. for $`𝜼,\overline{𝜼}0`$, the higher–order corrections to the topological term are unambiguously determined by gauge invariance and by its property to be a total derivative :

$$𝑑S[W^\alpha W_\alpha ]\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑\overline{S}[\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha }}]\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.$$
(52)
Thus, eq. (52) defines an insertion $`[W^\alpha W_\alpha ]`$ with Adler–Bardeen properties:

$$𝐰\mathrm{\Gamma }=r^{(1)}[W^\alpha W_\alpha ],$$
(53)
with $`𝐰`$ the chiral part of an anomalous axial symmetry.

On the other hand the integrated insertion $`𝑑S[W^\alpha W_\alpha ]`$ is defined at the same time by the derivative with respect to the gauge coupling:

$$\frac{1}{128}𝑑S[W^\alpha W_\alpha ]\mathrm{\Gamma }=g^4_{g^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }+\text{BRS var.}$$
(54)
In all loop orders except for one loop (52) and (54) can be fulfilled at the same time by adjusting finite counterterms. Hence the topological term yields an unambiguous definition of $`[W^\alpha W_\alpha ]`$ in $`l2`$. In one loop order eq. (54) cannot be resolved, since

$$\frac{1}{128}𝑑S[W^\alpha W_\alpha ]\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}=g^4_{g^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}=0.$$
(55)
for vanishing external fields. Thus eq. (52) and eq. (55) yield two constraints on the renormalized insertion $`[W^\alpha W_\alpha ]`$. For general $`N=1`$ supersymmetric theories these constraints are not compatible with each other and lead to the anomaly of super-Yang-Mills theories with local coupling (24) (see Ref.  for the direct computation).

In order to define $`[W^\alpha W_\alpha ]`$ in presence of the two constraints (52) and (55) one can pursue different ways:

* One can modify supersymmetry transformations in agreement with the algebra in such a way that (55) and (52) match to each other. This procedure has been carried out in the Wess-Zumino gauge and leads to anomalous supersymmetry transformations for the local coupling . The respective renormalized insertion has Adler–Bardeen properties (53) and fulfils eq. (55) but supersymmetry is not maintained in its classical form.
* One can give up the constraint (52) and adjust a finite counterterm in such a way that the renormalization of the topological term matches to eq. (55). The corresponding renormalized insertion has not the Adler–Bardeen property (53), but the coefficient in front of the anomaly contains also higher order corrections. With this definition the equation (52) is modified by non-holomorphic contributions in the fields $`𝜼`$, which result in non-holomorphic contributions to the $`\beta `$ function. Due to relation (55) the field $`𝜼`$ can be considered as a local supersymmetric coupling. This construction has been performed in the present paper (see (32),(33) and (46)).
* One can define $`[W^\alpha W_\alpha ]`$ in such a way that the topological charge has the Adler–Bardeen property (53) and satisfies (52). If supersymmetry is imposed in its classical form, the relation between the external fields and the coupling (55) is modified (see (35)). With this adjustment one obtains a holomorphic one-loop $`\beta `$-function in the external fields. However, the insertion $`[W^\alpha W_\alpha ]`$ is not defined in agreement with (55), but eq. (55) gets an one-loop correction (see (35)). This relation induces the 2-loop term in the gauge $`\beta `$ function from the one-loop $`\beta `$ function of the field $`𝜼`$ (see (47) and (49)).

The definition with broken supersymmetry is certainly the best motivated one from a physical point of view, since the renormalized insertion $`[W^\alpha W_\alpha ]`$ has Adler–Bardeen properties as well as an direct relation to the renormalization of the coupling. In this respect we want to point to the effective low energy Higgs Lagrangians for gluon fusion , which are defined in such a way that $`\stackrel{~}{G}G`$ is the non-renormalized Adler-Bardeen insertion and $`G^{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }`$ is defined in agreement with the coupling normalization. The effective Lagrangians are indeed not supersymmetric. Vice versa in a related approach to a non-perturbative construction of effective quantum actions for $`N=1`$ supersymmetric theories it has been shown that for non-trivial configurations supersymmetry is spontaneously broken if the relations (55) and an analog of (52) are imposed at the same time .

From an abstract point of view mostly supersymmetric versions with linear supersymmetry have been considered in the past. There the insertion $`[W^\alpha W_\alpha ]`$ has been defined mainly by the Adler–Bardeen property. (For a different point to view see .) In Ref.  the closed expression of the gauge $`\beta `$ function has been derived in a rigorous and scheme-independent way from the construction of the supercurrent. Here the insertion of $`[W^\alpha W_\alpha ]`$ is defined from the anomaly of the local R-current in such a way that it satisfies the Adler–Bardeen theorem. Insertions produced by differentiation with respect to the coupling are proven to be expressed in a non-trivial way by the Adler-Bardeen $`[W^\alpha W_\alpha ]`$ . This is a weaker version of the equation (35) of the present paper taking into account all possible redefinitions of the coupling. In principle the same point of view is taken in those references which use a local coupling and the Wilsonian scheme . Using holomorphicity in the field $`𝜼`$ is nothing but establishing eq. (52) and defining $`W^\alpha W_\alpha `$ with Adler–Bardeen properties resulting in the holomorphic $`\beta `$ function.<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2See also  for the definition of the topological charge in the Wilsonian scheme in a non-supersymmetric context. Thus, the renormalization of the external field $`𝜼`$ is not performed in accordance with the interpretation of the local coupling, and the transition from the holomorphic $`\beta `$ function to the $`\beta `$ function of the gauge coupling has to be carried out in accordance with eq. (35).

Finally it is worth to mention that for $`N=2`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories eq. (52) and eq. (55) are compatible as such and the theory is free of anomalies and has the holomorphic one-loop $`\beta `$ function of the gauge-coupling.

Acknowledgments

E.K. thanks R. Flume for many valuable discussions. E.K. is grateful to M. Spira for discussions on phenomenological applications. E.K. and K.S. thank the Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, Munich, for kind hospitality, where parts of this work have been done.

## Appendix A The Callan–Symanzik equation

For completeness we construct in this appendix the complete basis of symmetric operators for the CS equation with local coupling. Unfortunately, it is just the unphysical part, which requires quite some technicalities in the construction.

First we want to note that the classical action we have used for the construction is not the most general solution of the ST identity, but the most general solution is obtained by redefining the dimensionless field $`\varphi `$ by an arbitrary field monomial respecting rigid symmetry (see  for details). Hence we have to replace:

$$\varphi _a\varphi _a(\varphi ^{})=\varphi _a^{}+\underset{k2}{}\underset{\omega =1}{\overset{\mathrm{\Omega }(k)}{}}G^{k1}a_{k,\omega }s_{a(a_1\mathrm{}a_k)}^\omega \varphi _{a_1}\mathrm{}\varphi _{a_k},$$
(56)
with a BRS transformation

$$𝐬\varphi ^{}=\left(\frac{\varphi (\varphi ^{})}{\varphi ^{}}\right)^1Q(c_+,\overline{c}_+,\varphi (\varphi ^{})).$$
(57)
The $`s_{a(a_1\mathrm{}a_k)}^\omega `$ are invariant tensors and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(k)`$ is the number of such independent tensors for a given rank $`k+1`$. With local couplings also the coefficients $`a_{k,\omega }`$ are extended to real superfields. They are interpreted as an infinite number of gauge parameters. In higher orders such redefinitions appear in general with arbitrary divergences and we have to use the external fields $`a_{k,\omega }`$ for absorbing the corresponding terms into the CS operator.

Second, the gauge fixing sector has to be modified in such a way that in satisfies the anomalous identities (32) or (35). For this purpose we define the superfield $`\stackrel{~}{G}^2`$ ,

$$\stackrel{~}{G}^2=𝜼+\overline{𝜼}+\frac{1}{g^2}+𝒪(\mathrm{}),$$
(58)
as an invariant under the anomalous symmetry identities. It can be verified that the $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ that is defined order by order by the following implicit equation fulfils these requirements:

$$\stackrel{~}{G}^2r_\eta ^{(1)}\mathrm{ln}\left(\stackrel{~}{G}^2+r_\eta ^{(1)}\right)=\{\begin{array}{c}\widehat{𝜼}\frac{r_\eta ^{(1)}}{2}\mathrm{ln}(2\widehat{𝜼}+r_\eta ^{(1)})+\text{c.c}\text{for}(\text{32}),\hfill \\ \widehat{𝜼}\frac{r_\eta ^{(1)}}{2}(\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{g^2}+r_\eta ^{(1)})+\text{c.c}\text{for}(\text{35}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(59)
Then the gauge fixing function,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}(H,\mathrm{\Xi })=𝑑V\stackrel{~}{G}^2\left((\mathrm{\Xi }+\xi )\overline{B}B+\frac{1}{8}e^H(\varphi DDB+\varphi \overline{D}\overline{D}\overline{B})\right),$$
(60)
satisfies the defining symmetry identities. For vanishing external fields it just reduces to the classical expression. For later usage we have introduced an external field $`H`$ and have extended the gauge parameter $`\xi `$ to an external field $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ with shift. These fields as well as the gauge parameters $`a_k`$ couple to BRS-variations and can be extended to BRS doublets $`(u,v)=(H,C),(\mathrm{\Xi },X),(a_k,\chi _k)`$:

$$𝐬u=v,𝐬v=0.$$
(61)
In addition, the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`H`$ is constrained by an integrated identity:

$$\left(𝑑S\left(B\frac{\delta }{\delta B}+c_{}\frac{\delta }{\delta c_{}}\right)+𝑑\overline{S}\left(\overline{B}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{B}}+\overline{c}_{}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{c}_{}}\right)2\xi _\xi 𝑑V\frac{\delta }{\delta H}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.$$
(62)
With these ingredients we are able to express all field redefinitions appearing in the breaking of dilatations as field differential operators. Taking into account that the gauge fixing action does not receive loop corrections due to linearity in the auxiliary field $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ the operator $`𝒟_\eta +𝒟_{\overline{\eta }}`$ has to be supplemented by the operator:

$$𝒟_H=2𝑑V\stackrel{~}{G}^2(1+r_\eta ^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{G}^2)\left(\frac{\delta }{\delta H}+(\mathrm{\Xi }+\xi )\frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Xi }}\right),$$
(63)
and

$$(𝒟_\eta +𝒟_{\overline{\eta }}+𝒟_H)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}=0.$$
(64)
The linear redefinitions of the fields $`\varphi `$ give rise to the following $`l`$-loop counting operator,

$$𝒩_\varphi ^{(l)}=𝑑Vf^{(l)}(\xi ,H,a_{k,\omega })\stackrel{~}{G}^{2l}(\varphi \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi }\rho \frac{\delta }{\delta \rho }\frac{\delta }{\delta H}),$$
(65)
and the renormalization of the parameters $`a_{k,\omega }`$ to

$$𝒟_{a_{k,\omega }}=𝑑Vh^{(l)}(\xi ,H,a_{l,\omega })\stackrel{~}{G}^{2l}\frac{\delta }{\delta a_{k,\omega }}.$$
(66)
Having constructed $`\stackrel{~}{G}^2`$ (59) as a symmetric superfield it is obvious that these operators commute with the corresponding anomalous symmetry operators. Using the BRS-doublet structure of external fields $`H,\mathrm{\Xi },a_k`$ it is evident that the operators of eqs. (63), (65) and (66) are BRS-variations.

The complete CS equation is a linear combination of symmetric operators:

$$\left(\mu _\mu \frac{1}{2}\widehat{\beta }_\eta ^{(1)}(𝒟_\eta +𝒟_{\overline{\eta }}+𝒟_H)\underset{l}{}\left(\widehat{\gamma }^{(l)}𝒩^{(l)}+\underset{\omega ,k}{}\widehat{\gamma }_{\omega ,k}^{(l)}𝒟_{a_{k,\omega }}^{(l)}\right)\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }0.$$
(67)
For vanishing external fields $`𝜼,\overline{𝜼}=0`$ and for $`H=0`$ one can use the identity (62) and replace the field differentiation with respect to $`H`$ by a differentiation with respect to the auxiliary fields $`B`$, $`\overline{B}`$ and the gauge parameter $`\xi `$. Using furthermore that $`\stackrel{~}{G}g`$ for vanishing external fields, we find the usual CS equation of ordinary super-Yang-Mills theories with a closed, being in the explicit construction here a pure 2-loop $`\beta `$ function of the gauge coupling:

$`(\mu _\mu +\widehat{\beta }_{g^2}^{(1)}g^4(1+r_\eta ^{(1)}g^2)(_g^2+\xi _\xi N_B)`$
$`\gamma (N_\varphi N_BN_c_{}+2\xi _\xi ){\displaystyle \underset{\omega ,k}{}}\gamma _{\omega ,k}_{a_{k,\omega }})\mathrm{\Gamma }0,`$ (68)
where

$$\gamma =\underset{l}{}\widehat{\gamma }^{(l)}f^{(l)}g^{2l}\text{and}\gamma _{\omega ,k}=\underset{l}{}h^{(l)}g^{2l}\widehat{\gamma }_{\omega ,k}^{(l)}.$$
(69)
$`N_\phi `$ are the usual field counting operators, which include in the case of complex fields also the complex conjugated ones. Absence of an anomalous dimension of the Faddeev-Popov ghost $`c_+`$ has its origin in the non-renormalization theorems of chiral vertices.


format: text

text:
# Octonionic M-theory and D=11 Generalized Conformal and Superconformal Algebras

## 1 Introduction

One of the consequences of the presence of membrane  and five-brane  solutions of the $`D=11`$ supergravity is the appearance in the $`D=11`$ superalgebra of $`55`$ two-tensor and $`462`$ five- tensor Abelian tensor charges, leading to the so–called $`M`$\- superalgebra111The superalgebra (1.1) is usually called $`M`$-algebra. We shall use the terminology “$`M`$-superalgebra” in order to point out that it describes a supersymmetric theory. \[4–6\] ($`A,B=1,\mathrm{},32;\mu ,\nu =0,1,\mathrm{},10`$)

$$\{Q_A,Q_B\}=Z_{AB}=(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu )_{AB}P_\mu +(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu _1\mu _2})_{AB}Z_{[\mu _1\mu _2]}+(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5})_{AB}Z_{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5]}.$$
(1.1)
The $`528`$ real bosonic Abelian charges $`Z_{AB}`$ ($`Z_{AB}=Z_{BA}`$) saturate the rhs of the anticommutator of $`32`$ real supercharges $`Q_A`$, which are $`D=(10,1)`$ as well as $`D=(10,2)`$ Majorana spinors. In $`D=12`$ the $`M`$-superalgebra (1.1) takes the form  ($`A,B=1,\mathrm{}32;\stackrel{~}{\mu },\stackrel{~}{\nu }\mathrm{}=0,1,\mathrm{},11`$)

$$\{Q_A,Q_B\}=Z_{AB}=\left(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2}\right)_{AB}Z_{[\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2]}+\left(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }_6}\right)_{AB}Z_{[\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }_6]},$$
(1.2)
where $`Z_{[\mu 11]}=P_\mu `$ and the five-tensor charges in (1.1) are described by D=12 six–charges $`Z_{[\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }_6]}`$ satisfying the self-duality condition.

Let us recall that $`O(10,2)`$ describes the standard $`D=10`$ conformal algebra, with fundamental spinor ($`D=10`$ twistor) built from a pair of $`16`$-components $`D=(9,1)`$ Majorana–Weyl spinors. It appears that these $`16`$ components can be endowed with octonionic structure, and we can describe $`D=10`$ spinors as a pair of octonions $`\left(\begin{array}{c}U_1\\ U_2\end{array}\right)`$. Subsequently one can introduce the following relation of the octonionic matrices with D=10 Lorentz and conformal groups \[9–12\]

$$SL(2|𝐎)=\frac{SO(9,1)}{G_2},U_\alpha (4|𝐎)=\frac{SO(10,2)}{G_2},$$
(1.3)
where the $`14`$-generator $`G_2`$ algebra is the automorphism algebra of the multiplication table for the octonionic units $`t_k`$ ($`k=1\mathrm{}7`$)

$$t_kt_l=\delta _{kl}+\frac{1}{2}f_{kl}^mt_m$$
(1.4)
and $`U_\alpha (n|𝐅)`$ describes the antiunitary $`𝐅`$-valued group, with unitary norm and antisymmetric invariant metric, where $`𝐅=𝐑,𝐂,𝐇,𝐎`$. For $`n=4`$ we obtain the sequence of $`D=3`$ ($`𝐅=𝐑`$), $`D=4`$ ($`𝐅=𝐂`$) and $`D=6`$ ($`𝐅=𝐇`$) spinorial coverings of conformal groups; for $`𝐅=𝐎`$ we obtain the second formula (1.3). Subsequently we shall denote by $`U_\alpha (n|𝐅)`$ also the corresponding algebras, with $`𝐅`$–Hermitean generators.

Using the first relation in (1.3) it has been proposed  that the standard $`D=10`$ Poincaré superalgebra can be described by a pair of octonionic supercharges ($`𝒬_1,𝒬_2`$), with the following basic relations ($`𝒬=Q^{(0)}+t_rQ^{(r)}𝒬^{}\overline{𝒬}=Q^{(0)}t_rQ^{(r)}`$)

$$\{𝒬_a,\overline{𝒬}_b\}=𝒵_{ab}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}P_0+P_9& P_8+t_rP_r\\ P_8t_rP_r& P_0P_9\end{array}\right),$$
(1.5)
where $`Z_{ab}=Z_{ba}^+`$ and $`P_\mu =(P_0,P_1,\mathrm{}P_9)`$ describe $`D=10`$ momentum generators.

Recently we proposed also to impose on the $`M`$-superalgebra generators (see formulae (1.1) and (1.2)) the octonionic structure . The relations (1.11.2) we replaced by octonionic $`M`$-superalgebra ($`r,s=1,2,3,4`$)

$$\{𝒬_r,\overline{𝒬}_s\}=𝒵_{rs},𝒵_{rs}=𝒵_{sr}^+,$$
(1.6)
where four real octonion-valued supercharges $`Q_r`$ replace $`32`$ real supercharges $`Q_A`$ and in place of the $`528`$ real Abelian charges present in the rhs of (1.11.2) we get only $`52`$ independent real Abelian supercharges described by the real components ($`Z_{rs}^{(0)},Z_{rs}^{(k)}`$) where

$`𝒵_{rs}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{rs}^{(0)}+t_kZ_{rs}^{(k)},`$ (1.7)
$`Z_{rs}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{sr}^{(0)},Z_{rs}^{(k)}=Z_{sr}^{(k)}.`$ (1.8)
As a consequence, the octonionic $`M`$-algebra can be fully described by $`11`$ four-momenta $`P_\mu `$ and only $`41`$ generators $`𝒵_{\mu \nu }`$ describing together the Abelian contractions of all the generators in the coset $`\frac{O(10,2)}{G_2}`$; another way of providing the bosonic generators of (1.6) is to introduce suitably constrained five-tensor charges $`𝒵_{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5]}`$.

In this paper we continue the considerations presented in . In Sect. 2 we shall consider more in detail the properties of the octonionic $`M`$-superalgebra (1.6) and present it as a member of generalized octonionic supersymmetry algebras in $`D=(9+n,n)`$ ($`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$). For $`n=0`$ we obtain the generalized supersymmetry algebra for $`D=9`$ Euclidean theory. If $`n=1`$ we get the octonionic $`M`$-superalgebra considered in , and the case $`n=2`$ provides the extension of $`M`$-superalgebra to $`D=13`$ with signature $`(11,2)`$ and $`D=14`$ with signature $`(11,3)`$, considered by Bars 222Such a framework was proposed as a basis of the so–called $`S`$-theory unifying the algebraic description of all five superstring theories in $`D=10`$. Similarly as the $`M`$-theory which can be described in the $`(10,2)`$–covariant framework, the $`S`$–theory can be as well described by the $`D=14`$ formalism, with $`(11,3)`$ signature .. It appears however that the relation (1.6) if $`r,s,=1,2,\mathrm{},2^n`$, can also be used for the supersymmetrization of the octonionic algebras $`U_\alpha (2^n|𝐎)`$, which describe for $`n=1`$ the octonionic $`D=(9,1)`$ algebra with ten curved translations, for $`n=2`$ the octonionic conformal algebra (see ($`1.3`$)) and for $`n=3`$ the $`D=11`$ octonionic generalized conformal algebra $`U_\alpha (8|𝐎)`$ with $`232`$ real charges. We shall argue that $`U_\alpha (8|𝐎)`$ can be obtained from the generalized $`D=11`$ conformal algebra $`Sp(64|𝐑)`$  by imposing constraints describing the octonionic structure. It is known  that the $`Sp(64|𝐑)`$ generators can be described by $`O(11,2)`$ two–tensors, three–tensors and six–tensors. We shall show that the octonionic conformal $`M`$–algebra $`U_\alpha (8|𝐎)`$ will be completely described only in terms of the two–tensor generators from the coset $`\frac{O(11,2)}{G_2}`$ supplemented by a suitably restricted set of three–tensor generators. It appears that $`U_\alpha (8|𝐎)`$ supplemented with $`S^7U(1|𝐎)`$ generators describe the bosonic sector of the supersymmetric extension $`U_\alpha (8;1|𝐎)`$ of the octonionic conformal $`M`$–algebra.

The conformal algebras in $`D=10`$, since fundamental D=10 octonionic conformal spinors have four components, belong to the framework of conformal Jordan algebras \[9–11,18,12\]). Beyond $`D=10`$ and in particular for the eleven dimensional conformal $`M`$-algebra $`U_\alpha (8;𝐎)`$, we are outside of the framework of conformal algebras associated with Jordan algebras. The construction of the conformal algebra can be however linked with the group of invariance of the metric for “doubled Lorentz spinors”. This procedure we propose to apply to octonionic conformal spinors in dimensions $`D=(9+n,n)`$, providing $`D=11,13`$ etc. We consider in Sect. 3 the generalized octonionic conformal algebras and superalgebras in the form of octonionic-valued (super-)matrix realizations which admit closed algebraic relations with the (super-)matricial (anti-)commutator structure. For D=11, considering $`8\times 8`$ octonionic matrices $`U_\alpha (8|𝐎)Sp(8|𝐎)`$, one can show that it contains the generators parametrizing the coset $`\frac{O(11,2)}{G_2}`$ ($`64`$ real generators), but with additional $`168`$ real generators not closing to any subset of Lie algebra generators. Such algebra is also not of Malcev type ; it is an interesting task to elucidate its algebraic characterization.

Further, in Sect. 4, we provide the table listing the number of independent $`n`$-fold antisymmetric products of octonionic Dirac matrices in odd dimensions $`D=7+2k`$ ($`k=0,1,2,3`$) and we interprete them as the relation between the $`p`$-brane degrees of freedom in corresponding supersymmetric $`D`$-dimensional theory with the most general set of central charges.

## 2 Octonionic-Valued Clifford Algebras and Corresponding Space–Time Superalgebras

a) D=(0,7)

Let us observe that (0,7) spinors are real eight–dimensional and $`C=C^T`$333In all the examples below the $`C`$ matrix is given by the product of the time-like Clifford’s Gamma matrices.. Introducing seven $`8\times 8`$ real $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ matrices, $`i=1,\mathrm{},7`$,

$$\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\}=2\delta _{ij},$$
(2.1)
one obtains the relations ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}=\frac{1}{n}\underset{\mathrm{perm}}{}(1)^{\mathrm{perm}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i_{k_1}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i_{k_1}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i_{k_n}}`$)

$$C\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)^T,C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}=(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij})^T,C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ijk}=(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ijk})^T.$$
(2.2)
If we use 8 real supercharges one obtains the D=7 generalized Euclidean superalgebra ($`\alpha =0,1,2,\mathrm{}7`$)

$$\{Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta \}=Z(C)_{\alpha \beta }+Z^{ijk}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ijk})_{\alpha \beta },$$
(2.3)
which unfortunately does not contain the 7-momentum sector which should be linear in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$.

One obtains the octonionic $`C_𝐎(0,7)`$ Clifford algebra with generators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{(7)}`$ satisfying the relation (2.1) by assuming

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{(7)}=t_i,C=1,$$
(2.4)
where $`t_i`$ are seven octonionic units with the multiplication table (1.4). The Hermitean $`N=1`$ octonionic superalgebra generated by the supercharge $`𝒬=Q_0+t_aQ_a`$

$$\{\overline{𝒬},𝒬\}=𝒵,$$
(2.5)
describes the octonionic $`N=8`$ supersymmetric mechanics, with the real generator $`𝒵`$ playing the role of the Hamiltonian .

b) D= (1,8),(1,9) and D=(9,0),(9,1).

One can introduce the following $`2\times 2`$ matrix realizations of the octonionic–valued Clifford algebras:

b1) The $`C_𝐎(1,8)`$ Clifford algebra ($`C^T=C`$)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{(9)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\text{0}& t_i\\ t_i& \text{0}\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }_8^{(9)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{(9)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(2.6)
where $`C=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. The generalized octonionic D=9 Poincaré algebra takes the form ($`r,s=1,2;\mu =0,1\mathrm{}8`$)

$$\{𝒬_r,\overline{𝒬}_s\}=C_{rs}Z+(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu )_{rs}P^\mu .$$
(2.7)
We see that the generator $`Z`$ in D=9 is the central charge. Due however to the first relation (1.3) the superalgebra (2.7) can be promoted to D=(1,9) superPoincaré algebra , where now the $`D=9`$ central charge $`Z`$ is the component $`P^9`$ of the ten–dimensional momenta. One can also assume that the generators on the rhs of ($`2.7`$) are nonAbelian and form the algebra $`U_\alpha (2|𝐎)`$ containing only ten curved ($`1.9`$) translations, which is an octonionic counterpart of the $`D=10`$ AdS algebra.

b2) The $`C_𝐎(9,0)`$ Clifford algebra ($`C^T=C`$)

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i^{(9)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& t_i\\ t_i& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i^{(0)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i^{(8)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(2.8)
where $`C=11_2`$. We obtain the general octonionic $`D=9`$ Euclidean superalgebra with $`D=9`$ Euclidean momenta $`\stackrel{~}{P}_\mu `$ ($`\mu =1\mathrm{}9`$) and central charge $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ ($`r,s=1,2`$)

$$\{𝒬_r,\overline{𝒬}_s\}=\delta _{rs}\stackrel{~}{Z}+(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu })_{rs}\stackrel{~}{P}^\mu .$$
(2.9)
Again, the superalgebra (2.9) can be promoted to $`D=(9,1)`$ Poincaré algebra if we choose $`\stackrel{~}{Z}=P_0`$ (the $`D=10`$ energy operator).

c) $`𝐃=(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\mathrm{𝟏}),(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\mathrm{𝟐})`$

c1) The $`C_𝐎(10,1)`$ Clifford algebra and D=11 $`M`$-superalgebra.

Such an algebra can be represented by the following $`4\times 4`$ octonionic matrices444One can represent $`C_𝐎(10,1)`$ in two ways. The second choice is obtained when the following $`D=11`$ octonionic $`4\times 4`$ Dirac matrices are taken (now $`C=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_0^{(11)}`$)
$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a^{(11)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_b^{(9)}\\ \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_b^{(9)}& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_0^{(11)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{𝟏}_2\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_2& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{10}^{(11)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}_2& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_2\end{array}\right).$$
(2.10) . ($`a=b+1=1,\mathrm{},9`$)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{(11)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{\Gamma }_b^{(9)}\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_b^{(9)}& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{(11)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{𝟏}_2\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_2& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10}^{(11)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}_2& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_2\end{array}\right),$$
(2.11)
where

$$C^{(11)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{\Gamma }_8^{(9)}\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_8^{(9)}& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(2.12)
Introducing $`4`$ octonionic supercharges we obtain the octonionic $`M`$-superalgebra (1.6) considered in our previous paper . The superalgebra (1.6) has $`52`$ independent real bosonic charges, which can be equivalently expressed in two ways ($`r,s=1,\mathrm{}4`$)

$$𝒵_{rs}=P^\mu (C\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(11)})_{rs}+Z_𝐎^{\mu \nu }(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{(11)})_{rs}=Z_𝐎^{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5]}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5}^{(11)})_{rs},$$
(2.13)
where all $`11`$ components of $`P^k`$ are independent, while the generators $`Z_𝐎^{\mu \nu }`$ describe the coset $`\frac{O(10,1)}{G_2}`$ (i.e. there are $`14`$ relations between the $`55`$ generators $`Z_𝐎^{\mu \nu }`$), and out of the $`462`$ components of $`Z_𝐎^{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5]}`$ there are only $`52`$ independent ones.

Similar constraints are satisfied by the coordinates of the generalized octonionic $`D=11`$ space-time

$$𝒳_{rs}=X^\mu (C\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(11)})_{rs}+X_𝐎^{\mu \nu }(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{(11)})_{rs}=X_𝐎^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5}^{(11)})_{rs}.$$
(2.14)
We see that in the $`D=11`$ supersymmetric theory with basic superalgebra (2.13) the two-brane and five-brane tensorial central charges are strongly constrained, and the theory can be described completely

\- either by one-brane and two-brane sectors $`((P^\mu ,Z_𝐎^{\mu \nu })`$ in generalized momentum space or, using the dual picture, by $`(X^\mu ,X_𝐎^{\mu \nu })`$ in generalized space-time,

\- or by the constrained five-brane sector $`(Z_𝐎^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5}`$ or $`X_𝐎^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5})`$.

c2) The $`D=10`$ octonionic conformal superalgebra $`U_\alpha (4|𝐎)`$

The form (1.6) of the octonionic superalgebra is also obtained for the generalized octonionic $`D=10`$ conformal superalgebras. For that purpose one can write the basic relation in $`O(10,2)`$ \- covariant form ($`r,s=1,\mathrm{},4;\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1,\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2=0,1,\mathrm{}11`$)

$$\{\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_r,\overline{\stackrel{~}{𝒬}}_s\}=_{rs}=(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2}^{(12)})_{rs}M^{[\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2]},$$
(2.15)
where ($`\mu _1,\mu _2=0,1,\mathrm{}10)`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mu _2}^{(12)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mu _2}^{(11)}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1}^{(11)},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _2}^{(12)}],\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11\mu }^{(12)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(11)},$$
(2.16)
with the $`66`$ generators $`M_{[\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1,\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2]}`$ describing $`52`$ independent generators of $`\frac{O(10,2)}{G_2}`$ (see (1.3b)). In the octonionic framework the remaining six-tensor generators $`M_{[\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }_6]}`$ (compare with (1.2)) are not independent. The octonionic superalgebra (2.15) can be also treated as describing D=11 octonionic $`AdS`$ algebra , with $`M^{[\mu _1\mu _2]}`$ describing $`\frac{O(10,2)}{G_2}`$ and $`M^{12\mu }`$ the curved $`D=11`$ AdS translations. In particular if we introduce the rescaling of the generators $`M^{12\mu }=R𝒫^\mu `$ by performing the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ one can obtain from the relations (2.15) the D=11 octonionic $`M`$-algebra, given by (1.6).

We add here that by doubling the realization of $`C_𝐎(10,1)`$ given in footnote $`^{4)}`$ one obtains the realizations of the Clifford algebras $`C_𝐎(2,9)`$ and $`C_𝐎(2,10)`$.

d) D=(11,2)

In D=13 we shall consider only one choice of signature (11,2)555The other possible choice of octonionic $`8\times 8`$ Clifford algebra representations can be considered for signatures $`(3,10)`$ and $`(3,11)`$.. The corresponding representation of $`C_𝐎(11,2)`$ in terms of $`8\times 8`$ octonionic matrices is explicitly given, for ($`a=b+1=1,\mathrm{},11`$), as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{(13)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{\Gamma }_b^{(11)}\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_b^{(11)}& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{(13)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{𝟏}_2\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_2& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{(13)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}_2& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_2\end{array}\right),$$
(2.17)
with $`C^{(13)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}C^{(11)}& 0\\ 0& C^{(11)}\end{array}\right)`$, while $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^{(11)}`$ and $`C^{(11)}`$ are given by (2.11) and (2.12) respectively.

The basis of the $`232`$ octonionic hermitian generators is given by the $`64`$ antisymmetric two-tensors $`C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\mu _1\mu _2]}`$ and the $`168`$ antisymmetric three tensors $`C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3]}`$ or, equivalently, by the $`232`$ antisymmetric six-tensors $`C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _6]}`$.

The D=(11,2) generalized octonionic supersymmetry algebra (called also $`S`$-algebra ) takes the form ($`r,s=1,2\mathrm{}8;M,N=0,1,2,\mathrm{}12`$)

$$\{Q_r,Q_s\}=\left(C^{(13)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MN}^{(13)}\right)_{rs}Z_\mathrm{𝟎}^{MN}+\left(C^{(13)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M_1M_2M_3}\right)_{rs}Z_\mathrm{𝟎}^{M_1M_2M_3},$$
(2.18)
with $`232`$ real bosonic charges, which is an octonionic counterpart of the real generalized D=(11,2) superalgebra with $`64`$ real Majorana supercharges ($`A,B=1\mathrm{}64`$) and $`2048`$ bosonic charges.

$`\{Q_A,Q_B\}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(C^{(13)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MN}^{(13)}\right)_{AB}Z^{MN}+\left(C^{(13)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M_1M_2M_3}\right)_{AB}Z^{M_1M_2M_3}`$ (2.20)
$`\left(C^{(13)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M_1\mathrm{}M_6}\right)_{AB}Z^{M_1\mathrm{}M_6},`$
where now $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{(13)})_{AB}`$ are the $`64\times 64`$ real Majorana representations of $`C(11,2)`$. ¿From the formula (2.20) follows that

i) The octonionic six-charges are not needed in the relation (2.18) because they can be expressed by two-charges and three-charges.

ii) The relations (2.19) with non Abelian charges $`Z^{MN},Z^{M_1M_2M_3},Z^{M_1\mathrm{}M_6}`$ describe the superalgebra $`OSp(1|64;R)`$, which was proposed as the generalized D=11 conformal superalgebra . In such a case the generators $`Z^{MN}`$ describe the $`O(11,2)`$ algebra. The octonionic counterpart of $`Sp(64;R)`$ is provided by $`U_\alpha (8|𝐎)`$, which is supersymmetrized by relation (2.18). The generators $`Z_\mathrm{𝟎}^{MN}`$ describe in such a case the coset $`\frac{O(11,2)}{G_2}`$.

## 3 D=11 Octonionic Generalized (Super)conformal Transformations as Automorphisms

It is known that the conformal algebra can be introduced as the algebra of transformations leaving invariant the inner product of fundamental conformal spinors called also twistors. We shall apply this method to derivation of octonionic conformal algebra from octonionic spinors with inner product. In $`D=(10,1)`$ such inner product is given by $`\psi ^{}C\eta `$, where $`\psi ,\eta `$ are eightdimensional octonionic conformal $`O(11,2)`$ spinors described by pairs of octonionic $`O(10,1)`$ Lorentz spinors and the matrix $`C`$ given by the product of the two space-like Clifford’s Gamma matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{(13)},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{(13)}`$ (see (2.17)) is real-valued and totally antisymmetric. Therefore, the conformal transformations are realized by the octonion-valued $`8`$-dimensional matrices $``$ leaving $`C`$ invariant, i.e. satisfying

$`^{}C+C`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (3.1)
This allows identifying the octonionic conformal transformations with the octonionic unitary-symplectic transformations $`U_\alpha (8|𝐎)`$.

The most general octonionic-valued matrix leaving invariant $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be expressed as follows

$`𝐌`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}D& B\\ C& D^{}\end{array}\right),`$ (3.4)
where the $`4\times 4`$ octonionic matrices $`B`$, $`C`$ are hermitian

$`B=B^{},`$ $`C=C^{}.`$ (3.5)
It is easily seen that the total number of independent components in (3.4) is precisely $`232`$, as we expected from the previous considerations.

It should be noticed that the set of octonionic matrices $`𝐌`$ of (3.4) type forms a closed algebraic structure under the usual matrix commutation. Indeed one gets $`[𝐌,𝐌]𝐌`$, endowing the structure of $`U_\alpha (8|𝐎)`$ to $`𝐌`$. As recalled in the introduction, $`U_\alpha (2n;𝐎)`$ for $`n>3`$ is no longer a conformal algebra associated with a Jordan-algebra (see e.g ), nevertheless it admits the Lie-algebraic commutation relations which, however, do not satisfy the Jacobi identities.

In the procedure of supersymmetric extension to the superconformal algebra we have to accommodate the components of $`8`$ octonionic spinors of $`(11,2)`$ into a supermatrix enlarging $`U_\alpha (8|𝐎)`$. This can be achieved as follows. The two $`4`$-column octonionic spinors $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ can be accommodated into a supermatrix of the form

$`^{(1)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \beta ^{}& \alpha ^{}\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}\\ \alpha & 0& 0\\ \beta & 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (3.9)
Under anticommutation, the lower bosonic diagonal block reduces to $`U_\alpha (8|𝐎)`$. On the other hand, extra real seven generators, associated to the $`1`$-dimensional antihermitian matrix $`A`$

$`A^{}`$ $`=`$ $`A,`$ (3.10)
i.e. described by seven imaginary octonions, are obtained in the upper bosonic diagonal block. Therefore, the generic bosonic element is of the form

$`^{(0)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A& 0& 0\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}\\ 0& D& B\\ 0& C& D^{}\end{array}\right),`$ (3.14)
with $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$ satisfying (3.10) and (3.5).

It can be shown that in analogy to the relation (3.1) one can derive (3.6) from the invariance of inner product for octonion-valued supertwistor ($`\psi ,\xi `$), where $`\xi =\xi ^{(0)}+\xi ^{(i)}t_i`$ ($`\{\xi ^{(a)},\xi ^{(b)}\}=0;a,b=0,1,\mathrm{}7`$ and $`\xi ^{(a)}`$ real):

$$^\mathrm{\#}𝐂=𝐂^\mathrm{\#},,=^{(0)}^{(1)},$$
(3.15)
where $`𝐂=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& C\end{array}\right)`$ is the $`OSp(1;8)`$ metric and $`\mathrm{\#}`$ describe graded-Hermitean conjugation. The closed superalgebraic structure, with (3.9) as generic fermionic element and (3.14) as generic bosonic element, we denote as $`OSp(1,8|𝐎)`$. It can be considered as the superconformal algebra of the octonionic $`M`$-theory or generalized octonionic AdS algebra in $`D=(11,1)`$ and admits a total number of $`239`$ real bosonic generators.

## 4 Octonionic Structure and $`p`$-Superbranes

We have shown that the $`52`$ independent components of the Hermitian-octonionic $`Z_{ab}`$ matrix can be represented either as the $`11+41`$ bosonic generators entering

$$𝒵_{ab}=P^\mu (C\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu )_{ab}+Z_𝐎^{\mu \nu }(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu })_{ab},$$
(4.1)
or as the $`52`$ bosonic generators entering

$$𝒵_{ab}=Z_𝐎^{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5]}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5})_{ab}.$$
(4.2)
The reason for that lies in the fact that, unlike in the real case, the sectors individuated by (4.1) and (4.2) are not independent. This is a consequence of the multiplication table of the octonions. Indeed, when we multiply antisymmetric products of $`k`$ octonionic-valued Gamma matrices, a certain number of them are redundant. For $`k=2`$, due to the $`G_2`$ automorphisms, $`14`$ such products have to be erased. In the general case  a table can be produced, which we write down (see Table $`1`$) for $`7D13`$ odd-dimensional spacetime corresponding to octonionic realizations of Clifford algebras considered in Sect. 2. The Table 1 was constructed from the $`D=7`$ results (which can be easily computed), by taking into account that out of the $`D`$ Gamma matrices, $`7`$ of them are octonion-valued, while the remaining $`D7`$ are purely real. The columns in Table $`1`$ are labeled by $`k`$, the number of antisymmetrized Gamma matrices.

The Table $`1`$ is valid for octonionic generalized Poincaré superalgebras, with Abelian generators, as well as for their nonAbelian counterparts $`U_\alpha (k,𝐎)`$ ($`k=2`$ for $`D=9`$, $`k=4`$ for $`D=11`$, $`k=8`$ for $`D=13`$) describing octonionic $`D`$-dimensional AdS superbranes. The octonionic equivalence of different sectors, via generalized Poincaré or generalized AdS supersymmetry algebras interpreted as branes sectors, can be symbolically expressed in different odd space-time dimensions according to the Table $`2`$.

(4.7)
Table $`2`$. The relation between octonionic super-$`p`$-branes $`M_p`$.

In $`D=11`$ dimensions the relation between $`M1+M2`$ and $`M5`$ can be made explicit as follows. The $`11`$ vectorial indices $`\mu `$ are split into the $`4`$ real indices, labeled by $`a,b,c,\mathrm{}`$ and the $`7`$ octonionic indices labeled by $`i,j,k,\mathrm{}`$. We get:

which shows the equivalence of the two sectors, as far as the octonionic content and tensorial properties are concerned. Please notice that the correct total number of $`52`$ independent components is recovered

$`52`$ $`=`$ $`2\times 7+28+6+4.`$
It would be very interesting to find a dynamical realization of presented above octonionic super-$`p`$-branes framework. Similarly one can reproduce the count of independent degrees of freedom for octonionic $`M2,M3,M6`$ in $`D=13`$.

## 5 Outlook

The octonions are the basic ingredients of many exceptional structures in mathematics. It is very well known, that the octonions provide the algebraic and geometric framework for the exceptional Lie algebras. Indeed, $`G_2`$ is the automorphism group of the octonions, while $`F_4`$ is the automorphism group of the $`3\times 3`$ octonionic-valued hermitian matrices realizing the exceptional $`J_3(𝐎)`$ Jordan algebra. $`F_4`$ and the remaining exceptional Lie algebras ($`E_6`$, $`E_7`$, $`E_8`$) are recovered from the so-called “magic square Tit’s construction” which associates a Lie algebra to any given pair of division algebras, if one of these algebras coincide with the octonionic algebra . We would like also to point out here that exceptional Lie algebras have numerous applications in elementary particle physics (see e.g. )

We have applied the octonionic structure to the description of a new version of $`M`$-theory. The main outcome of our considerations, which is symbolically represented in Table 2, implies that in such a framework the different brane sectors are no longer independent. We would like also to point out (see formula (2.14)) that octonionic structure imposes in extended space-times  additional constraints on central charge tensor coordinates, without restricting however D=11 spacetime.

Our considerations here are purely algebraic - the step which would be desirable is to provide some corresponding geometrical notions. It should be pointed out, however, that for nonassociative algebras the distinction between algebraic and geometric considerations rather disappears.

### Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank M. Cederwall for discussions.


text:
# Abelian Subset of Second Class Constraints

## 1 introduction

When Dirac introduced constrained systems , he classified constraints as first class and second class. First class constraints have been interesting since they turned out to be generators of gauge transformation. These constraints introduced a new class of symmetries, which for example, lead to Ward identities in the context of renormalization . The main requirement in quantization of first class constraints is the covariance of observables under gauge transformations. In Dirac quantization, this requirement is satisfied by considering physical states as null eigen states of the generator of gauge transformation. The same idea is followed in BRST where a nilpotent BRST-charge generates BRST-transformation .

There are two major difficulties in both Dirac quantization and BRST. In general, first class constraints satisfy a closed algebra in which the structure coefficients are some functions of phase space coordinates. Consistency of these methods of quantization depends on the possibility of a definite operator ordering; the structure coefficients should stand on the left side of first class constraints. Another problem is obtaining the explicit form of the generator of gauge transformation or BRST-charge. Both difficulties can be overcome by making the first class constraints abelian .

Second class constraints were thought to be redundant degrees of freedom that one should get rid of them before quantization, for example by using Dirac bracket instead of Poisson bracket. But second class constraints are more important. For example, in reference , the gauge theory of second class systems is discussed. Or in closed string theory, it is claimed that boundary conditions lead to a set of second class constraints which give rise to non-commutativity of space-time . On the other hand, covariant quantization, in general, is not consistent with classification of constraints as first and second class . Consequently, we need a general method of quantization which treats both classes on the same footing.

1. One possibility is to convert second class constraints to first class . Given a constraint system possessing second class constraints, in principle, one can consider an extended phase space and redefine second class constraints and the Hamiltonian to find an equivalent first class system. There are two difficulties in doing so. Firstly, it is not so easy to find out such redefinitions in general cases. Secondly, assuming that the conversion is done, one may still encounter the above mentioned difficulties in quantization of first class constraints. As is well known, all these problems can be remedied most easily provided one makes the algebra of second class constraints symplectic.
2. Another possibility is to consider half of second class constraints as first class constraints and the remaining ones as gauge fixing conditions . This method, for example, is used to study gauge invariance in the Proca model .

In this paper, we prove that after mapping each element of a set of second class constraints to the surface of the other ones, half of them form an abelian subset. In addition we present a general method for redefining second class constraints to make their algebra symplectic. Although this method may not preserve covariance but it is still interesting since it works globally, and for a general Poisson structure. Therefore it provides a simple conversion of second class constraints to first class ones.

In reference  it is shown that first class constraints become abelian when they are mapped to the surface of each other. Thus, it seems that in this way, one can obtain abelian subset of a given set of constraints in the most simple way.

The organization of paper is as follows. In section 2, we introduce necessary definitions and lemmas. The method is introduced in section 3. We conclude our results in section 4.

## 2 Definitions and Lemmas

In this section we provide some general tools necessary for arguments of the next section. Consider a phase space defined by a set of coordinates $`z^\mu `$ satisfying the Poisson algebra,

$$\{z^\mu ,z^\nu \}=J^{\mu \nu }(z),$$
(1)
in which $`J^{\mu \nu }(z)`$ is a full rank anti-symmetric tensor, e.g. the symplectic two form:

$$J=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& +1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(2)
Assume a pair of conjugate functions $`\varphi (z)`$ and $`\omega (z)`$ in $``$, satisfying the relation,

$$\{\varphi ,\omega \}=1,$$
(3)
where $``$ stands for the set of real analytic functions of the phase space coordinates. In fact for a given $`\varphi `$, using the Cauchy-Kowalevski theorem , one can show that there exist at least one function $`\omega `$ that satisfies the relation,

$`\{\varphi ,\omega \}`$ $`=`$ $`a^\mu (z){\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{z^\mu }}=1,`$
$`a^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{z^\nu }}J^{\nu \mu }.`$ (4)
Corresponding to each $`\xi `$ an operator $`\widehat{\xi }:`$ can be defined as follows,

$$\widehat{\xi }\chi =\{\xi ,\chi \},\chi .$$
(5)
It is easy to verify that,

$`\widehat{\xi }\left(\chi _1\chi _2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\xi ,(\chi _1\chi _2)\}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`\chi _1\{\xi ,\chi _2\}+\{\xi ,\chi _1\}\chi _2`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\widehat{\xi }\chi _1\right)\chi _2+\chi _1\left(\widehat{\xi }\chi _2\right).`$
Considering the operators $`(\widehat{\varphi },\widehat{\omega })`$ where $`\{\varphi ,\omega \}=1`$, from Eq.(3) one can show that these operators satisfy the following relations:

$`[\widehat{\varphi },\widehat{\omega }]=0,`$ (7)
$`[\widehat{\varphi },\varphi ]=[\widehat{\omega },\omega ]=0,`$ (9)
$`[\widehat{\varphi },\omega ]=[\varphi ,\widehat{\omega }]=1.`$
These properties can be easily verified. For example, for an arbitrary function $`\xi `$, we have,

$`[\widehat{\varphi },\widehat{\omega }]\xi `$ $`=`$ $`\{\varphi ,\{\omega ,\xi \}\}\{\omega ,\{\varphi ,\xi \}\}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`\{\xi ,\{\varphi ,\omega \}\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{\xi ,1\}`$
$`=`$ $`0,`$
where in the second equality we have used the Jaccobi identity. Considering the operators $`\widehat{P}_\varphi `$ and $`\widehat{P}_\omega `$ ,

$`\widehat{P}_\varphi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\varphi ^n\widehat{\omega }^n,`$
$`\widehat{P}_\omega `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n!}}\omega ^n\widehat{\varphi }^n,`$ (11)
one can use Eqs.(7,9) to show that $`[\widehat{\varphi },\widehat{P}_\varphi ]=[\widehat{\omega },\widehat{P}_\omega ]=0`$, and consequently,

$$[\widehat{P}_\varphi ,\widehat{P}_\omega ]=0.$$
(12)
Lemma 1. The operators $`\widehat{P}_\varphi `$ and $`\widehat{P}_\omega `$ satisfy the following properties:

$`\widehat{\omega }\widehat{P}_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (13)
$`\widehat{\varphi }\widehat{P}_\omega `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (14)
Proof. We proof the first equality. The second equality can be proved in the same way. Using Eq.(9), one can show that $`[\widehat{\omega },\varphi ^n]=n\varphi ^{n1}`$. Thus,

$`\widehat{\omega }\widehat{P}_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`[\widehat{\omega },\widehat{P}_\varphi ]+\widehat{P}_\varphi \widehat{\omega }`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}[\widehat{\omega },\varphi ^n]\widehat{\omega }^n+\widehat{P}_\varphi \widehat{\omega }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n1)!}}\varphi ^{n1}\widehat{\omega }^n+\widehat{P}_\varphi \widehat{\omega }`$
$`=`$ $`0.`$
Lemma 2. Given conjugate functions $`\omega ,\varphi `$, the operator $`\widehat{P}_\varphi `$ is the projection map to the subspace of the phase space defined by $`\varphi =0`$.

Proof. Using Eq.(13), it can be shown that $`\widehat{P}_\varphi ^2=\widehat{P}_\varphi `$. Assuming the (canonical) coordinate transformation,

$$z^\mu \varphi ,\omega ,Z^\mu ^{},$$
(16)
one verifies that $`\widehat{\omega }=\frac{}{\varphi }`$. Therefore, for an arbitrary $`\xi `$,

$`\widehat{P}_\varphi \xi (\varphi ,\omega ,Z^\mu ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n!}}\varphi ^n{\displaystyle \frac{^n}{\varphi ^n}}\xi (\varphi ,\omega ,Z^\mu ^{})`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`\xi (0,\omega ,Z^\mu ^{})`$
$`=`$ $`\xi |_\varphi .`$
Corollary 1: The operator $`\widehat{P}_\omega `$ is projection map to the subspace $`\omega =0`$.
This corollary can be proved noting that $`\widehat{\varphi }=\frac{}{\omega }`$ and consequently $`\widehat{P}_\omega \xi =\xi (\varphi ,0,Z^\mu ^{})`$.

Lemma 3. The operator $`\widehat{P}\widehat{P}_\varphi \widehat{P}_\omega `$ is the projection map to the subspace, $`\varphi =\omega =0`$.

Proof. From Eqs.(12-14), one obtains $`\widehat{\varphi }\widehat{P}=\widehat{\omega }\widehat{P}=\widehat{P}`$, thus $`\widehat{P}^2=\widehat{P}`$. Reviewing the proof of lemma 2, one verifies that

$`\widehat{P}\xi (\varphi ,\omega ,Z^\mu ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{P}_\omega \left(\widehat{P}_\varphi \xi (\varphi ,\omega ,Z^\mu ^{})\right)`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\widehat{P}_\omega \xi (0,\omega ,Z^\mu ^{})`$
$`=`$ $`\xi (0,0,Z^\mu ^{}).`$
Corollary 2. If $`\xi =\xi |_{\varphi ,\omega }`$ then $`\{\varphi ,\xi \}=\{\omega ,\xi \}=0`$.
The second equality, for example, can be proved noting that $`\xi |_{\varphi ,\omega }=\widehat{P}\xi `$ and $`\widehat{\omega }\widehat{P}=0`$.

The above results become practically interesting if conjugate to a given $`\varphi `$, one can obtain explicitly a function $`\omega `$ that satisfies Eq.(3). This can be easily done if there exist a function $`H`$, such that $`\widehat{\varphi }H0`$ but $`\widehat{\varphi }^{M+1}H=0`$, for an integer $`M1`$. Since, in principle, $`\omega `$ exists and satisfies Eq.(3), using the coordinate transformation (16), $`H`$ can be written as a polynomial in $`\omega `$,

$`H\left(z(\omega ,\varphi ,Z^\mu ^{})\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_m(0,\varphi ,Z^\mu ^{})}{m!}}\omega ^m,`$
$`\widehat{\varphi }A_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\omega }}A_m(0,\varphi ,Z^\mu ^{})=0.`$ (19)
Thus,

$`\widehat{\varphi }^MH`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^M}{\omega ^M}}H=A_M,`$ (20)
$`\widehat{\varphi }^{M1}H`$ $`=`$ $`A_M\omega +A_{M1}.`$ (21)
Comparing Eq.(20) with Eq.(21), one can verify $`\omega `$ as the coefficient of $`\widehat{\varphi }^MH`$ in $`\widehat{\varphi }^{M1}H`$.

As an example suppose,

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`e^x1,`$
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_x^2.`$ (22)
A simple calculation shows that $`M=2`$ and

$`\widehat{\varphi }H`$ $`=`$ $`e^xp_x,`$ (23)
$`\widehat{\varphi }^2H`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2x}.`$ (24)
Comparing Eq.(23) with Eq.(24) one reads $`\omega =e^xp_x`$. This method can be used to obtain gauge fixing conditions conjugate to first class constraints .

Lemma 4. Considering a function $`\xi `$ and a conjugate pair of functions $`\varphi `$ and $`\omega `$, we have $`\xi =\xi |_\varphi `$ iff $`\widehat{\omega }\xi =0`$.

Proof.

$`a)`$ If $`\xi =\xi |_\varphi `$ then from lemma 2, $`\xi =\widehat{P}_\varphi \xi `$. Therefore using Eq.(13), $`\widehat{\omega }\xi =\widehat{\omega }\widehat{P}_\varphi \xi =0`$.

$`b)`$ if $`\widehat{\omega }\xi =0`$ then $`\xi =\widehat{P}_\varphi \xi =\xi |_\varphi `$.

Corollary 3. For arbitrary functions $`\xi `$ and $`\chi `$ in $``$,

$`\{\xi |_\varphi ,\zeta |_\varphi \}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\xi |_\varphi ,\zeta |_\varphi \}|_\varphi ,`$ (25)
$`\{\xi |_\varphi ,\varphi \}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\xi |_\varphi ,\varphi \}|_\varphi .`$ (26)
Corollary 3 can be proved using the Jaccobi identity to show that the Poisson brackets of the LHS of Eqs.(25,26) with $`\omega `$ is vanishing.

Lemma 5. If $`\varphi =\varphi |_\psi `$ then $`\psi =\psi |_\varphi `$.
Proof. Since there exist a function $`\omega `$ conjugate to $`\varphi `$, one can write $`\psi `$ as a polynomial in $`\varphi `$ (similar to Eq.(19)),

$$\psi =\underset{i=1}{}a_i\varphi ^i+\psi |_\varphi ,$$
(27)
where $`\widehat{\omega }a_i=0`$, $`i1`$. If $`a_i`$’s do not vanish, the assumption $`\varphi =\varphi |_\psi `$ implies that $`\psi (\varphi )=0`$. Thus if $`\psi 0`$ then $`a_i`$’s should vanish and $`\psi =\psi |_\varphi `$.

Lemma 6. If $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ are conjugate to $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ respectively, and

$`\varphi _2=\varphi _2|_{\varphi _1},`$ (28)
$`\omega _2=\omega _2|_{\varphi _1},`$ (29)
then the operators $`\widehat{P}_{\varphi _1}`$ and $`\widehat{P}_{\varphi _2}`$ commute with each other.

Proof. It is sufficient to prove that $`[(\varphi _1^n\widehat{\omega }_1^n),(\varphi _2^m\widehat{\omega }_2^m)]=0`$. Using the Jaccobi identity and lemma 4, one can show that,

$`[\widehat{\omega }_1,\widehat{\omega }_2]=\{\omega _1,\omega _2\}=0,`$
$`[\widehat{\omega }_1,\varphi _2]=\{\omega _1,\varphi _2\}=0.`$ (30)
From lemma 5 and Eq.(28) one verifies that $`\varphi _1=\varphi _1|_{\varphi _2}`$, thus $`[\varphi _1,\widehat{\omega }_2]=\{\varphi _1,\omega _2\}=0`$. This completes the proof.

Corollary 4. The operators $`\widehat{P}_{\varphi _1}`$ and $`\widehat{P}_{\omega _2}`$ commute i.e. $`[\widehat{P}_{\varphi _1},\widehat{P}_{\omega _2}]=0`$.

Corollary 5. The operators $`\widehat{P}_i=\widehat{P}_{\omega _i}\widehat{P}_{\varphi _i}`$, $`i=1,2`$, commute if $`\omega _2=\widehat{P}_1\omega _2`$ and $`\varphi _2=\widehat{P}_1\varphi _1`$.
This can be proved using lemma 3 and corollary 2.

Lemma 7. If $`\varphi =\varphi |_\psi `$, $`\{\varphi ,\psi \}=0`$ and $`\{\varphi ,\omega \}=1`$, then $`\{\varphi ,\omega |_\psi \}=1`$.

Proof. Writing $`\omega `$ as a polynomial in $`\psi `$,

$$\omega =\underset{i=1}{}a_i\psi ^i+\omega |_\psi ,$$
(31)
one verifies that,

$$1=\{\varphi ,\omega \}=\underset{i=1}{}\{\varphi ,a_i\}\psi ^i+\{\varphi ,\omega |_\psi \}.$$
(32)
Thus,

$$1=\{\varphi ,\omega |_\psi \}_\psi =\{\varphi ,\omega |_\psi \}_\psi =\{\varphi ,\omega |_\psi \},$$
(33)
where in the third equality we have used Eq.(25).

Corollary 6. If $`\{\varphi ,\omega \}=1`$, then $`\{\varphi ,\omega |_\varphi \}=1`$.
Using Eq.(26), the proof is similar to the proof of lemma 7.

Lemma 8. If $`\xi =\xi |_\varphi `$, $`\psi =\psi |_\varphi `$ and $`\{\varphi ,\psi \}=0`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }=\stackrel{~}{\xi }|_\varphi `$ in which $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }\xi |_\psi `$.

Proof. Lemma 7 implies that there exist a function $`\omega _\psi `$ conjugate to $`\psi `$ such that $`\omega _\psi =\omega _\psi |_\varphi `$. Consequently from lemma 6, we know that $`[\widehat{P}_\psi ,\widehat{P}_\varphi ]=0`$. In addition, $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }=\widehat{P}_\psi \xi `$ and $`\xi =\widehat{P}_\varphi \xi `$ (see lemma 2). Thus,

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }=\widehat{P}_\psi \widehat{P}_\varphi \xi =\widehat{P}_\varphi \widehat{P}_\psi \xi =\widehat{P}_\varphi \stackrel{~}{\xi }.$$
(34)
This completes the proof.

## 3 Redefinition of Second Class Constraints

In this section we show that the subspace $``$ of the phase space, defined by a set of irreducible second class constraints,

$$\varphi _a=0,a=1,\mathrm{},2k,$$
(35)
which satisfy the relation,

$$det\left(\{\varphi _a,\varphi _b\}\right)_{}0,$$
(36)
can be equivalently determined by a set of constraints $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, satisfying the symplectic algebra,

$`\{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_j\}=0,`$
$`\{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_j\}=\delta _{ij},`$
$`\{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_j\}=0.`$ (37)
For this reason, we consider the following lemmas.

Lemma 9. There exist at least one constraint, say $`\varphi _{k+1}`$, such that

$$\{\varphi _1,\varphi _{k+1}\}_{}0.$$
(38)
Proof. If it was not the case, i.e. if $`\{\varphi _1,\varphi _a\}_{}=0`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},2k`$, then,

$$det\left(\{\chi _a,\chi _b\}\right)_{}=0,$$
(39)
contrary to the assumption Eq.(36).
Consider the constraints $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _{k+1}`$ and the definition,

$$\omega _1^{}\omega _1\omega _1|_{\varphi _{k+1}},$$
(40)
where $`\omega _1`$ is some function conjugate to $`\varphi _1`$.

Lemma 10. If the equation $`\varphi _{k+1}=0`$ has a unique solution (the uniqueness condition) then the constraint $`\omega _1^{}0`$ is equivalent to $`\varphi _{k+1}`$.

Proof. Using the uniqueness condition, we show that $`\varphi _{k+1}=0`$ iff $`\omega _1^{}=0`$.
Consider the coordinate transformation $`z^\mu (\omega _1,\varphi _1,Z^\mu ^{})`$. The assumption,

$$\{\varphi _1,\varphi _{k+1}\}=\frac{}{\omega _1}\varphi _{k+1}0,$$
(41)
reads,

$$\varphi _{k+1}=\omega _1\chi (\omega _1,\varphi _1,z^{})+\xi (0,\varphi _1,Z^\mu ^{}),$$
(42)
for some functions $`\chi `$ and $`\xi `$. From Eq.(42) one can determine $`\omega _1^0\omega _1|_{\varphi _{k+1}}`$ as the solution of equation,

$$\omega _1^0\chi (\omega _1^0,\varphi _1,Z^\mu ^{})+\xi (0,\varphi _1,z^{})=0.$$
(43)
Inserting $`\xi `$ from the above relation in Eq.(42), one verifies that,

$`\varphi _{k+1}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _1\chi (\omega _1,\varphi _1,Z^\mu ^{})\omega _1^0\chi (\omega _1^0,\varphi _1,Z^\mu ^{})`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`\omega _1\left(\chi (\omega _1^0,\varphi _1,Z^\mu ^{})+(\omega _1\omega _1^0)\chi ^{}(\omega _1,\varphi _1,Z^\mu ^{})\right)\omega _1^0\chi (\omega _1^0,\varphi _1,Z^\mu ^{})`$
$`=`$ $`(\omega _1\omega _1^0)\left(\chi (\omega _1^0,\varphi _1,Z^\mu ^{})+\omega _1\chi ^{}(\omega _1,\varphi _1,Z^\mu ^{})\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\omega _1^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi },`$
where $`\chi ^{}`$, in the second equality, is some function that can be determined in terms of $`\chi `$ using Taylor expansion. In the last equality we have used definition (40). From Eq.(44) one finds two possible solutions for equation $`\varphi _{k+1}=0`$; $`\omega _{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{1}=0`$ and/or $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }=0`$. Due to uniqueness condition these two solutions, if both possible, should coincide. Therefore $`\varphi _{k+1}=0`$ if and only if $`\omega _{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{1}=0`$. Of course $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is non vanishing because,

$`det\left(\{\varphi _a,\varphi _b\}\right)_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm det\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \{\varphi _1,\varphi _{k+1}\}& \mathrm{}\\ \{\varphi _{k+1},\varphi _1\}& 0& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)_{}`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }^2det\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \{\varphi _1,\omega _1^{}\}& \mathrm{}\\ \{\omega _1^{},\varphi _1\}& 0& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)_{}0.`$ (52)
The above equation implies that not only the constraint $`\omega _1^{}`$ is equivalent to $`\varphi _{k+1}`$ but also the set of constraints $`\varphi _a`$ in which $`\varphi _{k+1}`$ is replaced by $`\omega _1^{}`$ are second class.

Lemma 11. The function $`\omega _1^{}`$ is conjugate to $`\varphi _1`$, i.e. $`\{\varphi _1,\omega _1^{}\}=1`$.

Proof. If $`\omega _1^0=0`$, then proof is trivial. If $`\omega _1^00`$, one can prove lemma 11 as follows. Consider the Taylor expansion of $`\varphi _{k+1}`$ in terms of $`\omega _1`$,

$$\varphi _{k+1}(\omega _1,\varphi _1,Z^\mu ^{})=\underset{m=0}{}A_m(0,\varphi _1,Z^\mu ^{})\omega _1^m.$$
(53)
Since $`\omega _1^0=\omega _1|_{\varphi _{k+1}}`$, we have,

$$\underset{m=0}{}A_m(0,\varphi _1,Z^\mu ^{})(\omega _1^0)^m=0.$$
(54)
Consequently,

$$\{\varphi _1,\omega _1^0\}\underset{m=1}{}mA_m(\omega _1^0)^{m1}=0.$$
(55)
This has two solutions:

1) $`A_{m>0}=0`$. In this case, the Poisson bracket of $`\varphi _{k+1}=A_0(0,\varphi _1,Z^\mu ^{})`$ and $`\varphi _1`$ vanishes contrary to the assumption Eq.(38).

2) $`\{\varphi _1,\omega _1^0\}=0`$, which is the desired result.

Let’s define $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\varphi _1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1\omega _1^{}`$. Using lemma 3 and corollary 2, one can make the Poisson bracket of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{k+1}`$ with the other constraints vanishing by redefining the constraints $`\varphi _i`$ and $`\varphi _{k+i}`$ ($`i>1`$) as follows,

$`\varphi _i`$ $``$ $`\widehat{P}_1\varphi _i,i=2\mathrm{},k,`$
$`\varphi _{i+k}`$ $``$ $`\widehat{P}_1\varphi _{i+k},`$ (56)
where $`\widehat{P}_1=\widehat{P}_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1}\widehat{P}_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1}`$. Let us call these new constraints $`\varphi _{a_1}^1`$, $`a_1=1,\mathrm{},2k^1`$, where $`k^1=k1`$. The determinant of the matrix of Poisson brackets of the second class constraints $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1`$ and $`\varphi _{a_1}^1`$’s is,

$$det\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& +1& 0\mathrm{}0& \\ 1& 0& 0\mathrm{}0& \\ 0& 0& & \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \left(\{\varphi _{a_1}^1,\varphi _{b_1}^1\}\right)& \\ 0& 0& & \end{array}\right)=det\left(\{\varphi _{a_1}^1,\varphi _{b_1}^1\}\right)_{}0.$$
(57)
Consequently there exist a constraint, say $`\varphi _{k^1+1}^1`$, such that $`\{\varphi _1^1,\varphi _{k^1+1}^1\}_{}0`$. From corollary 2 we know that $`\{\varphi _1^1,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\}=\{\varphi _1^1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1\}=0`$. Thus, lemma 7 guarantees the existence of a function $`\omega _1^1`$ conjugate to $`\varphi _1^1`$ such that $`\omega _1^1=\omega _1^1|_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1}`$. Lemma 10 says that, assuming the uniqueness condition, $`\omega _{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{1}`$,

$$\omega _{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{1}\omega _1^1\omega _1^1|_{\varphi _{k^1+1}^1},$$
(58)
is equivalent to $`\varphi _{k^1+1}^1`$. Lemma 8 guarantees that $`\omega _{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{1}=\omega _{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{1}|_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1}`$, because the Poisson brackets of $`\varphi _{k_1^1}^1`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1`$ vanish (see redefinition (56)). Therefore, from lemma 3, $`\omega _{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{1}=\widehat{P}_1\omega _{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{1}`$. In addition lemma 11 says that $`\omega _{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{1}`$ is conjugate to $`\varphi _1^1`$. We define $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2\varphi _1^1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_2\omega _{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{1}`$. Similar to Eq.(57), one can show that the constraints,

$$\varphi _{a_2}^2\left\{\varphi _i^1,\varphi _{k^1+i}^1\right|i=1,\mathrm{},k^1\}a_2=1,\mathrm{},2(k2).$$
(59)
in which we have considered the redefinition,

$`\varphi _i^1`$ $``$ $`\widehat{P}_2\varphi _i^1,i=1,\mathrm{},k^1=k1,`$
$`\varphi _{k^1+i}^1`$ $``$ $`\widehat{P}_2\varphi _{k^1+i}^1,`$ (60)
where $`\widehat{P}_2=\widehat{P}_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2}\widehat{P}_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_2}`$, form a set of secondary constraints, i.e.

$$det\left(\{\varphi _{a_2}^2,\varphi _{b_2}^2\}\right)_{}0.$$
(61)
Since $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2=\widehat{P}_1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_2=\widehat{P}_1\stackrel{~}{\omega }_2`$, from corollary 5, it can be verified that $`[\widehat{P}_1,\widehat{P}_2]=0`$. Therefore, using corollary 2, one obtains $`\{\varphi _{a_2}^2,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i\}=\{\varphi _{a_2}^2,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i\}=0`$, $`i=1,2`$. All the above process can be repeated until one ends up with a set of constraints satisfying Eq.(37).

Lemma 12. The set of constraints $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, satisfy Eq.(37).

Proof. Since

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{P}_j\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i,j<i,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{P}_j\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i,`$ (62)
where $`\widehat{P}_i=\widehat{P}_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i}\widehat{P}_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i}`$, corollary 5 reads,

$$[\widehat{P}_i,\widehat{P}_j]=0,i,j=1,\mathrm{},k.$$
(63)
From lemma 3, it can be verified that

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i|_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_j,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_j},j<i,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i|_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_j,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_j}.`$ (64)
Using lemma 5 one obtains,

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i|_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_j,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_j},ij,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i|_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_j,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_j}.`$ (65)
Finally, corollary 2 guarantees the validity of lemma 12.

When we have found second class constraints satisfying the symplectic algebra, we can convert them to first class constraints by extending the phase space to include new coordinates $`\eta _i`$’s and $`\pi _i`$’s, where

$`\{\eta _i,\eta _j\}=\{\pi _i,\pi _j\}=0,`$
$`\{\pi _i,\eta _j\}=\delta _{ij},`$
$`\{\eta _i,z^\mu \}=\{\pi _i,z^\nu \}=0,`$ (66)
and redefine constraints as follows:

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i+\eta _i,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{k+i}=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i\pi _i.`$ (67)
It can be easily verified that the constraints $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},2k`$ are abelian,

$$\{\mathrm{\Phi }_a,\mathrm{\Phi }_b\}=0.$$
(68)
Another interesting result is that, the operator $`\widehat{P}`$ defined by the relation,

$$\widehat{P}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\widehat{P}_i,$$
(69)
is the projection map to the constraint surface $``$ and the projected coordinates $`z_p^\mu \widehat{P}z^\mu =z^\mu |_{}`$, are the coordinates of the constrained surface $``$. In addition, from corollary 2 it is clear that,

$$\{z_p^\mu ,\mathrm{}\}_{DB}=\{z_p^\mu ,\mathrm{}\}.$$
(70)
where $`\{,\}_{DB}`$ stands for Dirac bracket respective to the constraints $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$’s.

Assume one maps each constraint $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i`$ to the surface of its conjugate $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i`$, i.e.

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i|_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i},i=1,\mathrm{},k.$$
(71)
From corollary 6, lemma 8 and lemma 12, one verifies that, the algebra (37) is still satisfied. Recalling the constraints $`\varphi _a`$’s in Eq.(35) and the method we used to obtain $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i`$’s (see Eqs.(56,60,71) and lemma 10), we verify that $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i`$’s are simply half of $`\varphi _a`$’s, mapped to the surface of $`\varphi _b`$’s, $`ba`$.

Theorem. Given a set of second class constraints $`\varphi _a`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},2k`$, where,

$$\varphi _a=\varphi _a|_{\varphi _b},ba,$$
(72)
there exist a permutation $`p`$ such that the constraints $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{p_i}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, form a subset of abelian (first class) constraints,

$$\{\varphi _{p_i},\varphi _{p_j}\}=0,i,j=1,\mathrm{},k.$$
(73)
As an example see reference , where gauge invariance in the Proca model is studied considering the abelian subset of second class constraints.

## 4 Conclusion

The main purpose of this article is to show that there exist an abelian subset of second class constraints that can be obtained by mapping each constraint to the surface of other constraints. In addition we introduced a method that can be practically used to transform a given set of second class constraints to an equivalent set satisfying the symplectic algebra. In this way, second class constraints can be simply converted to abelian first class ones.

In reference , it is proved that first class constraints become abelian when they are mapped to the surface of each other. Therefore one can conclude that, using the same technique, the abelian subset of a given set of constraints, can be found independent of the details of their algebra.

Assuming the most general Poisson structure, we have found the projector operators that map functions of phase space to the constraint surface. It is shown that the Poisson brackets of these mapped functions with other functions are equivalent to the corresponding Dirac brackets.

## Acknowledgement

The author would like to express his thanks to A. Shirzad for valuable discussions and useful comments.