text:
# Problems in Lie Group Theory 11footnote 1Submitted to Journ. Opt. B (Wigner issue).

## 1 Systematic Construction

The list of compact simple Lie groups contains the classical groups, related to $`O(n)`$, $`U(n)`$ and $`Sp(n)`$, and the five exceptional structures $`G_2`$, $`F_4`$, $`E_6`$, $`E_7`$, and $`E_8`$. We shall consider the Lie group and its Lie algebra simultaneously, referring at times to $`G`$ and $`L(G)`$ respectively .

Given a Lie group in a series $`G(n)`$ (e.g. the orthogonal, unitary …), how is the group $`G(n+1)`$ constructed? For the orthogonal series ($`B_n`$ and $`D_n`$ in Cartan´s notation) the answer is simple: given $`O(n)`$ acting on itself, that is, the adjoint (adj) representation, and the vector representation, n, it turns out that there is an onto map

$$𝐧𝐧adjL(O(n))$$
(1)
which satisfies Jacobi identity. Hence in the direct sum $`adj+vect`$, there is hidden the structure of $`L(O(n+1))`$

$$AdjO(n)+VectO(n)AdjO(n+1)$$
(2)
Dimensions match, but one has to check the Jacobi identity. In the simplest case $`O(2)O(3)`$, if $`\{e\}`$ describes $`O(2)`$ and $`\{x,y\}`$ the vector representation, defining $`[x,y]=e`$, the only thing to check is $`[e,x,y][e,[x,y]]+cycl.=0`$, which is trivial. By induction, if $`L_{ij}`$ describes $`O(n)`$ and $`n`$ is the vectorial, defining $`L_{k,n+1}=x_k`$, where $`x`$ is the vectorial $`n`$, one checks all Jacobi´s are fulfilled, in a case-by-case procedure.

For the unitary series $`SU(n)`$ one adds the trivial $`U(1)`$ plus the real part of the vector, as $`n\times n^{}=adj+Id`$, and the balance is

$$AdjSU(n)+Id+n+n^{}=AdjSU(n+1)$$
(3)
and checking the Jacobi´s is tedious but it works.

For the symplectic series $`Sp(n)=C_n`$, instead of $`U(1)`$ one adds $`Sp(1)`$ to the vector, of complex dimension $`2n`$

$$AdjSp(n)+AdjSp(1)+2(n+n^{})=AdjSp(n+1)$$
(4)
and again checking Jacobi´s is messy. (I would like to see more clearly why one should add once $`Sp(1))`$.

For the exceptional groups, the $`F_4\&E`$ series one repeats the orthogonal $`(F_4)`$, unitary $`(E_6)`$, symplectic $`(E_7)`$ and orthogonal $`(E_8)`$ method above starting from an orthonormal group and the real part of its Spin representation, to wit (Adams )

$$AdjSO(9)+Spin(9)AdjF_4(36+16=52)$$
(5)
$$AdjSO(10)+Spin(10)+IdAdjE_6(45+1+216=78)$$
(6)
$$AdjSO(12)+Spin(12)+Sp(1)AdjE_7(66+3+232=133)$$
(7)
$$AdjSO(16)+Spin(16)AdjE_8(120+148=248)$$
(8)
Notice that $`8+1`$, $`8+2`$, $`8+4`$ and $`8+8`$ appear. In this sense the octonions show up as a “second coming” of the reals, completed with the spin, not the vector irrep. One checks that the antisymmetric product of the spin irrep. containts the adjoint; for example for $`F_4`$, $`dim(Spin(9)\mathrm{\Delta })=16`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }=36`$ (a $`2form=AdjO(9))+84`$ (a 3-form). This expresses that the $`F_4E_{678}`$ corresponds to the octo, octo-complex, octo-quater and octo-octo bi-rings, as the Freudenthal Magic Square confirms . For an explicit calculation of the Jacobi identity in the last case see .

For $`G_2`$, which has the independent definition as the automorphism group of octonions, we have the defining sequence $`SU(3)G_2S^6R^7`$, as $`G_2`$ acts transitive on the 6-sphere of unit imaginary octonions, and then

$$AdjSU(3)+n+n^{}G_2(8+23=14)$$
(9)
whereas the “conventional” series $`SU(3)SU(4)`$, $`dim=15`$, would include a $`U(1)`$ factor, as above in the unitary series; this “unimodular” character of $`G_2`$ is connected, through exceptional holonomy manifolds, with the compactification in M-theory $`114`$ .

So the problem of systematic construction of Lie groups is essentially solved. One would like however to understand better the Jacobi identities, and also why “other” combinations $`adj+rep`$ do not lead to new groups …

The Weyl group, the automorphisms, the center etc. of these groups are fairly well understood; Borel  raises the question, for the $`Spin(4n)`$ groups, $`n>2`$, whether the two spin irreps $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$, which are obviously isomorphic, are also isomorphic to the vector irrep: the three have the structure $`Spin(4n)/Z_2`$, (the center of $`Spin(4n)`$ is $`Z_2^2`$), but only for $`n=2`$ is the isomorphism clear (triality principle), and for $`n=1`$ they are clearly not isomorphism, $`Spin(3)\times SO(3)SO(4)`$; it is remarkable that $`Spin(4n)`$ has no faithful irreps, as any group with more than one involutive central element.

Another, more fundamental question, is the geometry associated to the exceptional groups, the $`E`$-series at least. Are we happy with $`G_2`$ as the automorphism group of the octonions, $`F_4`$ as the isometry of the octonionic projective plane, $`E_6`$ (in a noncompact form) as the collineations of the same, and $`E_7`$ resp. $`E_8`$ as examples of symplectic resp. metasymplectic geometries  ? Many people think this leaves much to be desired…one would like to understand the exceptional groups at the level we understand the classical groups, as automorphism groups of some natural geometric objects.

A recent paper by Atiyah  sheds some light in the question. The first row of the Magic Square  is just (compact form)

$$B_1:RP^2=O(3)/O(1)\times O(2)$$
(10)
$$A_2:CP^2=U(3)/U(2)\times U(1)$$
(11)
$$C_3:HP^2=Sp(3)/Sp(2)\times Sp(1)$$
(12)
$$F_4:OP^2=F_4/Spin(9)$$
(13)
Now there is a sense in complexifying the four planes. The new projective planes are still homogeneous spaces, giving the second row of the Magic Square, and a real understanding of $`E_6`$. We have the series Group $``$ Space $``$ Isotropy given by

$$SU(3)CP^2U(2)$$
(14)
$$SU(3)SU(3)(CP^2)^2(U(2))^2$$
(15)
$$SU(6)Gr_{6,2}^cS[U(2)U(4)]$$
(16)
$$E_6XSpin(10)U(1)$$
(17)
We lack a clear picture of $`X`$ . We use only the compact form. The complexified quaternionic plane coincides with the grassmaniann of planes in $`C^6`$. Notice the naturality of the isotropy groups. We expect eagerly this analysis to be extended to the last two rows of the Magic Square.

## 2 Topology of Lie groups: Sphere structure

The gross topology of Lie groups is well-known. The non-compact case reduces to compact times an euclidean space (Malcev-Iwasawa theorem). The compact case is reduced to a finite factor, a Torus, and a semisimple compact Lie group. H. Hopf determined in 1.941 that the real homology of simple compact Lie groups is that of a product of odd spheres; for example

$$H_{}(G_2;R)=H_{}(S^3\times S^{11};R)$$
(18)
The exponents of a Lie group are the numbers $`i`$ such $`S^{2i+1}`$ is an allowed sphere; e.g. for $`U(n)`$, they are $`0,1,\mathrm{},n1`$.

Can one see this sphere structure directly? The author has shown  that in many cases the defining representation provides a basis for induction, starting from $`A_1=B_1=C_1`$. For example, $`SU(2)=Sp(1)=Spin(3)`$ is exactly $`S^3`$, and as $`SU(3)`$ acts in the defining (vector) irrep in $`C^3=R^6S^5`$, the bundle

$$SU(2)SU(3)S^5$$
(19)
is a principal bundle. As $`\pi _4(S^3)=Z_2`$ classifies $`SU(2)`$ bundles over $`S^5`$, and no simple Lie group is a product, $`SU(3)`$ is the unique non-trivial bundle over $`S^5`$ with fiber $`SU(2)`$, in the sense that the square is trivial; hence we dare write

$$SU(3)=S^3(\times S^5$$
(20)
as a finite twisted product. For the unitary and symplectic series the method works perfectly (see ); indeed, this is connected with the fact that neither the U-series nor the Sp-series have torsion . The exponents are succesive in $`U(n)`$ and jump by two in $`Sp(n)`$.

But for the orthogonal series one has to consider some other manifolds besides spheres, with the same real homology; is this an imperfection? No! It accounts for the torsion. The place of spheres is played by some Stiefel manifold, and this introduces (precisely) 2-torsion: in fact, $`Spin(n)`$, $`n7`$ and $`SO(n)`$, $`n3`$, have 2-torsion. The low cases $`Spin(3,4,5,6)`$ coincide with $`Sp(1)`$, $`Sp(1)\times Sp(1)`$, $`Sp(2)`$ and $`SU(4)`$, and have no torsion.

For the exceptional groups, let us start with the smallest, $`G_2`$; the structure diagram is

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}SU(2)& =& SU(2)& & \\ & & & & \\ SU(3)& & G_2& & S^6\\ & & & & \\ S^5& & M_{11}& & S^6\end{array}$$
(21)
where $`M_{11}`$ is again a Stiefel manifold, with real homology like $`S^{11}`$, but with 2-torsion. Hence

$$H_{}(G_2;R)=H_{}(S^3\times S^{11};R),$$
(22)
the correct result. For $`F_4`$ we do not get the sphere structure from any irrep, and in fact $`F_4`$ has 2- and 3-torsion. Does the 3-torsion of $`F_4`$ come from the Euler Triplet, i.e. Euler number of $`(F_4/Spin(9)=`$ Moufang Plane 222 The projective plane over octonions was discovered by Ruth Moufang in 1.932. It makes little sense to call it the Cayley plane; A. Cayley was not even the first discoverer of the octonions!) $`=3`$? .

There is no torsion in the U- and Sp-series, 2-torsion only in $`Spin(n)`$ and $`G_2`$, as referred to above. Now 2- and 3-Torsion appears in $`F_4`$ (as mentioned), $`E_6`$ and $`E_7`$. We have here no comment to offer; in particular, there is no clue that we see for torsion on the twisted sphere product and the natural actions of these groups, nor for $`E_8`$. But…

$`E_8`$ has 2-, 3- and 5-torsion ! Where on earth the 5-torsion comes from? I should pinpoint two hints: (i): The Coxeter number $`(dimrank)/rank`$ of $`E_8`$ is $`30=235`$, in fact a mnemonic for the exponents of $`E_8`$ is: they are the coprimes up to 30, namely (1, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29) ; (ii) The first perfect numbers are 6, 28 and 496, associated to the primes 2, 3 and 5 (these Mersenne numbers are $`2^{p1}(2^p1)`$, $`p`$ and $`2^p1`$ primes). And the reader will recall that $`496=dimO(32)=dimE(8)\times E(8)`$. Why the square? It happens also in $`O(4)`$, dim = 6 (prime 2), as $`O(4)O(3)\times O(3)`$; even $`O(8)`$ (prime 3) is like $`S^7\times S^7\times G_2`$.

These are not real problems, but features for which we should expect a better explanation.

## 3 Other topological features

### 3.1 Capicua

The sphere structure of compact simple Lie groups has a curious “capicua” 333This catalan word (cap i cua = head and tail) is much more expressive that the greek palindrome. Capicua RNA sequences are very important in the RNA world which presumably ruled on earth before organized life. form: the exponents are symmetric from each end; for example, for $`E_6`$ and $`E_7`$:

$$exponentsofE_6:1,4,5,7,8,11.Differences:3,1,2,1,3$$
(23)
$$exponentsofE_7:1,5,7,9,11,13,17.Differences:4,2,2,2,2,4$$
(24)
This question was raised by Chevalley , and still (I) do not understand it.

### 3.2 Supersymmetry

The real homology algebra of a simple Lie group is a Grassmann algebra, as it is generated by odd (i.e., anticonmutative) elements. However, from them we can get, in the enveloping algebra, multilinear symmetric forms, one for each generator; the construction is standard ; in physics they are called the Casimir invariants, in mathematics the invariants of the Weyl group.

For example, for $`SU(3)`$, we have the quadratic and the cubic invariant

$$I_2(x,y)=Tradxady,,I_3(x,y,z)=\{x,yz\}$$
(25)
Is this a fact of life, or an indication of a hidden odd-even symmetry (supersymmetry)? It was remarked already in .

There is probably a more profound relation with supersymmetry, which we are just starting to notice; it was discovered by P. Ramond , and the mathemathical basis is been clarified by B. Kostant . The first example is with the pair $`F_4B_4`$: it turns out that $`F_4/B_4`$ is the Moufang plane $`OP^2`$ and

$$dimWeyl(F_4)/Weyl(B_4)=1152/384=Euler(OP^2)=3$$
(26)
as $`b_0=b_8=b_{16}=1`$, others $`b\stackrel{´}{}s=0`$ in $`OP^2`$. Kostant now says: any irrep of $`F_4`$ generates three of $`B_4`$, in many cases supersymmetric, that is, the dimensions of spinors (faithful irrep of $`Spin(9)`$) and tensors (faithful of $`SO(9)=Spin(9)/Z_2`$) match; for example (negative signs for spinors)

$$TheidenticalirrepofF_4generatesthetriplet:+44128+84ofSpin(9)$$
(27)
corresponding, in physics, to the 11-dimensional maximal Supergravity multiplet with graviton, gravitino and the 3-form C, which in $`M`$-theory is radiated by the M2 brane. Ramond found many triplets with fermi/bose ( = spinorial vs. vectorial irreps) matching, and also many matchings in the dimensions of the Casimir invariants (but not perfect!).

We think this is a very important development; it points out to explain, for the first time, the existence of supersymmetry in physics! The theory  is that for any pair $`HG`$ of Lie groups, $`G`$ semisimple and $`H`$ reductive subgroup (i.e. it can contain $`U(1)`$ subgroups), the $`Pin(2N)`$ irrep, $`2N=dimGdimH`$, splits in $`\chi `$ basic irreps of $`H`$, where

$$\chi =Euler(G/H)=dim[Weyl(G)/Weyl(H)]$$
(28)
The analogous analysis for $`CP^2=SU(3)/U(2)`$ and $`HP^2=Sp(3)/[Sp(1)\times Sp(2)]`$, also with Euler number $`=3`$, corresponds to the supersymmetric hypermultiplet and Yang-Mills multiplet, respectively . That the 3 simply connected projective planes display the standard Susy, scalar in 6D, vector in 10D and tensor in 11D is thrilling!

We explain the procedure for the identity irrep of $`SU(n+1)`$; for instance let us consider in $`CP^n=SU(n+1)/U(n)`$ the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & Z_2& =& Z_2\\ & & & & \\ U(n)& & Spin(2n)& & X\\ & & & & \\ U(n)& & SO(2n)& & X/2\end{array}$$
(29)
where the nature of $`X`$ needs not concern us (it is $`CP^3`$ for $`n=3`$). The irrep of $`Pin(2n)`$ of dim $`2^n`$ splits, regarding $`U(n)`$, in all the antisymmetric forms (p-forms); for example for $`n=4`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_L+\mathrm{\Delta }_R=[0]+[1]+[1^2]+[1^3]+[1^4]$$
(30)
$$2^4=16=1^++4^{}+6^++4^{}+1^+$$
(31)
The $`U(1)`$ factor in $`U(n)=[SU(n)\times U(1)]/Z_n`$ gives the sign (grading) which amounts to a generalization of supersymmetry; notice the number of summands, 5, is Euler($`CP^4`$). Kostant character formula  ammounts to substracting, instead of adding, the two spin irreps, and tensoring by any irrep of $`SU(n+1)`$: the alternating multiplet in the r.h.s, which makes sense in the Grothendieck representation ring $`R(G)`$, exhibits a generalized supersymmetry. For extensions to the symplectic and octonionic cases see .

## 4 Representations

For finite groups there is a duality, a kind of Fourier equivalence, between conjugacy classes and irreducible representations in the following sense (Frobenius): the number is the same, and the irreps are obtained from the central idempotents in which the classes, as centrals in the group algebra, are decomposed spectrally. In particular the group algebra splits in sum of matrix algebras, one per class, containing the irreps as many times as the dimension: Burnside´s formula reflects this :

$$ordG=d_i^2$$
(32)
where $`i`$ runs through the irreps $``$ classes.

The question we want to pose now is this: how does this correspondence from conjugacy classes vs. irreps generalize for compact Lie groups? For compact abelian Lie groups $`A`$ it is very clear: it is Pontriagin duality, trading the circle by the integers as many times as $`rkA`$.

It should be possible to explain the gross features of the discrete lattice of irreps of a compact simple Lie group by the geometry of the compact manifold (or rather, orbifold) of the conjugacy classes. How?

I can only recall the simplest case, $`SU(2)`$; the set of classes is a segment (labelled by the rotation angle), and the irreps are the nonnegative integers. For a group of rank $`r`$, the set of classes is a compact “manifold” of dimension $`r`$, and consequently the lattice of irreps is labeled by $`r`$ integers. How does one go beyond this? One would like to do Fourier analysis in the center (class functions) of the $`L^1(G)`$ convolution algebra of functions, and distillate the lattice of irreps…

The irreps of the classical and exceptional structures have a set of order $`r`$ again called primitive irreps, in the sense that the ring $`R(G)`$ is generated by them; they correspond one to one to the nodes of the Dynkin diagram. Our next question is: How are these irreps selected?

For the A-, B-, C- and D-series, it is fairly clear: they are the natural (or defining) irrep, plus some p-forms, traceless in the C-series, plus the spin(s) irreps. in the O-series. Indeed the different root in the symplectic series $`C_n`$ is the irrep $`[1^n][1^{n2}]`$ with (complex) singularized dimension $`2(2n+1)(2n)\mathrm{}(n+3)/n!`$.

Now for the primitive irreps of the exceptional groups : for $`G_2`$ are the natural irrep (7) and the adjoint (14). For $`F_4`$, the natural (3x3 octonionic hermitean traceless, 26) and the adjoint (52). The other two are: $`273=2625/252`$ and $`1274=5251/252=(262524/3!52)/2`$, natural constructs in both cases.

For $`E_6`$ the natural is $`27`$ (given by the $`3\times 3`$ hermitean complex-octonionic Jordan algebra), and the adjoint is 78. As the center is $`Z_3`$, there are complex irreps  (this is why $`E_6`$ is a candidate for Grand Unified Theories, as it can accomodate chiral multiplets). Besides $`27^{}`$, $`351=2726/2`$, $`351^{}`$ and the real $`2925=2726/23`$, exterior products. Also $`2925=7877/278`$.

For $`E_7`$, 56 defining and 133 adjoint; then $`1539=5657/21`$, $`27664=565554/2356`$; $`365750=56555453/4!5655/2`$ all correspond to antisymmetric traceless products, as $`E_7`$ is symplectic. $`8645=133132/2133`$ is also natural. There is still the 912, for which T. Smith (Atlanta, GA) (personal communication) proposes $`912=16\times 56+16\times 1`$.

Finally, for $`E_8`$, $`248`$ is both the natural and the adjoint (unique case among Lie groups). All except $`3875`$ and $`147250`$ are obtained, again, from traceless p-forms on $`248`$ .

## Dedicatory

The man who made group theory and representations accesible and useful for physics was Eugene P. Wigner, whose 100th birthday we gather here to celebrate. I offer this modest contribution to his memory.

## Acknowledgements

I have talked many of the topics presented here with M. Santander (Valladolid), who was very helpful. Also discussions with A. Segui (Zaragoza) and J. Mateos (Salamanca) are gratefully acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# Thermal model for RHIC, part I: particle ratios and spectra Talk presented at II International Workshop on Hadron Physics, Effective Theories of Low-Energy QCD, 25-29 September 2002, University of Coimbra, Portugal

## 1 Introduction

The main features of the soft hadron production at RHIC, such as the ratios of hadron abundances, the transverse-mass spectra, the elliptic flow, or the HBT radii may be efficiently understood in the framework of a statistical model which combines the standard thermal analysis of the hadron ratios with a suitably parameterized expansion of matter at freeze-out Broniowski and Florkowski (2001, 2002a); Broniowski et al. (hep-ph/0209286). In the present paper we outline the main assumptions of the model and concentrate on the discussion of the particle ratios Florkowski et al. (2002); Michalec (2001) and the hadron transverse-mass spectra Broniowski and Florkowski (2002b, c); Florkowski and Broniowski (2002, nucl-th/0208061). The subsequent paper in these Proceedings Broniowski et al. (2002) contains the analysis of the elliptic flow and the pion HBT correlation radii.

The main ingredients of our approach are as follows: i) the chemical freeze-out and the thermal (kinetic) freeze-out occur simultaneously, ii) all hadronic resonances are included in the calculation of both the hadron yields and the spectra, and iii) the freeze-out hypersurface and the flow at freeze-out are defined by the simple expressions inspired by the Bjorken model Bjorken (1983). Below we discuss in more detail these three points.

### 1.1 Freeze-out

Our approach includes a complete set of hadronic resonances in both the calculation of the hadron abundances and the calculation of the hadron spectra. Then, it turns out that the distinction between the two freeze-outs Heinz (1999) is not necessary. Our analysis showed Florkowski et al. (2002) that the decays of the resonances, which are initially present in a heat bath at the temperature of 165 MeV, effectively lower the inverse slope parameters of the spectra by about 30-40 MeV. This is just the desired effect which explains the typical difference between $`T_{\mathrm{chem}}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{kin}}`$ (i.e., between the temperature at the chemical freeze-out and the thermal freeze-out, respectively). As a consequence, we have found, at least for the RHIC data, that no extra elastic rescattering is required in order to describe simultaneously both the ratios and the spectra. In other words, we assume one universal freeze-out taking place at Broniowski and Florkowski (2001)

$$T_{\mathrm{chem}}=T_{\mathrm{kin}}T.$$
(1)
Recently, experimental hints have been found in favor of our assumption (1). A successful reconstruction of the $`K^{}(892)^0`$ states by the STAR experiment Xu (2002), together with the very good agreement between the measured yield of $`K^{}(892)^0`$ and the prediction of the thermal model Broniowski et al. (hep-ph/0209286); Braun-Munzinger et al. (2001) suggests a picture with the short expansion time between the two freeze-outs. Such a picture is natural if the production of particles (hadronization) occurs in such conditions that neither elastic or inelastic processes are effective. An example here is provided by the sudden hadronization model of Ref. Rafelski and Letessier (2000).

### 1.2 Resonances

For thermal systems the contribution from high-lying (heavy) states is damped by the exponential factor, $`\mathrm{exp}(m_{}/T)`$. This fact, at the first sight, suggests that most of the resonances present in a hadron gas at a moderate temperature may be neglected. However, although the high-lying states are suppressed, their number increases according to the Hagedorn hypothesis Hagedorn (1965); Broniowski and Florkowski (2000); Broniowski (2002); Tounsi et al. (1994), such that their net effect turns out to be important. Indeed, hadronic resonances have been included in numerous applications of the statistical models used in the studies of the ratios of hadron multiplicities Braun-Munzinger et al. (2001, 1999); Gaździcki and Gorenstein (1999); Yen and Gorenstein (1999); Becattini et al. (2001) and the effects connected with their decays are essential for the successful description of the data. We note that only a quarter of the observed pions at RHIC comes from the “primordial” pions present at freeze-out, and the remaining three quarters are produced from the decays of resonances.

In our approach, the same number of the resonances is included in the calculation of the hadron ratios and in the calculation of the hadron spectra. In this way, our theoretical spectra have always the correct relative normalization. Moreover, we have worked out semi-analytic formulas for the treatment of the resonance decays Florkowski et al. (2002). This allows us to sum up exactly many small contributions, especially, those appearing in the sequential decays. All two- and three-body decays are taken into account with the branching ratios taken from the tables. In the case of the three-body decays, the matrix elements are approximated by a constant, hence only the phase-space effect is included.

### 1.3 Expansion

In order to calculate the spectra we need to specify the expansion of the matter at freeze-out; clearly, the Doppler effect due to flow modifies the spectra and must be properly included. Our choice of the freeze-out hypersurface and the four-velocity at freeze-out has been made in the spirit of Refs. Bjorken (1983); Baym et al. (1983); Milyutin and Nikolaev (1998); Siemens and Rasmussen (1979); Schnedermann et al. (1993); Csörgő and Lörstad (1996); Rischke and Gyulassy (1996); Scheibl and Heinz (1999) and is defined by the two conditions:

$$\tau =\sqrt{t^2r_x^2r_y^2r_z^2}=\mathrm{const}.,$$
(2)
and

$$u^\mu =\frac{x^\mu }{\tau }=\frac{t}{\tau }(1,\frac{r_x}{t},\frac{r_y}{t},\frac{r_z}{t}).$$
(3)
The constant in Eq. (2) will be later denoted simply by $`\tau `$. In order to make the transverse size,

$$\rho =\sqrt{r_x^2+r_y^2},$$
(4)
finite, we impose the condition

$$\rho <\rho _{\mathrm{max}}.$$
(5)
We note that the four-velocity (3) defining the hydrodynamic flow at freeze-out is proportional to the coordinate (Hubble-like expansion). This form of the flow and the fact the the coordinates $`t`$ and $`r_z`$ are not limited and appear in the boost-invariant combination in (2) mean that our model is boost-invariant. In practical calculations it is convenient to introduce the following parameterization Csörgő and Lörstad (1996):

$`t`$ $`=`$ $`\tau \mathrm{cosh}\alpha _{}\mathrm{cosh}\alpha _{},r_z=\tau \mathrm{sinh}\alpha _{}\mathrm{cosh}\alpha _{},`$
$`r_x`$ $`=`$ $`\tau \mathrm{sinh}\alpha _{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,r_y=\tau \mathrm{sinh}\alpha _{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,`$ (6)
where $`\alpha _{}`$ is the rapidity of the fluid element, $`v_z=r_z/t=\mathrm{tanh}\alpha _{}`$, and $`\alpha _{}`$ describes the transverse size, $`\rho =\tau \mathrm{sinh}\alpha _{}`$. The transverse velocity is $`v_\rho =\mathrm{tanh}\alpha _{}/\mathrm{cosh}\alpha _{}`$. The element of the hypersurface is defined as

$$d\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu =ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }\frac{x^\alpha }{\alpha _{}}\frac{x^\beta }{\alpha _{}}\frac{x^\gamma }{\varphi }d\alpha _{}d\alpha _{}d\varphi ,$$
(7)
where $`x^0=t`$, $`x^1=r_x`$, $`x^2=r_y`$, $`x^3=r_z`$, and $`ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }`$ is the Levi-Civita tensor. A straightforward calculation yields

$$d\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mu (x)=u^\mu (x)\tau ^3\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha _{})\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha _{})d\alpha _{}d\alpha _{}d\varphi .$$
(8)
Equation (8) shows that the four-vectors $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mu `$ and $`u^\mu `$ are parallel. In this case the spectra may be obtained from the expression analogous to the Cooper-Frye Cooper and Frye (1974); Cooper et al. (1975) formula

$$\frac{dN}{d^2p_{}dy}=p^\mu 𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu f\left(pu\right),$$
(9)
but with the distribution $`f`$ which has collected the products of resonance decays (for details see Broniowski et al. (hep-ph/0209286)). With parameterization (6) we can rewrite Eq. (9) in the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{2\pi m_{}dm_{}dy}}`$ $`=`$ $`\tau ^3{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\alpha _{}{\displaystyle _0^{\rho _{\mathrm{max}}/\tau }}\mathrm{sinh}\alpha _{}d\left(\mathrm{sinh}\alpha _{}\right){\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\xi puf\left(pu\right),`$
where

$$pu=m_{}\mathrm{cosh}\alpha _{}\mathrm{cosh}\alpha _{}p_{}\mathrm{cos}\xi \mathrm{sinh}\alpha _{}.$$
(11)
One can notice that the spectrum (LABEL:dNi) is, as expected from the assumed boost invariance, independent of the rapidity $`y`$.

## 2 Ratios of hadron abundances

In the case of the boost-invariant systems, the ratios of hadron multiplicities at midrapidity, $`dN/dy|_{y=0}`$, are simply related to the ratios of the local densities, $`n_i`$, since

$$\frac{dN_i/dy}{dN_j/dy}|_{y=0}=\frac{N_i}{N_j}=\frac{n_i}{n_j}.$$
(12)
The first part of this equality follows from the boost invariance, whereas the second part is a consequence of the factorization of the volume of the system (this point is discussed in detail in Ref. Broniowski et al. (2002)). Since the firecylinder formed at RHIC is approximately boost-invariant (at least within one unit of rapidity at $`y=0`$, which is sufficient for our considerations which concentrate only on the central region), the ratios at zero rapidity measured for various particles may be used to fit the thermal parameters of the model. This is an important observation indicating that the ratios are not sensitive to the particular form of expansion. Consequently, the parameters of our model can be fixed in two steps: with help of the ratios we first fix the thermodynamic parameters, and later with help of the spectra we fix the two expansion parameters, $`\tau `$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}`$.

The density of the $`i`$th hadron species is calculated from the ideal-gas expression

$`n_i`$ $`=`$ $`g_i{\displaystyle d^3pf^{(i)}(p)},`$
$`f^{(i)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}\left(\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(E_i(p)\mu _BB_i\mu _SS_i\mu _II_i\right)/T\right]\pm 1\right)^1,`$ (13)
where $`g_i`$ is the spin degeneracy, $`B_i`$, $`S_i`$, and $`I_i`$ denote the baryon number, strangeness, and the third component of isospin, and $`E_i(p)=\sqrt{p^2+m_i^2}`$. The quantities $`\mu _B,\mu _S`$ and $`\mu _I`$ are the chemical potentials which enforce the corresponding conservation laws. We recall that Eq. (13) is used to calculate the “primordial” densities of stable hadrons as well as of all resonances at freeze-out, which decay later on.

Initially, the temperature, $`T`$, and the baryon chemical potential, $`\mu _B`$, were fitted with the $`\chi ^2`$ method to the 9 preliminary experimental ratios of the hadron yields (for the list of the ratios used in this fit and for more details of our analysis see Refs. Florkowski et al. (2002); Michalec (2001)). The $`\mu _S`$ and $`\mu _I`$ were determined with the conditions that the initial strangeness of the system is zero, and the ratio of the baryon number to the electric charge is the same as in the colliding nuclei. This procedure gave us $`T=165\pm 7`$ MeV and $`\mu _B=41\pm 5`$ MeV. In Table I we present the result of the fit with a wider set of the up-to-date available hadronic ratios. It yields $`T=168\pm 5`$ MeV and $`\mu _B=41\pm 4`$ MeV. It is interesting to observe that the newly released data are fully consistent with the thermal picture and only a small change of the thermodynamic parameters follows when the new set of the ratios is used.

A characteristic feature of our fit is that the optimal temperature is consistent with the value for the deconfinement phase transition obtained from the QCD lattice simulations: $`T_c=154\pm 8`$ MeV for three massless flavors and $`T_c=173\pm 8`$ MeV for two massless flavors Karsch (2002)). This type of the behavior has been also found in other statistical calculations Braun-Munzinger et al. (2001); Becattini (2002) and is interpreted as the argument for a scenario in which the hadronic ratios are fixed just in the hadronization process.

## 3 Transverse-mass spectra

Having fixed the two independent thermodynamic parameters of the model, we can use Eq. (LABEL:dNi) to fit the transverse-mass spectra and to fix the two remaining geometric parameters of the model. This method has been initially applied in the study of the spectra of pions, kaons and protons, which gave us, for the most central events, the following values of the size parameters:

$$\tau =7.66\text{ fm},\rho _{\mathrm{max}}=6.69\text{ fm}.$$
(14)
In Fig. 1 we show our results for all up-to-now available spectra at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$ GeV for the most-central collisions. In the upper part of Fig. 1 we show the spectra of pions, kaons, and antiprotons (used earlier to determine the geometric parameters) and the predicted spectra of the $`\varphi `$ and $`K^{}(892)^0`$ mesons. The predicted spectrum of the $`\varphi `$ mesons agrees very well with the measurement Adler (2002a), with model curve crossing five out of the nine data points. The $`\varphi `$ meson production is of a particular interest in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, since its spectrum reflects the initial temperature of the hadronic system. This is because its interaction with the hadronic environment is negligible. Moreover, it does not receive any contribution from resonance decays. Thus, the agreement of the model and the data supports the idea of one universal freeze-out. The upper part of Fig. 1 also shows the averaged spectrum of $`K^{}`$ resonances, with the data from Ref. Xu (2002). Once again we observe a very good agreement between the model curve and the experimental points. As already mentioned above, the successful description of both the yield and the spectrum of $`K^{}(892)^0`$ mesons supports the concept of the thermal description of hadron production at RHIC, and brings evidence for a very small interval between chemical and thermal freeze-outs.

In the lower part of Fig. 1 we show the predictions of the model for the spectra of hyperons. Again, in view of the fact that no extra parameters are introduced here and no refitting has been performed, the agreement is impressive. We note that the preliminary Castillo (2002) data for the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$’s used in the figure were subsequently updated, which resulted in the reduction of the data by about a factor of 2. This correction makes our agreement with the data even better. The data accumulated at lower energies at SPS showed that the slope of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ hyperon was much steeper than for other particles Antinori (2001). On the contrary, in the case of RHIC the model predictions for the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are as good as for the other hadrons. Since the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ contains three strange quarks, it is most sensitive for modifications of the simple thermal model used here, e.g. the use of canonical instead of the grand-canonical ensemble. The agreement of Fig. 1 does not support the need for inclusion of these effects.

## 4 Summary

The success of our model in reproducing the hadron ratios and the transverse-mass spectra indicates that the particles are indeed produced thermally. The model has only four parameters and describes the data with surprising accuracy. Since our approach uses hadronic degrees of freedom and starts at freeze-out, important theoretical questions concerning the earlier stages of the evolution cannot be addressed in this framework. We think, however, that our results constrain any more microscopic descriptions of the evolution of the matter formed in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions. Further applications of the model aiming at the description of the elliptic flow and the HBT pion radii will be presented in the next contribution to these Proceedings Broniowski et al. (2002).

Supported in part by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research, grant 2 P03B 09419. WB acknowledges the support of PRAXIS XXI/BCC/429/94.


text:
# The number of metastable states in the generalized random orthogonal model

## 1 Introduction

Mean field or totally connected spin glass models are among the most widely studied models of complex systems. They are the starting point for understanding finite dimensional spin glasses and are also related to neural network models and complex optimization problems . Such systems exhibit an exponentially large number of pure states and dynamic glass like transitions. Below a certain dynamic transition temperature the dynamics becomes very slow and the systems stay out of equilibrium on numerical or experimental time scales. An important factor in the slow dynamics is the presence of metastable or blocked configurations. The enumeration of the number of metastable states has been addressed by various authors in $`p`$-spin Ising systems with Gaussian interaction matrices , neural network models , random orthogonal models (ROMs) and in periodic glass models which have no quenched disorder . Recently the authors studied the statics of generalized random orthogonal models originally introduced in  and established general criteria determining whether these models exhibit continuous spin glass like transitions or structural glass transitions preceded by a dynamical transition . The first known examples of these sorts of phase transitions were seen in $`p`$-spin models for $`p>2`$ . However a number of two spin Ising models were later shown to have this structural glass transition . Here we shall extend the results of  for the ROM to a more general ROM which can be interpreted as a Hopfield model with strictly orthogonal patterns in order to explore the influence of pattern orthogonality on the number of metastable states. We also analyze anti-ferromagnetic Hopfield model as this class of ROMs can also be viewed as anti-ferromagnetic Hopfield models. The calculation for the standard ferromagnetic Hopfield model was carried out in  and we also note that the anti-ferromagnetic Hopfield has a structure similar to the Hamiltonian arising in the analysis of the Nash equilibria in the minority game as studied in . Our analytic results are backed up by exact enumeration simulations for small system sizes. Despite small system sizes we show that when finite size scaling is taken into account the agreement with the analytical results is excellent.

The Hamiltonian in a fully connected generalized ROM is

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{}J_{ij}S_iS_j$$
(1)
where the $`S_i,11N`$ are Ising spins and the interaction matrix $`J`$ is statistically invariant under the transformation $`J𝒪^TJ𝒪`$ where $`𝒪O(N)`$ (the group of orthogonal transformations on $`^N`$). The matrix $`J`$ can thus be written as

$$J=𝒪^T\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒪$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a diagonal matrix with density of eigenvalues denoted by $`\rho (\lambda )`$. If the support of $`\rho (\lambda )`$ is bounded on the real axis then the thermodynamic limit is well defined. It was shown in  that the nature of the spin glass transition in such models depends on the behavior of the density of states $`\rho (\lambda )`$ in the neighborhood of $`\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}`$, the largest eigenvalue of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

In this paper we shall concentrate on the model defined by

$$\rho (\lambda )=\alpha \delta (\lambda 1)+(1\alpha )\delta (\lambda +1)$$
(3)
The matrix $`J`$ in this case may be written as

$`J_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\lambda _\mu \xi _i^\mu \xi _j^\mu `$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\{\mu :\lambda _\mu =1\}}{}}\xi _i^\mu \xi _j^\mu {\displaystyle \underset{\{\mu :\lambda _\mu =1\}}{}}\xi _i^\mu \xi _j^\mu `$
where $`\xi ^\mu `$ is a random basis of orthonormal vectors on $`^N`$. One may also write $`J`$ in the following two forms using the completeness of the $`\xi ^\mu `$.

$`J_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{\{\mu :\lambda _\mu =1\}}{}}\xi _i^\mu \xi _j^\mu \delta _{ij}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}2{\displaystyle \underset{\{\mu :\lambda _\mu =1\}}{}}\xi _i^\mu \xi _j^\mu `$ (6)
We recall that the Hopfield model with $`p=\alpha N`$ Gaussian patterns has an interaction matrix given by

$$J_{ij}=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{\alpha N}{}}\xi _i^\mu \xi _j^\mu $$
(7)
Here the variables $`\xi _i^\mu `$ are Gaussian with zero mean and variance $`\overline{\xi _i^\mu \xi _j^\mu ^{}}=\delta _{ij}\delta ^{\mu \mu ^{}}/N`$. These patterns are only orthonormal in the statistical sense, that is $`_i\overline{\xi _i^\mu \xi _i^\mu ^{}}=\delta ^{\mu \mu ^{}}`$. Up to a constant diagonal term, the ROM we study here is from Eq. (5) equivalent to a ferromagnetic Hopfield (FH) model with $`\alpha N`$ strictly orthonormal patterns, or from Eq. (6) equivalent to an anti-ferromagnetic Hopfield (AFH) model with $`1\alpha `$ patterns.

The number of metastable states gives useful information about the phase space of complex systems. The easiest metastable states to analyze are those which are single spin flip stable, that is to say a configuration where flipping a single spin increases (and possibly leaves constant) the energy of the system. Alternatively every spin is aligned with its local field. A metastable state thus defined is a blocked configuration of any single spin flip Monte-Carlo dynamics.

## 2 Average Number of Metastable States

In this section following we explain the calculation of the number of metastable states for generalized ROMs. By definition the average number of metastable states is given by

$$\overline{N_{MS}}=\overline{\mathrm{Tr}_{S_i}\underset{i}{}\theta (\underset{ji}{}J_{ij}S_iS_j)}$$
(8)
The term $`\theta `$ is the Heaviside function and is only nonzero if every spin $`S_i`$ is aligned with its local field $`h_i=_{ji}J_{ij}S_j`$ i.e. when $`h_iS_i>0`$. The average number of metastable states at average energy $`E`$ per spin is given by

$$\overline{N_{MS}(E)}=\overline{\mathrm{Tr}_{S_i}\left[\underset{i}{}\theta (\underset{ji}{}J_{ij}S_iS_j)\right]\delta \left(EN+\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{}J_{ij}S_iS_j\right)}$$
(9)
To proceed we make the gauge transformation $`𝒪_{ij}𝒪_{ij}S_iS_j=𝒪_{ij}^{}`$, it is easy to see that $`𝒪^{}`$ is also in $`O(N)`$. One may therefore write

$$\overline{N_{MS}(E)}=2^N\overline{\left[\underset{i}{}\theta (\underset{ji}{}J_{ij}^{})\right]\delta \left(EN+\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{}J_{ij}^{}\right)}$$
(10)
where $`J^{}=𝒪_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒪^{}`$. Following the standard method  we use the identity

$$\theta (x)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }\mathrm{exp}(i\lambda x)$$
(11)
We thus obtain

$$\overline{N_{MS}}=2^N\frac{d\mu }{2\pi }\frac{dx_id\lambda _i}{2\pi }\overline{\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{ij}{}J_{ij}^{}(\lambda _i+\frac{\mu }{2})i\underset{i}{}J_{ii}^{}\lambda _ii\underset{i}{}\lambda _ix_i+iN\mu E\right)}$$
(12)
To simplify the algebra we make the change of variables $`\lambda _i\lambda _i\frac{\mu }{2}`$. Following  we now consider the term

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\overline{\mathrm{exp}(i\underset{ij}{}J_{ij}\lambda _i)}=\overline{\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{Tr}J(M2L))}$$
(13)
Where in vectorial notation $`M=\lambda 𝐮^T+𝐮\lambda ^T`$ with $`𝐮_i=1`$, $`\lambda _i=\lambda _i`$ and $`L_{ij}=(\lambda _i\mu /2)\delta _{ij}`$. We note here that in order to eliminate the diagonal term in Eq. (12) the matrix $`L`$ has appeared, and this term must be properly accounted for to obtain the correct result. The averaging over the $`O(N)`$ disorder (the Haar measure) in this problem can be carried out by using the results of  for $`U(N)`$ integration and adapting them to the $`O(N)`$ case . Recently a simple replica method was also used to derive these results . The results  give for an arbitrary symmetric matrix $`M`$ and $`J=𝒪^𝒯\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒪`$ that

$$\overline{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}MJ\right]}=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{N}{2}\mathrm{Tr}G(\frac{M}{N})+\mathrm{nonextensive}\mathrm{terms}\right]$$
(14)
where the overline indicates the Haar average over $`𝒪`$ and to leading order the non extensive terms are of order one. A compact formula for $`G`$ is

$$G(z)=\mathrm{max}_\mu \{\mu z𝑑\lambda \frac{\rho (\lambda )}{\mu \lambda }\mathrm{ln}(z)1\}$$
(15)
In the models of interest here $`G(z)`$ is given by

$`G(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(1+4z(m+z))^{\frac{1}{2}}+m\mathrm{ln}((1+4z(m+z))^{\frac{1}{2}}+2z+m)`$ (16)
$``$ $`\mathrm{ln}((1+4z(m+z))^{\frac{1}{2}}+1+2mz)m\mathrm{ln}(m+1)1\mathrm{ln}(2)](\mathrm{ROM}m=2\alpha 1)`$
$`G(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \mathrm{ln}(1z)(\text{FH})`$ (17)
$`G(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \mathrm{ln}(1+z)(\text{AFH})`$ (18)
Following the results of  one obtains

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{N}{2}\mathrm{Tr}G(i\frac{M2L}{N})\right)$$
(19)
Given the form of the matrix $`M`$, the only non zero eigenvalues of $`M`$ are in the vector subspace of $`^N`$ spanned by $`\lambda `$ and $`𝐮`$ . The two non zero eigenvalues are

$$\mu _\pm =\lambda 𝐮\pm |\lambda ||𝐮|$$
(20)
We define the order parameters $`z`$ and $`v`$ by

$`z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i`$ (21)
$`v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i^2`$ (22)
Hence the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{M}=M/N`$ has eigenvalues $`z+\sqrt{v}`$ and $`z\sqrt{v}`$ which are of order $`1`$ and the other $`N2`$ eigenvalues are zero. We now consider the evaluation of the term $`\mathrm{Tr}G(i\frac{M2L}{N})`$, Taylor expanding one has

$$\mathrm{Tr}G(i\frac{M2L}{N})=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{i^n}{n!}G^{(n)}(0)\mathrm{Tr}\frac{(M2L)^n}{N^n}$$
(23)
We note that for finite values of the $`\lambda _i`$ that to leading order $`\mathrm{Tr}M^p=C(p)N^p`$ and that $`\mathrm{Tr}L^p=D(p)N`$. Also for any product $`P_p(M,L)`$ of the $`M`$ and $`L`$ containing $`p`$ factors one has that for $`p1`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}P_p(M,L)<N^{p+ϵ}`$ when $`N`$ is large for any small positive $`ϵ`$. The dominant terms of this form are when $`P_p(M,L)=M^p`$. To see this, consider a product $`P_p(M,L)`$ with at least one $`L`$ occurring, we can thus write, exploiting the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality

$`\mathrm{Tr}P_p(M,L)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}LP_{p1}(M,L)`$ (24)
$``$ $`\left(\mathrm{Tr}L^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{Tr}P_{p1}(M,L)^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{Const}N^{\frac{1}{2}}\times N^{p+ϵ1}=\mathrm{Const}N^{p+ϵ\frac{1}{2}}`$
Hence for $`p2`$ any product containing at least one $`L`$ is such that $`\mathrm{Tr}P_p(M,L)/N^p\mathrm{Const}N^{ϵ\frac{1}{2}}0`$. The only term containing $`L`$ which survives the thermodynamic limit is that in the linear term of the Taylor expansion (23). Putting all this together for large $`N`$ yields

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{exp}\left(N\left(\frac{1}{2}G(iz+i\sqrt{v})+\frac{1}{2}G(izi\sqrt{v})i(z\frac{\mu }{2})G^{}(0)\right)\right)$$
(25)
It is easy to show that $`G^{}(0)=𝑑\lambda \lambda \rho (\lambda )`$, and hence in the ROM $`G^{}(0)=2\alpha 1`$, which is zero when $`\alpha =1/2`$ explaining why the diagonal term mentioned above was unimportant in the calculations of . It is easy to see heuristically the origin of this term, as it comes from the term $`D=_iJ_{ii}^{}\lambda _i`$ in Eq.(12), the results of the above calculation is to show that in the large $`N`$ limit $`D`$ can be written as $`D(\frac{1}{N}_iJ_{ii}^{})(_i\lambda _i)=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{Tr}(J)(_i\lambda _i)`$.

Introducing a delta function representation for the order parameters, the $`x_i`$ and $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\mu `$ integrals may be done yielding

$$\overline{N_{MS}(E)}=\frac{N^{\frac{3}{2}}}{16\pi ^2}𝑑z𝑑v𝑑s𝑑t\left(\frac{8\pi }{t}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(NA[z,v,s,t,E]\right)$$
(26)
where

$`A[z,v,s,t,E]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(G(z+i\sqrt{v})+G(zi\sqrt{v})\right)zG^{}(0)sz+{\displaystyle \frac{vt}{2}}`$
$`+`$ $`B({\displaystyle \frac{s}{\sqrt{t}}})+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{t}}\left(E+{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{tz}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^{}(0)\right)^2`$
where

$`B(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _u^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{2}})\right)`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\mathrm{erf}({\displaystyle \frac{u}{\sqrt{2}}})\right)`$
and anticipating a real action we have made the transformation $`ziz`$ The average energy $`E^{}`$ of the metastable states is then given by

$$E^{}=\frac{s}{2}\frac{tz}{2}\frac{1}{2}G^{}(0)$$
(29)
at the saddle point of the reduced action

$$A[z,v,s,t]=\frac{1}{2}\left(G(z+i\sqrt{v})+G(zi\sqrt{v})\right)zG^{}(0)sz+\frac{vt}{2}+B(\frac{s}{\sqrt{t}})$$
(30)
The total average number of metastable states is given by

$$\overline{N_{MS}}=N𝑑E\overline{N_{MS}(E)}$$
(31)
which gives

$$\overline{N_{MS}}=\frac{N^2}{8\pi ^2}𝑑z𝑑v𝑑s𝑑t\mathrm{exp}\left(NA[z,v,s,t]\right)$$
(32)
We have therefore to leading order

$$S^{}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}(\overline{N_{MS}})}{N}=\mathrm{extr}_{z,v,s,t}A[z,v,s,t]\frac{\mathrm{ln}(2)}{N}\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(det)}{N}+O(1/N)$$
(33)
where $``$ is the Hessian of $`A`$ at the saddle point and the term $`O(1/N)`$ comes from the nonextensive terms arising in the $`O(N)`$ disorder averaging . The fact that the leading order correction is $`O(1/N)`$ means that $`S^{}`$ can be evaluated by exact enumeration for quite small system sizes when the above finite size scaling is taken into account.

The extremization of this action (with four order parameters) seems quite complicated and has a similar structure to the saddle point encountered in the calculation of the average number of metastable states in the periodic glass model studied in  the Hopfield model  and the ROM at $`\alpha =1/2`$ . The saddle point equations giving $`s`$ and $`t`$ are

$`s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^{}(z+i\sqrt{v})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^{}(zi\sqrt{v})G^{}(0)`$ (34)
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\sqrt{v}}}(G^{}(z+i\sqrt{v})G^{}(zi\sqrt{v}))`$ (35)
The remaining saddle point equations must be solved numerically. Given the definition of the order parameter $`v`$ we look for solutions to the saddle point equations with positive $`v`$. We shall see that the solutions we find with this prescription agree perfectly with the results of exact enumeration of small systems where we can calculate both $`S^{}`$ the entropy of metastable states and $`E^{}`$ the average energy of these states.

The calculated values of $`S^{}(\alpha )`$ for the ROM and ferromagnetic Hopfield models along with $`S^{}(1\alpha )`$ for the anti-ferromagnetic Hopfield model are shown in Fig. (1). As the ROM can be regarded as an anti-ferromagnetic Hopfield model with $`1\alpha `$ orthonormal patterns or a ferromagnetic Hopfield model with $`\alpha `$ orthonormal patterns, this comparison is natural. In the limit $`\alpha 1`$ we see in Fig. (1) that $`S_{\mathrm{ROM}}^{}(\alpha )S_{\mathrm{AFH}}^{}(1\alpha )`$ and that in these two cases $`S^{}\mathrm{ln}(2)`$. However $`S_{FH}^{}0.131486`$. Hence, for the ROM, as $`\alpha 1`$ there is a small fraction $`(1\alpha )`$ of repulsive patterns to be avoided to minimize the energy and the fact that they are strictly orthonormal or statistically orthonormal does not change the behavior of $`S^{}`$ drastically with respect to the AFH. This result can be seen analytically as follows. Writing $`\alpha ^{}=1\alpha `$, then near $`\alpha =1`$, for the ROM

$$G(z)=z\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ln}(1+2z)+O(\alpha ^2)$$
(36)
In the metastable state calculations here the term linear in $`z`$ of $`G(z)`$ disappears from the calculation. The remaining term is just (up to a rescaling of the energy that will not affect the number of metastable states) the term one has for the AFH with $`\alpha ^{}`$ patterns. Thus explaining the convergence of $`S^{}(\alpha )`$ for the ROM with $`S^{}(1\alpha )`$ for the AFH near $`\alpha =1`$. One may further show that in these two cases as $`\alpha 1`$ one has

$$S^{}(\alpha )\mathrm{ln}(2)\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2}{e\alpha ^{}}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}})\right)+\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}})}\right]$$
(37)
This asymptotic formula agrees well with the numerically calculated value up to $`\alpha ^{}=0.1`$.

In the limit $`\alpha 0`$ we also see that $`S_{\mathrm{ROM}}^{}(0^+)=0`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{FH}}^{}(0^+)=0`$ but $`S_{\mathrm{AFH}}^{}(1)0.306983`$. However $`S_{\mathrm{ROM}}^{}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{FH}}^{}`$ remain different as $`\alpha 0`$. Hence when the attractive patterns are strictly orthonormal then there are more metastable states than if the patterns are only statistically orthonormal. In the FH model in the limit $`\alpha 0`$ it was shown  that $`S^{}(\alpha )\frac{1}{\alpha }[\mathrm{ln}(2/\pi \alpha )1]`$. In the same limit in the ROM the asymptotic behavior is rather singular and we have not yet found the corresponding asymptotic behavior.

To summarize we have the inequality $`S_{\mathrm{FH}}^{}(\alpha )S_{\mathrm{ROM}}^{}(\alpha )S_{\mathrm{AFH}}^{}(1\alpha )`$. Hence in the case of ferromagnetic Hopfield models strict pattern orthonormality increases the number of metastable states but in the anti-ferromagnetic Hopfield model it decreases the number of metastable states. Let us note here that at a fixed pattern number the ROM and AFH have more metastable states than the FH. This is in accordance with the observation that the ROM and AFH have a structural glass transition whereas the FH has a continuous spin glass transition.

## 3 Numerical Simulations

To verify our results we have carried out exact numerical enumeration of $`N_{MS}`$ on small systems of size between $`10`$ and $`30`$ spins. Using the finite size scaling predicted by Eq. (33) we find excellent agreement between the calculations presented here even for the relatively small system sizes examined.

Measured in the simulations were $`\overline{N_{MS}}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{ln}(N_{MS})}`$ and $`E^{}`$ the average value of the energy per spin of the metastable states. The numerical results confirm to high precision that $`\mathrm{ln}(\overline{N_{MS}})=\overline{\mathrm{ln}(N_{MS})}`$, thus confirming that the total entropy on metastable states is self averaging and justifying our annealed calculation. Averaging was carried out over up to $`2^{35N}`$ samples for the systems size of size $`N`$ , with $`N`$ between $`10`$ and $`30`$. Both the annealed total entropy of metastable states $`NS^{}=\mathrm{ln}(\overline{N_{MS}})`$ and the quenched total entropy $`NS_q^{}\overline{\mathrm{ln}(N_{MS})}`$ were plotted as function of $`N`$ and were found to be very close to straight lines for systems of size greater than $`10`$. The value of $`S^{}`$ was then determined by a linear fit. The average energy per spin over all metastable states and samples, corresponding to the annealed calculations carried out here,

$$E^{}=\frac{𝑑EE\overline{N_{MS}(E)}}{𝑑E\overline{N_{MS}(E)}}$$
(38)
was calculated from the simulations of the systems of size 20 (to have good statistics). As an additional check the quenched average energy per spin of the metastable states

$$E_q^{}=\overline{\left(\frac{𝑑EEN_{MS}(E)}{𝑑EN_{MS}(E)}\right)}$$
(39)
was also calculated. We note that if annealed approximation is exact then we should find $`E^{}=E_q^{}`$.

The results for $`S^{}`$ estimated from the annealed average $`\mathrm{ln}(\overline{N_{MS}})`$ and the quenched average $`\overline{\mathrm{ln}(N_{MS})}`$ in the AFH are shown in Fig. (2) against the calculated value. We see again that the agreement is excellent. The difference between the annealed and quenched averages are very small showing the validity of the annealed approximation. Note that by Jensen’s inequality the the annealed average should be greater than the quenched one. Similarly the numerically estimated values for $`E^{}`$ and $`E_q^{}`$ are within the error bars of the simulation and also in excellent agreement with the calculated value of $`E^{}`$.

For the ROM, in each system of size $`N`$, $`N\alpha `$ eigenvectors were chosen to have eigenvalue $`1`$ and the remaining to have eigenvalue $`1`$. The extrapolated values of $`S^{}`$ and $`S_q^{}`$ are shown in Fig.(3) along with the energy $`E_q^{}`$ obtained from samples of size $`N=30`$. We see that again that agreement with the analytical calculations is excellent and that the extrapolated values of $`S^{}`$ and $`S_q^{}`$ coincide.

Via the exact numerical enumeration were also computed the annealed $`NS^{}(E)=\mathrm{ln}(\overline{N_{MS}(E)})`$ and quenched $`NS_q^{}(E)=\overline{\mathrm{ln}(N_{MS}(E))}`$ entropy of the metastable states of energy $`E`$. Numerically, we computed

$$\overline{N_{MS}(E_i)}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\#}samples}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{\#}samples}{}}\frac{N_{MS}(E_i,E_i+\mathrm{\Delta }E)}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}$$
(40)
and

$$\overline{\mathrm{ln}(N_{MS}(E_i))}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\#}samples}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{\#}samples}{}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{N_{MS}(E_i,E_i+\mathrm{\Delta }E)}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}\right)$$
(41)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=.005`$ is the chosen bin size of the discrete energy values $`E_i`$. To avoid divergences when taking the logarithm, we set $`\mathrm{ln}(N_{MS}(E))=0`$ when $`N_{MS}(E)`$ was zero in a given sample. This procedure should be unimportant in the thermodynamic limit as it concerns a nonextensive number of metastable states. The results for the ROM with $`\alpha =1/2`$ are shown in Fig.(4) for an averaging over $`32`$ samples of size $`30`$. We see clearly, for a substantial region around the most probable energy, the annealed and quenched entropies coincide i.e. $`S^{}(E)=S_q^{}(E)`$. For values of the entropy smaller than $`0.3`$, the two curves depart from each other, with $`S_q^{}`$ always smaller than $`S^{}`$ as it should be. However, the small number of metastable states considered for these energies and size makes it impossible to draw any conclusion about the thermodynamic limit. In particular one would expect that the two entropies should collapse for all energies above some energy threshold $`E_0`$ below $`E^{}`$. This is not the case for our data indicating strong finite size effects at the edges of the energy spectrum of the metastable states, as one should expect.

## 4 Conclusions

We have shown that in the class of ROMs considered here that there is always an exponentially large number of metastable states which increases as a function of $`\alpha `$. The ROM can be viewed as a ferromagnetic Hopfield model with $`\alpha `$ strictly orthonormal patterns or and anti-ferromagnetic Hopfield model with $`1\alpha `$ strictly orthonormal patterns. Comparison with the corresponding Hopfield models shows that the orthonormality of the patterns increases the number of metastable states in the ferromagnetic case but decreases this number in the anti-ferromagnetic case. If one considers a ferromagnetic Hopfield model with all patterns parallel then there are clearly only two metastable states (all spins aligned or anti-aligned with this pattern). In the anti-ferromagnetic Hopfield model if all the patterns are parallel then there are more metastable states as it is easier to be orthogonal to a single pattern than several. This reasoning in these extreme cases is compatible with the results found here.

Finally the numerical simulations carried out here, though for small system sizes, show remarkable agreement with the analytic calculations carried out here. This is extremely important as the structure of the saddle point equations is so complicated that one needs some confirmation that one has found the good saddle point. Furthermore it suggests that rather than doing Monte Carlo simulations for systems exhibiting a dynamical transition, where even small size systems will stay out of equilibrium, it may be more useful to carry out exact enumeration on these small system sizes to calculate thermodynamic quantities.

During this work we have benefited from many interesting discussions with A.J. Bray and S.N. Majumdar.

## References


text:
# De Sitter solutions in 𝑁=4 matter coupled supergravity

## 1 Introduction

The evidence for a positive cosmological constant has led to a renewed interest in gauged supergravity theories. The presence of a scalar potential in these theories opens the possibility of obtaining, at the extremum of the potential, $`V_0`$, a nonzero cosmological constant. In the past the interest in this field was concentrated on zero or negative values of $`V_0`$, in view of preserving some of the supersymmetries for phenomenological applications111For recent work in this direction see, e.g., .. For positive values of $`V_0`$, or de Sitter solutions, supersymmetry is necessarily completely broken.

In this paper we will investigate properties of gauged $`N=4`$ supergravity in four dimensions with positive $`V_0`$. Gauged supergravity itself contains two physical scalars, which take values in the coset $`SU(1,1)/U(1)`$. The potential due to these scalars has been investigated in great detail in the past -. Here we want to extend this work to the case where an arbitrary number of matter multiplets is included.

There are a number of obstructions to the existence of solutions in four-dimensional supergravities with a positive cosmological constant . These obstructions show up in particular in theories obtained by dimensional reduction from eleven or ten dimensions. However, in four dimensions much more is possible. In $`N=4`$ supergravity one can for instance add additional matter beyond what would be expected from string theory, one can gauge some of the global symmetries of the supergravity theory, and one can introduce additional parameters , called $`SU(1,1)`$ angles, which give the matter multiplets different $`SU(1,1)`$ orientations. Although gauged supergravities may be related to Scherk-Schwarz reductions of higher dimensional theories, it is then still not clear how to introduce the $`SU(1,1)`$ angles. For $`N=2`$ theories a recent investigation  revealed that it is possible to obtain stable de Sitter vacua. The analogue of the $`N=4`$ $`SU(1,1)`$ angles played a crucial role in .

An interesting investigation of scalar potentials in extended supergravity theories was performed in . These authors also consider $`N=4`$, but without additional matter. They remark that in all cases considered there is a simple relation between the value of the potential at its extremum and the masses of the scalar excitations at the extremum:

$$V_0\frac{^2V}{x^2}|_0.$$
(1)
This relation makes these examples less suitable for application in the context of inflationary models, although in some scenarios they do not seem to be excluded (see  for a discussion on this matter). In Section 2 we will make this relationship more precise for the $`SU(1,1)`$ scalars.

In this paper we further develop the formalism of gauged $`N=4`$ supergravity with matter, and give examples with positive extrema of the potential. In the remainder of this Introduction we will present some basics of gauged $`N=4`$ supergravity. The analysis of the dependence on the $`SU(1,1)`$ scalars is done in Section 2. The matter scalars are considered in Section 3. We solve the constraint for these scalars, and discuss properties of the potential for general matter fields. In Sections 4 we work out a number of explicit examples for gauge groups $`SO(3)^4`$, $`SO(3)^2\times SO(2,1)^2`$, and $`SO(2,1)^4`$. In Section 5 we will discuss some additional issues and further work.

We consider gauged $`N=4`$ supergravity coupled to $`n`$ vector multiplets. The bosonic part of the Lagrangian density reads  222The indices $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}`$ take on values $`1`$ and $`2`$, indices $`R,S\mathrm{}`$ the values $`1,\mathrm{},6+n`$, and the indices $`a,b,\mathrm{}`$ the values $`1,\mathrm{},6`$. The metric $`\eta _{RS}`$ can be chosen as diag$`(1,1,1,1,1,1,+1,\mathrm{},+1)`$, with $`n`$ positive entries. In comparison to  we have replaced the complex scalars $`\varphi _{ij}^R`$ by real scalars $`Z_a^R`$: $`\varphi _{ij}{}_{}{}^{R}=\frac{1}{2}Z_a{}_{}{}^{R}(G^a)_{ij}^{}`$, where the $`G^a`$ are six matrices which ensure that $`Z_a^R`$ transforms as a vector under $`SO(6)`$. This redefinition is given (in a slightly different normalisation) in .:

$`e^1`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}R+\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mu \varphi ^\alpha ^\mu \varphi _\alpha +\varphi ^\alpha _\mu \varphi _\alpha \varphi ^\beta ^\mu \varphi _\beta \right)`$ (7)
$`\frac{1}{2}\eta _{RS}_\mu Z_a{}_{}{}^{R}_{}^{\mu }Z_a{}_{}{}^{S}\frac{1}{8}\eta _{RS}\eta _{TU}Z_a{}_{}{}^{R}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\mathrm{-}\mathrm{}\hfill \\ _\mu \hfill \end{array}Z_b{}_{}{}^{S}Z_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\mathrm{-}\mathrm{}\hfill \\ ^\mu \hfill \end{array}Z_b^U`$
$`V(\varphi ,Z)`$
$`+\eta _{RS}(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^{+R}F^{\mu \nu +S}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{(R)}}}(\varphi _{(R)}^1\varphi _{(R)}^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{(R)}}}F_{\mu \nu }^{+R}K^{\mu \nu +S}\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{(R)}^{}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{(R)}}}K_{\mu \nu }^{+R}K^{\mu \nu +S}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.).`$
The scalars $`\varphi _\alpha `$ ($`\varphi ^1=(\varphi _1)^{},\varphi ^2=(\varphi _2)^{}`$) transform under global $`SU(1,1)`$ and local $`U(1)`$, the $`Z_a^R`$ transform under local $`SO(6)\times SO(n)`$, and under global $`SO(6,n)`$. The scalars satisfy the constraints

$`\varphi ^\alpha \varphi _\alpha =1,`$ (8)
$`\eta _{RS}Z_a{}_{}{}^{R}Z_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}=\delta _{ab}.`$ (9)
Due to these constraints and the local symmetry the scalars are restricted to cosets $`SU(1,1)/U(1)`$ (two physical scalars) and $`SO(6,n)/SO(6)\times SO(n)`$ ($`6n`$ physical scalars).

There is a certain freedom in coupling the vector multiplets: for each multiplet we can introduce an $`SU(1,1)`$ element, of which only a single angle $`\alpha `$ turns out to be important. These angles $`\alpha _R`$ appear in the kinetic terms of the vectors in the form

$$\varphi _{(R)}^1=e^{i\alpha _R}\varphi ^1,\varphi _{(R)}^2=e^{i\alpha _R}\varphi ^2,\mathrm{\Phi }_{(R)}=e^{i\alpha _R}\varphi ^1+e^{i\alpha _R}\varphi ^2.$$
(10)
The gauge group has to be a subgroup of $`SO(6,n)`$. For a semi-simple gauge group the $`\alpha _R`$ have to be the same for all $`R`$ belonging to the same factor of the gauge group. The gauging breaks the global $`SO(6,n)`$ symmetry of the ungauged theory.

In (7) we have made explicit the dependent gauge fields of the local $`U(1)`$ and $`SO(6)`$ symmetries. The kinetic terms for the vectors still contain the auxiliary field $`T_{\mu \nu }^{ij}`$, which must be eliminated by solving its equation of motion. Here it is again useful to go to a real basis and to define $`T_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{a}=\frac{1}{2}T_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{ij}G_{}^{a}_{ij}`$. In this form we have $`K_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{R}=T_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{a}Z_{a}^{}^R`$. The equation of motion for $`T`$ is

$$T_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{a}Q_{ab}^{}+\eta _{RS}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{(R)}}F_{\mu \nu }^{+R}Z_b{}_{}{}^{S}=0,$$
(11)
with

$$Q_{ab}=\eta _{RS}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{(R)}^{}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{(R)}}Z_a{}_{}{}^{R}Z_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}.$$
(12)
The vector kinetic terms can then be written as:

$`_{\mathrm{vector}}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}\eta _{RS}F_{\mu \nu }^{+R}F^{\mu \nu +S}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{(R)}}}(\varphi _{(R)}^1\varphi _{(R)}^2)+`$ (13)
$`+\frac{1}{2}\eta _{RS}\eta _{TU}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{(R)}}}F^{\mu \nu +R}Z_a{}_{}{}^{S}(Q^1)_{ab}^{}Z_b{}_{}{}^{T}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{(T)}}}F_{\mu \nu }^{+U}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..`$
This simplifies in two special cases: firstly, if all $`SU(1,1)`$ angles are equal ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(R)}=\mathrm{\Phi }`$) we have $`Q_{ab}=\delta _{ab}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}/\mathrm{\Phi }`$, secondly, with six vector multiplets (9) can be solved by $`Z_a{}_{}{}^{R}=\delta _a^R`$, and $`Q_{ab}=\delta _{ab}\mathrm{\Phi }_{(a)}^{}/\mathrm{\Phi }_{(a)}`$.

The scalar potential reads

$$V(\varphi ,Z)=\left(\frac{1}{4}Z^{RU}Z^{SV}(\eta ^{TW}+\frac{2}{3}Z^{TW})\frac{i}{36}Z^{RSTUVW}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_{(R)}^{}f_{RST}\mathrm{\Phi }_{(U)}f_{UVW},$$
(14)
where $`Z^{RS}=Z_a{}_{}{}^{R}Z_{a}^{}^S`$ and $`Z^{RSTUVW}=ϵ^{abcdef}Z_a{}_{}{}^{R}Z_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}Z_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}Z_{d}^{}{}_{}{}^{U}Z_{e}^{}{}_{}{}^{V}Z_{f}^{}^W`$. The structure constants $`f_{RST}=f_{RS}{}_{}{}^{T}\eta _{VT}^{}`$ are totally antisymmetric.

## 2 The scalar potential: the $`SU(1,1)/U(1)`$ scalars

In this section we will discuss properties of the scalar potential that are independent of the specific matter content and choice of gauge group. The potential can be written in the form:

$$V=\underset{i,j}{}(R^{(ij)}V_{ij}+I^{(ij)}W_{ij}).$$
(15)
The indices $`i,j,\mathrm{}`$ label the different factors in the gauge group $`G`$, which we will take to be semi-simple. $`R`$ and $`I`$ contain the $`SU(1,1)`$ scalars and depend on the gauge coupling constants and the $`SU(1,1)`$ angles, $`V`$ and $`W`$ contain the structure constants, depend on the matter fields, and are symmetric resp. anti-symmetric in the indices $`i,j`$. We have:

$`R^{(ij)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_ig_j}{2}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_j+\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_i)`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`g_ig_j\left(\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _i\alpha _j){\displaystyle \frac{1+r^2}{1r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2r}{1r^2}}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _i+\alpha _j+\phi )\right),`$
$`I^{(ij)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_ig_j}{2i}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_j\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_i)`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`g_ig_j\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _i\alpha _j).`$
The fields $`r`$ and $`\phi `$ represent the scalars of the $`SU(1,1)/U(1)`$ coset, we have solved the constraint (8) in a suitable $`U(1)`$ gauge as

$$\varphi _1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1r^2}},\varphi _2=\frac{re^{i\phi }}{\sqrt{1r^2}}.$$
(18)
In this section we will discuss the extremum of this potential for $`r`$ and $`\phi `$. We introduce the quantities

$`C_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}g_ig_j\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _i\pm \alpha _j)V_{ij},S_+={\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}g_ig_j\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _i+\alpha _j)V_{ij},`$ (19)
$`T_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}g_ig_j\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _i\alpha _j)W_{ij},`$ (20)
and write the potential as

$$V=C_{}\frac{1+r^2}{1r^2}\frac{2r}{1r^2}\left(C_+\mathrm{cos}\phi S_+\mathrm{sin}\phi \right)T_{}.$$
(21)
One finds that the extremum in $`\phi `$ is obtained for

$$\mathrm{cos}\phi _0=\frac{s_1C_+}{\sqrt{C_+^2+S_+^2}},\mathrm{sin}\phi _0=\frac{s_1S_+}{\sqrt{C_+^2+S_+^2}},(s_1=\pm 1).$$
(22)
The equation for the extremum in $`r`$ becomes, for $`\phi =\phi _0`$,

$$r^2+1s_1\frac{2rC_{}}{\sqrt{C_+^2+S_+^2}}=0,$$
(23)
which, for

$$\mathrm{\Delta }C_{}^2C_+^2S_+^2>0,$$
(24)
is solved by ($`s_2=\pm 1`$, a priori independent of $`s_1`$):

$$r_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{C_+^2+S_+^2}}\left(s_1C_{}+s_2\sqrt{C_{}^2C_+^2S_+^2}\right).$$
(25)
Now consider the signs $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$. The condition $`r_0<1`$ leads to

$$s_1s_2C_{}+\sqrt{C_{}^2C_+^2S_+^2}<0,$$
(26)
which implies $`s_1s_2=\mathrm{sgn}C_{}`$. To have $`r_00`$ we need $`s_1=\mathrm{sgn}C_{}`$, so that $`s_2=1`$. After substitution of $`r_0`$ and $`\phi _0`$ in $`V`$, we obtain

$$V_0=\mathrm{sgn}C_{}\sqrt{C_{}^2C_+^2S_+^2}T_{}.$$
(27)
In the case that all $`SU(1,1)`$ angles $`\alpha _i`$ vanish, $`S_+=T_{}=0`$ and $`C_{}=C_+`$, and (23) leads to $`r_0=1`$, which is a singular point of the parametrisation: there is no extremum. This is the generalisation of the Freedman-Schwarz potential  to the case of general matter coupling. The sign of the potential is the sign of $`C_{}`$. We will not discuss this situation any further.

If $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$, which requires some of the $`SU(1,1)`$ angles to be different, the extremum (27) exists and can be further simplified by looking in more detail at $`C_\pm ,S_+`$. We find

$`C_{}^2C_+^2S_+^2={\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{kl}{}}g_ig_jg_kg_lV_{ij}V_{kl}(\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _i\alpha _j)\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _k\alpha _l)`$
$`\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _i+\alpha _j)\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _k+\alpha _l)\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _i+\alpha _j)\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _k+\alpha _l))`$
$`=2{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{kl}{}}g_ig_jg_kg_lV_{ij}V_{kl}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _i\alpha _k)\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _j\alpha _l).`$ (28)
We see that the potential at the extremum in $`r,\phi `$ depends only on the combinations $`g_ig_j\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _i\alpha _j)`$. This was known for gauged supergravity without additional matter, and now turns out to be a general property.

If the condition (24) holds we find an extremum for the $`SU(1,1)`$ scalars. To see what happens at the extremum it is useful to work out the second derivatives of the potential. We will do this with respect to the variables

$$x=r\mathrm{cos}\phi ,y=r\mathrm{sin}\phi .$$
(29)
One easily finds that in the extremum

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2V}{x^2}}|_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2V}{y^2}}|_0={\displaystyle \frac{4}{(1r_0^2)^2}}\mathrm{sgn}C_{}\sqrt{C_{}^2C_+^2S_+^2},{\displaystyle \frac{^2V}{xy}}|_0=0.`$ (30)
If $`\mathrm{sgn}C_{}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}(<0)`$ the potential has a minimum (maximum) for the scalars $`x,y`$. We see that, up to a scale factor, the second derivatives are equal to the first term in the potential at the extremum (27). The scale factor can be understood by considering the kinetic term for the scalars. It can be read off from (7), and, after expressing the action in terms of the variables $`x,y`$ we find:

$$_{\mathrm{kin},\varphi }=\frac{2}{(1r^2)^2}\left(_\mu x^\mu x+_\mu y^\mu y\right).$$
(31)
To have a proper normalisation for these fields requires a rescaling:

$$x=\frac{1}{2}x^{}(1r_0)^2,y=\frac{1}{2}y^{}(1r_0)^2.$$
(32)
The contribution to the action of the new scalars $`x^{},y^{}`$, including the potential, then looks as follows:

$`_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1r_0^2}{1r^2}}\right)^2\left(_\mu x^{}^\mu x^{}+_\mu y^{}^\mu y^{}\right)\mathrm{sgn}C_{}\sqrt{C_{}^2C_+^2S_+^2}+T_{}`$ (33)
$`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sgn}C_{}\sqrt{C_{}^2C_+^2S_+^2}\left(x^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+y^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right)+\mathrm{}.`$
We find that in these variables the equality $`V_0=m^2`$ is exact, except for the term $`T_{}`$ (20). The reason is of course that $`T_{}`$ only depends on the matter scalars and therefore does not contribute to the second derivatives. The presence of $`T_{}`$ therefore violates the equality (1).

In (33) we also see that the (mass)2 is determined by the sign of $`C_{}`$. The sign of $`C_{}`$ also determines the sign of the first term in the extremum of the potential. If we go back to the potential itself (21), we see that for $`r1`$ the potential behaves as

$$V\frac{1}{1r}\left(C_{}C_+\mathrm{cos}\phi +S_+\mathrm{sin}\phi \right).$$
(34)
Therefore along the unit circle the potential goes to infinity, and the sign in this limit, assuming $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$, is again the same as $`\mathrm{sgn}C_{}`$. In the origin $`r0`$ the potential and its derivatives are well behaved.

We conclude that if (24) holds and if $`\mathrm{sgn}C_{}>0`$, the potential as a function of the $`SU(1,1)`$ scalars has a minimum, and goes to $`+\mathrm{}`$ along the unit circle. The value of the potential gets a contribution which has the same sign as $`C_{}`$, but the value and sign of the minimum depends also on $`T_{}`$. In the next sections we will try to find examples with this behaviour.

## 3 The scalar potential: matter multiplets

The $`N=4`$ vector multiplet contains one vector and six scalar fields, and, in the construction of $`N=4`$ Poincaré supergravity with the superconformal method, six multiplets are required to gaugefix the superconformal symmetries. Adding $`n+6`$ vector multiplets to conformal supergravity thus gives $`n`$ matter multiplets, and $`6n`$ physical scalars. These are however expressed in terms of $`6n+36`$ variables (the $`Z_a{}_{}{}^{R})`$, of which 36 are eliminated by gaugefixing the local $`SO(6)`$ symmetry and by the constraint (9). The constraint implies that $`Z`$ corresponds to the first six rows of an $`SO(6,n)`$ element.

The constraint is a complication in the analysis of the scalar sector of the theory. Fortunately, there is a nice way to parametrise the solution of the constraint, as was remarked in 333Other parametrisations are discussed in . The dimensional reduction of the $`D=10,N=1`$ supergravity theory, coupled to $`m`$ vector multiplets, gives after reduction $`12+m`$ vectors in $`D=4`$. The scalars resulting from this reduction are the 21 scalars coming from the $`D=10`$ metric, the 15 scalars coming from the $`D=10`$ two-form, and $`6m`$ scalars from the $`D=10`$ vector multiplets, altogether $`6m+36`$. These scalars parametrise the coset $`SO(6,6+m)/SO(6)\times SO(6+m)`$ :

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}G^1& G^1(B+W)& \sqrt{2}G^1U\\ (B+W)G^1& (GB+W)G^1(G+B+W)& \sqrt{2}(GB+W)G^1U\\ \sqrt{2}U^TG^1& \sqrt{2}U^TG^1(G+B+W)& \begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_m+2U^TG^1U\end{array}\right),`$ (35)
where $`G(B)`$ are (anti)-symmetric $`6\times 6`$ matrices, $`U`$ is a $`6\times m`$ matrix, and $`W=U^TU`$. The matrix $`N`$ satisfies

$$N\gamma N^T=\gamma ,$$
(36)
with

$$\gamma =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_6& 0\\ \begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_6& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_m\end{array}\right).$$
(37)
We now transform the metric $`\gamma `$ to the metric $`\eta `$, and $`N`$ to $`N^{}`$ by

$$\eta =M\gamma M^T,N^{}=MNM^T,$$
(38)
with

$$M=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_6& \begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_6& 0\\ \begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_6& \begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_6& 0\\ 0& 0& \begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_m\end{array}\right).$$
(39)
From the matrix $`N^{}`$ we can read off what $`Z_a^R`$ is: the first six rows $`N^{}`$. Thus we have an explicit parametrisation of the $`Z_a^R`$ for $`n=6+m`$.

We emphasize however that this does not imply that the gauged $`D=4`$ theory with arbitrary $`SU(1,1)`$ angles follows by reduction from $`D=10`$. We only use the reduction from $`D=10`$ to solve the constraints.

In this paper we will limit ourselves to the case where $`m=0`$, or $`U=0`$ in (35). This corresponds to six vector multiplets added to Poincaré supergravity. We split the indices $`R,S,\mathrm{}`$ of $`\eta _{RS}`$ in $`A,B,\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},6`$, ($`\eta _{AB}=\delta _{AB}`$) and $`I,J,\mathrm{}=7,\mathrm{},12`$, ($`\eta _{IJ}=+\delta _{IJ}`$). The scalar constraint (9) then reads

$$XX^TYY^T=\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_6,$$
(40)
where $`X_a{}_{}{}^{A}=Z_a{}_{}{}^{A},Y_A{}_{}{}^{I}=Z_a^I`$. $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are both $`6\times 6`$ matrices, which together form the first six rows of the matrix $`N^{}`$:

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(G+G^1+BG^1G^1BBG^1B\right),`$ (41)
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(GG^1BG^1G^1BBG^1B\right).`$ (42)
The scalar potential will depend on $`Z^{AB}=(X^TX)^{AB},Z^{AI}=(X^TY)^{AI}`$ and $`Z^{IJ}=(Y^TY)^{IJ}`$.

In the examples in Section 4 we will further simplify matters by choosing for $`G`$ and $`B`$:

$$G=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_3& 0\\ 0& a\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_3\end{array}\right)(a>0),B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& b\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_3\\ b\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_3& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(43)
which gives

$$X=\frac{a^2+b^2+1}{2a}\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_6,Y=\frac{1}{2a}\left(\begin{array}{cc}(a^2+b^21)\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_3& 2b\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_3\\ 2b\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_3& (a^2+b^21)\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_3\end{array}\right).$$
(44)
The variables $`Z^{RS}`$ are then easily determined to be:

$`Z^{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(a^2+b^2+1)^2}{4a^2}}\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_6,`$ (47)
$`Z^{AI}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a^2+b^2+1}{4a^2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}(a^2+b^21)\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_3& 2b\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_3\\ 2b\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_3& (a^2+b^21)\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_3\end{array}\right),`$
$`Z^{IJ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4a^2}}\left((a^2+b^2+1)^24a^2\right)\begin{array}{c}l\\ 1\end{array}_6.`$ (50)
## 4 Examples

With the ingredients of Sections 2 and 3 we will now work out a number of examples. We have seen that the analysis of the $`SU(1,1)`$ scalars in Section 2 depends crucially on condition (24), $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$. We will only work out cases for which this condition is satisfied for all values of the matter fields $`a`$ and $`b`$ in our parametrisation of $`G`$ and $`B`$ (43). This excludes among others potentials of the Freedman-Schwarz type . To evaluate (24) we will need the contributions $`V_{ij}`$ and $`W_{ij}`$ to the potential, see (15). These are given by

$`V_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}Z^{RU}Z^{SV}(\eta ^{TW}+\frac{2}{3}Z^{TW})f^{(i)}{}_{RST}{}^{}f_{}^{(j)}{}_{UVW}{}^{},`$ (51)
$`W_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{36}ϵ^{abcdef}Z_a{}_{}{}^{R}Z_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{S}Z_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}Z_{d}^{}{}_{}{}^{U}Z_{e}^{}{}_{}{}^{V}Z_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{W}f_{}^{(i)}{}_{RST}{}^{}f_{}^{(j)}{}_{UVW}{}^{},`$ (52)
where the $`f^{(i)}`$ are the structure constants for the different factors of the semi-simple gauge group.

### 4.1 $`SO(3)^4`$

First we will consider a product of compact groups: $`G=SO(3)^4`$. For the group $`SO(3)`$ the structure constants are

$$f_{RS}{}_{}{}^{T}=ϵ_{RST},f_{RST}=f_{RS}{}_{}{}^{U}\eta _{UT}^{}.$$
(53)
The sign of $`f_{RST}`$, which is completely anti-symmetric, therefore depends on the sign of the element $`\eta _{TT}`$. The four $`SO(3)`$ groups are labelled $`i=1,\mathrm{},4`$, and associated with the values $`R,S,\mathrm{}`$ in the following way:

$$R,S,\mathrm{}=\stackrel{i=1}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1\; 2\; 3}}}\stackrel{i=2}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4\; 5\; 6}}}\stackrel{i=3}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7\; 8\; 9}}}\stackrel{i=4}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10\; 11\; 12}}}.$$
(54)
We then obtain the contributions $`V_{ij}`$ and $`W_{ij}`$ to the potential:

$`V_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{22}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{64a^6}}(1+a^2+b^2)^4\left((1+a^2+b^2)^26a^2\right),`$
$`V_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{44}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{64a^6}}((1+a^2+b^2)^24a^2)^2((1+a^2+b^2)^2+2a^2)),`$
$`V_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{34}=0,`$
$`V_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{24}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{64a^6}}(a^2+b^2+1)^3(a^2+b^21)^3,`$
$`V_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{14}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{64a^6}}(a^2+b^2+1)^3(2b)^3,`$
$`W_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64a^6}}(1+a^2+b^2)^6,`$
$`W_{34}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64a^6}}(1+a^2+b^2)^24a^2)^3,`$
$`W_{14}`$ $`=`$ $`W_{23}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{64a^6}}(a^2+b^2+1)^3(a^2+b^21)^3,`$
$`W_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`W_{24}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{64a^2}}(a^2+b^2+1)^3(2b)^3.`$ (55)
Using these, we will discuss the properties of the potential for some special cases:

* $`g_3=g_4=0`$. We assume $`\alpha _1\alpha _2`$. Then $`C_{}=g_1^2V_{11}+g_2^2V_{22}=V_{11}(g_1^2+g_2^2)`$. $`V_{11}`$ is negative inside the circle

$$(a\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{6})^2+b^2=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(56)
We find

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=4V_{11}^2g_1^2g_2^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha _1\alpha _2)$$
(57)
which is never negative: the extremum for the $`SU(1,1)`$ scalars discussed in Section 2 exists for all values of $`a`$ and $`b`$ if $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$, on the circle (56) $`V_{11}=C_\pm =S_+=\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and the potential (21)is independent of $`r`$ and $`\phi `$. The matter potential in the extremum of the $`SU(1,1)`$ scalars reads

$$V=V_{11}|2g_1g_2\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _1\alpha _2)|2g_1g_2\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _1\alpha _2)W_{12}.$$
(58)
Consider the case $`g_1g_2\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _1\alpha _2)<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. The matter potential then reads:

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`2|g_1g_2\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _1\alpha _2)|(V_{11}+W_{12})`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`2|g_1g_2\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _1\alpha _2)|\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{32a^6}}(1+a^2+b^2)^4\left((a^2+b^2+1)^23a^2\right),`$
which is positive for all values of $`a`$ and $`b`$. The extremum is reached for $`a=1,b=0`$ corresponding to $`V_0=|g_1g_2\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _1\alpha _2)|`$. This is obviously a minimum in the $`a,b`$ variables, but, since at this point $`C_{}<0`$, a maximum in the $`SU(1,1)`$ scalars. Note that the positivity of the extremum is due to $`T_{}`$. For values of $`a`$ and $`b`$ outside the circle (56) the $`SU(1,1)`$ scalars have a minimum. In the case $`g_1g_2\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _1\alpha _2)>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ the potential is negative everywhere.
* $`g_1=g_2=0`$. In this case $`C_{}=(g_3^2+g_4^2)V_{33}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are proportional to $`V_{33}`$, which vanishes for $`a=1,b=0`$, and is positive elsewhere. The analysis of Section 2 is therefore valid for all $`a`$ and $`b`$, and gives a minimum in the $`r,\phi `$ variables, except in the point $`a=1,b=0`$, where the potential (21) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vanish. This case corresponds to two $`SO(3)`$ Yang-Mills multiplets coupled to ungauged supergravity. The absolute minimum at $`a=1,b=0`$ corresponds to vanishing cosmological constant. It is not difficult to see that this is the only extremum of the potential for this particular choice of the matter sector.
* $`g_2=g_4=0`$ etc. In all cases where we take one $`SO(3)`$ from the supergravity ($`R,S=1,\mathrm{},6`$) and one $`SO(3)`$ from the matter sector there are regions in $`a`$ and $`b`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$.

### 4.2 $`SO(3)^2\times SO(2,1)^2`$

For the noncompact group $`SO(2,1)`$ we need to assign three values of the indices $`R,S,\mathrm{}`$ corresponding to different values of the diagonal metric $`\eta `$. We choose the groups in the following way:

$$R,S,\mathrm{}=\stackrel{i=1}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1\; 2\; 7}}}\stackrel{i=2}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4\; 5\; 6}}}\stackrel{i=3}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3\; 8\; 9}}}\stackrel{i=4}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10\; 11\; 12}}}.$$
(60)
The groups labelled 1 and 3 therefore correspond to $`SO(2,1)`$. The $`SO(2,1)`$ structure constants are chosen as

$$f_{RS}{}_{}{}^{T}=ϵ_{RSU}\eta ^{UT},f_{RST}=ϵ_{RST}.$$
(61)
It should be noted that the form of $`V_{ij}`$ and $`W_{ij}`$, and therefore the resulting examples, depends crucially on the way the groups are distributed over the 12 vector multiplets in (60). The analysis in this and the following subsection is therefore far from exhaustive.

The contributions $`V_{ij}`$ and $`W_{ij}`$ to the potential now take on the form:

$`V_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16a^6}}(a^2+b^2+1)^2\left(b^2(a^2+b^2+1)^2+2a^2(a^2b^2)\right),`$
$`V_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64a^6}}(a^2+b^2+1)^4\left((a^2+b^2+1)^26a^2\right),`$
$`V_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16a^6}}\left(b^2(a^2+b^2+1)^4+2a^2(a^2b^2)(a^2+b^2+1)^28a^6\right)`$
$`V_{44}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64a^6}}\left((a^2+b^2+1)^24a^2\right)^2\left((a^2+b^2+1)^2+2a^2\right),`$
$`V_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{13}=V_{23}=V_{34}=0,`$
$`V_{24}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64a^6}}(a^2+b^2+1)^3(a^2+b^21)^3,`$
$`W_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`W_{14}=W_{23}=W_{34}=0,`$
$`W_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`W_{24}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8a^6}}b^3(a^2+b^2+1)^3.`$ (62)
In the search for interesting examples with just two nonzero coupling constants $`g_i`$ and $`g_j`$ we find that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\left(2g_ig_j\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _i\alpha _j)\right)^2\left(V_{ii}V_{jj}V_{ij}^2\right).$$
(63)
Except for the case $`i=2,j=4`$, which concerns the two compact subgroups and was already treated in Section 4.1, the off-diagonal entries in $`V`$ vanish, and the requirement $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$ implies that for both subgroups the corresponding $`V_{ii}`$ must be nonnegative. With the present choice of subgroups this means that $`i=2`$ can be discarded. We find that both $`V_{33}`$ and $`V_{44}`$ are positive, except in the point $`a=1,b=0`$, where they vanish. $`V_{11}`$ is positive everywhere, with a minimum at $`a=1,b=0`$ with value $`\frac{1}{2}`$. Since also $`W_{ij}`$=0, either everywhere or at the point $`a=1,b=0`$, the second term in the potential, $`T_{}`$, vanishes and will not help in obtaining a positive cosmological constant.

The result with two groups will therefore always be such that the extremum of the potential is at $`a=1,b=0`$, and that the potential vanishes there.

### 4.3 $`SO(2,1)^4`$

The structure constants are as in the Section 4.2. The groups are now assigned in the following way:

$$R,S,\mathrm{}=\stackrel{i=1}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1\; 2\; 7}}}\stackrel{i=2}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4\; 5\; 10}}}\stackrel{i=3}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3\; 8\; 9}}}\stackrel{i=4}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6\; 11\; 12}}}.$$
(64)
The results for the potential do depend on how the groups are assigned, clearly different choices are possible. The results with the choice above are:

$`V_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{22}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16a^6}}(a^2+b^2+1)^2\left(b^2(a^2+b^2+1)^2+2a^2(a^2b^2)\right),`$
$`V_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{44}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16a^6}}\left(b^2(a^2+b^2+1)^4+2a^2(a^2b^2)(a^2+b^2+1)^28a^6\right),`$
$`V_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`0\mathrm{for}ij,`$
$`W_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`W_{34}=0,`$
$`W_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`W_{24}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8a^6}}b^3(a^2+b^2+1)^3,`$
$`W_{14}`$ $`=`$ $`W_{23}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16a^6}}b^2(a^2+b^21)(a^2+b^2+1)^3.`$ (65)
The interesting case here is

* $`g_3=g_4=0`$. Now we have $`C_{}=V_{11}(g_1^2+g_2^2)`$, which is always positive, and

$$V=V_{11}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}|g_1g_2\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _1\alpha _2)|.$$
(66)
The potential is everywhere positive, the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$ is trivially satisfied, and $`C_{}>0`$. There is therefore a absolute minimum in all variables $`r,\phi ,a`$ and $`b`$. In this case there is no contribution from $`T_{}`$, and therefore (1) will be satisfied. We will come back to further properties of this example in Section 5

## 5 Implications and discussion

We have analysed some special cases of gauged $`N=4`$ supergravity with six additional matter multiplets with the aim of finding solutions with positive cosmological constant. Two situations arise in which this might happen: one is the example of $`SO(3)^4`$, where a saddle point is found for a positive value of the potential: the extremum is a minimum in the two matter fields considered, but a maximum in the two $`SU(1,1)`$ scalars from the supergravity sector. This is an extension with matter multiplets of the potentials studied by .

Another case involves $`SO(2,1)^2`$, where we find a positive minimum of the potential in all variables. However, in this case the gauge group is noncompact, which might give rise to wrong-sign kinetic terms. The kinetic term of the $`SU(1,1)`$ scalars was given in (33) and does not have this problem. Also the kinetic term of the matter scalars is independent of the gauging. For the fields $`a`$ and $`b`$ one finds

$`_{\mathrm{kin}a,b}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4a^4}}(4a^2(1+b^2)(a)^2+((a^2+b^2+1)^24a^2b^2)(b)^2`$ (67)
$`+4ab(a^2+b^2+1)ab).`$
After diagonalizing this to new fields $`a^{}`$ and $`b^{}`$ one obtains

$`_{\mathrm{kin}a,b}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4a^4}}\left(4a^2(a^{})^2+(1+a^2+b^2)^2(b^{})^2\right),`$ (68)
so these kinetic terms have indeed the standard sign for all $`a,b`$. In the extremum $`a=1,b=0`$ one finds

$$_{\mathrm{kin}a,b}3((a)^2+(b)^2).$$
(69)
The potential and its second derivatives for this example are in the extremum

$$V(a,b)=|g_1g_2\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _1\alpha _2)|(1+(a1)^2+2b^2+\mathrm{}).$$
(70)
For these scalars the relation between the potential and its second derivatives is not satisfied, since after a rescaling of $`a`$ and $`b`$ to get the standard normalisation of the kinetic terms the (mass)2 of $`a`$ and $`b`$ still differ by a factor 2, and are not equal to $`V_0`$.

The vector kinetic terms do depend on the gauging, and this might cause a problem for noncompact groups. The vector kinetic terms are for $`a=1,b=0`$,

$$\frac{1}{4}\eta _{RS}F_{\mu \nu }^+{}_{}{}^{R}F_{}^{\mu \nu +S}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{(R)}}(\varphi _{(R)}^1\varphi _{(R)}^2)\frac{2}{|\mathrm{\Phi }_{(R)}|^2}\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..$$
(71)
In the case the gauging is $`SO(3)^2`$, as in the first example of Section 4.1, this is the form of the kinetic terms at the extremum of the matter fields. The sum over $`R,S`$ then runs over the indices $`1,\mathrm{},6`$, and the kinetic terms have the standard signs, as was shown in detail in . In the example of Section 4.3 the form of the kinetic terms in the matter extremum is again (71), but now the indices run over the values $`1,2,7,4,5,10`$ and two of the kinetic terms change sign. This is a problem for the solution of Section 4.3.

In  it was found that potential and its second derivatives in extended supergravity theories satisfies (1). In Section 2 we clarified this relation for the $`SU(1,1)`$ scalars. We have shown that (1) is modified by the term $`T_{}`$ in the scalar potential, but that for $`T_{}=0`$ the relation is indeed valid. As we have seen in this section, the matter scalars may violate (1). The relation (1) is reminiscent of supersymmetry Ward identities used in the past to investigate cases with partially broken supersymmetry . It would be interesting to make (1) more precise in this way.

Much work remains to be done to give a more complete analysis of the matter sector with six or more multiplets, and of the examples that we have presented in this paper. Also their possible application in cosmological models remains to be studied. This is not only true for the example with an absolute minimum, but equally so for cases with tachyonic modes.

###### Acknowledgments.

It is a pleasure to thank Ulf Gran and Peter Wagemans for useful discussions. The work of DBW is part of the research programme of the “Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek van de Materie” (FOM). This work is supported in part by the European Commission RTN programme HPRN-CT-2000-00131, in which MdR and DBW are associated to the University of Utrecht. SP thanks the University of Groningen for hospitality.