text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently, de Sitter (dS) and Anti-de Sitter (AdS) spaces have received renewed interest both in string theory (AdS/CFT correspondence) and in cosmology where a positive cosmological constant may have been observed. This motivates a detailed study of energy about these vacua, for systems that also involve higher curvature terms, such as naturally arise in string theory and other quantum theories of gravity. In this paper, we define and compute the global charges (especially energy) of asymptotically constant (including zero) curvature space-times for generic gravitational models.

In a recent Letter , which summarized some of the present work, we defined the global charges primarily in four dimensional quadratic theories. In this paper we extend that discussion in several directions: We first present a reformulation of the original definition  of conserved charges in cosmological Einstein theory; then we derive the generic form of the energy for quadratic gravity theories in $`D`$ dimensions and specifically study the ghost-free low energy string-inspired model: Gauss-Bonnet (GB) plus Einstein terms. We also briefly indicate how higher curvature models can be similarly treated.

We will demonstrate that among purely quadratic theories, the one whose Lagrangian is the square of the traceless Ricci tensor has zero energy for all $`D`$ about its asymptotically flat or asymptotically constant curvature vacua, unlike for example conformal (Weyl) gravity in $`D`$=4.

A definition of gauge invariant conserved (global) charges in a diffeomorphism-invariant theory rests on the ‘Gauss law’ and the presence of asymptotic Killing symmetries. More explicitly, in any diffeomorphism-invariant gravity theory, a vacuum satisfying the classical equations of motion is chosen as the background relative to which excitations and any background gauge-invariant properties (like energy) are defined. Two important model-independent features immediately arise when charges are so constructed: Firstly, the vacuum itself always has zero charge; secondly, the charges are always expressible as surface integrals. As we shall show below, a generic, implicit, formulation (independent of the gravity model considered) is rather simple and straightforward, although in the applications of this generic picture for specific gravity models complications arise due to, e.g., choice of correct vacuum, existence of global symmetries and converting ‘volume’ to ‘surface’ integrals. Historically, the first application of this procedure was in Einstein’s gravity for flat backgrounds with its Poincaré symmetries (“ADM mass”  ). The second step was to the (A)dS vacua of cosmological Einstein theory (“AD mass” ).

The outline of the paper is as follows: In Sec. 2, we revisit the AD  Killing charge for the cosmological Einstein theory and the energies of its Schwarzschild-(A)dS (collectively “SdS” ) solutions. Sec. 3 is devoted to the derivation and computation of the Killing charges in generic quadratic theories (with or without Einstein terms) as well as their various limits, particularly in Einstein-GB models. In Sec. 4, we discuss the purely quadratic zero energy theory constructed from the traceless Ricci tensor. Sec. 5 includes our conclusions as well as some open questions. The Appendix collects some formulae useful for linearization properties of quadratic curvature terms about (A)dS backgrounds.

## 2 Reformulation of AD energy

In this section, we reformulate the AD construction  and obtain new and perhaps more transparent surface integrals for energy in cosmological Einstein theory. One of the reasons for revisiting the AD formulation is, as it will become clear, that in the higher curvature models we shall study in detail, the only non-vanishing parts of energy, for asymptotically Schwarzschild (Anti) de-Sitter spaces come precisely from the AD integrals, but with essential contributions from the higher terms.

First, let us recapitulate  how conserved charges arise in a generic gravity theory, coupled to a covariantly conserved, bounded, matter source $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }(g,R,R,R^2,\mathrm{})=\kappa \tau _{\mu \nu },`$ (1)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }`$ is the “Einstein tensor” of a local, invariant, but otherwise arbitrary, gravity action and $`\kappa `$ is the coupling constant. Now decompose the metric into the sum of a background $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ (which solves (1) for $`\tau _{\mu \nu }=0`$) plus a (not necessarily small) deviation $`h_{\mu \nu }`$, that vanishes sufficiently rapidly at infinity,

$`g_{\mu \nu }=\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }.`$ (2)
Separating the field equations (1) into a part linear in $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ plus all the non-linear ones that constitute the total source $`T_{\mu \nu }`$, including the matter source $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$, one obtains

$`𝒪(\overline{g})_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }h^{\alpha \beta }=\kappa T_{\mu \nu },`$ (3)
as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }(\overline{g},\overline{R},\overline{}\overline{R},\overline{R}^2\mathrm{})=0`$, by assumption; the hermitian operator $`𝒪(\overline{g})`$ depends only on the background metric (that also moves all indices and defines the covariant derivatives $`\overline{}_\mu `$). It is clear that this operator inherits both background Bianchi identity and background gauge invariance namely, $`\overline{}_\mu 𝒪(\overline{g})^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }=𝒪(\overline{g})^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\overline{}_\alpha =0`$, from (the Bianchi identities of) the full theory. As a consequence of these invariances, it is guaranteed that if the background $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ admits a set of Killing vectors $`\overline{\xi }_\mu ^{(a)}`$,

$`\overline{}_\mu \overline{\xi }_\nu ^{(a)}+\overline{}_\nu \overline{\xi }_\mu ^{(a)}=0,`$ (4)
then the energy-momentum tensor can be used to construct the following (ordinarily) conserved vector density current,

$`\overline{}_\mu (\sqrt{\overline{g}}T^{\mu \nu }\overline{\xi }_\nu ^a)_\mu (\sqrt{\overline{g}}T^{\mu \nu }\overline{\xi }_\nu ^a)=0.`$ (5)
Therefore, the conserved Killing charges are expressed as

$`Q^\mu (\overline{\xi }^a)={\displaystyle _{}}d^{D1}x\sqrt{\overline{g}}T^{\mu \nu }\overline{\xi }_\nu ^a={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝑑S_i^{\mu i}.`$ (6)
Here $``$ is a spatial ($`D`$–1) hypersurface and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is its ($`D2`$) dimensional boundary; $`^{\mu i}`$ is an antisymmetric tensor obtained from $`𝒪(\overline{g})`$, whose explicit form, of course, depends on the theory.

Let us first apply the above procedure to cosmological Einstein theory to rejoin . Our conventions are: signature $`(,+,+,\mathrm{}+)`$, $`[_\mu ,_\nu ]V_\lambda =R_{\mu \nu \lambda }^\sigma V_\sigma `$, $`R_{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \lambda \nu }^\lambda `$. The Einstein equations

$`R_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }R+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }=0,`$ (7)
are solved by the constant curvature vacuum $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$, whose Riemann, Ricci and scalar curvature are

$`\overline{R}_{\mu \lambda \nu \beta }={\displaystyle \frac{2}{(D2)(D1)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }\overline{g}_{\lambda \beta }\overline{g}_{\mu \beta }\overline{g}_{\lambda \nu })\overline{R}_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{2}{D2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{g}_{\mu \nu },\overline{R}={\displaystyle \frac{2D\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D2}}.`$ (8)
Linearization of (7) about this background yields

$`𝒢_{\mu \nu }^LR_{\mu \nu }^L{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }R^L{\displaystyle \frac{2}{D2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }h_{\mu \nu }\kappa T_{\mu \nu },`$ (9)
where $`R^L=(g^{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu })_L`$ and the linear part of the Ricci tensor reads

$`R_{\mu \nu }^LR_{\mu \nu }\overline{R}_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{\mathrm{}}h_{\mu \nu }\overline{}_\mu \overline{}_\nu h+\overline{}^\sigma \overline{}_\nu h_{\sigma \mu }+\overline{}^\sigma \overline{}_\mu h_{\sigma \nu }),`$ (10)
with $`h=\overline{g}^{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{}}=\overline{g}^{\mu \nu }\overline{}_\mu \overline{}_\nu `$. The energy momentum-tensor (9) is background covariantly constant ($`\overline{}_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=0`$), as can be checked explicitly.

This procedure led  to the following energy expression

$`E(\overline{\xi })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G}}{\displaystyle 𝑑S_i\sqrt{\overline{g}}\left\{\overline{\xi }_\nu \overline{}_\beta K^{0i\nu \beta }K^{0j\nu i}\overline{}_j\overline{\xi }_\nu \right\}}.`$ (11)
The superpotential $`K^{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }`$ is defined by

$`K^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\overline{g}^{\mu \beta }H^{\nu \alpha }+\overline{g}^{\nu \alpha }H^{\mu \beta }\overline{g}^{\mu \nu }H^{\alpha \beta }\overline{g}^{\alpha \beta }H^{\mu \nu }],H^{\mu \nu }=h^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{g}^{\mu \nu }h.`$ (12)
It has the symmetries of the Riemann tensor. In converting the volume to surface integrals, we adopt here, a somewhat, different route, which will be convenient in the higher curvature cases. Using (9), (10), straightforward rearrangements of terms, and the aforementioned antisymmetry, we can move the covariant derivatives to yield

$`2\overline{\xi }_\nu 𝒢_L^{\mu \nu }=2\overline{\xi }_\nu R_L^{\mu \nu }\overline{\xi }_\nu \overline{g}^{\mu \nu }R^L{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D2}}\overline{\xi }_\nu h^{\mu \nu }`$
$`=\overline{\xi }_\nu \left\{\overline{\mathrm{}}h^{\mu \nu }\overline{}^\mu \overline{}^\nu h+\overline{}_\sigma \overline{}^\nu h^{\sigma \mu }+\overline{}_\sigma \overline{}^\mu h^{\sigma \nu }\right\}\overline{\xi }^\mu \left\{\overline{\mathrm{}}h+\overline{}_\sigma \overline{}_\nu h^{\sigma \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D2}}h\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D2}}\overline{\xi }_\nu h^{\mu \nu }=\overline{}_\rho \{\overline{\xi }_\nu \overline{}^\mu h^{\rho \nu }\overline{\xi }_\nu \overline{}^\rho h^{\mu \nu }+\overline{\xi }^\mu \overline{}^\rho h\overline{\xi }^\rho \overline{}^\mu h`$
$`+h^{\mu \nu }\overline{}^\rho \overline{\xi }_\nu h^{\rho \nu }\overline{}^\mu \overline{\xi }_\nu +\overline{\xi }^\rho \overline{}_\nu h^{\mu \nu }\overline{\xi }^\mu \overline{}_\nu h^{\rho \nu }+h\overline{}^\mu \overline{\xi }^\rho \}.`$ (13)
Having now rewritten all as a surface term, the Killing charges of  become

$`Q^\mu (\overline{\xi })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}G_D}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ $`dS_i`$ $`\{\overline{\xi }_\nu \overline{}^\mu h^{i\nu }\overline{\xi }_\nu \overline{}^ih^{\mu \nu }+\overline{\xi }^\mu \overline{}^ih\overline{\xi }^i\overline{}^\mu h`$ (14)
$`+h^{\mu \nu }\overline{}^i\overline{\xi }_\nu h^{i\nu }\overline{}^\mu \overline{\xi }_\nu +\overline{\xi }^i\overline{}_\nu h^{\mu \nu }\overline{\xi }^\mu \overline{}_\nu h^{i\nu }+h\overline{}^\mu \overline{\xi }^i\},`$
where $`i`$ ranges over ($`1,2,\mathrm{}D2`$); the charge is normalized by dividing by the (D-dimensional ) Newton’s constant and solid angle. Before we perform the explicit computation of the energy $`Q^0`$ in specific coordinates for asymptotically (A)dS spaces, let us check that this charge is in fact background gauge-invariant. Under an infinitesimal diffeormophism, generated by a vector $`\zeta _\mu `$, the deviation part of the metric transforms as

$`\delta _\zeta h_{\mu \nu }=\overline{}_\mu \zeta _\nu +\overline{}_\nu \zeta _\mu .`$ (15)
To show that $`T_{\mu \nu }\overline{\xi }^\nu `$ is invariant, first note that $`R_L`$ is:

$`\delta _\zeta R_L=\overline{g}^{\mu \nu }\delta _\zeta R_{\mu \nu }^L{\displaystyle \frac{2}{D2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{g}^{\mu \nu }\delta _\zeta h_{\mu \nu }=0.`$ (16)
This leads to $`\delta _\zeta 𝒢_{\mu \nu }^L=\frac{2}{D2}\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta _\zeta h_{\mu \nu }`$ and eventually to $`\delta _\zeta Q^\mu =0`$: the Killing charge is indeed background gauge-invariant. Another test of (14) is that, in the limit of an asymptotically flat background, we should obtain the ADM charge. In that case, we may write the time-like Killing vector as $`\xi _\mu =(1,\mathrm{𝟎})`$. The time component of (14), reduces to the desired result,

$`Q^0=M_{ADM}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}G_D}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ $`dS_i`$ $`\left\{_jh^{ij}^ih_{jj}\right\}`$ (17)
in terms of Cartesian coordinates.

Having established the energy formula for asymptotically (A)dS spaces, we can now evaluate the energy of SdS solutions. First, we must recall that the existence of a cosmological horizon is an important difference between dS and AdS cases. In the former, the background Killing vector stays time-like only within the cosmological horizon. \[We will not go into the complications for physics of this horizon, since it is a well-known and ongoing problem. In , it was simply assumed that interesting system should be describable within the horizon. For related ideas see .\] For small black holes, whose own event horizons lie well inside the cosmological one, (14) provides a reasonable approximation.

In static coordinates, the line element of $`D`$-dimensional SdS reads

$`ds^2=\left\{1({\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{r}})^{D3}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}\right\}dt^2+\left\{1({\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{r}})^{D3}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}\right\}^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}^2,`$ (18)
where $`l^2\frac{(D2)(D1)}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The background ($`r_0=0`$) Killing vector is $`\xi ^\mu =(1,\mathrm{𝟎})`$, which is time-like everywhere for AdS ($`l^2<0`$) but remains time-like for dS ($`l^2>0`$) only inside the cosmological horizon: $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }\overline{\xi }^\mu \overline{\xi }^\nu =(1\frac{r^2}{l^2})`$.

Let us concentrate on $`D=4`$ first and calculate the surface integral (14) not at $`r=\mathrm{}`$, but at some finite distance $`r`$ from the origin; this will not be gauge-invariant, since energy is to be measured only at infinity. Nevertheless, for dS space (which has a horizon that keeps us from going smoothly to infinity), let us first keep $`r`$ finite as an intermediate step. The integral becomes

$`E(r)={\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{2G}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\frac{r^2}{l^2})}{(1\frac{r_0}{r}\frac{r^2}{l^2})}}.`$ (19)
For AdS, $`E(r\mathrm{})=\frac{r_0}{2G}M`$, as expected. On the other hand, for dS $`E(r=l)=0`$. This is, however, misleading, since, in dS we should really only consider small $`r_0`$ objects, which do not change the location of the background horizon. \[Indeed, if we naively include the effect of a large $`r_0`$ as changing the horizon to $`1\frac{r_0}{r}\frac{r^2}{l^2}=0`$, then $`E(r)`$ itself diverges!.\] But, as stated, we derived the energy formula using asymptotic Killing vectors. Therefore, for asymptotically dS spaces, the only way to make sense of the above result is to consider the small $`r_0`$ limit, which then gives $`E=M`$ . In the limit of a vanishing cosmological constant (namely $`l\mathrm{}`$ ), the ADM energy is of course recovered as $`r\mathrm{}`$.

The above argument easily generalizes to $`D`$-dimensions, where one obtains

$`E={\displaystyle \frac{D2}{4G_D}}r_0^{D3}.`$ (20)
Here $`r_0`$ can be arbitrarily large in the AdS case but must be small in dS.

Finally, let us note that analogous computations can also be carried out in $`D=3`$; the proper solution is

$`ds^2=(1r_0{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}})dt^2+(1r_0{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}})^1dr^2+r^2d\varphi ^2`$ (21)
for which the energy is $`E=r_0/2G`$ again but, now, $`r_0`$ is a dimensionless constant and $`[G]=[M^1]`$, in agreement with the original results .

## 3  String-inspired Gravity

In flat backgrounds, the ghost-freedom of low energy string theory requires the quadratic corrections to Einstein’s gravity to be of the Gauss-Bonnet (GB) form , an argument that should carry over to the AdS backgrounds. Below we construct and compute the energy of various asymptotically (A)dS spaces that solve generic Einstein plus quadratic gravity theories, particularly, Einstein-GB model.

At quadratic order, the generic action is 222We will later add an explicit cosmological constant term in the discussion. Note also that the normalizations of $`\alpha ,\beta `$ differ from those of .

$`I={\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}\left\{\frac{R}{\kappa }+\alpha R^2+\beta R_{\mu \nu }^2+\gamma (R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^24R_{\mu \nu }^2+R^2)\right\}}.`$ (22)
In $`D=4`$, the GB part ($`\gamma `$ terms ) is a surface integral and plays no role in the equations of motion. In $`D>4`$, on the contrary, GB is the only viable term, since non-zero $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ produce ghosts . Here $`\kappa =2\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}G_D`$, where $`G_D`$ is the D-dimensional Newton’s constant.

The equations of motion that follow from (22) are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}(R_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }R)+2\alpha R(R_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_{\mu \nu }R)+(2\alpha +\beta )(g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}_\mu _\nu )R`$
$`+2\gamma \left\{RR_{\mu \nu }2R_{\mu \sigma \nu \rho }R^{\sigma \rho }+R_{\mu \sigma \rho \tau }R_\nu ^{\sigma \rho \tau }2R_{\mu \sigma }R_\nu ^\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_{\mu \nu }(R_{\tau \lambda \rho \sigma }^24R_{\sigma \rho }^2+R^2)\right\}`$
$`+\beta \mathrm{}(R_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }R)+2\beta (R_{\mu \sigma \nu \rho }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_{\mu \nu }R_{\sigma \rho })R^{\sigma \rho }=\tau _{\mu \nu }.`$ (23)
In the absence of matter, flat space is a solution of these equations. But so is (A)dS with cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which in our conventions is (see also )

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa }}={\displaystyle \frac{(D4)}{(D2)^2}}(D\alpha +\beta )+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (D4)(D3)}{(D2)(D1)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }0.`$ (24)
Several comments are in order here. In the string-inspired EGB model, ($`\alpha =\beta =0`$ and $`\gamma >0`$), only AdS background ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ ) is allowed (the Einstein constant $`\kappa `$ is positive with our conventions). String theory is known to prefer AdS to dS ( see for example the no-go theorem  ) we can now see why this is so in the uncompactified theory. Another interesting limit is the ‘traceless’ theory ( $`D\alpha =\beta `$), which, in the absence of a $`\gamma `$ term, does not allow constant curvature spaces unless the Einstein term is also dropped. For $`D=4`$, the $`\gamma `$ term drops out, and the pure quadratic theory allows (A)dS solutions with arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For $`D>4`$, relation (24) leaves a 2-parameter set (say $`\alpha ,\beta `$ ) of allowed solutions for chosen $`(\kappa ,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ just like in $`D=4`$.

Following the procedure outlined in the previous section and using the formulae in the Appendix, we expand the field equations to first order in $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ and define the total energy momentum tensor as

$`T_{\mu \nu }(h)`$ $``$ $`T_{\mu \nu }(\overline{g})+𝒢_{\mu \nu }^L\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }D\alpha }{D2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta }{D1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma (D4)(D3)}{(D2)(D1)}}\right\}`$ (25)
$`+(2\alpha +\beta )(\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }\overline{\mathrm{}}\overline{}_\mu \overline{}_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D2}}g_{\mu \nu })R_L+\beta (\overline{\mathrm{}}𝒢_{\mu \nu }^L{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D1}}\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }R_L)`$
$`2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2h_{\mu \nu }\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa }}+{\displaystyle \frac{(D4)}{(D2)^2}}(D\alpha +\beta )+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (D4)(D3)}{(D2)(D1)}}\right\}.`$
Using (24) one has $`T_{\mu \nu }(\overline{g})=0`$ and the last term also vanishes, yielding

$`T_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`𝒢_{\mu \nu }^L\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }D}{(D2)^2}}(2\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{D1}})\right\}`$ (26)
$`+(2\alpha +\beta )(\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }\overline{\mathrm{}}\overline{}_\mu \overline{}_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D2}}g_{\mu \nu })R_L+\beta (\overline{\mathrm{}}𝒢_{\mu \nu }^L{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D1}}\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }R_L).`$
This is a background conserved tensor ( $`\overline{}^\mu T_{\mu \nu }=0`$ ) as can be checked explicitly with help of the expressions

$`\overline{}^\mu (\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }\overline{\mathrm{}}\overline{}_\mu \overline{}_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D2}}g_{\mu \nu })R_L=0`$
$`\overline{}^\mu (\overline{\mathrm{}}𝒢_{\mu \nu }^L{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D1}}\overline{g}_{\mu \nu })R_L=0.`$ (27)
An important aspect of (26) is the sign change of the $`1/\kappa `$ term relative to Einstein theory, due to the GB contributions as already noticed in . Hence in the Einstein-GB limit, we have $`T_{\mu \nu }=𝒢_{\mu \nu }^L/\kappa `$, with overall sign exactly opposite 333This overall sign change is also shared by the model’s small oscillations about the AdS vacuum. to that of the cosmological Einstein theory (9). But, as we shall see below, this does not mean that $`E`$ is negative there.

There remains now to obtain a Killing energy expression from (26), namely, to write $`\overline{\xi }_\nu T^{\mu \nu }`$ as a surface integral. The first term is the usual AD piece (14), which we have already dealt with in the previous section. The middle term with the coefficient $`2\alpha +\beta `$, is easy to handle. The relatively cumbersome last term can be written as a surface plus extra terms.

$`\overline{\xi }_\nu \overline{\mathrm{}}𝒢_{\mu \nu }^L`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{}_\alpha \left\{\overline{\xi }_\nu \overline{}^\alpha 𝒢_L^{\mu \nu }\overline{\xi }_\nu \overline{}^\mu 𝒢_L^{\alpha \nu }𝒢_L^{\mu \nu }\overline{}^\alpha \overline{\xi }_\nu +𝒢_L^{\alpha \nu }\overline{}^\mu \overline{\xi }_\nu \right\}`$ (28)
$`+𝒢_L^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}\overline{\xi }_\nu +\overline{\xi }_\nu \overline{}_\alpha \overline{}^\mu 𝒢^{\alpha \nu }𝒢_L^{\alpha \nu }\overline{}_\alpha \overline{}^\mu \overline{\xi }_\nu `$
Using the definition of the Killing vector, and its trace property,

$`\overline{}_\alpha \overline{}_\beta \overline{\xi }_\nu =\overline{R}_{\nu \beta \alpha }^\mu \overline{\xi }_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{(D2)(D1)}}(\overline{g}_{\nu \alpha }\overline{\xi }_\beta \overline{g}_{\alpha \beta }\overline{\xi }_\nu ),\mathrm{}\overline{\xi }_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D2}}\overline{\xi }_\mu ,`$ (29)
along with the identity

$`\overline{\xi }_\nu \overline{}_\alpha \overline{}^\mu 𝒢_L^{\alpha \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }D}{(D2)(D1)}}\overline{\xi }_\nu 𝒢_L^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D1}}\xi ^\mu R_L,`$ (30)
one can show that $`\overline{\xi }_\nu \overline{\mathrm{}}𝒢_{\mu \nu }^L`$ can indeed be written as a surface term. Collecting everything, the final form of the conserved charges for the generic quadratic theory reads

$`Q^\mu (\overline{\xi })`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}+{\displaystyle \frac{8\mathrm{\Lambda }}{(D2)^2}}(D\alpha +\beta )\right\}{\displaystyle d^{D1}x\sqrt{\overline{g}}\overline{\xi _\nu }𝒢_L^{\mu \nu }}`$ (31)
$`+(2\alpha +\beta ){\displaystyle 𝑑S_i\sqrt{g}\left\{\overline{\xi }^\mu \overline{}^iR_L+R_L\overline{}^\mu \overline{\xi }^i\overline{\xi }^i\overline{}^\mu R_L\right\}}`$
$`+\beta {\displaystyle 𝑑S_i\sqrt{g}\left\{\overline{\xi }_\nu \overline{}^i𝒢_L^{\mu \nu }\overline{\xi }_\nu \overline{}^\mu 𝒢_L^{i\nu }𝒢_L^{\mu \nu }\overline{}^i\overline{\xi }_\nu +𝒢_L^{i\nu }\overline{}^\mu \overline{\xi }_\nu \right\}}.`$
For brevity we have left the AD part as a volume integral whose surface form we know is given by (14); note that $`\gamma `$ does not appear explicitly since it has been traded for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ through the relation (24).

In the above analysis, there was no bare cosmological term in the action. Clearly, this need not be the case: we can add one, say : $`2d^Dx\sqrt{g}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0/\kappa `$. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ contributes to the overall effective cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which now is given by

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4f(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma _)\kappa }}\left\{1\pm \sqrt{1+8\kappa f(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}\right\}`$ (32)
$`f(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ){\displaystyle \frac{(D4)}{(D2)^2}}(D\alpha +\beta )+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (D4)(D3)}{(D2)(D1)}}.`$
If $`f>0`$, as in Einstein-GB theory, the effective cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is smaller than the ‘bare’ one $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$: thus stringy corrections (at quadratic order) reduce the value of the bare cosmological constant appearing in the Lagrangian. Given that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is arbitrary, there is a bound ($`8\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }_0f1`$) on these corrections since the effective $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ becomes imaginary otherwise.

Now let us compute the energy of an asymptotically SdS geometry that might be a solution to our generic model. Should such a solution exist, we only require its asymptotic behavior to be

$`h_{00}+({\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{r}})^{D3},h^{rr}+({\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{r}})^{D3}+O(r_0^2).`$ (33)
It is easy to see that for asymptotically SdS spaces the second and the third lines of (31) do not contribute, since for any Einstein space, to linear order

$`R_{\mu \nu }^L={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D2}}h_{\mu \nu },`$ (34)
which in turn yields $`R_L=\overline{g}^{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }^L\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D2}h=0`$ and thus $`𝒢_{\mu \nu }^L=0`$ in the asymptotic region. Therefore the total energy of the full $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ system, for geometries which are asymptotically SdS, is given only by the first term in (31),

$`E_D=\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{8\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa }{(D2)^2}}(D\alpha +\beta )\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{(D2)}{4G}}r_0^{D3}D>4,`$ (35)
where $`\gamma `$ is implicitly assumed not to vanish. \[Note again the sign change of the “Einstein contribution as explained before.\] For $`D=4`$, we computed $`E`$ in , equivalently from (25), it reads 444 In $`D=3`$, the GB density vanishes identically and the energy expression has the same form of the $`D=4`$ model, with the difference that $`r_0`$ comes from the metric (21) ( for models with an explicit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$)

$`E_4=\left\{1+2\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa (4\alpha +\beta )\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{2G}}.`$ (36)
From (35), the asymptotically SdS solution seemingly has negative energy, in the Einstein-GB model:

$`E={\displaystyle \frac{(D2)}{4G}}r_0^{D3}.`$ (37)
While this is of course correct in terms of the usual SdS signs, one must be more careful about the external solutions in Einstein-GB theory. Their exact form is ,

$`ds^2=g_{00}dt^2+g_{rr}dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}`$ (38)
$`g_{00}=g_{rr}^1=1+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{4\kappa \gamma (D3)(D4)}}\left\{1\pm \left\{1+8\gamma (D3)(D4){\displaystyle \frac{r_0^{D3}}{r^{D1}}}\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}\right\}`$ (39)
Note that there is a branching here, with qualitatively different asymptotics: Schwarzschild and Schwarschild-AdS,

$`g_{00}=1({\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{r}})^{D3},g_{00}=1+({\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{r}})^{D3}+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{\kappa \gamma (D3)(D4)}}.`$ (40)
\[ Here we have restored $`\gamma `$, using $`\kappa \gamma (D3)(D4)=l^2`$.\] The first solution has the usual positive (for positive $`r_0`$ of course) ADM energy $`E=+\frac{(D2)r_0^{D3}}{4G}`$, since the GB term does not contribute when expanded around flat space. On the other hand, as noted in  the second solution which is asymptotically SdS, has the wrong sign for the ‘mass term’. But, to actually compute the energy here, one needs our energy expression (31), and not simply the AD formula which is valid only for cosmological Einstein theory. Now from (40), we have

$`h_{00}({\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{r}})^{D3},h^{rr}({\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{r}})^{D3}+O(r_0^2),`$ (41)
whose sign is opposite to that of the usual SdS. This sign just compensates the flipped sign in the energy definition, so the energy (35) reads : $`E=\frac{(D2)r_0^{D3}}{4G}`$ and the AdS branch, just like the flat branch, has positive energy, after the GB effects are taken into account also in the energy definition. Thus, for every Einstein-GB external solution, energy is positive and AdS vacuum is stable. 555 In , it was erroneously concluded that $`E_D`$ was negative for the AdS branch, despite having obtained both the correct (negative) sign of $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ and of course the correct solution (39).

## 4 Zero Energy Models

In $`D=4`$, every quadratic curvature theory, i.e any $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ combination, is scale invariant. These models were studied in  in terms of the slightly different parametrization

$`S={\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}\left\{aC_{\mu \nu \sigma \rho }C^{\mu \nu \sigma \rho }+bR^2\right\}}`$ (42)
where $`C_{\mu \nu \sigma \rho }`$ is the Weyl tensor. Using the equivalent of the ADM energy for the asymptotically flat solutions, it was shown that this energy vanished for all of them. As discussed in , with our definition of energy, this statement is correct, but simply reflects (at Einsteinian level) the Newtonian impossibility of having asymptotically vanishing solutions of $`^4\varphi =\rho `$. This property of higher derivative gravity is well-understood . It has deeper consequences such as violations of the equivalence principle: massive sources here have no gravitational mass. Violations of the equivalence principle are not unheard-of and occur already at the simple level of scalar-tensor gravity. In the asymptotically (A)dS branch, however, energy no longer vanishes: Even pure conformally invariant Weyl theory has finite energy!

Interestingly, there is one purely quadratic theory which does have vanishing energy in all dimensions, for asymptotically flat or (A)dS vacua. It has action $`d^Dx\sqrt{g}\stackrel{~}{R}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{R}^{\mu \nu }`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }\frac{R}{D}g_{\mu \nu }`$. This vanishing is obvious from (35), dropping the Einstein contribution : E is then proportional to $`(D\alpha +\beta )`$. In addition to its zero-energy flat vacuum, the (A)dS branch is infinitely degenerate, having a 1-dimensional moduli space denoted by the Schwarzschild parameter $`r_0`$. For example, creating larger and larger black holes costs nothing in this theory. Of course, once an Einstein term is added, the energy is no longer zero.

## 5 Conclusions

We have defined the energy of generic Einstein plus cosmological term plus quadratic gravity theories as well as pure quadratic models in all $`D`$, for both asymptotically flat and (A)dS spaces. For flat backgrounds, the higher derivative terms do not change the form of the energy expressions. On the other hand, for asymptotically (A)dS backgrounds (which are usually solutions to these equations, even in the absence of an explicit cosmological constant), the energy expressions (31) essentially reduce to that of the AD formula (up to higher order corrections that vanish for space-times that asymptotically approach (A)dS at least as fast as Schwarzschild-de-Sitter spaces ).

Among quadratic theories, we have studied the string-inspired EGB theory in more detail. Just like the others, this one, in the absence of an explicit cosmological constant in the Lagrangian, has both flat and AdS vacua, the latter with specific (negative) cosmological constants determined by the Newton’s constant and the GB coefficient, the latter sign being fixed from the string expansion to be positive. The explicit spherically symmetric black hole solutions in this theory consist of two branches : asymptotically Schwarzschild spaces with a positive mass parameter or asymptotically Schwarzschild AdS spaces with a negative one. The asymptotically Schwarzschild branch has the usual positive ADM energy. Using the compensation of two minus signs in the solution and in the correct energy definition, we noted that the AdS branch has likewise positive energy and that the AdS vacuum was a, stable, zero energy, state.

Amusingly, we instead identified a unique, purely quadratic theory with zero energy for all constant (or zero ) curvature backgrounds. That, one such model must exist, is already clear from the fact that each term in

$`I={\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}\left\{\alpha R^2+\beta R_{\mu \nu }^2+\gamma (R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^24R_{\mu \nu }^2+R^2)\right\}},`$ (43)
contributes linearly to E. The condition that (A)dS be a solution , with arbitrary cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is

$`(D4)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(D2)}}(D\alpha +\beta )+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (D3)}{(D1)}}\right\}=0.`$ (44)
In all D, the zero energy models have $`(D\alpha +\beta )=0=\gamma `$ . While we have not yet understood what this result means physically, we can at least argue in favor of its plausibility . First, note that this model is the only one that stays special in all $`D`$, unlike either the conformal one, good only in $`D=4`$ or $`R^2`$, scale invariant also only in $`D=4`$. A second argument is that this is the only quadratic theory that cannot be reformulated as Einstein plus matter , making it hard to expect any of the others to have no energy.

In this paper, we have only looked at constant curvature vacua, but there may exist more general vacua with some additional structure. One example may be Weyl gravity, for which the most general spherically symmetric solution is

$`g_{00}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{rr}}}=13ab{\displaystyle \frac{(23ab)b}{r}}+ar{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}};`$ (45)
$`a,b,l`$ are integration constants. Birkhoff’s theorem is valid and this is the unique static external solution. One choice of background might be to set $`b=0`$. This space is only asymptotically (A)dS, since for it, $`R=\frac{6a}{r}+\frac{12}{l^2}`$. Our earlier remarks on the loss of visibility of matter source contributions to E in higher derivative theories might lead one to expect the $`ar`$ term to carry this information. However this seems not to be the case generically, when $`a=0`$ is required to solve the equations. This is another open question.

The framework for energy definition presented here can clearly be applied to models with generic higher powers of curvature . For any such theory that supports constant curvature vacua-and all but monomials in scalar curvature do so- it is just a matter of turning the crank to obtain the energy.

This work was supported by National Science Foundation grant PHY99-73935.

## 6 Appendix

Here we list some useful linearization expressions about (A)dS for pure quadratic terms, using the conventions of Sec. 2, barred quantities refer to the background:

$`\delta (R_{\mu \rho \nu \sigma }R^{\rho \sigma })={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D1}}R_{\mu \nu }^L+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{(D1)(D2)}}\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }R_L+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{(D2)^2(D1)}}h_{\mu \nu }`$
$`\delta (R_{\mu \rho \sigma \alpha }R_\nu ^{\rho \sigma \alpha })={\displaystyle \frac{8\mathrm{\Lambda }}{(D1)(D2)}}R_{\mu \nu }^L{\displaystyle \frac{8\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{(D2)^2(D1)}}h_{\mu \nu }`$
$`\delta (R_{\mu \rho \sigma \alpha }R^{\mu \rho \sigma \alpha })={\displaystyle \frac{8\mathrm{\Lambda }}{(D1)(D2)}}R_L`$
$`\delta (RR_{\mu \nu })={\displaystyle \frac{2D\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D2}}R_{\mu \nu }^L+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{(D2)}}\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }R_L`$
$`\delta (R_\mu ^\sigma R_{\nu \sigma })={\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D2}}R_{\mu \nu }^L{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{(D2)^2}}h_{\mu \nu }`$
$`\delta (R_{\mu \nu }^2)={\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D2}}R_L`$
$`\delta (R_{\tau \lambda \rho \sigma }^24R_{\sigma \rho }^2+R^2)={\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }(D3)}{D1}}R_L`$
$`R_{\mu \sigma \nu \rho }^L\overline{g}^{\sigma \rho }=R_{\mu \nu }^L{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{(D1)(D2)}}(h_{\mu \nu }\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }h).`$
Finally, we compute the GB density of a cosmological space:

$`\overline{R}_{\tau \lambda \rho \sigma }^24\overline{R}_{\sigma \rho }^2+\overline{R}^2={\displaystyle \frac{4D\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(D3)}{(D2)(D1)}}.`$


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Calabi–Yau compactification is one of the most common procedures to obtain four-dimensional models from ten-dimensional string theories. However, the physics obtained in this way generically feature a large number of scalar fields (moduli) which are flat directions of the potential and moreover, there exist no viable mechanism to further break supersymmetry. It was recently realized  –  that if one allows a non-zero background value (flux) for some of the field strengths, a potential is generated in the lower-dimensional effective theory and supersymmetry can be spontaneously broken.333Strictly speaking this idea appeared for the first time in . In the context of finding supersymmetric ground states this was initially addressed in . More recently, orientifolds and Calabi–Yau four-folds with fluxes have been discussed in ,  – . Beside the phenomenologically interesting features of such compactifications it is also attractive to study flux compactifications in the context of string dualities  – , ,  –  and in particular, in this note we will concentrate on mirror symmetry which is supposed to relate the two type II theories when compactified on mirror Calabi–Yau three-folds.

The issue of mirror symmetry when fluxes are turned on was addressed in several works . In type IIA theory the RR fluxes lie in the even cohomologies of the Calabi–Yau manifold as the RR sector of this theory contains even form field strengths. For type IIB on the other hand one encounters odd form field strengths and thus the RR fluxes are parameterized in this case by elements of the odd cohomologies of the Calabi–Yau space. As mirror symmetry precisely exchanges the odd and even cohomologies it is not surprising that it still holds when RR fluxes are turned on. For the NS fluxes the situation was until recently less clear as none of the two type II theories contain even form field strengths in the NS-NS sector. It was in turn proposed  that the mirror of the NS fluxes should now come from the geometry of the internal manifold. This proposal was made more concrete in  where it was conjectured that when NS fluxes are turned on in type IIB theory, mirror symmetry requires the presence of a new class of manifolds, known as half-flat manifolds with $`\mathrm{𝑆𝑈}(3)`$ structure444Manifolds with $`\mathrm{𝑆𝑈}(3)`$ structure also appeared recently in the heterotic string compactifications , though from a slightly different perspective. on type IIA side. The main argument supporting this proposal was provided by showing that the low-energy effective actions for the type IIB compactified on a Calabi–Yau three-fold in the presence of electric NS three-form flux and type IIA compactified on a half-flat space are equivalent. The purpose of this note is to test the conjecture formulated in  in the reversed situation, namely we want to show that compactifying type IIB theory on half-flat manifolds produces an effective action which is mirror equivalent to type IIA theory compactified on Calabi–Yau three-folds with NS three-form flux turned on.

The paper is structured as follows. In section 2 we briefly recall some of the results obtained in  and mainly we are interested in those features which are relevant for the KK reduction. In section 3 we compute the low-energy effective action of type IIB supergravity compactified on such a manifold and show that it indeed reproduces the action obtained in the type IIA case when NS fluxes are turned on. In section 4 we present our conclusions while in the appendix we record the main steps of the compactification of type IIA theory on Calabi–Yau three-folds with NS fluxes . Throughout the paper we use the conventions of  (see appendix A of this paper).

## 2 Preliminaries

Let us start by recording the main results obtained in . Turning on NS three-form fluxes555By flux we understand a background value for some p-form field strength. This value can not be arbitrary as the equations of motion restrict it to be a harmonic form on the internal manifold. Thus we can write
$$F_{(p)}=m_i\omega _{(p)}^i,$$
where $`m^i`$ are the flux parameters and $`\omega _{(p)}^i`$ represents a basis of harmonic p-forms. in type IIB compactification on a Calabi–Yau manifold $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ introduces $`2(h^{(1,2)}+1)`$ flux parameters via

$$H_3=p^A\alpha _A+q_A\beta ^A,$$
(2.1)
where $`(\alpha _A,\beta ^B),A,B=0,\mathrm{},h^{(1,2)}`$ form a basis for $`H^3(\stackrel{~}{Y})`$ and is normalized as in (A.9). These fluxes will appear in the four dimensional theory as charges which couple to electric or magnetic fields and it is just pure convention to call them electric or magnetic fluxes depending on how we choose to describe the gauge sector. However, in the setup of  which we also adopt here, $`p^A`$ appear as magnetic charges, while $`q_A`$ as electric ones. Thus, from now on we will refer to the fluxes $`p^A`$ and $`q_A`$ in (2.1) as magnetic and electric fluxes respectively.

The NS-NS sector of type IIA theory also contains a two form potential with a three-form field strength. However, the corresponding fluxes will again lie in the third cohomology and they can not be mirror to (2.1) since mirror symmetry exchanges the even and odd cohomologies. In order to find a configuration mirror symmetric to (2.1) one needs to find NS even-form field strengths. It was suggested in  that the missing fluxes should come from the geometry of the internal manifold which now should be taken to be non-complex and the NS even form field strength should be associated to the lack of integrability of the almost complex structure. It was shown in  that one can obtain the mirror electric fluxes by considering the internal space to be a half-flat manifold with $`\mathrm{𝑆𝑈}(3)`$ structure666For a systematic study of such manifolds we refer the reader to  and references therein, or for a more physical discussion to . which is indeed non-complex. Such manifolds admit a globally defined nowhere vanishing spinor which is covariantly constant with respect to a connection with torsion $`^{(T)}\eta =0`$. This assures that the low-energy effective action obtained by compactifying either of the type II theories on such manifolds still has $`N=2`$ supersymmetries in four dimensions. Equivalently, one can think about these spaces as being endowed with an almost complex structure $`J`$ and a $`(3,0)`$ form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which are covariantly constant with respect to the same connection with torsion

$$_m^{(T)}J_{np}=0;_m^{(T)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{npq}=0.$$
(2.2)
The Levi-Civita connection fails to preserve $`J`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ thus, unlike the Calabi–Yau case $`J`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are no longer closed. In  it was found that the NS four-form was provided by $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^+`$ being the real part of the $`(3,0)`$ form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and the (electric) fluxes were obtained in the expansion of this four-form in some appropriately chosen basis of $`(2,2)`$ forms $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }^i`$

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }^+=e_i\stackrel{~}{\omega }^i.$$
(2.3)
Moreover, it was argued that in order for mirror symmetry to work there should be a precise relation between the half-flat space $`\widehat{Y}`$ and some Calabi–Yau three-fold $`Y`$. In particular, the moduli space of metrics of the half-flat manifold should coincide with the moduli space of the corresponding Calabi–Yau and the metrics on these spaces should be equivalent. This means that one should perform the usual moduli expansion

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=z^A\alpha _A_A\beta ^A,J=v^i\omega _i,$$
(2.4)
and the forms $`(\alpha _A,\beta ^B)`$ and $`(\omega _i,\stackrel{~}{\omega }^j)`$ should have the same intersection numbers as on the Calabi–Yau manifold, i.e.

$$_Y\alpha _A\beta ^B=\delta _A^B,_Y\omega _i\stackrel{~}{\omega }^j=\delta _i^j,_Y\alpha _A\alpha _B=_Y\beta ^A\beta ^B=0.$$
(2.5)
The above relation proved to impose strong constraints on the topology of the half-flat manifold $`\widehat{Y}`$. In particular it was argued in  that in order to have both (2.3) and (2.4) the only solution is to consider the following action of the exterior derivative on the basis $`(\alpha _A,\beta ^B)`$ 777We have implicitly assumed that $`z^A`$ can be written as $`z^A=(1,z^a),a=1,\mathrm{},h^{(1,2)}`$.

$$d\alpha _0=e_i\stackrel{~}{\omega }^i,d\alpha _a=d\beta ^B=0.$$
(2.6)
Consistency with (2.5) further required that

$$d\omega _i=e_i\beta ^0,d\stackrel{~}{\omega }^i=0.$$
(2.7)
Using these relations one can immediately see that the cohomology groups are reduced compared to the corresponding Calabi–Yau manifold and one has

$$h^{(2)}(\widehat{Y})=h^{(1,1)}(Y)1,h^{(3)}(\widehat{Y})=h^{(3)}(Y)2.$$
(2.8)
From a physical point of view this can be easily understood as, due to the fluxes, some of the previous moduli of the Calabi–Yau now acquire masses and thus appear no longer as flat directions of the potential. Consequently, in order to obtain the same light spectrum some of the forms considered previously in the zero modes expansion have to become non-harmonic on the mirror side.

Using the above setup it was shown in  that the effective action of type IIA supergravity compactified on a half-flat manifold $`\widehat{Y}`$ precisely reproduces the effective action of type IIB supergravity compactified on a Calabi–Yau manifold $`Y`$ in the presence of NS electric fluxes (2.1) and thus provides strong evidence that half-flat manifolds are indeed the mirror configuration of the NS fluxes (2.1).

In this note we want to further test this conjecture. In particular, if the half-flat geometries are to reproduce the mirror NS fluxes this should not depend on which of the type II theories is chosen to be compactified on these spaces. Thus, our purpose here is to show that type IIB compactification on half-flat manifolds reproduces the type IIA compactification on Calabi–Yau three-folds in the presence of electric NS fluxes whose effective action was derived in .

## 3 Type IIB on half-flat manifolds

Following  we will now perform the compactification of type IIB on a manifold $`\widehat{Y}`$ which obeys (2.6) and (2.7) which again will turn out to be responsible for generating mass terms in the lower-dimensional action.

Let us start by shortly recording the type IIB supergravity in ten dimensions. The NS-NS sector of the bosonic spectrum consists of the metric $`\widehat{g}_{MN}`$, an antisymmetric tensor field $`\widehat{B}_2`$ and the dilaton $`\widehat{\varphi }`$. In the RR sector one finds the 0-, 2-, and 4-form potentials $`l,\widehat{C}_2,\widehat{A}_4`$. The four-form potential satisfies a further constraint in that its field strength $`\widehat{F}_5`$ is self-dual. The interactions of the above fields are described by the ten-dimensional action

$`S_{IIB}^{(10)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }e^{2\widehat{\varphi }}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R\mathrm{𝟏}+2d\widehat{\varphi }d\widehat{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}d\widehat{B}_2d\widehat{B}_2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }(dldl+\widehat{F}_3\widehat{F}_3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{F}_5\widehat{F}_5)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \widehat{A}_4}d\widehat{B}_2d\widehat{C}_2,`$
where the field strengths $`\widehat{F}_3`$ and $`\widehat{F}_5`$ are defined as

$`\widehat{F}_3`$ $`=`$ $`d\widehat{C}_2ld\widehat{B}_2,`$ (3.2)
$`\widehat{F}_5`$ $`=`$ $`d\widehat{A}_4d\widehat{B}_2\widehat{C}_2.`$
As it is well known the action (3) does not reproduce the correct dynamics of type IIB supergravity as the self-duality condition of $`\widehat{F}_5`$ can not be derived from a variational principle. Rather this should be imposed by hand in order to obtain the correct equations of motion and we will come back to this constraint later as it plays a major role in the following analysis.

In order to compactify the action (3) on a half flat manifold we proceed as in  and continue to expand the ten dimensional fields in the forms which appear in (2.6) and (2.7) even though they are not harmonic. We do not want to go again here through the argument presented in , but we just mention that the Laplace operator acting on these forms produces terms of order $`(`$flux$`)^2`$ and in the supergravity limit, where the fluxes are supposed to be at a scale much smaller than the compactification one, it is consistent to keep the massive modes coming from expansion in these forms and still neglect the massive KK states. Correspondingly we write

$`\widehat{B}_2`$ $`=`$ $`B_2+b^i\omega _i,i=1,\mathrm{},h^{(1,1)},`$ (3.3)
$`\widehat{C}_2`$ $`=`$ $`C_2+c^i\omega _i,`$
$`\widehat{A}_4`$ $`=`$ $`D_2^i\omega _i+\rho _i\stackrel{~}{\omega }^i+V^A\alpha _AU_A\beta ^A,A=0,\mathrm{},h^{(1,2)},`$
and thus one finds the two forms $`B_2,C_2,D_2^i`$, the vector fields $`V^A,U_A`$, and the scalars $`b^i,c^i,\rho _i`$. Additionally, from the metric fluctuations on the internal space one obtains other scalar fields $`z^a`$ and $`v^i`$ (2.4), which correspond to the Calabi–Yau complex structure and Kähler class deformations respectively. Due to the self-duality condition which one has to impose on $`\widehat{F}_5`$, not all the fields listed above describe physically independent degrees of freedom. Thus as four dimensional gauge fields one only encounters either $`V^A`$ or $`U_A`$. In the same way, the scalars $`\rho _i`$ and the two forms $`D_2^i`$ are related by Hodge duality and one can eliminate either of the two in the four dimensional action. In the end one obtains an $`N=2`$ supersymmetric spectrum consisting of a gravity multiplet $`(g_{\mu \nu },V^0)`$, $`h^{(2,1)}`$ vector multiplets $`(V^a,z^a)`$ and $`4(h^{(1,1)}+1)`$ scalars $`\varphi ,h_1,h_2,l,b^i,c^i,v^i,\rho ^i`$ which form $`h^{(1,1)}+1`$ hypermultiplets.888 We have implicitly assumed that the two-forms $`C_2`$ and $`B_2`$ are massless in four dimensions and they can be Hodge dualized to scalars which we have denoted $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ respectively.

Up to this point everything looks like ordinary Calabi–Yau compactification. The difference comes when one inserts the Ansatz (3.3) back into the action (3). Due to (2.6) and (2.7), the exterior derivatives of the fields (3.3) are going to differ from the standard case

$`d\widehat{B}_2`$ $`=`$ $`dB_2+db^i\omega _i+e_ib^i\beta ^0+e_0\beta ^0,`$
$`d\widehat{C}_2`$ $`=`$ $`dC_2+dc^i\omega _i+e_ic^i\beta ^0,`$ (3.4)
$`d\widehat{A}_4`$ $`=`$ $`dD_2^i\omega _i+e_iD_2^i\beta ^0+dV^A\alpha _AdU_A\beta ^A+(d\rho _ie_iV^0)\stackrel{~}{\omega }^i.`$
As in  we have also allowed for a normal $`H_3`$ flux proportional to $`\beta ^0`$. This naturally combines with the other fluxes parameters $`e_i`$ defined in (2.6) to provide all the $`h^{(1,1)}+1`$ electric fluxes. With these expressions one can immediately write the field strengths $`F_3`$ and $`F_5`$ from (3.2)

$`\widehat{F}_3`$ $`=`$ $`(dC_2ldB_2)+(dc^ildb^i)\omega _i+e_i(c^ilb^i)\beta ^0le_0\beta ^0,`$ (3.5)
$`\widehat{F}_5`$ $`=`$ $`(dD_2^idb^iC_2c^idB_2)\omega _i+(D\rho _i𝒦_{ijk}c^jdb^k)\stackrel{~}{\omega }^i+F^A\alpha _A\stackrel{~}{G}_A\beta ^A,`$
where we have defined

$`D\rho _i`$ $`=`$ $`d\rho _ie_iV^0,`$
$`F^A`$ $`=`$ $`dV^A,G_A=dU_A,`$ (3.6)
$`\stackrel{~}{G}_0`$ $`=`$ $`G_0e_i(D_2^ib^iC_2)+e_0C_2;\stackrel{~}{G}_a=G_a.`$
In order to derive the lower-dimensional action we adopt the following strategy . In the first stage we are going to ignore the self-duality condition which should be imposed on $`\widehat{F}_5`$ and treat the fields coming from the expansion of $`\widehat{A}_4`$ as independent. Thus, initially we naively insert the expansions (3.3) into (3) and perform the integrals over the internal space using (A.8)–(A). To obtain the correct action we will further add suitable total derivative terms so that the self-duality conditions appear from a variational principle. At this point one can eliminate the redundant fields and in this way obtain the four-dimensional effective action and no other constraint has to be imposed. It can be checked that the result obtained in this way is compatible with the ten dimensional equations of motion.

Let us apply this procedure step by step. First one inserts the expansions (3.3) and (3.5) into the ten-dimensional action (3). The various terms of this action take the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _Y}d\widehat{B}_2d\widehat{B}_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒦}{4}}dB_2dB_2𝒦g_{ij}db^idb^j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(e_ib^i+e_0)^2\kappa _0\mathrm{𝟏},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _Y}\widehat{F}_3\widehat{F}_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒦}{2}}(dC_2ldB_2)(dC_2ldB_2)`$
$`2𝒦g_{ij}(dc^ildb^i)(dc^jldb^j)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[e_i(c^ilb^i)le_0]^2\kappa _0\mathrm{𝟏},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle }\widehat{F}_5\widehat{F}_5`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\text{Im}^1(\stackrel{~}{G}F)(\stackrel{~}{G}\overline{}F)`$
$`𝒦g_{ij}(dD_2^idb^iC_2c^idB_2)(dD_2^jdb^jC_2c^jdB_2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16𝒦}}g^{ij}(D\rho _i𝒦_{ilm}c^ldb^m)(D\rho _i𝒦_{jnp}c^ndb^p),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \widehat{A}_4}d\widehat{B}_2d\widehat{C}_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒦_{ijk}D_2^idb^jdc^k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _i\left(dB_2dc^i+db^idC_2\right),`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e_iV^0\left(c^idB_2b^idC_2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e_0V^0dC_2.`$
In order to write the above formulae we have used (A.8)–(A) and we have defined $`\kappa _0=\left(\text{Im}^1\right)^{00}`$. In the gravitational sector, beyond the usual part containing the kinetic terms for the moduli of $`\widehat{Y}`$ there will be a further contribution coming entirely from the internal manifold which is due to the fact that $`\widehat{Y}`$ is not Ricci flat and which will generate a potential piece in four dimensions. The Ricci scalar for half-flat manifolds was computed in  and here we will not present the whole calculation, but just record the effective potential generated in this way

$$V_g=\frac{\kappa _0}{16𝒦}\mathrm{e}^{2\varphi }e_ie_jg^{ij}.$$
(3.8)
At this point we have to impose the self-duality condition for $`\widehat{F}_5`$ which using (A.11), (A.13) and (A) translates into the following constraints on the four dimensional fields

$`dD_2^idb^iC_2c^idB_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4𝒦}}g^{ij}(D\rho _i𝒦_{ijk}c^jdb^k),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{G}_A`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Re}_{AC}F^C\text{Im}_{AC}F^C,`$ (3.9)
with $`D\rho _i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_A`$ defined in (3). By adding the following total derivative term to the action

$`_{\mathrm{td}}`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}dD_2^id\rho _i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^AG_A`$ (3.10)
$`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}dD_2^iD\rho _i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^A\stackrel{~}{G}_A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(e_ib^i+e_0)F^0C_2`$
the constraints (3) can be found upon variation with respect to $`dD_2^i`$ and $`G_A`$ respectively. This allows us to eliminate the fields $`dD_2^i`$ and $`G_A`$ using their equations of motion and consequently the effective action obtained in this way describes the correct dynamics for the remaining fields which now do not have to satisfy any further constraint.

After the dualization of the 2-forms $`C_2`$ and $`B_2`$ to the scalars $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ one obtains the effective action for type IIB supergravity compactified to four dimensions on a half-flat manifold

$`S_{IIB}^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R\mathrm{𝟏}g_{ab}dz^ad\overline{z}^bg_{ij}dt^id\overline{t}^jd\varphi d\varphi `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\varphi }}{8𝒦}}g^{1ij}(D\rho _i𝒦_{ikl}c^kdb^l)(D\rho _j𝒦_{jmn}c^mdb^n)`$
$`2𝒦e^{2\varphi }g_{ij}(dc^ildb^i)(dc^jldb^j){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒦e^{2\varphi }dldl`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2𝒦}}e^{2\varphi }(dh_1b^iD\rho _i+e_0V^0)(dh_1b^jD\rho _j+e_0V^0)\mathrm{e}^{4\varphi }D\stackrel{~}{h}D\stackrel{~}{h}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Re}_{AB}F^AF^B+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Im}_{AB}F^AF^BV_{IIB}\mathrm{𝟏},`$
where

$`D\stackrel{~}{h}=dh_2+ldh_1+(c^ilb^i)D\rho _i+le_0V^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒦_{ijk}c^ic^jdb^k.`$ (3.12)
Performing the field redefinitions

$`a=2h_2+lh_1+\rho _i(c^ilb^i),`$ $`\xi ^0=l,\xi ^i=lb^ic^i,`$ (3.13)
$`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_i=\rho _i+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{2}}𝒦_{ijk}b^jb^k𝒦_{ijk}b^jc^k,`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_0=h_1{\displaystyle \frac{l}{6}}𝒦_{ijk}b^ib^jb^k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒦_{ijk}b^ib^jc^k,`$
the metric for the hyperscalars takes the standard quaternionic form of  which is now exactly the mirror image of (A) with the gauge coupling matrices $`𝒩`$ and $``$ exchanged as prescribed by the mirror map. Introducing the collective notation $`q^u=(\varphi ,a,\xi ^I,\stackrel{~}{\xi }_I)`$ we can write the final form of the four dimensional action

$`S_{IIA}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R^{}\mathrm{𝟏}g_{ab}dz^ad\overline{z}^b\stackrel{~}{h}_{uv}Dq^uDq^vV_{IIB}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (3.14)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Im}_{AB}F^AF^B+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Re}_{AB}F^AF^B],`$
where the scalar potential has the form

$`V_{IIB}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _0}{4}}\mathrm{e}^{+2\varphi }e_Ie_J\left(\text{Im}𝒩^1\right)^{IJ}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _0}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{4\varphi }(e_I\xi ^I)^2,`$ (3.15)
and the matrix $`𝒩`$ is given in (A). The non-trivial covariant derivatives have the form

$$D\stackrel{~}{\xi }_I=d\stackrel{~}{\xi }_Ie_IV^0;Da=da+e_IV^0\xi ^I,$$
(3.16)
while all the other fields remain neutral.

This ends the derivation of the effective action of type IIB theory compactified to four dimensions on half-flat manifolds. One can immediately notice that the gaugings (3.16) are precisely the same as in the case of type IIA theory (A.6) and (A.16) when all the magnetic fluxes $`p^A`$ are set to zero. It is not difficult to see that in this case also the potentials (3.15) and (A.18) coincide. For this one should just note that under mirror symmetry $`\kappa _0=(\text{Im}_B^1)^{00}`$ is mapped to $`\frac{1}{𝒦_A}`$, $`𝒦_A`$ being the volume of the Calabi–Yau manifold on which type IIA is compactified.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we derived the low energy effective action of type IIB supergravity compactified on half-flat manifolds and showed that it is equivalent to the one obtained by compactifying type IIA theory on Calabi–Yau three-folds in the presence of electric NS fluxes. We provided in this way a further check of the conjecture formulated in  that half-flat manifolds represent the geometry mirror to Calabi–Yau three-folds with NS three-form fluxes turned on. However, these half-flat manifolds give rise to only $`h^{(1,1)}`$ flux parameters and it seems that one still needs an additional parameter in order to recover the mirror partners of all $`h^{(1,2)}+1`$ electric NS fluxes. Somehow curiously, it was argued in  that this extra parameter arises by turning on an ordinary NS flux along some particular element of $`H^3(\widehat{Y})`$, $`\beta ^0`$. Here we again found that this prescription works confirming that this extra flux was not just a coincidence. Moreover, in analogy to  and , we can write the superpotential

$$W_B=d(B+iJ)\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(4.1)
which naturally incorporates the additional parameter coming from the flux for $`dB_2`$.

We would like to end with an open question which was also posed in : the magnetic fluxes. The subtlety encountered in  was that in type IIB when both electric and magnetic NS three-form fluxes were turned on the RR two-form $`C_2`$ became massive and the poor understanding of this issue made it difficult to treat the problem of magnetic fluxes properly. However, in the approach we presented in this note, type IIA with electric and magnetic NS three-form fluxes is well understood and no massive form is present. Thus, it appears that in this picture it would be easier to look for the magnetic fluxes and we hope to report on this subject soon .

Appendix

## Appendix A Type IIA with NS flux

In this appendix we briefly recall the results of  for the compactification of type IIA supergravity on Calabi-Yau three-folds $`Y`$ when background NS fluxes are turned on.

The bosonic spectrum of type IIA supergravity in ten dimensions features the following fields: the graviton $`\widehat{g}_{MN}`$, a two-form $`\widehat{B}_2`$ and the dilaton $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ in the NS-NS sector and a one form $`\widehat{A}_1`$ and a three-form $`\widehat{C}_3`$ in the RR sector. The action governing the interactions of these fields can be written as

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }e^{2\widehat{\varphi }}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{R}\mathrm{𝟏}+2d\widehat{\varphi }d\widehat{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\widehat{H}_3\widehat{H}_3)`$ (A.1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }(\widehat{F}_2\widehat{F}_2+\widehat{F}_4\widehat{F}_4)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }\widehat{H}_3\widehat{C}_3d\widehat{C}_3,`$
where

$$\widehat{H}_3=d\widehat{B}_2,\widehat{F}_2=d\widehat{A}_1,\widehat{F}_4=d\widehat{C}_3\widehat{A}_1\widehat{H}_3.$$
(A.2)
Upon compactification on a Calabi–Yau three-fold the four-dimensional spectrum can be read from the expansion of the ten-dimensional fields in the Calabi–Yau harmonic forms

$`\widehat{A}_1`$ $`=`$ $`A^0,`$
$`\widehat{C}_3`$ $`=`$ $`C_3+A^i\omega _i+\xi ^A\alpha _A+\stackrel{~}{\xi }_A\beta ^A,`$ (A.3)
$`\widehat{B}_2`$ $`=`$ $`B_2+b^i\omega _i.`$
Correspondingly, in $`D=4`$ we find a three-form $`C_3`$, a two-form $`B_2`$, the vector fields $`(A^0,A^i)`$ and the scalars $`b^i,\xi ^A,\stackrel{~}{\xi }_A`$. Together with the Kähler class and complex structure deformations $`v^i`$ and $`z^a`$ these fields combine into a gravity multiplet $`(G_{\mu \nu },A^0)`$, $`h^{(1,1)}`$ vector multiplets $`(A^i,v^i,b^i),i=1,\mathrm{},h^{(1,1)}`$, $`h^{(1,2)}`$ hyper-multiplets $`(z^a,\xi ^a,\stackrel{~}{\xi }_a),a=1,\mathrm{},h^{(1,2)}`$ and a tensor multiplet $`(B_2,\varphi ,\xi ^0,\stackrel{~}{\xi }_0)`$.

We assume that turning on background fluxes does not change the light spectrum and thus the only modification in the KK Ansatz is a shift in the field strength of $`\widehat{B}_2`$

$$\widehat{H}_3=H_3+db^i\omega _i+p^A\alpha _Aq_A\beta ^A.$$
(A.4)
This leads to the following expressions for the different terms appearing in the ten-dimensional action (A.1)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _Y}\widehat{H}_3\widehat{H}_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒦}{4}}H_3H_3𝒦g_{ij}db^idb^jV\mathrm{𝟏},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _Y}\widehat{F}_2\widehat{F}_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒦}{2}}dA^0dA^0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _Y}\widehat{F}_4\widehat{F}_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒦}{2}}(dC_3A^0H_3)(dC_3A^0H_3)`$
$`2𝒦g_{ij}(dA^iA^0db^i)(dA^jA^0db^j)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\text{Im}^1\right)^{AB}[D\stackrel{~}{\xi }_A+_{AC}D\xi ^C][D\stackrel{~}{\xi }_B+\overline{}_{BD}D\xi ^D],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _Y}\widehat{H}_3\widehat{C}_3d\widehat{C}_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_3(\xi ^Ad\stackrel{~}{\xi }_A\stackrel{~}{\xi }_Ad\xi ^A)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}db^iA^jdA^k𝒦_{ijk}`$
$`+dC_3\left(p^A\stackrel{~}{\xi }_A+q_A\xi ^A\right).`$
Even from this stage one can notice that some of the fields effectively became charged

$$D\xi ^A=d\xi ^Ap^AA^0,D\stackrel{~}{\xi }_A=d\stackrel{~}{\xi }_A+q_AA^0,$$
(A.6)
and a potential term is induced

$$V=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{e}^{\widehat{\varphi }}\left(qp\right)\text{Im}^1\left(q\overline{}p\right).$$
(A.7)
In order to write the above expressions we have used the following notation for the integrals on the Calabi–Yau manifold.999For a systematic study of the Calabi–Yau  moduli space we refer the reader to the literature . First the harmonic forms are normalized as

$$_Y\omega _i\stackrel{~}{\omega }^j=\delta _i^j,$$
(A.8)
while for $`H^3(Y)`$ the basis $`(\alpha _A,\beta ^B)`$ obeys

$$_Y\alpha _A\beta ^B=\delta _A^B;_Y\alpha _A\alpha _B=_Y\beta ^A\beta ^B=0.$$
(A.9)
Furthermore we have denoted

$`𝒦_{ijk}={\displaystyle _Y}\omega ^i\omega ^j\omega ^k,𝒦={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle _Y}JJJ,`$ (A.10)
where $`𝒦`$ is the volume and $`J`$ is the Kähler form. Finally, the Hodge duals of the harmonic two-forms are given by

$$\omega _i=4𝒦g_{ij}\stackrel{~}{\omega }^j,$$
(A.11)
where $`g_{ij}`$ denotes the metric on the moduli space of the Kähler deformations which is given by

$$4𝒦g_{ij}=_Y\omega _i\omega _j.$$
(A.12)
For the three-forms we assume the following relations

$$\alpha _A=A_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{B}\alpha _B+B_{AB}\beta ^B,\beta ^A=C^{AB}\alpha _BA_B{}_{}{}^{A}\beta _{}^{B},$$
(A.13)
where $`A,B,C,`$ are given in terms of a matrix $``$ which represents the gauge coupling functions in the case of type IIB compactification

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\text{Re}\right)\left(\text{Im}\right)^1,`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\text{Im}\right)\left(\text{Re}\right)\left(\text{Im}\right)^1\left(\text{Re}\right),`$ (A.14)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\text{Im}\right)^1.`$
Next, the compactification proceeds as usually by dualizing the fields $`C_3`$ and $`B_2`$ to a constant and to a scalar respectively. We do not perform these steps here, but we just recall the final results. (for more details see ). First the dualization of $`C_3`$ to a constant $`e`$ results in

$$_e=_{C_3}=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{4\varphi }}{2𝒦}\left(p^A\stackrel{~}{\xi }_A+q_A\xi ^A+e\right)^2\mathrm{𝟏}+\left(p^A\stackrel{~}{\xi }_A+q_A\xi ^A+e\right)A^0H_3.$$
(A.15)
It was shown in  that the constant $`e`$ plays a special role in the case of RR fluxes. however, it is irrelevant for the analysis in this paper and thus we will set it to zero. Dualizing now the two-form $`B_2`$, one obtains an axion, which due to the Green-Schwarz term in (A.15) becomes charged and its covariant derivative reads

$$Da=da\left(p^A\stackrel{~}{\xi }_A+q_A\xi ^A\right)A^0.$$
(A.16)
Collecting all terms one can write the final form of the action101010 We have further redefined the gauge fields as $`A^iA^ib^iA^0`$ and also appropriately rescaled the metric in order to go to the Einstein frame.

$`S_{IIA}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R^{}\mathrm{𝟏}g_{ij}dt^id\overline{t}^jh_{uv}Dq^uDq^vV_{IIA}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (A.17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Im}𝒩_{IJ}F^IF^J+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Re}𝒩_{IJ}F^IF^J],`$
where the potential can be read from (A.7) and (A.15)

$$V_{IIA}=\frac{1}{4𝒦}\mathrm{e}^{2\varphi }\left(qp\right)\text{Im}^1\left(q\overline{}p\right)+\frac{1}{2𝒦}\mathrm{e}^{4\varphi }\left(p^A\stackrel{~}{\xi }_A+q_A\xi ^A\right)^2,$$
(A.18)
while the metric for the hyper-scalars $`h_{uv}`$ has the standard form of

$`h_{uv}Dq^uDq^v`$ $`=`$ $`d\varphi d\varphi +g_{ab}dz^ad\overline{z}^b`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{4\varphi }}{4}}[Da+(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_AD\xi ^A\xi ^AD\stackrel{~}{\xi }_A)][Da+(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_AD\xi ^A\xi ^AD\stackrel{~}{\xi }_A)]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\varphi }}{2}}\left(\text{Im}^1\right)^{AB}[D\stackrel{~}{\xi }_A+_{AC}D\xi ^C][D\stackrel{~}{\xi }_B+\overline{}_{BD}D\xi ^D].`$
Furthermore by $`𝒩`$ we have denoted the gauge couplings matrix which can be immediately seen from (A) that it has the usual form

$`\text{Re}𝒩_{00}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}𝒦_{ijk}b^ib^jb^k,\text{Re}𝒩_{i0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒦_{ijk}b^jb^k,\text{Re}𝒩_{ij}=𝒦_{ijk}b^k,`$
$`\text{Im}𝒩_{00}=𝒦4𝒦g_{ij}b^ib^j,\text{Im}𝒩_{i0}=4𝒦g_{ij}b^j,\text{Im}𝒩_{ij}=4𝒦g_{ij}.`$ (A.20)
### Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jan Louis and Daniel Waldram for encouraging us to bring this project to an end and for valuable suggestions when reading the manuscript.

This work was supported by the CNRS – the French Center for National Scientific Research, DFG – The German Science Foundation and DAAD – the German Academic Exchange Service.


text:
# 1 A Debate on Which Constituent Quark Model is Better

## 1 A Debate on Which Constituent Quark Model is Better

For low energy quantum chromodynamics(QCD), especially for complicated quark gluon systems, nonperturbative QCD calculation is still very difficult, if not impossible, and one must rely on QCD models. The constituent quark model is quite successful in understanding hadron spectroscopy and even hadron interactions. However there has been a debate on which constituent quark model is better.1,2,3,4 There is a consensus that the constituent quark is a useful effective degree of freedom for low energy hadron physics. Different authors have radically different view points on what other proper effective degrees of freedom may be.

Glozman and Riska proposed that the Goldstone boson is the only other proper effective degree of freedom (GR).1 Isgur insisted that the gluon is the proper one (GI).2 Manohar and Georgi argued that in between the spontaneously broken chiral symmetry and confinement energy scales, both Goldstone boson and gluon effective degrees of freedom survive (MG).3 Georgi also did an effective matrix element method analysis of P-wave baryon spectroscopy with both the quark-Goldstone boson coupling and the quark-gluon coupling models, finding that the former fits the data with a smaller $`\chi ^2`$, but noted: “our results should not be interpreted, by themselves, as evidence in favor of the chiral quark model picture over the nonrelativistic quark model”.3 K.F. Liu produced a valence lattice QCD result which supports the Goldstone boson exchange picture, but Isgur pointed out that this is unjustified.2,4 M. Furuichi and K. Shimizu calculated the baryon spectroscopy further with both the GR and MG quark gluon meson exchange hybrid models and concluded that ”for the moment we do not have a definite answer which model is better than the other.” H. Garcilazo et al. checked the MG hybrid and GR models too and concluded that ”the similtaneous description of the one and two-baryon systems still remains an open problem.5

If these three constituent quark models (GR, GI, MG) are really quite different, differences should also appear in their predictions for baryon-baryon (BB) interactions which are more sensitive to these model details. Therefore, we did a comparative study of the predictions of these three models for BB interactions in the lowest 64 channels consisting of octet and decuplet baryons. Our results show that 44 channels have similar effective BB interactions.

## 2 A Comparative Study of Three Constituent Quark Models

There are different versions of each model. We choose Glozman’s parametrization of the Goldstone boson exchange, given in Ref.6, as a typical example of the GR model. The hybrid MG model is widely used in studies of the BB interaction. We choose the Fujiwara version7 as the MG example. It is well known that the quark-gluon coupling model, GI, provides only a repulsive core for the NN interaction but no intermediate range attraction. This attraction is attributed to $`\sigma `$ exchange or to two pion exchange in the hybrid model. Nor does the GI model include any one pion exchange long range interaction.

We have extended the GI model: We keep as the three quark Hamiltonian that used by Isgur, i.e., a harmonic confinement plus a color magnetic hyperfine interaction, making two modifications to extend it to the BB interaction. First, instead of the usual two centered single quark orbital wave function, we introduce a delocalized quark orbital wave function, borrowed from the description of molecular orbitals. It incorporates the mutual distortion of the interacting baryons or the internal excitation of the baryon in the course of interaction, which enlarges the variational Hilbert space simply. Second, we use a new parametrization of the confinement potential to take into account nonperturbative QCD effects which could not have been parametrized by a two body confinement and color magnetic hyperfine interaction. It may not even be possible to check, by hadron spectroscopy, QCD features such as the three gluon interaction, three body instanton interaction, etc. (A detailed discussion can be found in Ref.8.) With these additions, the extended GI model produces a quantitatively correct NN intermediate range attraction without invoking $`\sigma `$ or two pion exchange. More importantly, this is the unique model which explains the long known resemblance of the nuclear force to the molecular force (except for the obvious length and energy scale differences). We use this extended quark gluon coupling model, which has been called the quark delocalization and color screening model (QDCSM), as the example of GI.

We are interested in general features of the BB interactions which characterize each individual constituent quark model. Therefore, we calculated the adiabatic effective BB interactions for the 64 lowest channels consisting of octet and decuplet baryons with these three constituent quark models.9 Typical results are shown in Figs.1-3. In Fig.1, two (SIJ=022,-403) of the 17 pure repulsive core channels are shown. In Fig.2, two weak attraction channels (SIJ=001,010) are shown. Altogether there are 13 channels where all three models give such similar effective BB interactions. In Fig.3, two other weak attraction channels (SIJ=-1\[1/2\]0,-223) are shown. Altogether there are 14 channels where two of the three models give very similar results; the third gives a little different, but still similar, effective BB interaction.

For the H particle channel, the three models all give somewhat different results but are all weakly attractive with (GR and MG) or without (QDCSM) a repulsive core. However the dynamical calculations of the QDCSM and hybrid models yield a state with binding energy around zero. This is radically different from the naive bag model estimate10 and some earlier hybrid model estimates11.

Only in a few channels do the three models give really different results. For example, the QDCSM predicts a strong attraction in the di-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (SIJ=003) channel, while the hybrid model predicts a strong attraction in the di-$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (SIJ=-600) channel.

The general features can be summarized as: The three constituent quark models, although they appear to be very different, give similar effective BB interactions.

Returning to hadron spectroscopy, based on the debate1,2,3,5, it is fair to say that while different constituent quark models each have their own advantages and disadvantages, none gives a perfect description of hadrons. For example, within the pure valence $`q^3`$ configuration, no model explains the nucleon spin and flavor structure and the spin-orbit splitting of the strange and nonstrange mesons and baryons together.12 The GI and MG models have the advantage of a unified description of the meson and baryon spectrum and the one and two-baryon systems simultaneously but the disadvantage of predicting the wrong order for the P and D wave excited baryon states. The GR model obtains the correct order for the P and D wave excited states but loses the unified manner of describing the meson and baryon spectrum and might find it difficult to describe the one and two baryon systems simultaneously.

## 3 A Tentative Explanation of the Origin of the Similarity

The same pure repulsive core obtained in 17 channels from each of these three constituent quark models can be understood in that they are due to Pauli forbidden combinations common to all quark models. The similar weak attraction obtained in the deuteron channel (SIJ=001) can be attributed to the adjustment of model parameters because a realistic BB interaction model should fit the deuteron properties first. However, there should be physical reasons for the fact that more than 2/3 of the channels have similar effective BB interactions in all models.

### 3.1 Antisymmetrization effect

Antisymmetrization might be one of the physical reasons for the similarity between the models. To examine this, we neglect the details of the orbital form and concentrate on the spin-flavor-color structure of the gluon and Goldstone boson exchange q-q interactions. (The hybrid model includes both parts so it does not need to be studied separately.) The structures are

$$V_{ij}(GE)=V(GE)\lambda _𝐢^𝐜\lambda _𝐣^𝐜\sigma _𝐢\sigma _𝐣,V_{ij}(BE)=V(BE)\lambda _𝐢^𝐟\lambda _𝐣^𝐟\sigma _𝐢\sigma _𝐣,$$
(1)
respectively. Recalling the Dirac identity and the antisymmetrization condition, we have,

$$\lambda _𝐢\lambda _𝐣=2P_{ij}2/3,\sigma _𝐢\sigma _𝐣=2P_{ij}^s1,$$
(2)
orbital symmetric orbital antisymmetric

$$V_{ij}(GE)/V(GE)=4P_{ij}^f+4/3P_{ij}^s+2P_{ij}^c2/3,4P_{ij}^f+4/3P_{ij}^s+2P_{ij}^c2/3,$$
(3)
$$V_{ij}(BE)/V(BE)=4P_{ij}^c+4/3P_{ij}^s+2P_{ij}^f2/3,4P_{ij}^c+4/3P_{ij}^s+2P_{ij}^f2/3.$$
(4)
Eqs.(3,4) show that due to antisymmetrization, the color dependent gluon exchange interaction turns out to be flavor dependent and the flavor dependent Goldstone boson exchange interaction turns to be color dependent, also. No significant difference appears in the symmetric orbital case. However, there is a real difference in the antisymmetric orbital case, where the color and flavor dependent terms have opposite signs. Therefore we examine this case one step further.

We reexpress these two interactions using Casimir operators,

$$\underset{i<j}{}\lambda _𝐢\lambda _𝐣\sigma _𝐢\sigma _𝐣=4C_2^{SU(6)}+2C_2^{SU(3)}+4/3C_2^{SU(2)}+8N,$$
(5)
where $`C_2^{SU(n)}`$ is the second rank Casimir operator of the SU(n) group and N is the particle number of the system. Next, we obtain the eigenvalue, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, of the gluon and boson exchange interactions as shown in Table 1, which is calculated for orbital symmetry . The color part must always be  due to color confinement. The spin-flavor symmetry is restricted to be  due to antisymmetrization. It is then easy to see from Table 1 that the eigenvalues of these two interactions both decrease with the flavor symmetry but with slightly different slopes and that they end with the same minimum at the flavor singlet, namely the H particle state.

### 3.2 Nonperturbative QCD basis

Having an understanding of the QCD basis of these constituent quark models is helpful in judging these models. So far, there have been only approximate nonperturbative QCD ”derivations”.

Cahill and Roberts ”derived” a Goldstone boson-constituent quark coupling model under the approximation of only keeping the current-current interaction.13 The current quark is dressed to become the constituent quark in the spontaneously broken chiral QCD vacuum due to $`q\overline{q}`$ condensation and the Goldstone boson is identified as due to quantum fluctuations of the boson field originating from the $`\overline{q}(x)\gamma _5q(y)`$ bilocal operator.

Based on this, and the results of Negele et al. on the dilute instanton model of Shuryak14, we developed an approximate QCD ”derivation” of the MG model. The gluon field is separated into two components: an instanton part and a quantum fluctuation part. The instanton part is assumed to be the classical part of the gluon field which induces spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking and dresses the current quark into constituent quark, while the quantum fluctuation part of the gluon field is kept as a perturbative gluon contribution.

In a Schwinger-Dyson equation approach15, under a reasonable truncation, one obtains a dressed quark, gluon propagators and the dressed quark-gluon vertex which can be translated into an effective quark-gluon coupling model.

In summary, all three constituent quark models have an arguable basis in QCD and it is hard to say which one is better inspired by QCD.

## 4 An Outlook

Hadron spectroscopy will be improved by new experimental efforts. Hadronic transition matrix elements are more sensitive to model details; the internal structure of hadrons tests models more stringently. There are already candidates for exotic quark-gluon systems and pursuit of dibaryons by various groups continues. New facilities will provide more precise hyperon-nucleon, and even hyperon-hyperon, interaction data. Since each model has its strengths and weaknesses, the different model approaches to a unified description of hadron internal structure and hadron interactions are needed to teach us about hadron physics from different perspectives.

Nonperturbative QCD approaches have shown that the different quark models may well be related to QCD in different ways. It is highly desirable to continue this effort to clarify the relation between QCD theory and QCD models and, in turn, to understand the relation between different models, especially if they are contradictory, as has led to strong debate in recent years. It might be worthwhile to recall that a similar history occurred in the study of nuclear structure.

Acknowledgments

This research is supported in part by the National Research Council of China and in part by the US Department of Energy under contract W-7405-ENG-36.


text:
# Contribution of One-Time Pair Correlation Function to Kinetic Phenomena in Nonequilibrium Gas

## 1 Introduction

The derivation of kinetic equation for one-particle distribution function $`F(p,r,t)`$ from BBGKY chain leads to the collision integral expressed in terms of the two-particle correlation function. The latter is in turn expressed by $`F(p,r,t)`$ using Boltzmann’s Stoßzahlansatz that implies the neglect of initial one-time correlation function $`g_2(p_1,p_2,r,t)`$ , which is non-diagonal in the momentum space. In nonequilibrium case, however, it has been established $``$ that pair collisions generate the non-diagonal two-particle correlator that gives the essential contribution to the current fluctuations of hot electrons. Here we show that this correlator gives also a contribution to the collision integral, i.e., to kinetic properties of nonequilibrium electrons. The expression for electron energy loss rate $`P`$ via phonons is re-derived in detail from this point of view.

In fact, the formula for $`P`$ in terms of electron density-density correlation function $`\rho _k\rho _k^+_\omega `$ was obtained by Kogan  using Fermi Golden Rule. However, to come to the well-known result for $`P`$ in the electron temperature approximation the fluctuation-dissipation theorem was implicated to express $`\rho _k\rho _k^+_\omega `$ in terms of the dielectric function of the electron gas. This step is defensible in the case of the true equilibrium electron gas only and it gives rise to results equivalent to the Stoßzahlansatz. In this report the expression for $`P`$ in terms of $`\rho _k\rho _k^+_\omega `$ is derived from quantum kinetic equation for phonons interacting with nonequilibrium electron gas. The contribution of the non-diagonal part of the nonequilibrium pair correlator to phonon-electron collision integral and to $`P`$ is obtained and calculated explicitly in the electron temperature approximation.

It is shown that these results may be obtained from stochastic non-linear kinetic equation with Langevin fluctuation force. Such an approach allows to formulate the simple general conditions when the two-particle correlator contribution might be essential in kinetics. The derivation of this equation based on the procedure of partial averaging over microscopic-scale fluctuations similar to the procedure using by H. Mori  to derive the generalized classical Boltzmann equation for dense gases and liquids. However, in our case the contribution obtained does not contain the extra powers of small gas parameter of the kinetic theory.

## 2 Kinetic equation for phonons

### 2.1 Basic designations

Hamiltonian $`H=H_e+H_{ph}+V_{eph}`$

Electron part $`H_e=\underset{k}{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_ka_k^+a_k+V_{ee}`$ where $`V_{ee}`$ stands for the electron-electron interaction energy

Phonon part $`H_{ph}=\underset{f}{}\mathrm{}\omega _fb_f^+b_f`$

Electron-phonon interaction

$`V_{eph}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{v_0}}\underset{f}{}\left(c_f\rho _f^+b_f+c_f^{}\rho _fb_f^+\right)`$

Spacial Fourier components of the electron density operator

$`\rho _f=\underset{k}{}a_{k+\frac{f}{2}}^+a_{k\frac{f}{2}},\rho _f^+=\rho _f`$

Phonon distribution function

$`N_f(t)=\left(b_f^+b_f\right)_t`$

Electron distribution function

$`F_k(t)=\left(a_k^+a_k\right)_t`$

The angle brackets denote the full averaging with the density matrix corresponding to the noninteracting electrons and phonons at an initial instant of time. The subscript $`t`$ indicates the Heisenberg representation for electron and phonon operators.

### 2.2 Phonon-electron collisional integral <br>and the electron density-density correlation function

We obtain the kinetic equation for slow variables $`N_f(t)`$, smoothing Heisenberg equations of motion over microscopically-large time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Such a technique was suggested by N.N. Bogolyubov and N.M. Krylov (see the book , pp. 5-76) and it has been used in  for the derivation of the linearized kinetic equation for the occupation number fluctuations with Langevin sources of fluctuations. With accuracy to the second-order terms in $`eph`$ interaction we have

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N_f(t)}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }t}S^+(t)\underset{t}{\overset{t+\mathrm{\Delta }t}{}}𝑑t^{}\underset{t}{\overset{t}{}}𝑑t^{\prime \prime }[V_{eph}^0(t^{\prime \prime }),[V_{eph}^0(t^{}),(b_f^+b_f)_t]]S(t)$$
(1)
The superscript $`0`$ denotes operators in the interaction representation with respect to the electron-phonon interaction $`V_{ep}`$.

Let us remind interrelations between $`S`$-matrix and the time evolution of any operator $`\widehat{O}`$ in the Heisenberg and interaction representations:

$`U(t,t_0)`$ $`e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}H(tt_0)}=U^0(t,t_0)S(t,t_0),U^0(t,t_0)=e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(H_e+H_{ph})(tt_0)},`$
$`\widehat{O}(t)`$ $`=U^+(t,t_0)\widehat{O}(t_0)U(t,t_0)=S^+(t,t_0)\widehat{O}^0(t,t_0)S(t,t_0)`$ (2)
$`i\mathrm{}S/t`$ $`=V_{eph}^0(t)S,S(t_0)=1,\widehat{O}^0(t,t_0)=U^{0+}(t,t_0)\widehat{O}(t_0)U^0(t,t_0)`$
Calculations of the internal commutators in Eq.(1) lead to the desired result involving the electron density-density correlation function:

$$\frac{dN_f}{dt}=\frac{\left|c_f\right|^2}{v_0\mathrm{}^2}\left\{\rho _f^+\rho _f_{\omega _f}^0\left(N_f+1\right)\rho _f\rho _f^+_{\omega _f}^0N_f\right\}$$
(3)
where the commutativity of free electron and phonon operators in Eq.(1) and the condition $`\omega _f\mathrm{\Delta }t1`$ have been used.

The function

$$\rho _f\rho _f^+_\omega =\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\tau \rho _f(t+\tau )\rho _f^+(t)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\omega \tau \right)$$
(4)
is the spectral density of the correlation function of the electron density fluctuations. It is interested to remark that the right hand side of Eq.(3) may be rather interpreted as the emission and the absorption of phonons by the electron fluid with the structure factor $`\rho _f\rho _f^+_{\omega _f}^0`$ than as individual electron-phonon collisions.

### 2.3 Spectral density of the electron fluctuations

The sought spectral density must be calculated without $`V_{ep}`$ taken into account. From equations of motion for the electron operators we obtain in the random phase approximation:

$$\rho _f^+\rho _f_\omega ^0=\frac{\rho _f^+\rho _f_\omega ^{00}}{\left|ϵ(\omega ,f)\right|^2},$$
(5)
where $`ϵ(\omega ,f)`$ is the dielectric function of the electron gas and

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho _f\rho _f^+_\omega ^{00}=\underset{k,k_1}{}\rho _f(k)\rho _f^+(k_1)_t\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left[\frac{1}{i\left(\omega _{k+\frac{f}{2}}\omega _{k\frac{f}{2}}\omega \right)+\eta }+\frac{1}{i\left(\omega _{k_1+\frac{f}{2}}\omega _{k_1\frac{f}{2}}\omega \right)+\eta }\right]\end{array}$$
(6)
is the spectral density of the density-density correlation function for non-interacting electrons. The one-time correlation function is

$$\rho _f(k)\rho _f^+(k_1)_ta_{k\frac{f}{2}}^+a_{k+\frac{f}{2}}a_{k_1+\frac{f}{2}}^+a_{k_1\frac{f}{2}}_t.$$
(7)
The one-time correlation function of the non-interacting electrons is independent of time (in steady state) under condition that the electron energies $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_k=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$ obey the equality

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{k\frac{f}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{k+\frac{f}{2}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{k_1+\frac{f}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{k_1\frac{f}{2}}\frac{\mathrm{}}{m}f\left(k_1k\right)=0.$$
(8)
As long as $`f0`$ it is necessary to be $`k_1=k`$ . Therefore, this condition provides the one-time correlator to be the integral of motion during the time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ like the distribution function $`F_k`$.

### 2.4 Kinetic equation with account for the contribution of nonequilibrium pair correlations

The substitution of the explicit expression for correlators to the kinetic equation (3) gives rise to

| $`\frac{dN_f}{dt}=`$ |
| --- |
| $`\frac{2\left|C_f\right|^2}{v_0\mathrm{}^2\left|ϵ(\omega _f,f)\right|^2}\underset{k}{}a_{k+\frac{f}{2}}^+a_{k\frac{f}{2}}a_{k\frac{f}{2}}^+a_{k+\frac{f}{2}}_t\delta \left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{k+\frac{f}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{k\frac{f}{2}}\omega _f\right)\left(N_f+1\right)`$ |
| $`\frac{2\left|C_f\right|^2}{v_0\mathrm{}^2\left|ϵ(\omega _f,f)\right|^2}\underset{k}{}a_{k\frac{f}{2}}^+a_{k+\frac{f}{2}}a_{k+\frac{f}{2}}^+a_{k\frac{f}{2}}_t\delta \left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{k+\frac{f}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{k\frac{f}{2}}\omega _f\right)N_f.`$ |

(9)
Taking into account the commutation rules $`a_{k_1}^+a_{k_1}+a_{k_1}a_{k_1}^+=1`$ it is easy to obtain

$$a_k^+a_{k_1}a_{k_1}^+a_k_t=F_k(t)a_k^+a_{k_1}^+a_{k_1}a_k_t.$$
(10)
According to the results from Gantsevich et al.

$$a_k^+a_{k_1}^+a_{k_1}a_k=F_kF_{k_1}+\varphi (k,k_1)$$
(11)
where $`\varphi (k,k_1)`$ is a nonequilibrium correction to the pair correlator.

Finally, the kinetic equation for phonons with corrections for the non-equilibrium part of the electron pair correlator takes the form:

(12)
It should be stressed that for ordinary classical equilibrium electron gas there are no pair correlations between different states in momentum space, i.e., $`\varphi (k,k_1)0`$. This fact can be easily seen from the form of the Gibbs distribution with the usual kinetic energy part of the Hamilton’s function $`K=_i𝐩_i^2/2m`$ since there are no terms proportional to $`𝐩_i𝐩_j`$ ($`i`$,$`j`$ stand for the particle enumeration).

## 3 Interrelation between non-linear stochastic kinetic equation and correlation corrections

Following $``$ and using partial averaging over fast and short-wave fluctuations under conditions that the slow variables like $`N_f(t)`$ and $`F_k(t)`$ are constant instead of the full averaging over all states of the system under consideration, we find the non-linear stochastic kinetic equation with Langevin sources of fluctuations in the form

| $`\frac{d\stackrel{~}{N}_f}{dt}=J_f(t)+\frac{2\left|C_f\right|^2}{v_0\mathrm{}^2\left|ϵ(\omega _f,f)\right|^2}\times `$ |
| --- |
| $`\{(\stackrel{~}{N}_f+1)\underset{k}{}\left[\stackrel{~}{F}_k(1\stackrel{~}{F}_{kf})\right]\delta (\omega _k\omega _{kf}\omega )`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{N}_f\underset{k}{}\left[\stackrel{~}{F}_k(1\stackrel{~}{F}_{k+f})\right]\delta (\omega _k\omega _{k+f}+\omega )\}`$ |

(13)
The similar stochastic kinetic equation can be derived for the fluctuating electron occupation numbers $`\stackrel{~}{F}_k`$ with accounting for $`V_{ee}`$ and $`V_{eph}`$ interactions . Both equations are nonlinear in $`\stackrel{~}{F}_k`$ and bilinear in $`\stackrel{~}{N}_f\stackrel{~}{F}_k`$. Here tilde denotes that the slow fluctuations are still kept. Langevin source of fluctuations can be expressed as the difference between the exact time derivative of the phonon occupation number and its approximation

$`J_f(t)=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }t}S^+(t)\underset{t}{\overset{t+\mathrm{\Delta }t}{}}𝑑t^{}[V_{eph}^0(t^{}),N_f^0(t^{})]S(t)\frac{i}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }t}S^+(t)\underset{t}{\overset{t+\mathrm{\Delta }t}{}}𝑑t^{}\stackrel{~}{[V_{eph}^0(t^{}),N_f^0(t^{})]}S(t)`$

It is seen that the partial average of Langevin sources themselves is equal to zero $`\stackrel{~}{J}_f(t)=0`$ . The partial correlation function $`\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{[J_f(t_1),J_q(t_2)]_+}`$ is expressed by means of the transitions’ rates involved in the collision integral similarly to the case of the linear stochastic kinetic equation for fluctuations of the occupation numbers ,.

Taking full average from stochastic kinetic equation and using the evident properties (see Eq.(11))

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_k=F_k;\stackrel{~}{F}_k\stackrel{~}{F}_{k_1}=F_kF_{k_1}+\varphi (k,k_1),kk_1,\text{and also }J_f(t)=0$$
(14)
we can easy obtain the same kinetic equation for phonon occupation numbers with correlation corrections that was derived above. Moreover, from this point of view we can immediately write the respective terms in the Boltzmann kinetic equation for neutral particles and bring up the question about a possible contribution of nonequilibrium particle-particle correlations to the equations describing phenomena like flow turbulence. The similar statement concerns to electron-phonon correlations described by expressions like $`\delta \stackrel{~}{F}_k\delta \stackrel{~}{N}_f_t`$ in the case when a phonon nonequilibrium takes place.

In conclusion of these general considerations it needs to underline that the contribution of non-equilibrium correlations to kinetics should be expected in that cases when the excitations considered are scattered by nonequilibrium many-particle system.

## 4 Electron energy loss rate via phonons

The energy loss rate of electrons due to phonons per unit volume can be obtained using the relation:

$$P=\frac{1}{v_0}\underset{f}{}\mathrm{}\omega _f\frac{dN_f}{dt}.$$
(15)
It is seen from the kinetic equation for phonons Eq.(12) that the loss rate can be broken up into two parts:

$$P=P_1+P_2,$$
(16)
where on the right hand side the first term is related to the one-particle electron distribution function and it is described by the known expressions. The second one is due to the correlation contributions determined by the function $`\varphi `$. We assume during the calculations of $`P`$ that the phonons are in thermal equilibrium and the electron-electron collisions are sufficiently frequent in order to provide the use of the electron temperature approximation for hot electrons. As a result of these assumptions the following formulae may be derived:

$`P_1(T)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\left|C_f\right|^2}{\left(v_0\mathrm{}\right)^2\left|\epsilon (\omega _f,f)\right|^2}}\mathrm{}\omega _f\left[N_f^0(T)N_f\right]`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(F_k^0F_{k+f}^0)\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_{k+f}\mathrm{\Omega }_k\omega _f)`$ (17)
and

$$P_2(T,T_0)=\underset{f}{}\frac{2\left|C_f\right|^2}{(v_0\mathrm{})^2|ϵ(\omega _f,f|^2}\mathrm{}\omega _f\underset{k}{}\varphi (k+f,k)\delta \left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{k+f}\mathrm{\Omega }_k\omega _f\right).$$
(18)
Here $`N_f^0(T)=\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{}\omega _f/T\right)1\right]^1`$ is the equilibrium Bose-Einstein distribution with hot-electron temperature $`T`$ and $`N_f`$ is the true nonequilibrium phonon distribution function. Further, we will consider the equilibrium phonons, i.e., $`N_f=N_f^0\left(T_0\right)`$. In this case the expression (17) for $`P_1`$ coincides with well-known Kogan’s formula except for dielectric function in the denominator describing the dynamic screening of the electron-phonon interaction.

The function $`\varphi (k,k_1)`$ was found in  under accepted assumptions and can be presented in the form:

$$\varphi (k,k_1)=Q(T,T_0)\frac{F_k^0}{T}\frac{F_{k_1}^0}{T},$$
(19)
where $`F_k^0(T)`$ is the Maxwell distribution of non-degenerate hot electrons and

$$Q(T,T_0)=\frac{T^2}{nc_e}\left[\frac{P(T,T_0)/\left(TT_0\right)}{dP/dT}1\right]$$
(20)
The expression for $`\varphi `$ in  was obtained without accounting for the contribution of $`\varphi `$ itself in $`P`$ . Therefore, the quantity $`P_1`$ was only implied as the total energy loss rate $`P`$. Now evidently we have the equation for determination of $`P_2(T,T_0)`$ since this quantity is defined by the right hand side of the equality (18) where $`\varphi (k+f,k)`$ depends itself on $`P_2(T,T_0)`$ accordingly to Eqs.(16),(19-20). The situation is very resembling the self-consistent field approach in the plasma theory. Now we have to solve simultaneously the set of kinetic equations for the one-particle distribution function and the pair correlator.

It needs to stress that the substitution of the total loss rate $`P`$ instead of $`P_1`$ in the expression (19) for $`\varphi (k,k_1)`$ is justified because all symmetry properties of the electron-electron and electron-phonon integrals of collisions used in  during the derivation are not destroyed by introducing $`\varphi (k,k_1)`$ in collision integrals for electrons and phonons.

It is of importance to note in conclusion that the expression (19) for $`\varphi (k,k_1)`$ found in the limit of high frequency of the electron-electron collisions does contain coupling constants of neither electron-electron nor electron-phonon interactions. Therefore, the corresponding corrections to the integral of phonon-electron collisions do not contain additional powers of the small parameters of the kinetic theory. At low heating it is proportional to $`TT_0`$ like $`P_1(T,T_0)`$, as it can be obtained from the expression (20) for $`Q(T,T_0)`$. However, the solution (19) for $`\varphi (k,k_1)`$ has been obtained in  in the case of the non-degenerate electron gas. Hence $`F_k^0(T)1`$ and the product of two distribution functions in Eq.(19) makes $`P_2P_1`$ in the case of scattering electrons by acoustic phonons since $`\mathrm{}\omega _fT,T_0`$ and $`N_f1`$ for phonons involved. The situation can change in the case of low-temperature scattering of electrons by optical phonons under condition $`\mathrm{}\omega _0T,T_0`$. The $`\varphi (k,k_1)`$ corrections should be more pronounced for the hot-electron phenomena in the degenerate electron gas of semiconductors or metals .

## Acknowledgments

The partial financial support of Russian Foundation for Basic Researches and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft is gratefully acknowledged.