text:
# Third Generation Seesaw Mixing with new Vector-Like Weak-Doublet Quarks

## 1 Introduction and Synopsis

Particle physics of the last century gave us an impressively correct low-energy phenomenological picture. A large share of that fundamental development is the idea of the broken electro-weak (EW) symmetry explaining the presence of heavy $`Z`$ and $`W`$ gauge bosons, the relation between their masses, and their specific couplings to the fermions. However, the high-energy sector that overcomes the hierarchy problem and that is responsible for the EW symmetry breaking is yet to be understood.

Models with strong dynamics address the hierarchy problem through the slow, logarithmic running of gauge couplings of non-abelian gauge groups that, after a huge interval of energy scales, finally become strong enough to produce substantial, “interesting”, effects on our low-energy world. Although attractive, this idea poses many challenges - particularly in the simultaneous dynamical EW symmetry breaking and mass generation for third generation quarks.

The general motivation for the week-singlet seesaw models  involving third generation quarks and embedded in a Topcolor scheme  is to “lower” the prediction for the large dynamical mass of the top quark. If the compositness scale, the scale of new physics, is not very large, then the dynamical mass is around $`600`$ GeV - as implied by the Pagels-Stokar relationship  (with the fixed vacuum expectation value (VEV), $`v_{EW}246`$ GeV, of the composite scalar field). With a seesaw mass mechanism with weak-singlet quarks, the physical top quark is just partially dynamical and it can have the correct mass . In addition, the Topcolor scale is assumed to be low and the fine tuning problem in this context is resolved, although without a natural explanation of why the top Yukawa coupling equals one.

Earlier work in this direction addressed the seesaw mechanism with new weak-singlet quarks in the top sector , as well as in the bottom sector . In the class of models presented in this paper, we show that the realistic top and bottom quark masses may be obtained via third generation seesaw mixing with new vector-like weak-doublet111 It is often the case that a large number of extra $`SU(2)_W`$ doublets in models of strong dynamics may produce an unacceptably large contribution to the $`S`$ parameter. We show that such contributions are avoidable in the class of models that we consider here. quarks. With this setup it is possible to economically222In this context “economically” means a small number of additional “new physics” parameters - mass parameters in particular - reflecting the high-energy dynamics. produce the correct masses of the top and bottom quarks in the Topcolor type of models and conserve the low scale of Topcolor, with an acceptable amount of fine tuning. In addition, in models that include simple, commuting (in respect to the weak $`SU(2)_W`$ gauge group) Extended Technicolor (ETC) interactions , we find that the large mass of the top quark may be generated with slightly relaxed corrections to the bottom quark EW coupling, which are otherwise proportional to the large top quark mass . The low-energy phenomenological structure is found to be just slightly altered from its successful Standard Model (SM) form.

We are not first to introduce this extended third generation seesaw structure with weak-doublet quarks in the Topcolor type of models. An identical low-energy structure with weak-doublet quarks  has been introduced in the spirit of a third generation specific Topcolor-Assisted Technicolor TC2  strong dynamical scheme (with identical extended Topcolor gauge group sector but with top composite scalar field VEV $`v_tv_{EW}`$). The main differences between our strong dynamics, Top-Bottom Color, scenario and the one in reference  are: $`1)`$ instead of using a strong $`U(1)`$ gauge group - that necessarily has to be very strong to avoid a fine tuning problem (and therefore, we believe, it is not easily accommodated in a natural dynamical scheme) - we introduced the top-bottom mass splitting through the effect of an additional strong, asymptotically free, non-abelian $`SU(3)`$ gauge group, and $`2)`$ we suggest the bottom quark mass generation via the same Topcolor type of mechanism while reference  suggests that the bottom quark mass must be generated by different mechanism.

An additional motivation to study the third generation seesaw mechanisms with weak-doublet quarks may be found in the recent development of models with extra dimensions where the vector-like doubling of the fermion spectrum arises naturally .

First, we present the fermion charge assignments under the SM gauge group and the mechanism of the mass mixing. Next, we analyze some of the phenomenological consequences of this low-energy structure. Then, we explore the possible high-energy realizations from which that low-energy structure could emerge. Finally we discuss the direct search potential of $`t\overline{t}`$ production at the Next Linear Collider (NLC) and suggest how one can experimentally observe and distinguish between the two (weak-singlet and weak-doublet) types of seesaw mechanisms.

## 2 Low-Energy Weak-Doublets Structure

We consider the following third generation fermionic representations under the SM gauge group, $`SU(3)_{QCD}SU(2)_WU(1)_Y`$

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1}^{}{}_{L}{}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}t_L\\ b_L\end{array}\right),(3,2,1/6);`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{2}^{}{}_{L}{}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}T_L\\ B_L\end{array}\right),(3,2,1/6);`$ (2.5)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_R=\left(\begin{array}{c}T_R\\ B_R\end{array}\right),(3,2,1/6);`$ $`t_R,(3,1,2/3);b_R,(3,1,1/3).`$ (2.8)
As compared to the SM structure, the anomalies introduced by the additional left-handed and right-handed doublets cancel among themselves.

We assume the fermion mass mixing structure to be of the seesaw type. The possible dynamical origin of the specific mass terms that we introduce in this section and a motivation for their hierarchy will be discussed in Section 4 from the perspective of physics at higher energies.

First, we introduce the weak “doublet - doublet” mass terms

$$m_p\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{1}^{}{}_{L}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_R+m_q\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{2}^{}{}_{L}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_R.$$
(2.9)
Next, we introduce the “doublet - singlet” mass terms

$$m_1\overline{t}_Lt_R+m_2\overline{b}_Lb_R.$$
(2.10)
Here we have assumed a hierarchy that requires $`m_p,m_q>m_1,m_2`$. Later, we will explicitly consider the case where $`m_p>m_q`$ . We assume that no other mass terms are present333The presence of $`m_1^{}\overline{T}_Lt_R`$ (or $`m_2^{}\overline{B}_Lb_R`$) mass term, with $`m_{1^{}(2^{})}m_1,m_2`$, would only slightly alter the results of our analysis..

The mass structure neatly splits into two separate structures for quarks of equal electric charge,

$`(\overline{t}_L\overline{T}_L)\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_1& m_p\\ 0& m_q\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}t_R\\ T_R\end{array}\right),`$ (2.15)
$`(\overline{b}_L\overline{B}_L)\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_2& m_p\\ 0& m_q\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}b_R\\ B_R\end{array}\right).`$ (2.20)
Performing the rotations separately on the left-handed and the right-handed states one diagonalizes the mass matrices and obtains the heavy (mostly non-SM) and the light (mostly SM) mass eigenstates; for example

$$T_R^m=t_R\mathrm{sin}\phi _t+T_R\mathrm{cos}\phi _t,t_R^m=t_R\mathrm{cos}\phi _t+T_R\mathrm{sin}\phi _t.$$
(2.21)
Lower case fermions with the superscript $`m`$ denote the lighter mass eigenstates while upper case fermions with superscript $`m`$ represent the heavier mass eigenstates.

The physical (light and heavy) masses are given roughly as

$$m_t\frac{m_1m_q}{\sqrt{m_p^2+m_q^2}};m_b\frac{m_2m_q}{\sqrt{m_p^2+m_q^2}};M_TM_BM=\sqrt{m_p^2+m_q^2}.$$
(2.22)
The potentially dangerous rotations between right-handed weak singlet and doublet quarks (of the same electric charge) are roughly given by

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _t\frac{m_1^2m_p^2}{(m_p^2+m_q^2)^2},\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b\frac{m_2^2m_p^2}{(m_p^2+m_q^2)^2},$$
(2.23)
whereas the rotation among left-handed fermions (we include the superscript $`L`$ for distinction) are given by

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _t^L\frac{m_p^2}{m_p^2+m_q^2},\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b^L\frac{m_p^2}{m_p^2+m_q^2}.$$
(2.24)
We adopt the convention that all $`\mathrm{sin}\phi >0`$, $`\mathrm{sin}\phi ^L>0`$.

The couplings of the left-handed fermions to the $`Z`$ boson are the same as in the SM, while right-handed fermions’ couplings to the $`Z`$ boson may be expressed in terms of the above angles as

$$(\overline{t}_R^m\overline{T}_R^m)\left(\begin{array}{cc}T_3(t_L)\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _tQ(t)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W& \mathrm{cos}\phi _t\mathrm{sin}\phi _tT_3(t_L)\\ \mathrm{cos}\phi _t\mathrm{sin}\phi _tT_3(t_L)& T_3(t_L)\mathrm{cos}^2\phi _tQ(t)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}t_R^m\\ T_R^m\end{array}\right),$$
(2.25)
$$(\overline{b}_R^m\overline{B}_R^m)\left(\begin{array}{cc}T_3(b_L)\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _bQ(b)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W& \mathrm{cos}\phi _b\mathrm{sin}\phi _bT_3(b_L)\\ \mathrm{cos}\phi _b\mathrm{sin}\phi _bT_3(b_L)& T_3(b_L)\mathrm{cos}^2\phi _bQ(b)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}b_R^m\\ B_R^m\end{array}\right),$$
(2.26)
with $`(e/\mathrm{cos}\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\theta _W)`$ factored out. As usual, $`e`$ symbolizes electric charge and $`\theta _W`$ is the weak angle. In order to have a viable model, we will show that $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b`$ should be very small.

The left-handed fermions’ couplings to the $`W`$ boson may be expressed as

$$(\overline{b}_L^m\overline{B}_L^m)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\phi _t^L\mathrm{cos}\phi _b^L+\mathrm{sin}\phi _t^L\mathrm{sin}\phi _b^L& \mathrm{sin}\phi _t^L\mathrm{cos}\phi _b^L\mathrm{cos}\phi _t^L\mathrm{sin}\phi _b^L\\ \mathrm{cos}\phi _t^L\mathrm{sin}\phi _b^L\mathrm{sin}\phi _t^L\mathrm{cos}\phi _b^L& \mathrm{cos}\phi _t^L\mathrm{cos}\phi _b^L+\mathrm{sin}\phi _t^L\mathrm{sin}\phi _b^L\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}t_L^m\\ T_L^m\end{array}\right)$$

$$(\overline{b}_L^m\overline{B}_L^m)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}t_L^m\\ T_L^m\end{array}\right),$$
(2.27)
with $`(e/\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _W)`$ factored out. The right-handed fermions’ couplings to the $`W`$ boson are

$$(\overline{b}_R^m\overline{B}_R^m)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}\phi _t\mathrm{sin}\phi _b& \mathrm{cos}\phi _t\mathrm{sin}\phi _b\\ \mathrm{sin}\phi _t\mathrm{cos}\phi _b& \mathrm{cos}\phi _t\mathrm{cos}\phi _b\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}t_R^m\\ T_R^m\end{array}\right),$$
(2.28)
again with $`(e/\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _W)`$ factored out.

## 3 Low-Energy Phenomenology

The immediate low-energy physical implications of our low-energy setup with small mixing angles in the right-handed fermionic sector are the following: first, the light mass eigenstates corresponding to the top and bottom quarks have the correct $`SU(3)_{QCD}\times U(1)_{EM}`$ quantum numbers; second, the EW couplings of the third generation quarks differ only slightly from those in the SM; third, as we will show, the radiative corrections of interest resemble those in the SM (and moreover we do not find $`Z`$-$`\gamma `$ mixing). The oblique corrections place stronger constraint on the model parameters than the tree-level limits coming from the $`Z`$-pole data (constraining only $`\phi _b`$). Left-handed mixings are not constrained by EW data.

### 3.1 Limits on $`\phi _b`$ from the $`Z`$-pole data

From the $`Z`$ boson coupling to right-handed bottom quarks, equation (2.11), we note that the shift in the EW bottom coupling causes the parameter $`R_b`$ to decrease, i.e.

$$\frac{\delta R_b}{R_b^{SM}}=(R_b^{SM}1)\frac{12\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b}{912\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W+8\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W}33\%\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b,$$
(3.1)
and as we see this change is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b`$, clearly forcing the mixing angle to be small. The one-loop corrections involving heavy $`B^m(T^m)`$ and $`Z(W)`$ exchange, are expected to be smaller due to the suppression via large $`M_T,M_B`$ masses ($`M`$).

The parameter $`R_b`$ is not the only one influenced by the tree-level shift in the EW bottom coupling to the $`Z`$ boson. We find that nine observables are affected: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{had}`$, $`R_b`$, $`R_c`$, $`R_e`$, $`R_\mu `$, $`R_\tau `$, $`A_{FB}^b`$, and $`A_b`$. Using the general approach of reference , and the experimentally measured and SM predicted values as in , we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z)_{SM}}}=0.0628\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b,`$ (3.2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{had}}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{had})_{SM}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R_c}{(R_c)_{SM}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R_e}{(R_e)_{SM}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R_\mu }{(R_\mu )_{SM}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R_\tau }{(R_\tau )_{SM}}}=0.0899\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R_b}{(R_b)_{SM}}}=0.3268\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }A_{FB}^b}{(A_{FB}^b)_{SM}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }A_b}{(A_b)_{SM}}}=0.8630\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b.`$
We performed a fit to constrain the amount of mixing in the right-handed bottom sector and found the $`3\sigma `$ constraint to be

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b0.0052.$$
(3.3)
It is interesting to note that the fit generally prefers a negative values of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b`$. For example, the SM value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b=0`$ is $`2.1\sigma `$ above the best fit value.

The caveat is that in this calculation we included just the tree-level shift in right-handed bottom $`Z`$ coupling, as given by equation (2.11), while we neglected the effects of oblique corrections, implied by “new physics”, in alteration of the $`Z`$-pole observable theoretical predictions. Clearly, once we have the full model, including the entire scalar spectrum (and possibly the additional “new physics”) these corrections must be included.

Actually, in the framework of our low-energy setup, we expect $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b`$ to be much smaller than the limiting value in equation (3.3) . Just from the consistency of the model, i.e. $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _t1`$, we obtain

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b\frac{m_b^2}{m_t^2}0.0006,$$
(3.4)
or an order of magnitude more stringent limit than in equation (3.3).

### 3.2 Oblique Corrections

The $`(\delta T)_{NP}=\alpha _{EM}^1(\delta \rho )_{NP}`$ and $`(\delta S)_{NP}`$ oblique radiative correction parameters represent the contribution of the “new physics” in our case, i.e. the contribution of the two-doublets structure minus the contribution of the SM one-doublet structure, to the differences that can be defined  as

$`T={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\alpha _{EM}v_{EW}^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}(0)\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}(0)\right)`$ (3.5)
$`S={\displaystyle \frac{16\pi }{M_Z^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{3Y}(M_Z^2)\mathrm{\Pi }_{3Y}(0)\right).`$ (3.6)
Here $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{jk}(q^2)`$ are the gauge bosons’ ($`W_i^\mu `$ and $`B^\mu `$) vacuum polarizations, $`M_Z`$ is $`Z`$ boson mass, and $`v_{EW}246`$ GeV.

In the one-loop approximation, and in the basis of fermionic mass eigenstates, using the standard formalism (see, for example, ), from equations (2.7)-(2.13) we obtain

$`(\delta T)_{NP}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3G_F}{8\pi ^2\sqrt{2}\alpha _{EM}}}[\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _t\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _bf(m_t,m_b)`$ (3.7)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _t(\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _t\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b)f(m_t,M)`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b(\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _t)f(m_b,M)]`$
$`(\delta S)_{NP}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _{EM}}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}[\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _t\mathrm{cos}^2\phi _t({\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{M^2}})`$ (3.8)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b\mathrm{cos}^2\phi _b({\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{M^2}})],`$
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant and the function $`f(x,y)`$ is defined as

$$f(x,y)=x^2+y^2\frac{2x^2y^2}{x^2y^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{x^2}{y^2}.$$
(3.9)
In the limit $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _t,\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b0`$ we see that $`(\delta T)_{NP},(\delta S)_{NP}0`$ and therefore, with appropriately small mixing angles, corrections to the oblique parameters are easily kept under control.

In the previous subsection we found that $`\phi _b`$ is expected to be extremely small and therefore we may safely neglect the terms with $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b`$. This simplifies the expression for $`(\delta T)_{NP}`$, i.e.

$$(\delta T)_{NP}\frac{3G_F}{8\pi ^2\sqrt{2}\alpha _{EM}}\mathrm{sin}^4\phi _tM^2\frac{m_1^4}{m_p^2m_t^2}(\delta T)_t,$$
(3.10)
where $`(\delta T)_t`$ is the SM contribution of the top quark and where we have assumed that $`m_q`$ is sufficiently smaller than $`m_p`$ so that $`Mm_p`$.

In the framework of the Topcolor scheme, if we take $`m_1600`$ GeV (from the Pagels-Stokar relationship), then from equation (3.10) we find that $`m_pM`$ must be larger than444This result should be contrasted with the limit on the heavy fermions’ masses, $`12`$ TeV, in models with a seesaw mechanism with weak-singlet quarks in both, top and bottom, sectors . Contrary to our case it is the parameter $`R_b`$ that place the most stringent limit in those models. $`5`$ TeV. This sets $`0.015`$ as an upper bound for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _t`$. Therefore, from the model’s consistency (equations (2.7)-(2.8)), one obtains $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b`$ to be smaller than $`10^5`$. On the other hand, the “new physics” contributions to the parameter $`S`$ are so small that they may be safely neglected.

It is interesting to note that in a slightly different variant of our model in which the Yukawa mass terms, $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, link two right-handed singlets, $`t_R`$ and $`b_R`$, with both left-handed doublets, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1=(t_L,b_L)^T`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2=(T_L,B_L)^T`$, i.e.

$$m_1\overline{t}_Lt_R+m_2\overline{B}_Lb_R,$$
(3.11)
one obtains the mixing in the left-handed mass eigenstates sector satisfying

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _t^L\mathrm{cos}^2\phi _b^L,$$
(3.12)
instead of, as in our low-energy setup, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _t^L\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b^L`$. This in turn introduces off-diagonal terms in the $`W`$ coupling matrix and affects $`(\delta T)_{NP}`$ by an additional dangerous term, $`(\delta T)_t(M^2/m_t^2)\mathrm{sin}^2(\phi _t^L\phi _b^L)`$. The cure for this, for example, would be to have $`m_pm_q`$ which unfortunately makes the model structure highly constrained and therefore probably less viable.

## 4 Weak-Doublets in Models of Strong Dynamics - High-Energy realizations

The high-energy physical implication of the low-energy setup in Topcolor models, is that the weak-doublets structure offers a base for an economical, simultaneous dynamical generation of the top and bottom quark masses. In “commuting” ETC models, the weak-doublet seesaw mixing may relax the large shift in the bottom quark $`Z`$ coupling which is otherwise proportional to the large top quark mass.

### 4.1 Toy Modeling in the Topcolor Spirit - Top-Bottom Color

In this subsection, we sketch a strong dynamics scenario, named Top-Bottom Color, in which both the top and bottom masses are generated through Topcolor type of dynamics while they are directly linked to the bulk of EW symmetry breaking. This labeling reflects the fact that here instead of just one additional (top) color group we deal with the additional two (top-bottom) color groups. After introducing the gauge structure and the fermionic assignments under the additional gauge structure we concentrate on the dynamics of the Top-Bottom Color scenario.

As is traditional in the framework of topcolor models, one assumes that the diagonal breaking $`SU(3)SU(3)SU(3)`$ provides the attractive binding Nambu - Jona-Lasinio (NJL) interactions  for fermions transforming under a stronger “initial” $`SU(3)`$ gauge group. If these NJL forces are appropriately strong, then the composite scalar field may acquire the non-zero VEV and furthermore, provide the dynamical masses for the strongly interacting fermions through their Yukawa couplings.

If the third generation quarks feel the same attractive NJL type of interactions, then necessarily the condensation proceeds in an isospin symmetric channel and consequently, the dynamical masses are equal. Therefore, in our class of models, we expect that the top and bottom quarks must feel different NJL forces. Since additional strong tilting $`U(1)`$ gauge groups are often found to be potentially dangerous  due to the triviality problem (see also for example ), we turn our attention to additional $`SU(N)`$ gauge groups (with $`N3`$) that exhibit more preferable high-energy behavior (characterized by a negative $`\beta `$ function). Therefore, similar to , we consider a high-energy sector containing a “trio” of strong $`SU(3)`$ copies, i.e. $`SU(3)_1SU(3)_2SU(3)_3`$, with strong gauge couplings, respectively, $`g_1`$, $`g_2`$, and $`g_3`$ as defined at some high-energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$.

The strong multi-color sector exhibits a cascade of symmetry breakings of the form

$$\begin{array}{c}SU(3)_1SU(3)_2SU(3)_3\\ [\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,u_1]\\ SU(3)_1^{}SU(3)_3\\ [\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,u_2]\\ SU(3)_{QCD}\end{array},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ are the scales of the appropriate symmetry breakings and $`u_1`$, $`u_2`$ are the diagonal VEV’s of the effective EW singlet scalar fields, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$. In Appendix A we discuss in detail the gauge bosons’ mixing and couplings to the fermions if the running of the strong gauge couplings is neglected (that algebraic structure may prove useful as a guideline for the features of the model that are more emphasized when we turn on the running of gauge couplings).

The low-energy setup fermions, introduced in Section 2, transform as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{1}^{}{}_{L}{}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}t_L\\ b_L\end{array}\right),(1,3,1,2,1/6);\mathrm{\Psi }_{2}^{}{}_{L}{}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}T_L\\ B_L\end{array}\right),(1,1,3,2,1/6);`$ (4.5)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_R=\left(\begin{array}{c}T_R\\ B_R\end{array}\right),(1,1,3,2,1/6);t_R,(1,3,1,1,2/3);b_R,(3,1,1,1,1/3);`$ (4.8)
where instead of gauge assignments under $`SU(3)_{QCD}`$, as in equation (2.1), we introduce assignments under the strong $`SU(3)`$ gauge “trio”. The schematic illustration of the cascade of symmetry breakings and low-energy setup fermion charge assignments under the strong $`SU(3)`$ gauge groups is shown in Fig. 1.

With this assignment of the low-energy setup fermions, each of the $`SU(3)_1`$ and $`SU(3)_2`$ gauge groups suffers from gauge anomalies. In order to cancel these anomalies and to provide the high-energy framework responsible for the effective scalar fields, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$, and their diagonal VEV’s, we introduce four additional “intermediate” gauge groups, $`SU(N_0)`$, $`SU(N_1)`$, $`SU(N_2)`$ and $`SU(N_3)`$, plus two sets of “intermediate” fermions, weak-singlet $`\xi `$ and weak-doublet $`\omega `$ particles. This structure is shown in compact “Moose” notation  in Fig. 2.

The conditions for anomaly cancellations are

$$N_0=N_11,N_1Y(\xi )=(N_11)Y(\xi ^{})\frac{1}{3},$$
(4.9)
$$N_2=N_3,Y(\omega )=Y(\omega ^{}).$$
(4.10)
In addition, we set $`Y(\omega )=\frac{1}{6}`$ and in order to have the preferred behavior of asymptotic freedom for “intermediate” gauge groups we assume $`N_14`$ and $`N_23`$. All “intermediate” fermions are degenerate fermions with the same isospin properties, and therefore, have no influence on the $`S`$ parameter.

The reason for the doubling of the “intermediate” gauge groups in the $`\xi `$ sector is the cancellation of strong $`SU(3)_1`$ and $`SU(3)_2`$ anomalies separately while avoiding the strong “linking” $`U(1)`$ group. The reason for the doubling of the “intermediate” gauge groups in the $`\omega `$ sector is correct vacuum alignment giving the diagonal breaking of $`SU(3)_2SU(3)_3`$ while preserving the cancellation of strong $`SU(3)_2`$ and $`SU(3)_3`$ anomalies separately. Apart from aesthetical reasons, we do not find the doubling of “intermediate” gauge groups as a serious drawback for model dynamics. We assume that while sliding down in energies the group $`SU(N_1)`$ gets strong first at scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and triggers the diagonal breaking. An order of magnitude or so below the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, the group $`SU(N_11)`$ becomes strong and just minimally supplies the diagonal breaking VEV, $`u_1`$. In addition, we assume that at approximately the same scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, both $`SU(N_2)`$ groups get strong555This assumption about equal scales do not have to be unnatural - if both $`SU(N_2)`$ groups are embedded at some higher energy in a larger group, due to the identical running of the gauge coupling, as implied by the fermionic $`\omega `$ sector in Fig. 2, they become strong at approximately the same scale..

The introduction of spectator (or light SM) quarks would probably simplify this not so compelling gauge structure. Here however, for the purpose of illustration, we concentrate just on the low-energy setup fermions. At this point we are not concerned with the presence of various global $`U(1)`$ groups that when broken would introduce strongly interacting Goldstone bosons - in a more realistic model these may be taken care of via appropriate high-dimensional fermion operators that would give rise to the masses of the appropriate pseudo Nambu-Goldstone bosons in the multi-TeV range.

At the energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, the “intermediate” group $`SU(N_1)`$ gets strong and binds the condensates of $`\xi `$ particles that break $`SU(3)_1SU(3)_2`$ down to its diagonal subgroup $`SU(3)_1^{}`$. This symmetry breaking generates an octet of massive precolorons, i.e. heavy colorons . At energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ we assume a hierarchy of the gauge coupling strengths $`g_2>g_1g_3`$ for the strong gauge “trio”. The $`SU(3)_1^{}`$ gauge coupling, $`g_1^{}`$, assumed large, is $`g_1^{}=(g_1^2+g_2^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. The precoloron exchange diagrams, below their mass, $`M_c`$, produce effective 4-fermion interactions. Fiertzing interactions that couple lefthanded and righthanded currents of the low-energy setup fermions in the large $`N_c`$ limit, one obtains NJL type interactions term proportional to

$$\frac{g_2^2}{M_c^2(g_1^2+g_2^2)}\left[g_2^2\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{1L}t_R\right)\left(\overline{t}_R\mathrm{\Psi }_{1L}\right)g_1^2\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{1L}b_R\right)\left(\overline{b}_R\mathrm{\Psi }_{1L}\right)\right].$$
(4.11)
However, we assume that these interactions are not strong enough to trigger dynamical condensation. Nonetheless, as we will see later, they represent a crucial tilting needed for isospin splitting of the third generation quarks.

At energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ the “intermediate” groups $`SU(N_2)`$ get strong and bind the condensates of $`\omega `$ particles that break $`SU(3)_1^{}SU(3)_3`$ down to its diagonal subgroup $`SU(3)_{QCD}`$. This symmetry breaking generates an octet of massive light colorons. The light coloron exchange diagrams, below their mass, $`M_L`$, produce effective 4-fermion interactions. Fiertzing interactions that couple lefthanded and righthanded currents of low-energy setup fermions in the large $`N_c`$ limit, one obtains NJL type interaction terms proportional to

$$\frac{g_1^{}^4}{M_L^2(g_1^{}^2+g_3^2)}\left[\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{1L}t_R\right)\left(\overline{t}_R\mathrm{\Psi }_{1L}\right)+\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{1L}b_R\right)\left(\overline{b}_R\mathrm{\Psi }_{1L}\right)\right].$$
(4.12)
Below the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, the strong coupling $`g_1^{}`$ runs enough so that the interactions of equation (4.6), at the scale $`M_L`$, are above critical and trigger the NJL condensation. This interaction alone would produce identical dynamical masses in the top and bottom quark sectors. However, when combined with the tilting NJL interactions of equation (4.5) (that are somewhat amplified at the scale $`M_L`$) they provide the necessary isospin violation. Therefore, at the same scale, just below the light coloron mass, dynamical condensation is triggered in both the top and the bottom sectors. Difference in the VEV’s of top ($`v_t`$) and bottom ($`v_b`$) composite scalar fields is caused purely by the difference in the strength of the triggering NJL attractive interactions.

As the top and the bottom masses are linked through the same seesaw mixing, the prediction of the Top-Bottom Color scenario is

$$\frac{m_t}{m_b}\frac{m_1}{m_2}\frac{v_t}{v_b},$$
(4.13)
and we obtain the effective composite two-doublet Higgs model with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =m_t/m_b`$ at low-energies.

If the compositness scale, the scale of new physics, is not very large, then the dynamical mass, $`m_1`$, is around $`600`$ GeV - as implied by the Pagels-Stokar relationship (with fixed VEV, $`v_tv_{EW}246`$ GeV, of the top composite scalar field). With a seesaw mass mechanism, the physical top quark is just partially dynamical and it can have the correct mass of $`175`$ GeV.

One of the necessary ingredients of the seesaw mechanism, an $`m_p5`$ TeV mass term, may be thought to arise from an operator of the form

$$\frac{a}{M_{high}^2}(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{1L}\omega _L)(\overline{\omega }_R\mathrm{\Psi }_R),$$
(4.14)
where $`a`$ is a constant of order one and $`M_{high}`$ represents the high-energy scale of the “flavor” physics. Using the rules of naive dimensional analysis , we find that this term provides the mass

$$m_p4\pi a\left(\frac{u_2^2}{M_{high}^2}\right)u_2.$$
(4.15)
If flavor physics is weakly coupled, one may have $`M_{high}<M_L`$; therefore without the need for introduction of the huge finely tuned gap between the masses $`m_p`$ and $`M_L`$ (as the scale of “flavor” is naturally expected to be larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$). Although we would like to deal with the mass terms in the final instance, as if they were dynamical in their origin, to simplify the picture here, we may treat $`m_q`$ just as a bare mass term666That is, of course, not a necessity \- one may consider, for example, additional $`\omega _{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{L}{}^{}`$ and $`\omega _{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{R}{}^{}`$ “intermediate” fermions, that are weak doublets with hypercharge $`\frac{1}{6}`$ and that link only the $`SU(3)_3`$ circle and, for example, the “lower” $`SU(N_2)`$ circle in Fig. 2, i.e. transforming in the fundamental representation under these two gauge groups only. Below the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}(<\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)`$ (due to the slightly slower running the “lower” $`SU(N_2)`$ become strong enough at slightly lower energy than its “upper” $`SU(N_2)`$ partner group) their condensation may provide the $`m_q(<m_p)`$ mass term., where we assume $`m_p>m_q`$.

### 4.2 Effect on $`R_b`$ in “Commuting” ETC Models

In ETC models  in which $`m_t`$ is generated by the exchange of a weak-singlet ETC gauge boson, the shift in the EW bottom quark coupling is proportional  to the large $`m_t`$. This alone causes the parameter $`R_b`$ to decrease outside the experimentally allowed region. Armed with additional left-handed and right-handed weak-doublets and our seesaw mechanism, a similar analysis shows that this strong constraint may be slightly relaxed.

As is standard , one may consider the ETC gauge boson of mass $`M_{ETC}`$ coupling to the current

$$C\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{1}^{}{}_{L}{}^{}\gamma ^\mu \chi _L+\frac{1}{C}\overline{t}_R\gamma ^\mu U_R,$$
(4.1)
where $`\chi _L`$ is the left-handed technifermion weak-doublet, $`U_R`$ is the right-handed technifermion weak-singlet, and $`C`$ is a Clebsch, expected to be of order one.

The mass $`m_1`$, related to the top quark mass, is generated through a four-fermion interaction (when one integrates out the heavy ETC boson at energies below $`M_{ETC}`$) of the form

$$\frac{g_{ETC}^2}{M_{ETC}^2}\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{1}^{}{}_{L}{}^{}\gamma ^\mu \chi _L\right)\left(\overline{U}_R\gamma ^\mu t_R\right)+h.c.$$
(4.2)
After Fiertzing this operator and using rules of naive dimensional analysis , one estimates

$$m_1\frac{g_{ETC}^2}{M_{ETC}^2}4\pi v_t^3,$$
(4.3)
where $`v_t=v_{EW}`$. On the other hand, the $`b_L\overline{b}_L`$ vertex to $`Z`$ is affected, i.e. the tree-level $`b_L`$ coupling is shifted by

$$\delta g_L^{ETC}(b_L)=\frac{1}{4}C^2\frac{m_1}{4\pi v_{EW}}\frac{e}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}\frac{1}{4}C^2\frac{m_t/\mathrm{cos}\phi _t^L}{4\pi v_{EW}}\frac{e}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}.$$
(4.4)
This large shift is translated to $`b_L^m`$ (mass eigenstate) multiplied by $`\mathrm{cos}^2\phi _b^L\mathrm{cos}^2\phi _t^L`$ and therefore the physical bottom coupling to $`Z`$ is affected by an amount proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}\phi _t^L`$ (which is not constrained by the EW data, i.e. may be quite small)

$$\delta g_L^{ETC}(b_L^m)=\frac{1}{4}C^2\frac{m_t}{4\pi v_{EW}}\frac{e}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}\mathrm{cos}\phi _t^L.$$
(4.5)
Whether the described mechanism may open some new space for the simplest class of models in which ETC and weak gauge groups commute is highly questionable. Apart from the dangerous  ETC “direct”  and “indirect” contributions to isospin violation in the $`tb`$ sector (that exist independently of the introduced seesaw mechanism), raising the Yukawa type of mass term, i.e $`m_1m_t/\mathrm{cos}\phi _b^L`$ necessarily lowers further the (already dangerously) low ETC top mass generation scale, $`M_{ETC}/g_{ETC}1`$TeV , by a factor $`\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}\phi _b^L}\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}\phi _t^L}`$.

## 5 What can $`t\overline{t}`$ production at the NLC tell us?

Production of $`t\overline{t}`$ at the NLC (operating, for example, at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV) is probably the most promising way to directly observe top seesaw mixing and to differentiate between the weak-doublet and weak-singlet class of models.

As we found in Section 3, the oblique $`T`$ parameter constrains the right-handed top mixing, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _t`$, to be smaller than roughly $`0.015`$ in the weak-doublet case. The right-handed top coupling to the $`Z`$ boson equals

$$\frac{e}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\theta _W}(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _t\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)=\frac{e}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\theta _W}(g_R^{SM}+\delta _D),$$
(5.1)
where $`\delta _D=(1/2)\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _t`$, while the left-handed top coupling is the same as in SM. This represents roughly a $`2\%`$ maximal relative shift in the top coupling. In the case of weak-singlet top seesaw mixing, the right-handed top coupling to $`Z`$ is unchanged from its SM form while the left-handed coupling equals

$$\frac{e}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\theta _W}(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _t^s+\frac{1}{2}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)=\frac{e}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\theta _W}(g_L^{SM}\delta _S),$$
(5.2)
where $`\phi _t^s`$ is the appropriate mixing angle in the weak-singlet case and $`\delta _S=(1/2)\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _t^s`$. Similar to the weak-doublet case, in the weak-singlet case  $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _t^s`$ is found to be smaller than roughly $`0.015`$. This represents roughly a $`4\%`$ maximal relative shift in the top coupling. Therefore, compared to the SM axial coupling, the axial couplings in both doublet and singlet cases are smaller. However, the vector top coupling is slightly larger in the doublet case and slightly smaller in the singlet case as compared to the SM.

Recently it has been suggested  that the TESLA machine with center of mass energy of $`500`$ GeV, an integrated luminosity of $`300`$ fb-1, and unpolarized beams may reach a precision of $`2\%`$ in the determination of the $`Z\overline{t}t`$ coupling (from the total of almost $`35000`$ top pair events in the channel with one $`W`$ decaying into $`e\nu `$ or $`\mu \nu `$ and the other $`W`$ decaying hadronically). This may be enough for observing the case with weak-singlet mixing but it is insufficient for the weak-doublet case. We find the relative shifts in the total $`t\overline{t}`$ cross sections relative to pure SM QED (in the above mentioned channel) to be

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }F_1}{(F_1)_{SM}}=0.06\delta _D\text{and}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }F_1}{(F_1)_{SM}}=0.44\delta _S,$$
(5.3)
for the weak-doublet and the weak-singlet cases respectively.

Invoking the analysis of various asymmetries may considerably lower the needed integrated luminosity and help in differentiating between the weak-doublet and weak-singlet cases - for example by correlating the total cross section with forward-backward asymmetry. We find a relative forward-backward asymmetry (in the above mentioned channel) to be significant

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }A_{FB}^t}{(A_{FB}^t)_{SM}}=1.60\delta _D\text{and}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }A_{FB}^t}{(A_{FB}^t)_{SM}}=1.46\delta _S,$$
(5.4)
for the weak-doublet and the weak-singlet cases respectively. A more sophisticated analysis (with polarized beams in addition) allowing an even smaller integrated luminosity may also be possible.

## 6 Conclusions

We presented a class of models with a third generation seesaw mixing with new vector-like weak-doublet quarks. We analyzed a low-energy phenomenology and proposed several strong dynamics, high-energy realizations of these models.

We discussed a low-energy phenomenology and found that the oblique $`T`$ parameter places the strongest constraints on the model parameters. Assuming the dynamical mass in the top sector to be $`600`$ GeV, as determined by the Pagels-Stokar relationship, we found that the heavy fermions must weight at least $`5`$ TeV. That implies an upper limit on the right-handed mixing in the top sector, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _t`$, to be roughly $`0.015`$ (or $`2\%`$ relative shift in the $`Z\overline{t}t`$ coupling) while the right-handed mixing in the bottom sector, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _b`$, has to be smaller than $`10^5`$. Left-handed mixings are not constrained by EW data.

We proposed a class of high-energy models in the Topcolor spirit, named Top-Bottom Color, with weak-doublets structure in the low-energy limit. In this class of models we obtained an effective, composite two Higgs doublet model with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =m_t/m_b`$ at low-energy and a realistic top quark mass. Instead of using a strong, triviality-sensitive $`U(1)`$ gauge group, we introduced the isospin mass splitting via tilting 4-fermion operators related to the broken non-abelian, asymptoticaly free gauge interactions.

In addition, we suggested that a search at the NLC and analysis of the $`t\overline{t}`$ production asymmetries may have the best potential for direct observation of different top couplings in the EW sector. Furthermore, we discussed how one can distinguish between the two different (weak-doublet and weak-singlet) types of seesaw mixing by correlating different measurements; for example, the total cross section relative to the pure SM QED cross section and the forward-backward asymmetry (although a more refined approach, requiring even smaller integrated luminosity, may be possible as well).

## Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank R.S. Chivukula, B.A. Dobrescu, H.-J. He, K.D. Lane, K.R. Lynch, M. Postma, T. Rador and especially E.H. Simmons for useful conversations and comments on the manuscript. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY-9501249, and by the Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-91ER40676.

## Appendix A Details of Top-Bottom Color Symmetry Breaking (without running)

To express some details of Top-Bottom Color symmetry breaking (without running) in a compact form we use the following notation

$`a=g_1u_1,b=g_2u_1,c=g_2u_2,d=g_3u_2,`$ (A.1)
$`N_0=\sqrt{a^2c^2+a^2d^2+b^2d^2},N_1=a^2+b^2,N_2=c^2+d^2,`$
$`\mathrm{and}F(x)=N_2x^2+N_0^2(N_12x)>0,x\mathrm{},`$
where gauge couplings ($`g`$’s) and VEV’s ($`u`$’s) are as introduced in Section 4.1.

At the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ the groups $`SU(3)_1`$ and $`SU(3)_2`$ are broken down to a diagonal $`SU(3)_1^{}`$. Therefore, the appropriate description, for energies below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and above $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, follows from the gauge boson mixing matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}a^2& ab\\ ab& b^2\end{array}\right).$$
(A.2)
Diagonalization of this matrix gives one zero mass eigenvalue, corresponding to the pregluon field. The mass squared eigenvalue corresponding to the precoloron field is

$$M_c^2=N_1=a^2+b^2=(g_1^2+g_2^2)u_1^2.$$
(A.3)
To obtain the precoloron and pregluon fields one rotates the initial unbroken fields via the unitary real matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{a}{\sqrt{N_1}}& \frac{b}{\sqrt{N_1}}\\ \frac{b}{\sqrt{N_1}}& \frac{a}{\sqrt{N_1}}\end{array}\right).$$
(A.4)
Therefore, the coupling of precolorons is read directly777As a consequence of the covariant derivative being unchanged. as

$$\frac{a}{\sqrt{N_1}}g_1T_1\frac{b}{\sqrt{N_1}}g_2T_2=\frac{g_1^2T_1g_2^2T_2}{\sqrt{g_1^2+g_2^2}},$$
(A.5)
where $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ are $`SU(3)_1`$ and $`SU(3)_2`$ generators. Similarly, the coupling of pregluons is

$$\frac{b}{\sqrt{N_1}}g_1T_1+\frac{a}{\sqrt{N_1}}g_2T_2=g_1^{}(T_1+T_2),$$
(A.6)
where $`g_1^{}=(g_1^2+g_2^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$.

For energies below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, the appropriate description follows from the gauge boson mixing matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a^2& ab& 0\\ ab& b^2+c^2& cd\\ 0& cd& d^2\end{array}\right).$$
(A.7)
Diagonalization of this matrix gives one zero mass eigenvalue, corresponding to the standard gluon field. The squared masses of the heavy888Heavy coloron may be thought as low-energy descendant of the precoloron. and the light colorons are given as

$$M_{H,L}^2=\frac{N_1+N_2}{2}\left(1\pm \sqrt{1\frac{4N_0^2}{(N_1+N_2)^2}}\right).$$
(A.8)
To obtain the heavy coloron, standard gluon, and light coloron fields one rotates the initial unbroken gauge fields via the unitary real matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{abc}{\sqrt{F(M_H^2)}}& \frac{(a^2M_H^2)c}{\sqrt{F(M_H^2)}}& \frac{(N_1M_H^2)d}{\sqrt{F(M_H^2)}}\\ \frac{bd}{N_0}\hfill & \frac{ad}{N_0}\hfill & \frac{ac}{N_0}\hfill \\ \frac{abc}{\sqrt{F(M_L^2)}}& \frac{(a^2M_L^2)c}{\sqrt{F(M_L^2)}}& \frac{(N_1M_L^2)d}{\sqrt{F(M_L^2)}}\end{array}\right).$$
(A.9)
Therefore, the coupling of heavy colorons is

$$\frac{abc}{\sqrt{F(M_H^2)}}g_1T_1+\frac{(a^2M_H^2)c}{\sqrt{F(M_H^2)}}g_2T_2\frac{(N_1M_H^2)d}{\sqrt{F(M_H^2)}}g_3T_3.$$
(A.10)
The coupling of standard gluons is

$$\frac{bd}{N_0}g_1T_1+\frac{ad}{N_0}g_2T_2+\frac{ac}{N_0}g_3T_3=g_{QCD}(T_1+T_2+T_3),$$
(A.11)
where $`g_{QCD}=\left(g_1^2+g_2^2+g_3^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Finaly, the coupling of light colorons is

$$\frac{abc}{\sqrt{F(M_L^2)}}g_1T_1+\frac{(a^2M_L^2)c}{\sqrt{F(M_L^2)}}g_2T_2\frac{(N_1M_L^2)d}{\sqrt{F(M_L^2)}}g_3T_3.$$
(A.12)
If we assume a hierarchy with $`N_1N_2`$ and particularly $`b^2>a^2`$, $`c^2>d^2`$, and $`a^2,b^2c^2,d^2`$ roughly corresponding to the scenario described in Section 4.1 with $`u_1^2u_2^2`$ and $`g_2^2>g_1^2g_3^2`$, a few simplifications are in order

$$M_H^2N_1+N_2\frac{N_0^2}{N_1+N_2}N_1M_L^2\frac{N_0^2}{N_1+N_2}.$$
(A.13)
Therefore we find

$$\sqrt{F(M_H^2)}bc\sqrt{N_1}bc\sqrt{a^2+b^2}.$$
(A.14)
Now, it is straightforward to see that the heavy coloron couples quite strongly just to fermions transforming under $`SU(3)_2`$, i.e.

$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\sqrt{a^2+b^2}}}g_1T_1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{\sqrt{a^2+b^2}}}g_2T_2+{\displaystyle \frac{bcd}{(a^2+b^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}}}g_3T_3`$ (A.15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2T_1g_2^2T_2}{\sqrt{g_1^2+g_2^2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2g_3^2}{(g_1^2+g_2^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_2^2}{u_1^2}}T_3.`$
On the other hand, in the same approximation, but for the small values of argument $`x`$, i.e. $`xN_1`$, one has $`F(x)N_0^2N_1`$, and therefore, $`\sqrt{F(M_L^2)}ac\sqrt{a^2+b^2}`$ .

This clearly implies that the light coloron couples strongly (with almost the same strength) to the fermions transforming under both $`SU(3)_1`$ and $`SU(3)_2`$ gauge groups. In other words, the light coloron coupling in this approximation may be expressed as

$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{\sqrt{a^2+b^2}}}g_1T_1+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\sqrt{a^2+b^2}}}g_2T_2{\displaystyle \frac{d\sqrt{a^2+b^2}}{ac}}g_3T_3`$ (A.16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1g_2}{\sqrt{g_1^2+g_2^2}}}(T_1+T_2){\displaystyle \frac{g_3^2\sqrt{g_1^2+g_2^2}}{g_1g_2}}T_3`$
$`=`$ $`g_1^{}(T_1+T_2){\displaystyle \frac{g_3^2\sqrt{g_1^2+g_2^2}}{g_1g_2}}T_3.`$


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In supersymmetric quantum mechanics models with standard supersymmetry, the supercharges $`Q_a`$ are related to the Hamiltonian $`H`$ via $`\{Q_a,Q_b\}=H\delta _{ab}`$, $`a,b=1,\mathrm{},N`$. In many of these models one can find additional or ‘hidden’ supercharges $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ , involving the structure constants of a Lie algebra, and perhaps a Killing-Yano tensor . The appearance of the Killing-Yano tensor in this context is not surprising, since it also plays a role in the existence of hidden symmetries .

The additional supercharges are required to satisfy

$$\{Q_a,\stackrel{~}{Q}\}=0;$$
(1)
hence $`[\stackrel{~}{Q},H]=0`$, so that the $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$’s generate supersymmetries of the theory. We shall consider three models: one with bosonic superfields, and two with fermionic superfields (with $`N=1`$ and $`N=2`$ respectively) for which the bosonic component variables are auxiliary .

A typical example of the bosonic superfield case, in which the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ is $`su(2)`$, is that of the non-relativistic motion of a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle in the background field of a Dirac monopole  (see also ). The case $`G=SU(2)`$ is, however, rather exceptional since it is the only group for which the structure constants of its algebra coincide with the fully antisymmetric tensor $`(ϵ_{ijk})`$ of a $`(\mathrm{dim}G)`$-dimensional space. Thus, a natural question to ask is what generalisations are possible when simple (and compact) algebras $`𝒢`$ of rank $`l>1`$ are employed. Also, for $`l>1`$ there exist other available skewsymmetric tensors (of odd order $`>3`$): they are provided by the higher order cocycles of the Lie algebra cohomology of $`𝒢`$. Thus, in order to investigate the appearance of hidden charges in a group theoretical context, we look first at

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_3=\dot{x}_if_{ij}\psi _j\frac{1}{3}if_{ijk}\psi _i\psi _j\psi _k,$$
(2)
where $`x_i`$ and $`\psi _i`$ are the position and fermionic coordinates respectively, $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{dim}𝒢`$, and $`f_{ij}`$ is an antisymmetric second order Killing-Yano tensor  associated with the structure constants $`f_{ijk}`$ in such a way that (1) holds, and second we look at

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_5=\dot{x}_if_{ijkl}\psi _j\psi _k\psi _l\frac{1}{5}i\mathrm{\Omega }_{ijkpq}\psi _i\psi _j\psi _k\psi _p\psi _q$$
(3)
in various contexts. In (3), $`f_{ijkl}=f_{[ijkl]}`$ is a fourth order generalised Killing-Yano tensor and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ijkpq}`$ is a fifth order totally antisymmetric invariant tensor, associated with the third order (Racah-Casimir) invariant symmetric polynomial of such $`𝒢`$ as allow for one. This exists for $`su(n)`$, $`n3`$, and $`su(3)`$ will be good enough to illustrate the extent of most of our results when using the fifth order cocycle.

In the fermionic superfield case, it is possible to construct models where the only dynamical fields are fermionic, and whose Lagrangian includes an interaction term constructed using the structure constants of the simple Lie algebra. Our aim is to construct, in terms of the corresponding fermionic variables and the higher order cocycles, hidden supercharges in the $`N=1`$ and $`N=2`$ cases. When $`N=1`$ we shall restrict the Lie algebra to $`su(n)`$, whereas in the $`N=2`$ case the simple Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ will be unrestricted. The restriction reflects the fact that the discussion of the $`N=1`$ case employs the identity $`C_{ijk}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ijks_4\mathrm{}s_{2m1}}=0`$, which we believe holds for all $`𝒢`$, but for which explicit detailed proofs are available  only for $`su(n)`$.

We consider only $`Ad(G)`$-invariant simple $`0+1`$ supersymmetry models. In Sec. 2 we describe the case of a non-relativistic system moving in a space that is the representation space of the adjoint representation of the symmetry group $`G`$, coupled to a background potential $`A_i`$. It is shown in sec. 3 that in the free case there exist non-standard supersymmetries associated with all the higher order cocycles. In the presence of the background field $`A_i`$ (sec. 4), however, we find only one hidden supercharge for the lowest order cocycle i.e., for that given by the structure constants of $`𝒢`$.

In Sec. 5, we consider a $`N=1`$ simple purely fermionic model and show that one may also construct hidden supercharges from each of the $`l`$ $`su(n)`$ algebra cohomology cocycles. In Sec. 6 the case with $`N=2`$ is considered. It is shown that we may construct two hidden supercharges for each of the $`l`$ cocycles of the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$.

## 2 A particle model with bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom

Let $`G`$ be a compact, simple Lie group of algebra $`𝒢`$, $`[X_i,X_j]=if_{ijk}X_k`$. We set out from the superspace Lagrangian

$$=\frac{1}{2}i\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}_iD\mathrm{\Phi }_i+iqD\mathrm{\Phi }_iA_i(\mathrm{\Phi })=K+\theta L,i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{dim}𝒢,$$
(4)
where $`\theta `$ is a real Grassmann variable, the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i=\mathrm{\Phi }_i(t,\theta )`$ are scalar superfields, and the covariant derivative $`D`$ and the generator of supersymmetry $`Q`$ are given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i(t,\theta )=x_i(t)+i\theta \psi _i(t),D=_\theta i\theta _t,Q=_\theta +i\theta _t.$$
(5)
The Lagrangian is invariant under the (real, adjoint) action of $`G`$. Using

$`D\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ $`=`$ $`i(\psi _i\theta \dot{x}_i),`$
$`A_i(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`A_i(x)+i\theta \psi _j_jA_i(x),`$ (6)
the expansion (4) of $``$ gives

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\dot{x}_i\psi _iq\psi _iA_i,`$ (7)
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\dot{x}_i\dot{x}_i+\frac{1}{2}i\psi _i\dot{\psi }_i+q\dot{x}_iA_i\frac{1}{2}iqF_{ij}\psi _i\psi _j,`$ (8)
where

$$F_{ij}=_iA_j_jA_i.$$
(9)
We easily find the momenta and canonical commutators

$$p_i=\frac{L}{\dot{x}_i}=\dot{x}_i+qA_i,[x_i,p_j]=i\delta _{ij},\{\psi _i,\psi _j\}=\delta _{ij},$$
(10)
and compute

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\dot{x}_i\dot{x}_i+\frac{1}{2}iqF_{ij}\psi _i\psi _j.$$
(11)
The standard supersymmetry that leaves the action for (4) invariant is $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_i=iϵQ\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, i.e.

$$\delta x_i=iϵ\psi _i,\delta \psi _i=ϵ\dot{x}_i.$$
(12)
Noether’s theorem

$$iϵQ=\delta x_ip_i+\delta \psi _i\frac{L}{\dot{\psi }_i}iϵK,$$
(13)
where the piece depending on $`K`$ comes from the quasi-invariance of the Lagrangian, gives for the conserved supercharge

$$Q=\dot{x}_i\psi _i.$$
(14)
It is easy to check that $`Q`$ above generates (12) by means of the canonical formalism, and that

$$Q^2=H$$
(15)
reproduces the right hand side of (11).

## 3 Hidden supersymmetries in the free case

### 3.1 The case of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_3`$

Here we shall put $`q=0`$ in expressions in Sec. 2. We intend first to seek an additional supersymmetry $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_3`$ such that $`\{Q,\stackrel{~}{Q}_3\}=0`$ in the form

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_3=\dot{x}_if_{ij}\psi _j\frac{1}{3}if_{ijk}\psi _i\psi _j\psi _k,$$
(16)
where $`f_{ij}`$ is to be determined. Since it is easier to work classically, we use the Dirac bracket formalism corresponding to (10), so that for $`F`$ and $`G`$ functions of dynamical variables

$$\{F,G\}=\frac{F}{x_l}\frac{G}{p_l}\frac{F}{p_l}\frac{G}{x_l}+i(1)^F\frac{F}{\psi _l}\frac{G}{\psi _l}.$$
(17)
Using $`Q=p_i\psi _i`$ from (14) and (16), we get

$$\{Q,\stackrel{~}{Q}_3\}=\psi _l\dot{x}_if_{ij,l}\psi _ji\dot{x}_l(\dot{x}_if_{il}if_{ljk}\psi _j\psi _k),$$
(18)
where $`f_{ij,l}=\frac{}{x^l}f_{ij}`$. The second term in the r.h.s. of (18) is zero if

$$f_{ij}=f_{ji},$$
(19)
and the other two cancel if

$$f_{i[j,l]}=f_{ijl}.$$
(20)
We could even have written $`f_{ij,k}`$ instead of $`f_{ijk}`$ in (16), and then $`f_{ij,k}`$ may effectively be replaced by $`f_{[ij,k]}`$ in virtue of the $`\psi _i\psi _j\psi _k`$ factor. Then (20) is

$$f_{i[j,l]}=f_{[ij,l]},$$
(21)
so that

$$_{(l}f_{i)j}=0$$
(22)
or

$$2f_{ij,l}=f_{li,j}+f_{jl,i}.$$
(23)
Equations (21) or (22) state that the derivative of the antisymmetric tensor (19) is also skewsymmetric, and characterise $`f_{ij}`$ as Killing-Yano tensor . One way to satisfy this condition sets

$$f_{ij}=f_{ijk}x_k,$$
(24)
giving

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_3=L_i\psi _i+\frac{2}{3}S_i\psi _i,$$
(25)
where

$$L_i=f_{ijk}x_j\dot{x}_k,S_i=\frac{1}{2}if_{ijk}\psi _j\psi _k.$$
(26)
Furthermore,

$`[L_i,x_j]`$ $`=`$ $`if_{ijk}x_k,[S_i,\psi _j]=if_{ijk}\psi _k,`$
$`[\stackrel{~}{Q}_3,x_i]`$ $`=`$ $`if_{ijk}x_j\psi _k,\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_3,\psi _i\}=L_i+2S_i.`$ (27)
Both $`L_i`$ and $`S_i`$ are representations of the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ since they obey

$$[L_i,L_j]=if_{ijk}L_k,[S_i,S_j]=if_{ijk}S_k.$$
(28)
We note that the $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_3`$ supersymmetry does not close on the Hamiltonian, but instead we have

$$\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_3,\stackrel{~}{Q}_3\}=\stackrel{}{J}^2+\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{}{S}^2,J_i=L_i+S_i,$$
(29)
where $`J_i`$ is the conserved charge associated with the $`G`$-invariance of the action (4). The result here parallels the result of  for particle motion in the background field of a Dirac monopole.

We note in passing also that $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_3`$ looks similar to the Kostant fermionic operator $`K`$

$$K=\rho _i\gamma ^i\frac{i}{3!2}f_{ijk}\gamma ^i\gamma ^j\gamma ^k,$$
(30)
where $`\rho `$ refers to some representation of $`𝒢`$ (cf $`L_i`$ in (26) ). In (30) the quantised fermion operators $`\psi _i`$ have been represented, $`\psi _i\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\gamma _i`$, by the Dirac matrices of a euclidean space of dimension $`\mathrm{dim}𝒢`$ which obey $`\{\gamma _i,\gamma _j\}=2\delta _{ij}`$. However, (30) implies $`K^2=\stackrel{}{\rho }^2+\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{}{S}^2`$. Clearly $`K`$ is not proportional the supercharge $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_3`$ of (16), for any representation $`\rho `$ of $`𝒢`$.

### 3.2 Other hidden supersymmetries

We generalise now the previous paragraph to supercharges involving the higher order cocycles of the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$. Instead of (16), we consider $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_5`$ as in (3)

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_5=p_if_{ijkp}\psi _{jkp}\frac{1}{5}i\mathrm{\Omega }_{ijkpq}\psi _{ijkpq},$$
(31)
where $`f_{ijkp}=f_{ijkp}(x)`$,

$$f_{ijkp}=f_{i[jkp]},$$
(32)
we have used the abbreviation $`\psi _{ijk\mathrm{}}=\psi _i\psi _j\psi _k\mathrm{}`$ , and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ijkpq}`$ is by definition totally antisymmetric in all its five indices. Instead of (32) we might consider the replacement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ijkpq}`$ by

$$f_{[ijkp,q]},$$
(33)
where $`f_{ijkp,q}=f_{ijkp}/x_q`$. We now demand that $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_5`$ anticommutes with $`Q=p_i\psi _i`$

$$\{Q,\stackrel{~}{Q}_5\}=0$$
(34)
quantum mechanically for variety, and also because promotion of the classical calculation in this context is not in this instance trivial. Thus

$`\{Q,\stackrel{~}{Q}_5\}`$ $`=`$ $`p_l\{\psi _l,\stackrel{~}{Q}_5\}+[\stackrel{~}{Q}_5,p_l]\psi _l`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`p_l(3p_if_{ijkl}\psi _{jk}i\mathrm{\Omega }_{ljkpq}\psi _{jkpq})+ip_lf_{ljkp,q}\psi _{jkpq}.`$
The first term of (35) can be eliminated by requiring that $`f_{ijkl}`$ is antisymmetric in $`i`$ and $`l`$, and, hence, using (33) that

$$f_{ijkp}=f_{[ijkp]}.$$
(36)
The other result needed to secure (34) is the vanishing of the part of

$$f_{ljkp,q}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ljkpq}$$
(37)
antisymmetric in $`jkpq`$. If we try the ansatz

$$f_{ljkp}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{ljkpq}x_q,$$
(38)
then this requirement is satisfied. Then

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_5=p_i\mathrm{\Omega }_{ijkpq}x_q\psi _{jkp}\frac{1}{5}i\mathrm{\Omega }_{ijkpq}\mathrm{\Psi }_{ijkpq}$$
(39)
is a hidden, $`AdG`$-invariant supercharge. This situation is one that applies to $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_7`$, involving $`\mathrm{\Omega }_7`$, etc. Actually, since the charges are constructed using the structure constants and the higher-order cocycles, there will be a hidden supercharge for each cocycle in a model with an arbitrary simple compact group. We may then conclude the following:

The $`Ad(G)`$-invariant free supersymmetric particle model described by $`=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_iD\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ admits $`l`$ hidden supercharges $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_s`$, $`s=1,\mathrm{},l`$. These are determined by the $`l`$ Lie algebra cohomology cocycles of the simple compact algebra $`𝒢`$ of rank $`l`$.

If we had written $`f_{[ijkp,q]}`$ in the second term of (31), then (37) corresponds to the vanishing of the part of

$$f_{l[jkp],q}=f_{[ljkp,q]}$$
(40)
antisymmetric in $`jkpq`$. To extract the minimal condition, we write

$$f_{[ljkp,q]}=\frac{4}{5}f_{l[jkp,q]}+\frac{1}{5}f_{[jkpq],l}.$$
(41)
Then (40) is equivalent to

$$f_{[ljkp,q]}=f_{[jkpq],l},$$
(42)
which is an analogue of (23) and, together with the complete antisymmetry of $`f_{ijkl}`$, means that $`f_{ijkl}`$ is a Killing-Yano tensor of valence four. This is consistent with Tanimoto’s analysis , although in a slightly different context. The previous result may be rephrased in the following form:

The additional supersymmetry exists because each Lie algebra cocycle of order $`2m1`$ provides a Killing-Yano tensor of valence $`2(m1)`$ by the analogous to (38) since then

$$f_{ii_1\mathrm{}i_{2m3},q}+f_{qi_1\mathrm{}i_{2m3},i}=0.$$
(43)
One might look for different solutions, but we did not find any. For example, the condition (42) defeats the otherwise interesting ansatz $`f_{ijkl}=f_{[ij}f_{kl]}`$, where $`f_{ij}`$ is a second order Killing-Yano tensor. In fact, the Killing-Yano condition appears to be very restrictive, and it is likely that (24) and (38) are the only possible solutions for the cases considered.

## 4 $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_3`$ in the presence of a background field

We investigate now to what extent it is possible to reproduce the analysis of sec. 3 in the $`A0`$ case. When $`Q`$ is given by (14) and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_3`$ by (16), where now $`p_i=\dot{x}_i+qA_i`$ as in Sec. 2, we find classically that $`\{Q,\stackrel{~}{Q}_3\}=0`$ requires

$`\{Q,\stackrel{~}{Q}_3\}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _l\dot{x}_if_{ij,l}\psi _ji\dot{x}_l(\dot{x}_if_{il}if_{ljk}\psi _j\psi _k)`$ (44)
$`+qf_{lj}F_{il}\psi _i\psi _j=0,`$
so we have to impose (19), (23) and

$$f_{l[j}F_{i]l}=0$$
(45)
where $`F_{ij}`$ is given by (9). It is sensible to try first the solution

$$f_{ij}=f_{ijk}x_k$$
(46)
of (19) and (23). To satisfy (45) we may choose

$$F_{ij}=x_iy_jx_jy_i,$$
(47)
where $`y_i=d_{ijk}x_jx_k`$, whenever there exists an invariant symmetric tensor $`d_{ijk}`$ on the algebra (which excludes $`su(2)`$). This is true because of the identities $`f_{ijk}x_jx_k=0=f_{ijk}x_jy_k`$, the last one due to the invariance of the symmetric tensor $`d_{ijk}`$. However consistency with (9) demands that any ansatz for $`F_{ij}`$, and (47) in particular, obeys

$$_{[i}F_{jk]}=0.$$
(48)
The simple ansatz $`F_{ij}=a(Z)f_{ijk}x_k`$ where $`Z=x_kx_k`$, satisfies (48) when the algebra is $`su(2)`$, in which case $`a(Z)Z^{3/2}`$, as is expected for the monopole . But for $`su(n)`$, e.g. for $`su(3)`$, for which $`Z=x_kx_k`$ and $`Y=d_{ijk}x_ix_jx_k=x_ky_k`$, the ansatz $`F_{ij}=a(Z,Y)f_{ijk}x_k`$ fails. We can see this by contracting

$$0=_{[i}F_{jk]}=2\frac{a}{Z}x_{[i}f_{jk]l}x_l+3\frac{a}{Y}y_{[i}f_{jk]l}x_l+af_{ijk},$$
(49)
with $`y_i`$, which gives

$$\frac{2}{3}Y\frac{a}{Z}f_{jkl}x_l+y^2\frac{a}{Y}f_{jkl}x_l+af_{jkl}y_l=0.$$
(50)
The independence of the tensors $`f_{ijk}x_l`$ and $`f_{jkl}y_l`$ now gives $`a=0`$. The method used here can be extended to show the failure also of the more general ansatz

$$F_{ij}=a(Z,Y)f_{ijk}x_k+b(Z,Y)f_{ijk}y_k.$$
(51)
The case of $`su(2)`$ of course escapes such a failure because $`y_i`$ then does not exist.

The choice (47) can be used for $`su(n)`$, $`n3`$: it obeys (48) directly but also allows us to write down suitable choices of $`A_i`$ for which (9) reproduces (47). For example, we may use

$$A_i=\frac{1}{3}Yx_i.$$
(52)
More generally, any $`A_i`$ of the form

$$A_i=\alpha (Z,Y)x_i+\beta (Z,Y)y_i$$
(53)
gives $`F_{ij}`$ in suitable form:

$$F_{ij}=\left(2\frac{\beta }{Z}3\frac{\alpha }{Y}\right)(x_iy_jx_jy_i).$$
(54)
Thus, for any $`G`$-invariant model (4) there exists an additional supersymmetry $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_3`$ given by

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_3=p_if_{ijk}\psi _jx_k\frac{1}{3}if_{ijk}\psi _i\psi _j\psi _k,$$
(55)
determined by the structure constants $`f_{ijk}`$ of $`𝒢`$. The contribution proportional to $`A_i`$ disappears from the first term of (54) again because of the identities $`f_{ijk}x_jx_k=0=f_{ijk}x_jy_k`$. But this does not mean that we have recovered the free case, because $`A_i`$ is present in $`Q=(p_iqA_i)\psi _i`$. $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ satisfies the relations

$$[\stackrel{~}{Q}_3,x_i]=if_{ijk}x_j\psi _k,\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_3,\psi _i\}=L_i+2S_i,\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_3,\stackrel{~}{Q}_3\}=(\stackrel{}{L}+\stackrel{}{S})^2+\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{}{S}^2,$$
(56)
where now $`L_i=f_{ijk}x_jp_k`$.

We have not found, however, an analogue of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_5`$ for $`q0`$. If the Killing-Yano tensor is $`f_{ijkl}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{ijklm}x_m`$ and $`F_{ij}`$ is proportional to (47), the condition corresponding to (45),

$$f_{l[jmn}F_{i]l}=0,$$
(57)
is not satisfied because, in contrast with $`f_{ijk}x_jy_k=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ijklm}x_ly_m0`$. It is possible that the use of more general background fiels (see ) opens the way to richer possibilities.

## 5 $`N=1`$ Fermion superfields

### 5.1 Basic formalism

We turn now to a different supersymmetric model in which hidden supersymmetries related to higher order cocycles also occur. This model is a theory of fermions with all states in one energy level, and without bosonic dynamical variables . Consider the $`Ad(SU(n))`$-invariant superspace Lagrangian given by

$$=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_iD\mathrm{\Lambda }_i+\frac{1}{3!}igf_{ijk}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_j\mathrm{\Lambda }_k,$$
(58)
where the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=\mathrm{\Lambda }_i(t,\theta )`$ are $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{dim}𝒢`$ fermionic superfields,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_i(t,\theta )=\psi _i(t)+\theta B_i(t),D\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=B_ii\theta \dot{\psi }_i.$$
(59)
The expansion of (58) may be written as $`=K+\theta L`$, where now

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\psi _iB_i+\frac{1}{3!}ig\psi _i\psi _j\psi _k,`$
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}(i\dot{\psi }_i\psi _i+B_iB_i+igf_{ijk}\psi _i\psi _jB_k).`$ (60)
As in Sec. 2, we may use the expression of $`K`$ and $`L`$ in Noether’s theorem (see (13)) for the variations

$$\delta \psi _i=ϵB_i,\delta B_i=iϵ\dot{\psi }_i,$$
(61)
to obtain

$$Q=\frac{1}{6}igf_{ijk}\psi _i\psi _j\psi _k.$$
(62)
All the bosonic components $`B_i`$ are auxiliary. Using their Euler-Lagrange equations to solve for $`B_i`$, one obtains the classical Lagrangian $`L_c=\frac{1}{2}i\psi _i\dot{\psi }_i`$. The classical Hamiltonian vanishes identically 222There is an $`S_iS_i`$ part, which is proportional to $`f_{mij}f_{mkl}\psi _i\psi _j\psi _k\psi _l`$ and which is zero classically by virtue of the Jacobi identity and the fermionic character of the $`\psi `$’s., but the quantum Hamiltonian, defined by $`H=Q^2`$, and computed using $`\{\psi _i,\psi _j\}=\delta _{ij}`$, is not zero but a constant,

$$Q^2=\frac{1}{48}g^2n(n^21)$$
(63)
for $`su(n)`$.

### 5.2 Hidden supersymmetries in the fermionic model

As for the (4) model for $`q=0`$, there exist in this case additional supercharges $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ for every non-trivial cocycle of any $`su(n)`$ Lie algebra. To see this, let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{2m1}}^{(2m1)}`$ be a non-trivial cocycle corresponding to an invariant symmetric tensor $`t`$ of order $`m`$. If $`t`$ has components $`t_{l_1\mathrm{}l_m}`$, then the $`(2m1)`$-order cocycle is given by333For the relation among symmetric tensors and cocycles of generic compact simple Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ see ,  and .

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{2m1}}^{(2m1)}=f_{[i_1i_2}^{l_i}\mathrm{}f_{i_{2m3}i_{2m2}}^{l_{m1}}t_{i_{2m1}]l_i\mathrm{}l_{m1}}.$$
(64)
Using it, we form

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2m1}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{2m1}}^{(2m1)}\psi _{i_1\mathrm{}i_{2m1}},$$
(65)
where

$$\psi _{i_1\mathrm{}i_{2m1}}\psi _{i_1}\mathrm{}\psi _{i_{2m1}}.$$
(66)
We compute the quantum anticommutator of $`Q`$ in (62) and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2m1}`$ by expressing the products $`\psi _{i_ii_2i_3}\psi _{j_1\mathrm{}j_{2m1}}`$ and $`\psi _{j_1\mathrm{}j_{2m1}}\psi _{i_ii_2i_3}`$ as linear combinations of completely antisymmetrised products of $`\psi `$’s. This can be done by repeated use of the identities (deduced from $`\{\psi _i,\psi _j\}=\delta _{ij}`$)

$`\psi _i\psi _{j_1\mathrm{}j_p}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{ij_1\mathrm{}j_p}+\frac{1}{2}p\delta _{[ij_1}\psi _{j_2\mathrm{}j_p]},`$
$`\psi _{j_1\mathrm{}j_p}\psi _i`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{j_1\mathrm{}j_pi}+\frac{1}{2}p\psi _{[j_1\mathrm{}j_{p1}}\delta _{j_p]i}.`$ (67)
Then we easily find that the terms with no $`\delta `$’s or an even number of them vanish identically because the two contributions coming from the anticommutator cancel each other. So we are left with

$`\{Q,\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2m1}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{6}ig[3(2m1)f_{ki_2i_3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{kj_2\mathrm{}j_{2m1}}^{(2m1)}\psi _{i_2i_3j_2\mathrm{}j_{2m1}}`$ (68)
$`\frac{1}{4}{\displaystyle \frac{(2m1)!}{(2m4)!}}f_{klm}\mathrm{\Omega }_{klmj_4\mathrm{}j_{2m1}}^{(2m1)}\psi _{j_4\mathrm{}j_{2m1}}].`$
The first term in (68) vanishes due to the Jacobi identity (since the indices $`i_2i_3j_2\mathrm{}j_{2m1}`$ are antisymmetrised due to the presence of the $`\psi `$’s ) and the second also vanishes because the maximal contraction of indices among the above two $`su(n)`$ cocycles of different order gives zero . Hence, the $`l`$ $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2m1}`$ define new conserved fermionic charges of higher order. As in the case of $`Q`$ in (62), they square to a constant. For example, let us consider the case of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_5`$ for $`su(n)`$, $`n3`$. The square of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_5`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_5^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_{i_1\mathrm{}i_5}^5\mathrm{\Omega }_{j_1\mathrm{}j_5}^5\psi _{i_1\mathrm{}i_5}\psi _{j_1\mathrm{}j_5}.$$
(69)
It is shown in  (see also ) that this square is a number. Hence, $`Q`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_5`$ and $`𝐈`$ close into a superalgebra.

## 6 $`N=2`$ Fermion superfields

### 6.1 Basic formalism

We now consider a purely fermionic model with two standard supersymmetries  (see also ). The supersymmetry algebra in terms of the covariant derivatives for this model is

$$D=_\theta i\theta ^{}_t,D^{}=_\theta ^{}+i\theta _t,\{D,D^{}\}=2i_t.$$
(70)
The $`N=1`$ superfields $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ are replaced by $`N=2`$ superfields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i=\mathrm{\Psi }_i(t,\theta ,\theta ^{})`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{dim}𝒢`$, to which the chirality condition $`D^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_i=0`$ is imposed. This of course means that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}`$ obeys $`D\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}=0`$ and is antichiral. Solving as usual the chirality condition we obtain the superfield expansions

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\theta ^{}\theta _t}(\mu _i\theta B_i)=\mu _i\theta B_i+i\theta ^{}\theta \dot{\mu }_i`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _i^{}\theta ^{}B_i^{}i\theta ^{}\theta \dot{\mu }_i^{},`$ (71)
where $`\mu _i`$ are fermionic and $`B_i`$ are bosonic. The following $`Ad(G)`$-invariant superspace action has the property that the $`B`$’s are non-dynamical, and includes an interaction term:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑\theta 𝑑\theta ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}}`$ (72)
$`+\frac{1}{6}{\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑\theta iC_{ijk}\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }_k}+\frac{1}{6}{\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑\theta ^{}iC_{ijk}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_k^{}},`$
where $`C_{ijk}`$ are the structure constants of the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$. The $`Ad(G)`$-invariant component Lagrangian is given by

$$L=\frac{1}{2}i(\mu _i^{}\dot{\mu }_i+\mu _i\dot{\mu }_i^{})+\frac{1}{2}B_i^{}B_i\frac{1}{2}iC_{ijk}\mu _i\mu _jB_k\frac{1}{2}iC_{ijk}\mu _i^{}\mu _j^{}B_k^{}.$$
(73)
The Euler Lagrange equations of the $`B_i`$, $`B_i^{}`$ are algebraic and can be used to eliminate these variables. Then, by writing $`J_i=\frac{1}{2}iC_{ijk}\mu _j\mu _k`$, the Lagrangian becomes

$$L=\frac{1}{2}i(\mu _i^{}\dot{\mu }_i+\mu _i\dot{\mu }_i^{})2J_iJ_i^{}.$$
(74)
The canonical formalism yields the Dirac brackets

$$\{\mu _i,\mu _j^{}\}=i\delta _{ij},\{\mu _i,\mu _j\}=0,\{\mu _i^{},\mu _j^{}\}=0,$$
(75)
and classically we have

$$H=2J_iJ_i^{}.$$
(76)
The non-zero supersymmetry variations of the fields $`\mu _i`$ and $`B_i`$ are given by

$`\delta _ϵ^{}B_i`$ $`=`$ $`2iϵ^{}\dot{\mu }_i,\delta _ϵ^{}\mu _i^{}=ϵ^{}B_i^{},`$
$`\delta _ϵB_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2iϵ\dot{\mu }_i^{},\delta _ϵ\mu _i=ϵB_i.`$ (77)
These variations correspond, via Noether’s theorem, to the conserved charges

$$Q=\frac{1}{3}iC_{ijk}\mu _i\mu _j\mu _k,Q^{}=\frac{1}{3}iC_{ijk}\mu _i^{}\mu _j^{}\mu _k^{}.$$
(78)
When we quantise the theory we shall regard the $`\mu _i`$ as the creation operators. Hence, to avoid confusion, the following replacements will be made from now on: $`\mu _i^{}=\pi _i`$, $`\mu _i=c_i`$, as in , so that $`\pi ^{}=c_i`$. Thus in the quantum theory, we have the anticommutation relations

$$\{c_i,\pi _j\}=\delta _{ij}.$$
(79)
Also the quantum mechanical Hamiltonian is defined via

$$\{Q,Q^{}\}=2H_q,$$
(80)
which gives the result

$$H_q=\{J_i,J_i^{}\}\frac{1}{6}c^2,$$
(81)
where $`c^2=C_{ijk}C_{ijk}`$ ($`=n(n^21)`$ for $`su(n)`$), and where it should be noted that $`J_i`$ and $`J_i^{}`$ do not commute. One might expect that that $`H_q`$ is closely related to the quadratic Casimir operator $`X^2=X_iX_i`$ of $`𝒢`$, where $`X_i=iC_{ijk}c_j\pi _k`$. It is simple to confirm this for the case of $`su(n)`$ by proving the following identities

$`X_iX_i`$ $`=`$ $`nN2J_iJ_i^{}`$ (82)
$`=`$ $`n(n^21N)2J_i^{}J_i,`$
where $`N=c_i\pi _i`$ is the total fermion number operator, and $`\pi _ic_i=(n^21N)`$. These allow the commutator and anticommutator of $`J_i`$ and $`J_i^{}`$ to be calculated, and give rise to the result

$$H_q=\frac{1}{3}n(n^21)X_iX_i.$$
(83)
The results (81) and (83), viewed together, seem a strangely related pair. However their agreement, as well as the correctness of (82), can easily be confirmed by considering actions of the operators in question on each of the fermion number $`N=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}`$ states of the simple but non-trivial $`SU(2)`$ version of the theory. Further, having set out from the definition (80) of $`H_q`$, we know that all energy eigenvalues are non-negative.

In addition to

$$q_{30}=Q/2=\frac{1}{3!}iC_{ijk}c_ic_jc_k,q_{03}=q_{30}^{}=Q^{}/2,$$
(84)
in which the first and second subscripts indicate the numbers of $`c_i`$ and $`\pi _i`$ factors respectively, two further fermionic operators occur naturally:

$$q_{21}=\frac{1}{2}iC_{ijk}c_ic_j\pi _k,q_{12}=\frac{1}{2}iC_{ijk}c_i\pi _j\pi _k.$$
(85)
These operators each anticommute with each of $`q_{30}`$ and $`q_{03}`$ and obey

$$\{q_{21},q_{12}\}=\frac{1}{2}X_iX_i,q_{21}^2=0,q_{12}^2=0.$$
(86)
It follows that $`q_{21}`$ and $`q_{12}`$ commute with $`X_iX_i`$ and with $`H`$.

We have found a second supersymmetry which anticommutes with the original one; its closure does not give a new operator independent of $`H`$. However, in view of the results (81) and (83), it is not appropriate to say that our theory has $`N=4`$ supersymmetry. We have simply found two additional supercharges naturally associated with the structure constants of $`𝒢`$, a consideration that is built on significantly in the next subsection.

### 6.2 Hidden supersymmetries

One obvious question asks whether it is possible to find new supercharges that generalize those of Sec. 6.1. Consider the case of charges constructed using the five-cocycle $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{i_1\mathrm{}i_5}`$ rather than the three-cocycle $`C_{ijk}`$. An analysis of the possibilities, $`q_{50}`$, $`q_{41}`$, $`q_{32}`$, $`q_{23}`$, $`q_{14}`$, $`q_{05}`$, leads one to conclude that only

$$q_{05}=\frac{1}{5!}i\mathrm{\Omega }_{i_1\mathrm{}i_5}\pi _{i_1}\mathrm{}\pi _{i_5},q_{50}=\frac{1}{5!}i\mathrm{\Omega }_{i_1\mathrm{}i_5}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_5}$$
(87)
are hidden conserved supercharges because only they anticommute with $`q_{21}`$ and $`q_{12}`$.

Moreover, we have the following general result:

The $`l=\mathrm{rank}𝒢`$ pairs of fermionic charges

$`q_{0,2m1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2m1)!}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{2m1}}\pi _{i_1}\mathrm{}\pi _{i_{2m1}},`$
$`q_{2m1,0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2m1)!}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{2m1}}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_{2m1}},`$ (88)
determined by the $`(2m1)`$-cocycles of the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$, where the allowed values of $`m`$ depend on the specific $`𝒢`$ considered, also commute with $`q_{21}`$ and $`q_{12}`$, and hence they commute with $`H_q`$ and are conserved supercharges.

Proof: Let us restrict ourselves to $`q_{2m1,0}`$ (the case $`q_{0,2m1}`$ is completely analogous). Consider first

$$\{q_{2m1,0},q_{12}\}\mathrm{\Omega }_{i[i_2\mathrm{}i_{2m1}}C_{j_1j_2]i}c_{j_1}c_{j_2}c_{i_2}\mathrm{}c_{i_{2m1}},$$
(89)
where the antisymmetrization is forced by the presence of the $`c`$’s. This expression vanishes by the $`G`$-invariance of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, since this implies

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{i[i_1\mathrm{}i_{2m2}}C_{i_{2m1}]ij}=0.$$
(90)
Hence, $`\{q_{2m1,0},q_{12}\}=0`$. Now we have to check that the following anticommutator also vanishes:

$`\{q_{2m1,0},q_{21}\}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ii_2\mathrm{}i_{2m1}}C_{ij_1j_2}c_{j_1}c_{i_2}\mathrm{}c_{i_{2m1}}\pi _{j_2}`$ (91)
$`+(m1)\mathrm{\Omega }_{iji_3\mathrm{}i_{2m1}}C_{ijj_1}c_{j_1}c_{i_3}\mathrm{}c_{i_{2m1}}.`$
The first term vanishes due to the antisymmetry in the indices $`j_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_{2m1}`$ and the invariance of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. To show that the second term also vanishes, we have to prove that

$$D\mathrm{\Omega }_{iji_1\mathrm{}i_{2m3}}C_{i_{2m2}ij}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_{2m2}}$$
(92)
is equal to zero. Indeed, the invariance of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ allows us to write it in terms of the $`C`$’s and the invariant symmetric tensor $`t_{l_1\mathrm{}l_m}`$ (see (64)) without having to involve $`i,j`$ in the antisymmetrization, so we have

$$D=C_{ii_1l_1}C_{i_2i_3l_2}\mathrm{}C_{i_{2m4}i_{2m3}l_{m1}}t_{l_1\mathrm{}l_{m1}j}C_{i_{2m2}ij}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_{2m2}}.$$
(93)
Now, using the Jacobi identity

$$C_{ii_1l_1}C_{i_{2m2}ij}=C_{ii_{2m2}l_1}C_{i_1ij}+C_{ii_1i_{2m2}}C_{l_1ij},$$
(94)
we arrive at

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`C_{ii_{2m2}l_1}C_{i_2i_3l_2}\mathrm{}C_{i_{2m4}i_{2m3}l_{m1}}t_{l_1\mathrm{}l_{m1}j}C_{i_1ij}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_{2m2}}`$ (95)
$`+C_{ii_1i_{2m2}}C_{i_2i_3l_2}\mathrm{}C_{i_{2m4}i_{2m3}l_{m1}}t_{l_1\mathrm{}l_{m1}j}C_{l_1ij}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_{2m2}}.`$
The first term of this expression is equal to $`D`$ due to the presence of $`c_{i_1}`$ and $`c_{i_{2m2}}`$, and the second term vanishes because $`C_{l_1ij}`$ is antisymmetric in $`l_1,j`$ whereas $`t_{l_1\mathrm{}l_m1j}`$ is symmetric in these indices. So we have $`D=D`$, $`D=0`$, $`\{q_{2m1,0},q_{21}\}=0`$ and $`[q_{2m1,0},H_q]=0`$, q.e.d..

Hence, the following result follows:

For every simple Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ of rank $`l`$, the model (72) has a series of $`2l`$ conserved supercharges that are constructed from the primitive cocycles of $`𝒢`$, which include the supersymmetry generators.

## 7 Hidden supersymmetries as Noether charges

All the hidden supercharges discussed can be shown to be Noether charges associated with actual supersymmetries of the actions of the models in question. One way to realise this is to use the quantum commutator of the supercharge and the variables of the model to extract the variations. Explicitly, if $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is the conserved supercharge and $`u`$ is a generic component field in the model, its variation may be defined by

$$\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}u=[\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\stackrel{~}{Q},u],$$
(96)
where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ is the corresponding fermionic parameter.

If $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is a symmetry of the classical action $`S=𝑑tL`$, $`\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}S=0`$ for the constant parameter $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$. This means that, if we allow $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ to become a function of $`t`$, its variation will be of the form

$$\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}S=𝑑t(i\dot{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}\stackrel{~}{Q})$$
(97)
ignoring boundary terms, where $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is the conserved Noether charge for the symmetry (96). Indeed, from (97) we get $`\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}S=𝑑t(i\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\dot{\stackrel{~}{Q}})`$, and since for solutions of the Lagrange equations $`\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}S`$ must be zero for any $`\delta `$, it follows that $`\dot{\stackrel{~}{Q}}=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is the conserved charge. This procedure is particularly suitable when, as here, the complications addressed in  do not arise.

We now give the variations obtained by using (96). In the bosonic case with $`A_i0`$, use of (10) yields

$$\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}x_i=i\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_if_{ijk}x_k\psi _j,\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}\psi _i=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\dot{x}_jf_{jik}x_ki\stackrel{~}{ϵ}f_{jki}\psi _j\psi _k$$
(98)
for the variation induced by $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_3`$ (eq. (25)). If now we put $`ϵ=ϵ(t)`$ and ignore boundary terms in the integrand, we do find $`\delta L=i\dot{ϵ}\stackrel{~}{Q}_3`$, recovering $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_3`$ as the Noether charge. The same applies to the other supercharges below.

Consider $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_5`$ (eq. (31)). The corresponding formulae for the variations for the $`A=0`$ model of Sec. 3.2 are,

$$\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}x_i=i\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ijkpq}x_q\psi _{jkp},\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}\psi =3\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\dot{x}_j\mathrm{\Omega }_{jkpiq}x_q\psi _{kp}i\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\mathrm{\Omega }_{jkpqi}\psi _{jkpq}.$$
(99)
Note that in the above variations $`\delta \psi _i`$ involves the derivative of $`\dot{x}`$ (mathematically, this means that succesive tangent spaces – jet spaces – are needed to define the action of the $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$’s). This is not the case for the two purely fermionic models for which the canonical quantum commutators give

$$\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}\psi _i=(2m1)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\mathrm{\Omega }_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{2m2}i}\psi _{i_1\mathrm{}i_{2m2}}$$
(100)
for $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2m1}`$ (eq. (65)), for the $`N=1`$ model of Sec. 5.1, and

$`\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^{}}\mu _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^{}}{(2m2)!}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{2m2}i}\mu _{i_1}^{}\mathrm{}\mu _{i_{2m2}}^{},\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^{}}\mu _i^{}=0,`$
$`\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}\mu _i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}{(2m2)!}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{2m2}i}\mu _{i_1}\mathrm{}\mu _{i_{2m2}},\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}\mu _i=0`$ (101)
for the variations produced, respectively, by the supercharges $`q_{0,2m1}`$ and $`q_{2m1,0}`$ (eqs. (88)), of the N=2 model of Sec. 6.1.

To proceed further, consider first the closure of $`\delta _ϵ`$, $`\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}`$ on $`x_i`$, say, for the $`A0`$ model in Sec. 4. First we find

$$[\delta _ϵ,\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}]x_i=0$$
(102)
reflecting the fact that $`\{Q,\stackrel{~}{Q}_3\}=0`$ (eq. (44)). For $`[\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^{}},\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}]`$ we find

$$[\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^{}},\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}]x_i=2i\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}{}_{}{}^{}f_{ijk}^{}J_jx_k,$$
(103)
where

$$J_i=f_{ijk}x_j\dot{x}_k\frac{1}{2}if_{ijk}\psi _j\psi _k$$
(104)
is the conserved charge (cf. (29) ) associated with the adjoint transformations $`\delta x_i=f_{ijk}a_jx_k`$, $`\delta \psi _i=f_{ijk}a_j\psi _k`$ which leave the Lagrangian (8) invariant. This of course agrees with the variations on $`x_i`$ induced by the operator $`\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_3,\stackrel{~}{Q}_3\}`$ expressed in the form (cf. again (29) ) $`\stackrel{}{J}^2+\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{}{S}^2`$. A similar analysis can be performed for the corresponding actions upon $`\psi _i`$, for which we get

$$[\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^{}},\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}]\psi _i=2i\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}{}_{}{}^{}f_{ijk}^{}J_j\psi _k2i\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}{}_{}{}^{}f_{jlm}^{}f_{jik}x_mx_k\dot{\psi }_l,$$
(105)
in which we see the second term is zero on shell, using $`\dot{\psi }_l=qF_{lj}\psi _j`$ where $`F_{lj}`$ is given by (47).

## 8 Concluding remarks

We have shown in this paper that there exist ‘hidden’ supersymmetric fermionic charges associated with the Lie algebra cohomology cocycles of the symmetry group for three simple $`Ad(G)`$-invariant supersymmetric models, one with bosonic and fermionic coordinates and two (for $`N=1`$ and $`N=2`$) with only fermionic dynamical coordinates. For the first one, and in the free case, there are $`l`$ additional supersymmetries the existence of which is tied to the Killing-Yano tensors of valence $`(2m2)`$ that may be constructed from the $`(2m1)`$ Lie algebra cohomology cocycles. In the interacting $`A0`$ case the same procedure seems to allow for only one additional supersymmetry, associated with the structure constants $`f_{ijk}`$ of the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ considered. In the $`N=1`$ fermionic model, at least in the case of $`𝒢=su(n)`$ $`l`$ additional symmetries may be constructed directly from its cocycles. In general, these purely fermionic $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$’s depend only on the cohomology of $`𝒢`$ or, equivalently, on the topology of the corresponding compact group $`G`$. In this sense the additional supercharges may be traced to the topology of $`G`$; however, they may be seen to generate continuous symmetries of the system and may be obtained from Noether’s theorem. In the $`N=2`$ case it is shown that the standard supercharges are in fact part of a series of $`2l`$ conserved supercharges that can be constructed from the $`l`$ cocycles of $`𝒢`$.

Summarising, our analysis shows that the hidden symmetries appearing in $`Ad(G)`$-invariant models are in fact supersymmetries because they stem from the existence of the $`G`$-invariant odd skewsymmetric tensors associated with the cohomology of $`𝒢`$. In this sense, these additional fermionic charges could have been introduced directly, even before having a supersymmetric model, as in the ($`𝒢=su(2)`$ ) analysis of  of the results of . However, the fact that they square to a Casimir has more to do with the structure of the cocycles themselves , and hence with the structure of the generic symmetry group, than with any other considerations of $`su(2)`$. In fact, the expression (29) (see also (56)), that holds for any Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ explains why e.g. $`\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_3,\stackrel{~}{Q}_3\}`$ is given by a Casimir. Also, our analysis in sec. 4 shows that the rotational symmetry of the model in  does not play an essential role (cf. ), being just a result of the fact that the fully antisymmetric tensor in $`3`$-dimensions provides the structure constants.

Acknowledgements. This work was partly supported by the DGICYT, Spain ($`\mathrm{\#}`$PB 96-0756), the Junta de Castilla y León, Spain ($`\mathrm{\#}`$C02/199) and PPARC, UK.