text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

It is more than a decade ago that Witten introduced a quantum field theoretic formulation  of the four-dimensional differential topological invariants of Donaldson . In this approach Donaldson invariants are defined as certain correlation functions of twisted $`N=2`$ spacetime supersymmetric Yang-Mills (SYM) theory in four dimensions. This approach eventually opened up a new horizon in mathematics via the quantum properties of underlying physical theory, which is uncovered by Seiberg and Witten . The resulting Seiberg-Witten invariants are much more simple, while carrying the same information for the smooth structure of four manifolds as the Donaldson-Witten invariants . The Donaldson-Witten theory can be generalized by twisting more general $`N=2`$ SYM theory with hypermultiplets . Such a theory can be also solved by the physical solution of the underlying $`N=2`$ SYM theory . However, those invariants defined by such a theory carry the same information as Seiberg-Witten invariants for the smooth structure of four manifolds. It is also shown that Gromov-Witten invariants are equivalent to Seiberg-Witten invariants .

On the other hand, it has been demonstrated that the Seiberg-Witten invariant alone does not distinguish smooth structures of certain, at least non-simply-connected, four manifolds belong to a same homeomorphism class . Thus it is a challenging open problem to define four manifold invariants beyond Donaldson-Witten or Seiberg-Witten invariants.

The purpose of this paper is to propose candidates of such invariants restricting to the Kähler cases. We will take quantum field theoretic approach to these invariants. Our generalization of Donaldson-Witten theory involves the moduli space of stable Higgs bundles of Simpson  instead of the moduli space of stable bundles. We also propose the similar generalization of Vafa-Witten theory  - a twisted $`N=4`$ SYM theory , as well as related generalization of Seiberg-Witten theory. We conjecture that the equivalence between Donaldson-Witten and Seiberg-Witten invariants remains valid to their generalized versions. We follow a general approach to constructing cohomological field theory with a Kähler structure, developed in . Compared with Donaldson-Witten or Vafa-Witten theories our models do not have underlying spacetime supersymmetric theory. Our models, nevertheless, are ”connected” to the physical $`N=2`$ or $`N=4`$ SYM theories by certain renormalization group flows, and those physical theories reside in particular of fixed points. Our conjecture is that the other fixed points give rise to new invariants of four manifold beyond Donaldson-Witten and Seiberg-Witten invariants.

## 2  Generalized Donaldson-Witten Theory

Donaldson-Witten theory (twisted $`N=2`$ SYM) on a Kähler surface  is an example of $`N_c=(2,0)`$ supersymmetric gauged sigma model in zero-dimensions . Such a model is classified by a Kähler target space $`𝒜`$ with a group $`𝒢`$ acting as an isometry, which determines a $`𝒢`$-equviariant momentum map $`\mu :𝒜Lie(𝒢)^{}`$. We further have a Hermitian holomorphic vector bundle $`E𝒜`$ with $`𝒢`$-equivariant holomorphic section $`S`$. Then the bosonic part of the path integral reduces to, provided that we are evaluating correlation functions for supersymmetric observables, an integration over $`:=S^1(0)\mu ^1(\zeta )/𝒢`$; the solution space of the following equations, modulo $`𝒢`$,

$`S=0,`$  $`\mu \zeta =0,`$   $`(2.1)`$
where $`\zeta `$ is the Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI) term. Those observables correspond to elements of $`𝒢`$-equivariant cohomology of $`𝒜`$. The correlation functions of such observables are identified with intersection numbers of homology cycles, represented by the observables, in $`[e(V)]`$, where $`[e(V)]`$ denotes the cycle in $``$ Poincaré dual to the Euler class $`e(V)`$ of the anti-ghost bundle $`V`$ over $``$. If the model has actually $`N_c=(2,2)`$ supersymmetry the anti-ghost bundle $`V`$ can be identified with the tangent bundle $`T`$ and the partition function is the Euler characteristic of $``$. The moral underlying cohomological field theory is that the triple $`(𝒜,𝒢,E)`$ can be all infinite dimensional but certain path integral can still be reduced to an integral over finite dimensional space $``$.

In Donaldson-Witten theory $`𝒜`$ is the space of all connections (gauge fields) on a Hermitian vector bundle $`EM`$ over a complex $`2`$-dimensional Kähler manifold $`M`$ with Kähler form $`\omega `$ and $`𝒢`$ is the group of all gauge transformations. This determines a localization equation from the momentum map $`\mu `$;

$$iF\omega \frac{\zeta }{2}\omega ^2I_E=0,$$
$`(2.2)`$
The solution space of this equation modulo $`𝒢`$ is infinite dimensional. Thus we consider an infinite dimensional bundle $`E𝒜`$ with $`𝒢`$-equivariant holomorphic section $`S`$. We introduce a complex structure of $`𝒜`$ by declaring that the $`A^{0,1}`$ component of a connection $`1`$-form $`A=A^{1,0}+A^{0,1}`$ represents holomorphic coordinates. Then there is an unique choice $`S=F^{0,2}`$ on a general Kähler manifold, leading to another localization equation,

$$F^{0,2}=0.$$
$`(2.3)`$
An integrable connection $`F^{0,2}=\overline{}_A^2=0`$ is called Einstein-Hermitian or Hermitian-Yang-Mills if it further satisfies (2.2). Thus the path integral is localized to the moduli space $`_{EH}`$ of Hermitian-Yang-Mills connections, or equivalently, a result due to , the moduli space of semi-stable holomorphic bundles on $`M`$. In this case the anti-ghost bundle $`V`$ is trivial, due to Donaldson, and the correlation functions of supersymmetric observables can be interpreted as certain intersection pairings of homology cycles in the moduli space $`_{EH}`$.

In the section we generalize Donaldson-Witten theory on Kähler surfaces. The basic idea is to extend our target space $`𝒜`$ of the $`N_c=(2,0)`$ model - corresponding to Donaldson-Witten theory, to the total space $`T^{}𝒜`$ of the cotangent bundle of $`𝒜`$. Since $`𝒜`$ is a flat affine Kähler manifold a cotangent vector is represented as an element of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M,End(E))`$. Thus we introduce additional bosonic fields $`\phi `$ given by an adjoint valued $`1`$-form $`\phi \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M,End(E))`$. Then, by decomposing $`\phi =\phi ^{1,0}+\phi ^{0,1}`$, we have to declare $`\phi ^{1,0}`$ to represent holomorphic coordinates on the fiber space of $`T^{}𝒜`$, since we already fixed a complex structure of $`𝒜`$ by declaring that the $`A^{0,1}`$ component of a connection $`1`$-form represents holomorphic coordinates. A beautiful fact for any cotangent bundle of a Kähler manifold is that it always has canonical hyper-Kähler structure . Thus it is natural to consider hyper-Kähler quotients of $`T^{}𝒜`$ by $`𝒢`$;

$`_A^{}\phi ^{1,0}=0,`$  $`i\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(F+[\phi ^{1,0},\phi ^{0,1}]\right)\zeta I=0.`$   $`(2.4)`$
However the resulting hyper-Kähler quotient space is infinite dimensional.222In one complex dimensions the hyper-Kähler quotient space is Hitchin’s moduli space . To obtain a finite dimensional space we extend the bundle $`E𝒜`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{E}T^{}𝒜`$ and try to cut out the hyper-Kähler quotient space by the vanishing locus of suitable $`𝒢`$-equivariant holomorphic sections. A natural choice on a Kähler surface is

$`F^{0,2}=0,`$  $`\overline{}_A\phi ^{1,0}=0,`$  $`\phi ^{1,0}\phi ^{1,0}=0,`$   $`(2.5)`$
which defines Higgs bundles of Simpson . The above equation can be viewed as a generalization of the integrability $`\overline{}_A^2=0`$ of the connection $`\overline{}_A`$ to the integrability of the extended connection $`D^{\prime \prime }=\overline{}_A+\phi ^{1,0}`$. Our model based on (2.5) is a generalization of Donaldson-Witten theory.

Another beautiful fact for any cotangent bundle of a Kähler manifold is that it always has the equivariant $`S^1`$-action acting on the fiber. Such a $`S^1`$-action on $`T^{}𝒜`$ descends to the moduli spaces above. We will use the $`S^1`$ symmetry to define a family of models, which have many interesting limits.

### 2.1 Preliminaries

We consider a rank $`r`$ Hermitian vector bundle $`EM`$ over a complex $`d`$-dimensional Kähler manifold $`M`$ with Kähler form $`\omega `$. Consider the space $`𝒜`$ of all connections of $`E`$ and the cotangent bundle $`T^{}𝒜`$. First we determine the fields representing the cotangent space $`T^{}𝒜`$. For the base space $`𝒜`$ of $`T^{}𝒜`$ we have connection $`1`$-form $`A=A^{1,0}+A^{0,1}`$ with the usual gauge transformation law. We introduce a complex structure $`I`$ on $`𝒜`$ using the complex structure of $`M`$ by declaring $`A^{0,1}`$ to represent holomorphic coordinates. Since $`𝒜`$ is a flat affine Kähler manifold a cotangent vector is represented as an element of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M,End(E))`$. We introduce an adjoint valued bosonic $`1`$-form $`\phi \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M,End(E))`$, which may be regarded as an element of the cotangent space of $`𝒜`$. According to the complex structure of $`M`$ we have a decomposition $`\phi =\phi ^{1,0}+\phi ^{0,1}`$. Then it is natural to fix the complex structure of the fiber space of $`T^{}𝒜`$ by declaring $`\phi ^{1,0}`$ to be a holomorphic coordinate. Thus the (holomorphic) tangent space of $`T^{}𝒜`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{0,1}(M,End(E))\mathrm{\Omega }^{1,0}(M,End(E)).$$
$`(2.6)`$
We denote the above complex structure also by $`I`$ and call it the preferred complex structure, which has been induced from the complex structure of $`M`$. The total Kähler potential $`𝒦(A,\phi )`$ of the total space $`T^{}𝒜`$ is given by

$$𝒦(A,\phi )=𝒦(A)\frac{i}{2(d)!\pi ^2}_MTr(\phi ^{1,0}\phi ^{0,1})\omega ^{d1}$$
$`(2.7)`$
where the Käher potential $`𝒦(A)`$ of $`𝒜`$ is

$$𝒦(A)=\frac{1}{4(d)!\pi ^2}_M\kappa Tr(FF)\omega ^{d2}.$$
$`(2.8)`$
and the added term is a Kähler potential in the space $``$. On the total space $`T^{}𝒜`$ we have a obvious action of the infinite dimensional group $`𝒢`$ of all gauge transformations, preserving the Kähler potential $`𝒦(A,\phi )`$.

Now we introduce our $`N_c=(2,0)`$ supercharges $`s_+`$ and $`\overline{s}_{}`$ with the familiar commutation relations

$$s_+^2=0,\{s_+,\overline{s}_+\}=i\varphi _{++}^a_a,\overline{s}_+^2=0.$$
$`(2.9)`$
The supercharges are identified with the differentials of $`𝒢`$-equivariant cohomology of our target space $`T^{}𝒜`$. Thus $`\varphi _{++}^a_a`$ is the infinitesimal gauge transformation generated by the adjoint scalar $`\varphi _{++}Lie(𝒢)=\mathrm{\Omega }^0(M,End(E))`$. From the complex structure of $`T^{}𝒜`$ introduced above we have two sets of holomorphic multiplets $`(A^{0,1},\psi _+^{0,1})`$ and $`(\phi ^{1,0},\lambda _+^{1,0})`$ and their anti-holomorphic partners. The supersymmetry transformation laws are given by

$`s_+A^{0,1}`$ $`=i\psi _+^{0,1},`$  $`\overline{s}_+A^{0,1}`$ $`=0,`$  $`s_+A^{1,0}`$ $`=0,`$  $`\overline{s}_+A^{1,0}`$ $`=i\overline{\psi }_+^{1,0},`$       $`s_+\psi _+^{0,1}`$ $`=0,`$  $`\overline{s}_+\psi _+^{0,1}`$ $`=\overline{}_A\varphi _{++},`$  $`s_+\overline{\psi }_+^{1,0}`$ $`=_A\varphi _{++},`$  $`\overline{s}_+\overline{\psi }_+^{1,0}`$ $`=0,`$   $`(2.10)`$
and

$`s_+\phi ^{1,0}`$ $`=i\lambda _+^{1,0},`$  $`\overline{s}_+\phi ^{1,0}`$ $`=0,`$  $`s_+\phi ^{0,1}`$ $`=0,`$  $`\overline{s}_+\phi ^{0,1}`$ $`=i\overline{\lambda }_+^{0,1},`$       $`s_+\lambda _+^{1,0}`$ $`=0,`$  $`\overline{s}_+\lambda _+^{1,0}`$ $`=[\varphi _{++},\phi ^{1,0}],`$  $`s_+\overline{\lambda }_+^{0,1}`$ $`=[\varphi _{++},\phi ^{0,1}],`$  $`\overline{s}_+\overline{\lambda }_+^{0,1}`$ $`=0.`$   $`(2.11)`$
From the transformation laws we have the following total $`𝒢`$-equivariant Kähler form on $`T^{}𝒜`$,

$`\widehat{\varpi }_T^𝒢=`$ $`is_+\overline{s}_+𝒦(A,\phi )`$  $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2(d)!\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _M}Tr\left(\varphi _{++}\left(F+[\phi ^{1,0},\phi ^{0,1}]\right)\right)\omega ^{d1}`$   $`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(d)!\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _M}Tr\left(\psi _+^{0,1}\overline{\psi }_+^{1,0}+\lambda _+^{1,0}\overline{\lambda }_+^{0,1}\right)\omega ^{d1}.`$   $`(2.12)`$
The second term in the above is the Kähler form $`\varpi `$ and the first term is the real $`𝒢`$-momentum map $`\varphi _{++}^a\mu _a`$, $`\mu _R:T^{}𝒜Lie(𝒢)^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }^{2n}(M,End(E))`$;

$`\mu _R`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(d)!\pi ^2}}\left(F+[\phi ^{1,0},\phi ^{0,1}]\right)\omega ^{d1}`$   $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2d(d)!\pi ^2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(F+[\phi ^{1,0},\phi ^{0,1}]\right)\omega ^d,`$   $`(2.13)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ denote the adjoint of wedge multiplication with $`\omega `$.

Following Hitchin  we have a natural hyper-Kähler structure $`I`$, $`J`$ and $`K`$ on $`T^{}𝒜`$. Note that the additional complex structures $`J`$ and $`K`$ have no relation with the complex structure on the manifold $`M`$. Then we define the holomorphic symplectic form $`\varpi _C`$ on $`T^{}𝒜`$ by

$`\varpi _C((\delta _1A^{0,1},`$ $`\delta _1\phi ^{1,0}),(\delta _2A^{0,1},\delta _2\phi ^{1,0}))`$   $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(d)!\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _M}Tr(\delta _2\phi ^{1,0}\delta _1A^{0,1}\delta _1\phi ^{1,0}\delta _2A^{0,1}).`$   $`(2.14)`$
The corresponding complex momentum map $`\mu _C`$ on $`T^{}𝒜`$ is given by

$$\mu _C=\frac{1}{2(d)!\pi ^2}\overline{}_A\phi ^{1,0}\omega ^{d1}=\frac{1}{2d(d)!\pi ^2}(\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{}_A\phi ^{1,0})\omega ^d.$$
$`(2.15)`$
Using the Kähler identities

$$\overline{}_A^{}=i[_A,\mathrm{\Lambda }],_A^{}=i[\overline{}_A,\mathrm{\Lambda }],$$
$`(2.16)`$
we see that the zeros of the complex momentum map is given by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{}_A\phi ^{1,0}_A^{}\phi ^{1,0}=0.$$
$`(2.17)`$
We again consider a rank $`r`$ Hermitian vector bundle $`EM`$ over a complex $`2`$-dimensional Kähler manifold $`M`$ with Kähler form $`\omega `$. Consider the space $`𝒜`$ of all connections on $`E`$ and the cotangent bundle $`T^{}𝒜`$. We have the same holomorphic coordinates fields $`A^{0,1}`$ and $`\phi ^{1,0}\mathrm{\Omega }^{1,0}(M,End(E))`$ of $`T^{}𝒜`$, with the supersymmetry transformation laws in (2.10) and (2.11). We also have the usual $`N_c=(2,0)`$ gauge multiplet.

### 2.2 Our Model

Now consider an infinite dimensional $`𝒢`$-equivariant holomorphic Hermitian vector bundle $`\stackrel{~}{E}T^{}𝒜`$ over $`T^{}𝒜`$ with a suitable $`𝒢`$-equivariant holomorphic section $`\stackrel{~}{S}(A^{0,1},\phi ^{1,0})`$, i.e., $`\overline{s}_+\stackrel{~}{S}(A^{0,1},\phi ^{1,0})=0`$. We only have the following possibility for this;

$$\stackrel{~}{S}(A^{0,1},\phi ^{1,0})=F^{0,2}\overline{}_A\phi ^{1,0}(\phi ^{1,0}\phi ^{1,0}).$$
$`(2.18)`$
We choose this most general form as our holomorphic section. We have a natural paring of the holomorphic section with corresponding anti-ghost fields $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}`$ given by $`_MTr(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}S)`$. Thus the anti-ghost for the $`F^{0,2}`$ bit of section belongs to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{2,0}(M,End(E))`$, the anti-ghost for the mixed part belongs to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{1,1}(M,End(E))`$ and the anti-ghost for $`(\phi ^{1,0}\phi ^{1,0})`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{0,2}(M,End(E))`$. Associated with the holomorphic section $`F^{0,2}`$ over the base space $`𝒜`$ of $`T^{}𝒜`$ we have Fermi multiplet $`(\chi _{}^{2,0},H^{2,0})\mathrm{\Omega }^{2,0}(M,End(E))`$ and anti-Fermi multiplet $`(\overline{\chi }_{}^{0,2},H^{0,2})`$,

$`s_+\chi _{}^{2,0}`$ $`=H^{2,0},`$  $`\overline{s}_+\chi _{}^{2,0}`$ $`=0,`$  $`s_+\overline{\chi }_{}^{0,2}`$ $`=0,`$  $`\overline{s}_+\chi _{}^{0,2}`$ $`=H^{0,2},`$       $`s_+H^{2,0}`$ $`=0,`$  $`\overline{s}_+H^{2,0}`$ $`=i[\varphi _{++},\chi _{}^{2,0}],`$  $`s_+H^{0,2}`$ $`=i[\varphi _{++},\overline{\chi }_{}^{0,2}],`$  $`\overline{s}_+H^{0,2}`$ $`=0.`$   $`(2.19)`$
Associated with the mixed component of holomorphic section $`\overline{}_A\phi ^{1,0}`$ over $``$ of $`T^{}𝒜`$ we have Fermi multiplets $`(\chi _{}^{1,1},H^{1,1})\mathrm{\Omega }^{1,1}(M,End(E))`$ and their anti-Fermi partners $`(\overline{\chi }_{}^{1,1},\overline{H}^{1,1})`$,

$`s_+\chi _{}^{1,1}`$ $`=H^{1,1},`$  $`\overline{s}_+\chi _{}^{1,1}`$ $`=0,`$  $`s_+\overline{\chi }_{}^{1,1}`$ $`=0,`$  $`\overline{s}_+\overline{\chi }_{}^{1,1}`$ $`=\overline{H}^{1,1},`$       $`s_+H^{1,1}`$ $`=0,`$  $`\overline{s}_+H^{1,1}`$ $`=i[\varphi _{++},\chi _{}^{1,1}],`$  $`s_+\overline{H}^{1,1}`$ $`=i[\varphi _{++},\overline{\chi }_{}^{1,1}],`$  $`\overline{s}_+\overline{H}^{1,1}`$ $`=0.`$   $`(2.20)`$
Associated with the holomorphic section $`\phi ^{1,0}\phi ^{1,0}`$ over the fiber space $``$ of $`T^{}𝒜`$ we have Fermi multiplet $`(\eta _{}^{0,2},K^{0,2})\mathrm{\Omega }^{2,0}(M,End(E))`$ and their anti-Fermi partner $`(\overline{\eta }^{2,0},H^{2,0})`$

$`s_+\eta _{}^{0,2}`$ $`=K^{2,0},`$  $`\overline{s}_+\eta _{}^{0,2}`$ $`=0,`$  $`s_+\overline{\eta }_{}^{2,0}`$ $`=0,`$  $`\overline{s}_+\overline{\eta }_{}^{2,0}`$ $`=K^{0,2},`$       $`s_+K^{2,0}`$ $`=0,`$  $`\overline{s}_+K^{2,0}`$ $`=i[\varphi _{++},\eta _{}^{0,2}],`$  $`\overline{s}_+K^{0,2}`$ $`=i[\varphi _{++},\overline{\eta }_{}^{2,0}],`$  $`s_+K^{0,2}`$ $`=0.`$   $`(2.21)`$
Now we consider the following $`N_c=(2,0)`$ supersymmetric action functional

$`S=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_+\overline{s}_+}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _M}Tr\left(\varphi _{}\left(F\omega +[\phi ^{1,0},\phi ^{0,1}]\omega +{\displaystyle \frac{i\zeta }{2}}\omega ^2I_E\right)+\eta _{}\overline{\eta }_{}\right)`$   $`+{\displaystyle \frac{s_+\overline{s}_+}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _M}Tr(\chi _{}^{2,0}\overline{\chi }_{}^{0,2}+\chi _{}^{1,1}\overline{\chi }_{}^{1,1}+\eta _{}^{0,2}\overline{\eta }_{}^{2,0})`$   $`+{\displaystyle \frac{is_+}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _M}Tr(\chi _{}^{2,0}F^{0,2}+\chi _{}^{1,1}\overline{}_A\phi ^{1,0}+\eta _{}^{0,2}(\phi ^{1,0}\phi ^{1,0}))`$   $`+{\displaystyle \frac{i\overline{s}_+}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _M}Tr(\overline{\chi }_{}^{0,2}F^{2,0}+\overline{\chi }_{}^{1,1}_A\phi ^{0,1}+\overline{\eta }_{}^{2,0}(\phi ^{0,1}\phi ^{0,1})),`$   $`(2.22)`$
We set $`\zeta =0`$ for simplicity by restricting to the case with $`c_1(E)=0`$. By expanding the above and integrating out the auxiliary fields we see that the path integral is localized to the moduli space defined by the following equations

$`F^{0,2}=0,`$  $`\phi ^{1,0}\phi ^{1,0}=0,`$  $`\overline{}_A\phi ^{1,0}=0,`$  $`i\mathrm{\Lambda }(F+[\phi ^{1,0},\phi ^{0,1}])\zeta I_E=0.`$   $`(2.23)`$
The first three equations above are from $`\stackrel{~}{S}=0`$ and the last equation is from the total momentum map $`\mu _R`$ (2.13). The Higgs bundle $`(\overline{}_A,\phi ^{1,0})`$ of Simpson  is defined by the first three equations in (2.23), i.e. the equations in (2.5). Those equations can be regarded as integrability $`(D^{\prime \prime })^2=0`$ of the extended half ”connection” $`D^{\prime \prime }=\overline{}_A+\phi ^{1,0}`$. There is notion of semi-stable Higgs bundle and a theorem analogous to Donaldson-Uhlenbeck-Yau such that every semi-stable Higgs bundle $`(E,\phi ^{1,0})`$ has an Einstein-Hermitian metric;

$$i\mathrm{\Lambda }(F+[\phi ^{1,0},\phi ^{0,1}])\zeta I_E=0.$$
$`(2.24)`$
Furthermore the extended connection is flat $`D^{}D^{\prime \prime }+D^{\prime \prime }D^{}=0`$ if and only if $`c_1(E,\phi ^{1,0})=c_2(E,\phi ^{1,0})=0`$. Thus the path integral of our model is localized to the moduli space of semi-stable Higgs bundles. We also have other bosonic localization equations, as usual

$`d_A\varphi _{++}=0,`$  $`[\varphi _{++},B]=0,`$  $`[\varphi _{++},\varphi _{}]=0.`$   $`(2.25)`$
If the connections are irreducible we have $`\varphi _{\pm \pm }=0`$ and $`𝒢`$ acts freely on the solution space of (2.23). The resulting moduli space is then isomorphic to the moduli space of stable Higgs bundles. We denote the moduli space of semi-stable Higgs bundle by $`𝒩`$. Note that the moduli space $`𝒩`$ contains the moduli space $``$ of semi-stable bundles, equivalently the moduli space of EH or anti-self-dual connections on a Kähler surface $`M`$.

From now on we set $`\zeta =0`$ for simplicity.

### 2.3 Comparison with Donaldson-Witten Theory

At this point it is useful to compare with Donaldson-Witten theory. The path integral of Donaldson-Witten theory is localized to the moduli space $``$ of anti-self-dual connections defined by

$`(\overline{}_A)^2=0,`$  $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(_A\overline{}_A+\overline{}_A_A)=0.`$   $`(2.26)`$
Define $`D^{\prime \prime }=\overline{}_A+\phi ^{1,0}`$ and $`D^{}=_A+\phi ^{0,1}`$. Our localization equations (2.23) can be written as

$`(D^{\prime \prime })^2=0,`$  $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(D^{}D^{\prime \prime }+D^{\prime \prime }D^{})=0.`$   $`(2.27)`$
Similarly we can combine the superpartners of $`A^{0,1}`$ and $`\phi ^{1,0}`$, and the anti-ghosts $`(\chi ^{2,0},\chi _{}^{1,1},\eta _{}^{0,2})`$. To see this let us define extended fields

$`A^{(0,1)}`$ $`:=A^{0,1}+\phi ^{1,0},`$  $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{(0,1)}`$ $`:=\psi _+^{0,1}+\lambda _+^{1,0},`$  $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}^{(2,0)}`$ $`:=\chi _{}^{2,0}+\chi _{}^{1,1}+\eta _{}^{0,2},`$  $`H^{(2,0)}`$ $`:=H^{2,0}+H^{1,1}+K^{0,2},`$       $`A^{(1,0)}`$ $`:=A^{1,0}+\phi ^{0,1},`$  $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_+^{(1,0)}`$ $`:=\overline{\psi }_+^{1,0}+\overline{\lambda }_+^{0,1},`$  $`\overline{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_{}^{(0,2)}`$ $`:=\overline{\chi }_{}^{0,2}+\overline{\chi }_{}^{1,1}+\overline{\eta }_{}^{2,0},`$  $`H^{(0,2)}`$ $`:=H^{0,2}+\overline{H}^{1,1}+K^{2,0},`$   $`(2.28)`$
where the superscript of the extended fields represent a graded form degree on $`M`$. That is we exchange holomorphic and antiholomorphic differential form degree on $`M`$ of fields associated with $`\phi ^{1,0}`$ and $`\phi ^{0,1}`$. For example the extended anti-ghost $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}^{(2,0)}`$ is associated with the total holomorphic section $`\stackrel{~}{S}:=F^{(0,2)}:=F^{0,2}+\overline{}_A\phi ^{1,0}+\phi ^{1,0}\phi ^{1,0}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{E}T^{}𝒜`$ by the pairing $`_MTr(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}^{(2,0)}F^{(0,2)})`$. Note that the combinations (2.28) preserve the ghost numbers

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{(0,1)}`$ $`:(+1,0),`$  $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}^{(2,0)}`$ $`:(1,0),`$       $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_+^{(1,0)}`$ $`:(0,+1),`$  $`\overline{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_{}^{(0,2)}`$ $`:(0,1).`$   $`(2.29)`$
The supersymmetry transformation laws for the coordinate fields of $`T^{}𝒜`$ are, combining (2.10) and (2.11),

$`s_+A^{(0,1)}`$ $`=i\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{(0,1)},`$  $`\overline{s}_+A^{(0,1)}`$ $`=0,`$  $`s_+A^{(1,0)}`$ $`=0,`$  $`\overline{s}_+A^{(1,0)}`$ $`=i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_+^{(1,0)},`$       $`s_+\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{(0,1)}`$ $`=0,`$  $`\overline{s}_+\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{(0,1)}`$ $`=D^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{++},`$  $`s_+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_+^{(1,0)}`$ $`=D^{}\varphi _{++},`$  $`\overline{s}_+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_+^{(1,0)}`$ $`=0.`$   $`(2.30)`$
The supersymmetry transformation laws for the Fermi multiplet $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}^{(2,0)},H^{(2,0)})`$ are, by combining (2.19), (2.20), and (2.21) together,

$`s_+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}^{(2,0)}`$ $`=H^{(2,0)},`$  $`\overline{s}_+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}^{(2,0)}`$ $`=0,`$  $`s_+\overline{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_{}^{(0,2)}`$ $`=0,`$  $`\overline{s}_+\overline{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_{}^{(0,2)}`$ $`=H^{(0,2)},`$       $`s_+H^{(2,0)}`$ $`=0,`$  $`\overline{s}_+H^{(2,0)}`$ $`=i[\varphi _{++},\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}^{(2,0)}],`$  $`s_+H^{(0,2)}`$ $`=i[\varphi _{++},\overline{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_{}^{(0,2)}],`$  $`\overline{s}_+H^{(0,2)}`$ $`=0.`$   $`(2.31)`$
We have the usual $`N_c=(2,0)`$ gauge multiplet associated with the unitary gauge transformation. For convenience we rewrite down supersymmetry the transformation laws

$`s_+\varphi _{}=i\eta _{},`$  $`\overline{s}_+\varphi _{}=i\overline{\eta }_{},`$       $`s_+\eta _{}`$ $`=0,`$  $`\overline{s}_+\eta _{}`$ $`=+iH_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\varphi _{++},\varphi _{}],`$  $`s_+\overline{\eta }_{}`$ $`=iH_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\varphi _{++},\varphi _{}],`$  $`\overline{s}_+\overline{\eta }_{}`$ $`=0,`$       $`s_+\varphi _{++}=0,`$  $`\overline{s}_+\varphi _{++}=0.`$   $`(2.32)`$
Now the action functional $`S`$ in (2.22) can be written as

$`S=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_+\overline{s}_+}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _M}Tr\left(\varphi _{}F\right)\omega `$   $`+{\displaystyle \frac{s_+\overline{s}_+}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _M}Tr(\eta _{}\overline{\eta }_{}+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}^{(2,0)}\overline{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_{}^{(0,2)})`$   $`+{\displaystyle \frac{is_+}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _M}Tr(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}^{(2,0)}F^{(0,2)})+{\displaystyle \frac{i\overline{s}_+}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle }_MTr(\overline{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_{}^{(0,2)}F^{(2,0)}),`$   $`(2.33)`$
where

$$\mu _R=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}F\omega .$$
$`(2.34)`$
The above action functional has exactly same form as Donaldson-Witten theory on Kähler $`2`$-folds. We remark that the Kähler identities (2.16) are important technical tools in analyzing Donaldson-Witten theory on Kähler manifolds. Simpson showed that one also has the Kähler identities for Higgs bundles,

$$(D^{})^{}=i[\mathrm{\Lambda },D^{\prime \prime }],(D^{\prime \prime })^{}=i[\mathrm{\Lambda },D^{}],$$
$`(2.35)`$
We will work with the above shorthand notations.

### 2.4 The Path Integral and New Invariants of Four-Manifolds

The explicit form of the total action functional $`S^{}`$ after integrating out all the auxiliary fields from $`S`$ is given by

$`S^{}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _M}Tr({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^+F^+D\varphi _{++}D\varphi _{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[\varphi _{++},\varphi _{}][\varphi _{++},\varphi _{}]`$   $`+\varphi _{}\mathrm{\Lambda }[\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{(0,1)},\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_+^{(1,0)}]+i\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}^{2,0}[\varphi _{++},\overline{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_{}^{(0,2)}]+i[\varphi _{++},\eta _{}]\overline{\eta }_{}`$   $`iD^{}\overline{\eta }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{(0,1)}iD^{\prime \prime }\eta _{}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_+^{(1,0)}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{2,0}D^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{(0,1)}`$   $`\overline{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}^{(0,2)}D^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_+^{(1,0)}),`$   $`(2.36)`$
where $`D=D^{}+D^{\prime \prime }`$ and we we used the extended Kähler identities (2.35). We also used notation $`F^+`$, which is given by

$$F^+=F^{(2,0)}+\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Lambda }F)\omega +F^{(0,2)},$$
$`(2.37)`$
so that $`F^+|_{\phi ^{1,0}=\phi ^{0,1}=0}=F^+`$, where $`F^+`$ denotes the self-dual part of the standard curvature two-form. Note that $`F^+`$ also contains anti-self-dual two-form part as well.

Now we examine the equations for fermionic zero-modes. The equation of motions for fermions are, modulo infinitesimal gauge transformations,

$`iD^{\prime \prime }\overline{\eta }_{}+(D^{\prime \prime })^{}\overline{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_{}^{(0,2)}=0,`$  $`(D^{\prime \prime })^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{(0,1)}=0,`$  $`D^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{(0,1)}=0.`$   $`(2.38)`$
Using one of the bosonic localization equation $`(D^{\prime \prime })^2=0`$, we find that the fermionic zero-modes are governed by the following equations

D′′η¯=0,
=(D′′)Ψ(0,1)+0,=D′′Ψ(0,1)+0,(D′′)Υ¯(0,2)=0.formulae-sequencesuperscript𝐷′′subscript¯𝜂0
=(D′′)Ψ(0,1)+0,=D′′Ψ(0,1)+0,superscriptsuperscript𝐷′′subscriptsuperscript¯Υ020{D}^{\prime\prime}\overline{\eta}_{-}=0,\qquad\hbox{}\,\vbox{\openup 3.0pt\halign{\strut\hfil$\displaystyle{#}$&$\displaystyle{{}#}$\hfil\cr({D}^{\prime\prime})^{*}\Psi^{(0,1)}_{+}=0,\cr{D}^{\prime\prime}\Psi^{(0,1)}_{+}=0,\cr}}\,\qquad({D}^{\prime\prime})^{*}\overline{\Upsilon}^{(0,2)}_{-}=0. $`(2.39)`$
Thus the fermionic zero-modes are elements of cohomology group of the following extended Dolbeault complex

$$0S^{(0,0)}\stackrel{D^{\prime \prime }}{}S^{(0,1)}\stackrel{D^{\prime \prime }}{}S^{(0,2)}0,$$
$`(2.40)`$
where

$$S^{(0,p)}=\underset{r+s=p}{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{0,r}(M,^s(T_M^{1,0})End(E)).$$
$`(2.41)`$
The net ghost number violation in the path integral measure due to fermionic zero-modes is $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ is the negative of the index of the above complex. Almost all of the standard procedure in Donaldson-Witten theory can be repeated here. For example observables are $`𝒢`$-equivariant closed differential forms, after the parity change, on the space $`T^{}𝒜`$. As for a canonical observable we have the $`𝒢`$-equivariant Kähler form, after the parity change, on $`T^{}𝒜`$;

$$\widehat{\varpi }_T^𝒢=\frac{i}{4\pi ^2}_MTr\left(\varphi _{++}F\right)\omega +\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}_MTr\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{(0,1)}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_+^{(1,0)}\right)\omega ,$$
$`(2.42)`$
The correlation functions of supersymmetric observables are the path integral representations of a generalized Donaldson-Witten invariant.

We note that the fundamental group of four-manifold does not seem to play any essential roles in the original Donaldson-Witten theory. On the other hand the most crucial application of Simpson’s Higgs bundle is on the non-Abelian Hodge theory associated with the representation variety $`\pi _1(M)GL(r,C)`$ of the fundamental group. For this purpose let us consider the case the $`c_1(E)=c_2(E)=0`$.333It is not obvious if the moduli space of stable Higgs bundles has a hyper-Kähler structure. For the flat case the existence of hyper-Kähler structure has proved by Fujiki . It is known that there is a one-to-one correspondence between irreducible representations of $`\pi _1(M)`$ and stable Higgs bundles with vanishing Chern classes, see . In this situation Donaldson-Witten invariants concern only the unitary irreducible representation variety. An important property of the moduli space of stable Higgs bundles is the existence of a $`C^{}`$ action $`(E,\phi ^{1,0})(E,t\phi ^{1,0})`$. Simpson showed that the fixed points of $`C^{}`$ action correspond to complex variations of Hodge structures. It also implies that any other representation of $`\pi _1(M)`$ can be deformed to a complex variation of Hodge structures. Among the fixed points the trivial complex variation of Hodge structures corresponds to unitary irreducible representations. A useful viewpoint of the $`C^{}`$ action is to regard it as Hodge decomposition of non-Abelian cohomology. Then a unitary representation is some kind of zero-form. The above results also imply that the path integral of our model for $`c_1(E)=c_2(E)=0`$ can be written as the sum of contributions from every complex variation of Hodge structures. Thus it is natural to hope that our new invariants may have information beyond the Donaldson-Witten and Seiberg-Witten invariants for non-simply connected Kähler $`2`$-folds. Of course we do not need to restrict our attention to the flat case.

The moduli space of stable Higgs bundles have many beautiful properties and applications. One of the properties is that the rank $`r`$ stable Higgs sheaves on $`M`$ can be identified with stable sheaves on the cotangent bundle $`T^{}M`$ which are supported on Lagrangian subvarieties of $`T^{}M`$ which are finite degree $`r`$ branched coverings of $`M`$ . The above property may be relevant to generalized mirror symmetry on Calabi-Yau $`4`$-folds . If we consider the complex $`2`$-torus, $`T^4`$, its cotangent bundle may be regarded as local model for $`T^4`$-fibered Calabi-Yau $`4`$-folds. Then the moduli space of stable rank $`r`$ Higgs sheaves may be viewed as parameterizing $`r`$ $`D4`$-branes wrapped on Lagrangian cycles of Calabi-Yau $`4`$-folds. Of course the above picture is too naive but somewhat suggestive. Here we will not be able to penetrate many of the applications and properties of Higgs bundles. We will use its $`S^1`$ symmetry to have an anatomy of our invariants.

### 2.5 Flows to Donaldson-Witten theory

In the laymen’s terms Donaldson-Witten invariant is simply the symplectic volume of the moduli space $``$ of stable bundles on $`M`$. Similarly, the invariants defined by the correlation function $`\mathrm{exp}(\widehat{\omega }_T^𝒢)`$ is the symplectic volume of the moduli space $`𝒩`$ of stable Higgs bundles. One of most important properties of the moduli space $`𝒩`$ is that it has a symmetry under a $`S^1`$-action, which can be extended to a $`C^{}`$-action. The beautiful fact is that the $`C^{}`$ action is a very special one, related with a certain variation of Hodge structures444This notion will be relevant to the case when the Higgs bundle is flat. Then $`D=D^{}+D^{\prime \prime }`$ can be identified with the Gauss-Manin connections of the associated local system. Then our localization equations are familiar $`tt^{}`$-equations in special geometry . In fact for any complex, not necessarily integral, variation of Hodge structures there is a corresponding flat Higgs bundle.

First we note that our localization equations in (2.23) are more than the equations (2.27). We may replace $`D^{\prime \prime }`$ by a family of extended derivatives by introducing a spectral parameter $`t`$,

$`D^{\prime \prime }=\overline{}_A+t\phi ^{1,0},`$  $`D^{}=_A+\overline{t}\phi ^{0,1}.`$   $`(2.43)`$
Then our localization equations in (2.23) imply that

$`(D^{\prime \prime })^2=0,`$  $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(D^{}D^{\prime \prime }+D^{\prime \prime }D^{})=0,`$   $`(2.44)`$
for any $`t`$ with $`t\overline{t}=1`$. Similarly we replace the extended fields defined in (2.28) as follows

$`A^{(0,1)}`$ $`:=A^{0,1}+t\phi ^{1,0},`$  $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{(0,1)}`$ $`:=\psi _+^{0,1}+t\lambda _+^{1,0},`$  $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}^{(2,0)}`$ $`:=\chi _+^{2,0}+\overline{t}\chi _{}^{1,1}+\overline{t}^2\eta _{}^{0,2},`$  $`H^{(2,0)}`$ $`:=H^{2,0}+\overline{t}H^{1,1}+\overline{t}^2K^{0,2},`$       $`A^{(1,0)}`$ $`:=A^{1,0}+\overline{t}\phi ^{0,1},`$  $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_+^{(1,0)}`$ $`:=\overline{\psi }_+^{1,0}+\overline{t}\overline{\lambda }_+^{0,1},`$  $`\overline{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_{}^{(0,2)}`$ $`:=\overline{\chi }_{}^{0,2}+t\overline{\chi }_{}^{1,1}+t^2\overline{\eta }_{}^{2,0},`$  $`H^{(0,2)}`$ $`:=H^{0,2}+t\overline{H}^{1,1}+t^2K^{2,0}.`$   $`(2.45)`$
Then our action functional $`S`$ in (2.22) or (2.33) is invariant for any $`t`$ with $`t\overline{t}=1`$.

We will show shortly that the $`S^1`$ action can be extended to a $`C^{}`$ action by ”gauging” the $`U(1)=S^1`$ symmetry and scaling the unit $`U(1)`$ charge. Such a procedure is equivalent to giving physical bare mass $`m`$ to the $`U(1)`$ charged fields. Thus one can consider an imaginary $`CP^1`$ where the $`C^{}`$ action covers the natural $`C^{}`$ action on $`CP^1`$ with limit points $`(t=0,t=\mathrm{})`$. Now we can identify the two limit points in $`CP^1`$ with $`(m=\mathrm{},m=0)`$. Thus we can interpret the absolute flow generated by the $`C^{}`$ action as a renormalization group flow from the past or unbroken phase $`m=0`$ to the future (present) or broken phase $`m\mathrm{}`$. This is not just a mere fantasy since we indeed have a twistor space constructed from the function space of fields namely the total space $`T^{}𝒜`$ of the cotangent bundle over the space of all gauge fields. Our field space has a hyper-Kähler structure preserved by the $`𝒢`$ as well as by the $`S^1`$ symmetry acting on the fiber of $`T^{}𝒜`$. Such a $`S^1`$ action can be extended to a $`C^{}`$ action and then cover the $`C^{}`$ action of $`CP^1`$ in the twistor space $`T^{}𝒜\times CP^1`$. Furthermore the Hamiltonian of the $`S^1`$-action on the field space is precisely the physical bare mass of the bosonic fields, whose field space are the fiber of $`T^{}𝒜`$ on space-time $`M`$. Now by taking the $`m\mathrm{}`$ limit the dominant contributions to path integral come from the critical points of the Hamiltonian, equivalently from the fixed points of $`S^1`$-action. Similarly in the $`t0`$ limit any point in the field space flows to a certain fixed point of the $`S^1`$-action. In the trivial fixed point $`\phi ^{1,0}=0`$ we recover original Donaldson-Witten theory. As a global supersymmetric field theory on $`M`$ certain path integral of our model will be localized to a finite dimensional subspace $`𝒩`$ of the hyper-Kähler quotient of $`T^{}𝒜`$ by $`𝒢`$. The above argument is valid regardless whether $`𝒩`$ preserves the hyper-Kähler structure or not.

We may ask an interesting physical question. Donaldson-Witten theory is the twisted $`N=2`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. On a manifold with trivial canonical line bundle twisting does nothing and we have space-time supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. Then where shall we place our model? Our proposal is that it may describe a certain unbroken phase of bigger symmetry which is connected to the physical super-Yang-Mills theory by renormalization group flows, and the physical theory lives in one of the fixed points.

Now we perturbed our model by ”gauging” the $`U(1)`$ symmetry. For this we modify the supersymmetry transformation laws according to the following anti-commutations relations

$$s_+^2=0,\{s_+,\overline{s}_+\}=i\varphi _{++}^a_aim_{S^1},\overline{s}_+^2=0.$$
$`(2.46)`$
We define a new action functional $`S(m)`$ by the same formula as $`S`$ in (2.33) but with the modified transformation laws. Then we define a family of $`N_c=(2,0)`$ models parameterized by $`m`$ and $`\overline{m}`$ with the following action functional

$$S(m,\overline{m})=S(m)+i\overline{m}s_+\overline{s}_+𝒦(D),$$
$`(2.47)`$
where $`𝒦(D)`$ is the Kähler potential of $`T^{}𝒜`$ given by (2.7). Then the action functional contains bare mass terms for all the charged fields under the $`U(1)`$, except for auxiliary fields. The relevant terms in the action functional looks like

$`S(m,\overline{m})`$ $`=S`$   $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _M}Tr\left(i\varphi _{++}(F+[\phi ^{1,0},\phi ^{0,1}])+\psi _+^{0,1}\overline{\psi }_+^{1,0}+\lambda _+^{1,0}\overline{\lambda }_+^{0,1}\right)\omega `$   $`+{\displaystyle \frac{im\overline{m}}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _M}Tr\left(\phi ^{1,0}\phi ^{0,1}\right)\omega +\mathrm{}.`$   $`(2.48)`$
In the above the $`m\overline{m}`$ dependent term is the Hamiltonian of the $`S^1`$-action on $`T^{}𝒜`$. The term in the second line is the equivariant Kähler form $`\widehat{\varpi }_T^𝒢`$ of $`T^{}𝒜`$. Thus $`\widehat{\varpi }^𝒢:=\stackrel{~}{\varpi }_T^𝒢|_𝒜`$ is an observable of Donaldson-Witten theory which will descend to the Kähler form of moduli space $``$ of anti-self-dual connections.

Now by taking the $`m\mathrm{}`$ limit we see that the dominant contributions to the path integral come from the critical points of the Hamiltonian of the $`S^1`$-action. Such critical points are identical to the fixed points of the $`S^1`$-action. As usual we always have trivial fixed points given by $`\phi ^{1,0}=0`$ and the fixed point locus is the moduli space $``$ of anti-self-dual connections. Thus the contribution from the trivial fixed points to the partition function of the model with the action functional $`S(m,\overline{m})`$ is given by a generating functional $`\mathrm{exp}(\widehat{\omega }^𝒢)_{DW}`$ of Donaldson-Witten theory weighted by one loop contributions from the degrees of freedom normal to $``$ in $`𝒩`$. We also note that the value of the Hamiltonian of the $`S^1`$-action at the trivial fixed point is zero. There are other non-trivial fixed points $`\phi ^{1,0}0`$ if the $`S^1`$-action can be undone by the gauge transformations,

$$g\phi ^{1,0}g^1=t\phi ^{1,0},$$
$`(2.49)`$
where $`g𝒢`$ and $`tU(1)`$.

## 3  Generalized Vafa-Witten Theory

A class of equivariant $`N_c=(2,0)`$ sigma model in zero dimensions can be extended to a $`N_c=(2,2)`$ model .555A $`N_c=(2,2)`$ (or $`N_c=(2,0)`$) model can be viewed as the dimensional reduction of $`N_{ws}=(2,2)`$ (or $`N_{ws}=(2,0)`$) world-sheet supersymmetric gauged linear sigma model in two-dimensions . In the present case both the target space and the symmetry group are infinite dimensional. Related examples can be found in . In our terminology a cohomological field theory  is an equivariant $`N_c=(1,0)`$ sigma model in zero dimensions, while a balanced cohomological field theory  is an equivariant $`N_c=(1,1)`$ sigma model in zero dimensions. With a Kähler structure on the target space the number of global fermionic symmetry is doubled.  The essential point of such a construction is introducing additional bosonic fields corresponding to the local frame fields on the image of the section $`S:𝒜E`$ so that one has supersymmetric sigma model in zero-dimension with the target space being the total space of the bundle $`E𝒜`$. Then the $`𝒢`$-equivariant holomorphic section $`S`$ of $`E𝒜`$ should be extended to gradient vector of a $`𝒢`$-invariant holomorphic function of the total space of the bundle $`E𝒜`$.

Such $`N_c=(2,2)`$ extension of Donaldson-Witten theory corresponds to Vafa-Witten theory on a Kähler surface . Then one can define a family of $`N_c=(2,0)`$ models by certain massive perturbation using a natural $`S^1`$ symmetry of the $`N_c=(2,2)`$ model, see also . By taking the bare mass to infinity one see that there are two different semi-classical limits corresponding to Donaldson-Witten and Seiberg-Witten theories. Then the $`S`$-duality of $`N=4`$ SYM theory  implies the equivalence between Donaldson-Witten and Seiberg-Witten invariants .

In this section we apply the above construction to embed the $`N_c=(2,0)`$ model in the previous section a $`N_c=(2,2)`$ model. The resulting model generalizes Vafa-Witten theory and compute Euler characteristic of the moduli space of stable Higgs bundles together with extra contributions. Then we define $`C^{}`$ family of $`N_c=(2,2)`$ models which has various limits, which includes the original Vafa-Witten theory. We also perturb the model to $`N_c=(2,0)`$ model and show that the partition function of the theory is sum of contributions of the generalized Donaldson-Witten theory in the previous section and a generalized version of Seiberg-Witten theory.

### 3.1 The $`N_c=(2,2)`$ Model

We recall the basic setting for the previous $`N_c=(2,0)`$ model. We considered the total space $`T^{}𝒜`$ of the cotangent bundle of the space of all connections of a rank $`r`$ Hermitian vector bundle $`EM`$ over a Kähler surface $`M`$. As for the holomorphic coordinate fields on $`T^{}𝒜`$ we have the extended connection $`A^{0,1}`$ with superpartner $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{0,1}`$. We also considered an infinite dimensional $`𝒢`$-equivariant holomorphic vector bundle $`\stackrel{~}{E}T^{}𝒜`$ with holomorphic section $`S(D^{\prime \prime })=(D^{\prime \prime })^2:=F^{(0,2)}`$ and associated anti-ghost multiplet $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}^{(2,0)},H^{(2,0)})`$.

The basic idea behind the extension to a $`N_c=(2,2)`$ model is that one can regard the total space of the holomorphic bundle $`\stackrel{~}{E}T^{}𝒜`$ as the target space of a $`N_c=(2,2)`$ model. Then we have to supply local holomorphic coordinate fields for fiber space of $`\stackrel{~}{E}T^{}𝒜`$. Thus we introduce adjoint-valued bosonic spectral fields $`B^{(2,0)}`$ and its superpartner $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_+^{(2,0)}`$. Now the former holomorphic section $`\stackrel{~}{S}=F^{(0,2)}(D^{\prime \prime })`$ of the bundle $`\stackrel{~}{E}T^{}𝒜`$ corresponds to a holomorphic vector field on the target space $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ but being supported only on $`T^{}𝒜`$. Thus the $`𝒢`$-equivariant holomorphic vector $`S(D^{\prime \prime })`$ should be extended over the whole space $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$. Furthermore $`N_c=(2,2)`$ supersymmetry demands that a such holomorphic vector should be the gradient vector of a non-degenerated $`𝒢`$-invariant holomorphic function $`𝒲`$, i.e, $`\overline{s}_+𝒲=0`$, on the target space $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$.

Now demanding $`N_c=(2,2)`$ supersymmetry will take care of everything. From the $`N_c=(2,0)`$ holomorphic multiplets $`(A^{(0,1)},\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{(0,1)})`$ we build up the following chiral multiplets, i.e., $`\overline{s}_\pm A^{(0,1)}=0`$

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{(0,1)}& \stackrel{s_{}}{}& A^{(0,1)}& \stackrel{s_+}{}& \mathrm{\Psi }_+^{(0,1)}\\ & s_+& & s_{}& \\ & & H^{(0,1)}& & \end{array}.$$
$`(3.1)`$
From the $`N_c=(2,0)`$ Fermi multiplets $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}^{(2,0)},H^{(2,0)})`$ we build up another set of chiral multiplets, i.e., $`\overline{s}_\pm B^{(2,0)}=0`$

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}^{(2,0)}& \stackrel{s_{}}{}& B^{(2,0)}& \stackrel{s_+}{}& \mathrm{{\rm Y}}_+^{(2,0)}\\ & s_+& & s_{}& \\ & & H^{(2,0)}& & \end{array}.$$
$`(3.2)`$
Form the $`N_c=(2,0)`$ gauge multiplet $`(\varphi _{},\eta _{},\overline{\eta }_{},H_0,\varphi _{++})`$ we build up a $`N_c=(2,2)`$ gauge multiplet

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\overline{\sigma }& \stackrel{s_+}{}& \eta _+& \stackrel{s_{}}{}& \varphi _{++}\\ \overline{s}_{}& & \overline{s}_{}& & \overline{s}_{}\\ \overline{\eta }_{}& \stackrel{s_+}{}& H_0& \stackrel{s_{}}{}& \overline{\eta }_+\\ \overline{s}_+& & \overline{s}_+& & \overline{s}_+\\ \varphi _{}& \stackrel{s_+}{}& \eta _{}& \stackrel{s_{}}{}& \sigma \end{array},$$
$`(3.3)`$
which are adjoint valued scalars on $`M`$.

To keep track of all the fields we write down the explicit spectral form of the extended fields. We have

$`A^{(0,1)}`$ $`:=A^{0,1}+t\phi ^{1,0},`$  $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm ^{(0,1)}`$ $`:=\psi _\pm ^{0,1}+t\lambda _\pm ^{1,0},`$  $`H^{(1,0)}`$ $`:=H^{1,0}+tL^{1,0},`$       $`A^{(1,0)}`$ $`:=A^{1,0}+\overline{t}\phi ^{0,1},`$  $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\pm ^{(1,0)}`$ $`:=\overline{\psi }_\pm ^{1,0}+\overline{t}\overline{\lambda }_\pm ^{0,1},`$  $`H^{(0,1)}`$ $`:=H^{0,1}+\overline{t}L^{0,1},`$   $`(3.4)`$
and

$`B^{(2,0)}`$ $`:=B^{2,0}+\overline{t}B^{1,1}+\overline{t}^2C^{0,2},`$  $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_\pm ^{(2,0)}`$ $`:=\chi _\pm ^{2,0}+\overline{t}\chi _\pm ^{1,1}+\overline{t}^2\eta _\pm ^{0,2},`$  $`H^{(2,0)}`$ $`:=H^{2,0}+\overline{t}H^{1,1}+\overline{t}^2K^{0,2},`$       $`B^{(0,2)}`$ $`:=B^{0,2}+t\overline{B}^{1,1}+t^2C^{2,0},`$  $`\overline{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_\pm ^{(0,2)}`$ $`:=\overline{\chi }_\pm ^{0,2}+t\overline{\chi }_\pm ^{1,1}+t^2\overline{\eta }_\pm ^{2,0},`$  $`H^{(0,2)}`$ $`:=H^{0,2}+t\overline{H}^{1,1}+t^2K^{2,0}.`$   $`(3.5)`$
Now we have the standard $`N_c=(2,2)`$ invariant functional

$`S=`$ $`s_+\overline{s}_+s_{}\overline{s}_{}\left(𝒦(D)+𝒦(B^{(2,0)},B^{(0,2)}){\displaystyle _M}Tr(\sigma \overline{\sigma })\right)`$   $`+s_+s_{}𝒲(A^{(0,1)},B^{(2,0)})+\overline{s}_+\overline{s}_{}\overline{𝒲}(A^{(1,0)},B^{(0,2)}),`$   $`(3.6)`$
where

$$𝒦(B^{(2,0)},B^{(0,2)})=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}_MTr(B^{(2,0)}B^{(0,2)}).$$
$`(3.7)`$
The holomorphic potential $`𝒲`$, i.e., $`\overline{s}_\pm 𝒲=0`$, is given as follows

$`𝒲(A^{(0,1)},B^{(2,0)})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _M}Tr(B^{(2,0)}F^{(0,2)}).`$   $`(3.8)`$
We note that the above action functional remains invariant for any $`t`$ in (3.4) and (3.5) with $`t\overline{t}=1`$. We will use this $`S^1`$ symmetry to define a $`C^{}`$ family of the $`N_c=(2,2)`$ model.

Now, from the discussions in Sect. $`3.4`$, we see that the path integral is localized to the zeros of the momentum map $`\mu _R`$ and the critical points of the holomorphic potential $`𝒲`$, modulo the gauge symmetry,

$`F^{(0,2)}=0,`$  $`D^{\prime \prime }B^{(2,0)}=0,`$  $`iF\omega +[B^{(2,0)},B^{(0,2)}]=0.`$   $`(3.9)`$
We also have other default localization equations

$`[\overline{\sigma },B^{(0,2)}]=0,`$  $`[\sigma ,B^{(0,2)}]=0,`$  $`[\sigma ,\overline{\sigma }]=0,`$  $`D\overline{\sigma }=0,`$       $`[\varphi _{\pm \pm },B^{(0,2)}]=0,`$  $`[\varphi _{\pm \pm },\overline{\sigma }]=0,`$  $`[\varphi _{++},\varphi _{}]=0,`$  $`D\varphi _{\pm \pm }=0.`$   $`(3.10)`$
When there are no reducible orbits in (3.9) we have $`\sigma =\varphi _{\pm \pm }=0`$, and the path integral is localized to the moduli space defined by (3.9). The equation (3.9) is a generalization of Vafa-Witten equation. We note that the equations in (3.9), as well as in (3.10), remain the same for any $`t`$ in (3.4) and (3.5) with $`t\overline{t}=1`$, which is a symmetry of the action functional.

The equations in (3.9) have another $`S^1`$ symmetry given by

$$(D^{\prime \prime },B^{(2,0)})(D^{\prime \prime },\xi B^{(2,0)})$$
$`(3.11)`$
with $`\xi \overline{\xi }=1`$. However the above is not a symmetry of the action functional due to the holomorphic potential term (3.8);

$$S=\frac{s_+s_{}}{4\pi ^2}_MTr(B^{(2,0)}F^{(0,2)})+\mathrm{}.$$
$`(3.12)`$
The above situation is exactly same as for Vafa-Witten theory on a Kähler surface. We can use the $`S^1`$ symmetry (3.11) to break $`N_c=(2,2)`$ supersymmetry down to $`N_c=(2,0)`$ supersymmetry by breaking the supersymmetries generated by $`s_{}`$ and $`\overline{s}_{}`$. We expand (3.12) by one step to get

$$S=\frac{s_+}{8\pi ^2}_MTr(i\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}^{(2,0)}F^{(0,2)}+B^{(2,0)}D^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{(0,1)})+\mathrm{}.$$
$`(3.13)`$
Then we see that $`(D^{\prime \prime },B^{(2,0)},\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{(0,1)})(D^{\prime \prime },\xi B^{(2,0)},\overline{\xi }\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{(0,1)})`$ for $`\xi \overline{\xi }=1`$ preserves the action functional. On the one hand the above rotation is not compatible with the supersymmetry generated by $`s_{}`$ since $`s_{}A^{(0,1)}=i\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{(0,1)}`$. On the other hand we can make it compatible with the $`s_+`$ supersymmetry by assigning the same $`U(1)`$ charge to the pair $`(B^{(2,0)},\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_+^{(2,0)})`$ related by the $`s_+`$ supersymmetry, etc.

In the next section we will use the above $`S_t^1\times S_\xi ^1`$ symmetry to define a $`C^{}\times C^{}`$ family of $`N_c=(2,0)`$ theories. The idea is that all the theories, both the original and the generalized Donaldson-Witten and Vafa-Witten theories, we discussed so far should be viewed as different semi-classical limits governed by different massless degrees of freedom of the same underlying theory.

### 3.2 A Family of $`N_c=(2,2)`$ Models

We begin with generalizing our $`N_c=(2,2)`$ model to a $`C^{}`$ family of $`N_c=(2,2)`$ models using the $`S_t^1`$ symmetry, whose action is given as (3.4) and (3.5). For that purpose we extend our $`N_c=(2,2)`$ supersymmetry by ”gauging” the $`S_t^1`$ symmetry;

$`\{s_\pm ,s_\pm \}=0,`$  $`\{\overline{s}_\pm ,\overline{s}_\pm \}=0,`$       $`\{s_+,\overline{s}_+\}`$ $`=i\varphi _{++}^a_a,`$  $`\{s_+,\overline{s}_{}\}`$ $`=i\sigma ^a_aim_{S_t^1},`$  $`\{s_{},\overline{s}_+\}`$ $`=i\overline{\sigma }^a_ai\overline{m}_{S_t^1},`$  $`\{s_{},\overline{s}_{}\}`$ $`=i\varphi _{}^a_a,`$       $`\{s_+,s_{}\}=0,`$  $`\{\overline{s}_+,\overline{s}_{}\}=0,`$   $`(3.14)`$
where $`_{S_t^1}`$ denotes the Lie derivative defined by the vector field generating the $`S_t^1`$ symmetry. Equivalently it is an infinitesimal $`U(1)`$ gauge transformation for fields with non-vanishing $`U(1)`$ charge as defined by (3.4) and (3.5). For convenience we write down explicit transformations for bosonic fields

$`A^{(0,1)}`$ $`:=A^{0,1}+t\phi ^{1,0},`$  $`B^{(2,0)}`$ $`:=B^{2,0}+t^1B^{1,1}+t^2C^{0,2},`$       $`A^{(1,0)}`$ $`:=A^{1,0}+t^1\phi ^{0,1},`$  $`B^{(0,2)}`$ $`:=B^{0,2}+t\overline{B}^{1,1}+t^2C^{2,0}.`$   $`(3.15)`$
The new action functional $`S(m,\overline{m})`$ is defined by the same formula as given by (3.6) but with modified supersymmetry transformation laws for charged fields under the $`S_t^1`$. We write down the relevant terms depending on the bare mass

$`S(m,\overline{m})=`$ $`S+{\displaystyle \frac{m\overline{m}}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _M}Tr(\phi ^{1,0}\phi ^{0,1}+B^{1,1}\overline{B}^{1,1}+4C^{0,2}C^{2,0})+\mathrm{}`$   $`(3.16)`$
where the unwritten terms are supersymmetric completions including the bare mass terms of $`N_c=(2,2)`$ superpartners of bosonic fields charged under $`S_t^1`$. We remark that the above action functional preserves all the symmetry of the original model. We note that the bare mass terms written above are exactly the Hamiltonian of the $`S_t^1`$ action on the space of all bosonic fields. There are two ways of examining the above action functional. One may take the $`|m|\mathrm{}`$ limit. Then the dominant contributions to the path integral come from the critical points of the Hamiltonian of the $`S_t^1`$ action. Such critical points are identical to the fixed points of $`S_t^1`$ action, equivalently the $`C^{}`$ action. However this viewpoint is rather limited, as it mainly concerns the moduli space defined by the equations in (3.9). We should not forget that such a moduli space is only a subsystem, and usually does not form a closed system.

A better viewpoint is to rely on the Higgs mechanism. We again take the limit that the bare mass is arbitrarily large. Then we can integrate out everything except for massless degrees of freedom. Here the adjoint scalar fields (Higgs fields) $`\sigma `$ and $`\overline{\sigma }`$ play a crucial role since the effective mass of a field is the sum of the bare mass and the contribution from the expectation values of Higgs scalars. This phenomena can be most directly seen from the anti-commutation relations of supercharges (3.14). Since we have global supersymmetry the expectation values of supersymmetric observables, $`<1>=Z`$ in our case, are localized to an integral over the fixed point locus of unbroken global supersymmetry. Consequently the path integral is localized to the kernel of the right hand sides of $`(3.14)`$ acting on the fields. Then we immediately get the following set of relevant equations for $`A^{0,1}`$ and $`B^{2,0}`$,

$`[\sigma ,\phi ^{1,0}]+m\phi ^{1,0}=0,`$  $`[\sigma ,B^{1,1}]mB^{1,1}=0,`$  $`[\sigma ,C^{0,2}]2mC^{0,2}=0,`$   $`(3.17)`$
and

$`\overline{}_A\sigma =0,`$  $`[\sigma ,\overline{\sigma }]=0,`$  $`[\sigma ,B^{2,0}]=0,`$   $`(3.18)`$
We will now study several limits of these equations.

#### 3.2.1 Three Different Limits

We consider an $`SU(2)`$ bundle $`EM`$ for simplicity. The set of equations in (3.17) are the conditions for masslessness of the fields charged under $`S_t^1`$. The second equation in (3.18) implies that $`\sigma `$ and $`\overline{\sigma }`$ can be diagonalized, say $`\sigma =\frac{1}{2}diag(a,a)`$. Since $`Tr\sigma ^2`$ is the gauge invariant object we will consider $`a0`$.

We see that there are three (semi-classical) limits governed by different massless degree of freedom while preserving $`N_c=(2,2)`$ supersymmetry.

1. Vafa-Witten or a twisted $`N=4`$ super-Yang-Mills theory. (i) the gauge symmetry is unbroken $`a=0`$. (ii) the gauge symmetry is broken to $`U(1)`$ $`a>0`$ and $`am,2m`$ Then $`\phi ^{1,0}=B^{1,1}=C^{0,2}=0`$ is the only solution of (3.17). Equivalently those fields and their $`N_c=(2,2)`$ superpartners are all infinitely massive.
2. The gauge symmetry is broken to $`U(1)`$ and $`a=m`$ and we have the reduction $`E=LL^1`$ Then

$`\overline{}_A`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{}_L& 0\\ 0& \overline{}_L\end{array}\right),`$  $`\phi ^{1,0}`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ \vartheta ^{1,0}& 0\end{array}\right),`$       $`B^{2,0}`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\beta ^{2,0}& 0\\ 0& \beta ^{2,0}\end{array}\right),`$  $`B^{1,1}`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \beta ^{1,1}\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$  $`C^{0,2}`$ $`=0.`$   $`(3.19)`$
We have

$`F^{0,2}=0,`$  $`i(F\vartheta ^{1,0}\vartheta ^{0,1})\omega +\beta ^{1,1}\overline{\beta }^{1,1}=0,`$  $`\overline{}_L\vartheta ^{1,0}=0,`$  $`\overline{}_L\beta ^{2,0}+\vartheta ^{1,0}\beta ^{1,1}=0,`$  $`\overline{}_L\beta ^{1,1}=0.`$   $`(3.20)`$
3. The gauge symmetry is broken to $`U(1)`$ and $`a=2m`$ and we have the reduction $`E=LL^1`$ Then

$`\overline{}_A`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{}_L& 0\\ 0& \overline{}_L\end{array}\right),`$  $`\phi ^{1,0}`$ $`=0,`$       $`B^{2,0}`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\beta ^{2,0}& 0\\ 0& \beta ^{2,0}\end{array}\right),`$  $`B^{1,1}`$ $`=0,`$  $`C^{0,2}`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \gamma ^{0,2}\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$   $`(3.21)`$
We have

$`F^{0,2}=0,`$  $`\overline{}_L\beta ^{2,0}=0,`$  $`iF\omega +\gamma ^{2,0}\gamma ^{0,2}=0.`$   $`(3.22)`$

### 3.3 Families of $`N_c=(2,0)`$ Models

Following the discussions in Sect. $`3.4`$ and Sect. $`4.2`$ we break the $`N_c=(2,2)`$ symmetry down to $`N_c=(2,0)`$ supersymmetry generated by $`s_+`$ and $`\overline{s}_+`$. The $`S_\xi ^1`$-action (3.11) can be extended to all those additional fields introduced for the $`N_c=(2,2)`$ model, compared with the original $`N_c=(2,0)`$. The $`S_\xi ^1`$ action is given by

$`S_\xi ^1:(B^{(2,0)},\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_+^{(2,0)})\xi (B^{(2,0)},\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_+^{(2,0)}),`$  $`S_\xi ^1:(\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{(0,1)},H^{(0,1)})\overline{\xi }(\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{(0,1)},H^{(0,1)}),`$  $`S_\xi ^1:(\overline{\sigma },\eta _+)\overline{\xi }(\overline{\sigma },\eta _+),`$   $`(3.23)`$
and the conjugate fields have the opposite $`U(1)_\xi `$-charges. Here we can just follow the procedure in Sect. $`4.2`$ to obtain the general $`N_c=(2,0)`$ supersymmetric action functional $`S(m,\overline{m},m_{++},m_{})`$ is given by

$`S(m,\overline{m},m_{\pm \pm })=`$ $`S(m,\overline{m})+m_{++}m_{}{\displaystyle _M}Tr(B^{(2,0)}B^{(0,2)}+\sigma \overline{\sigma })+\mathrm{},`$   $`(3.24)`$
whose new mass terms contain the Hamiltonian of the $`S_\xi ^1`$ symmetry. The $`N_c=(2,0)`$ supercharges $`s_+`$ and $`\overline{s}_+`$ satisfy the following modified anti-commutation relations

$$s_+^2=0,\{s_+,\overline{s}_+\}=i\varphi _{++}^a_aim_{++}_{S_\xi ^1},\overline{s}_+^2=0.$$
$`(3.25)`$
Now, in total, we have a $`C^{}\times C^{}`$ family of $`N_c=(2,0)`$ models. From the previous discussions all we need to do is collect all fixed point equations of the supercharges $`s_+`$ and $`\overline{s}_+`$. Then the localization equations (3.9) and (3.10) are changed by the following equations

$`F^{(0,2)}=0,`$  $`D^{\prime \prime }B^{(2,0)}=0,`$  $`F\omega +[B^{(2,0)},B^{(0,2)}]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\sigma ,\overline{\sigma }]\omega \omega =0,`$  $`D^{}\sigma +m\phi ^{0,1}=0,`$  $`[\sigma ,B^{(2,0)}]mB^{1,1}2mC^{0,2}=0,`$   $`(3.26)`$
and

$`[\varphi _{++},B^{(2,0)}]+m_{++}B^{2,0}=0,`$  $`[\varphi _{++},\sigma ]+m_{++}\sigma =0.`$  $`[\varphi _{++},\overline{\varphi }_{}]=0,`$  $`d_A\varphi _{++}=0.`$   $`(3.27)`$
By sending all the bare masses to infinity we have various semi-classical limits governed by different massless degrees of freedom.

#### 3.3.1 Generalized Seiberg-Witten theory

For our purpose it is suffice to examine a limit $`m_{\pm \pm }\mathrm{}`$ by setting $`m=\overline{m}=0`$. For simplicity we consider the $`SU(2)`$ case. Then we can follow the discussions in Sect. $`\mathrm{4.2.2}`$ and see that the path integral can be written as the sum of contributions from two branches;

* branch (i): On a generic point on the vacuum moduli space we have the trivial fixed point $`B^{(0,2)}=0`$ and the fixed point locus is the moduli space $`𝒩`$ of stable Higgs bundles,

$`F^{(0,2)}=0,`$  $`F\omega =0.`$   $`(3.28)`$
Hence we recover the generalization Donaldson-Witten theory in Sect. $`7.2`$.
* branch (ii): The $`SU(2)`$ symmetry is broken down to $`U(1)`$. We have $`E=LL^1`$ and

$$D^{\prime \prime }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}d_L^{\prime \prime }& 0\\ 0& d_L^{}\end{array}\right),B^{(2,0)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& b^{(2,0)}\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),\sigma =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \alpha \\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
$`(3.29)`$
where $`d_L^{\prime \prime }=\overline{}_L+\vartheta ^{1,0}`$ and $`b^{(2,0)}=\beta ^{2,0}+\beta ^{1,1}+\gamma ^{0,2}`$ takes values in $`L^2`$. The fixed point equation are

$`F^{(0,2)}`$ $`=0,`$  $`d_L^{}\alpha `$ $`=0,`$  $`d_L^{\prime \prime }b^{(2,0)}`$ $`=0,`$  $`iF_L\omega b^{(2,0)}b^{(0,2)}+\alpha \overline{\alpha }\omega ^2`$ $`=0.`$   $`(3.30)`$
The above set of equations is a spectral generalization of Abelian Seiberg-Witten equation. For $`\theta ^{1,0}=\beta ^{1,1}=\gamma ^{0,2}=0`$ the above equation reduces to the usual Seiberg-Witten equation for a special set of Seiberg-Witten classes .

It is a well-established fact that Donaldson-Witten (DW) theory is equivalent to Seiberg-Witten (SW) theory . One of the strong evidences, or vice versa, for such equivalence is the $`S`$-duality of Vafa-Witten (VW) theory, which has both DW and SW theories as two different semi-classical limits after the massive perturbation. The $`S`$-duality, for $`SU(2)`$ and $`SO(3)`$, implies that one can recover the entire partition function from one of such semi-classical limits. We expect similar relations between the generalized versions. We believe the moduli space of the generalized Seiberg-Witten equations (3.30) and associated invariants deserve detailed study. It remains to be seen if our invariants contain new information on smooth structures beyond Seiberg-Witten invariants.

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on a chapter of the author’s PhD thesis defensed by Nov. 1999 in University of Amsterdam. I would like to thank my adviser H. Verlinde as well as R. Dijkgraaf and C. Hofman for valuable discussions. This research is supported by a Pioneer Fund of NWO and DOE Grant # DE-FG02-92ER40699.


format: text

text:
# Can Geometric Test Probe the Cosmic Equation of State ?

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Recent observations of the cosmic microwave background anisotropies and the distant type Ia supernovae favor a spatially flat universe whose expansion is currently accelerating (de Bernardis et al. 2000; Lange et al. 2000; Perlmutter et al. 1999a; Riess et al. 1998). Motivated by this fact, variants of the cold dark matter (CDM) model with the cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM) have been widely studied. In particular, quintessence is proposed as a plausible model (e.g., Caldwell et al. 1998; Zlatev et al. 1998). An attractive feature of the quintessence is that certain quintessence models (tracker models) naturally explain the ’coincidence problem’, the near coincidence of the density of matter and the dark energy component at present (Zlatev et al. 1998; Steinhardt et al. 1999, and references therein). Observational constraints have been investigated on the quintessential cold dark matter (QCDM) model (e.g., Efstathiou 1999; Perlmutter et al. 1999b; Wang et al. 2000; Newman & Davis 2000), including attempts for reconstructing the cosmic equation of state or the quintessential potential (Starobinsky 1998; Saihi et al. 2000; Nakamura & Chiba 1999; Chiba & Nakamura 2000).

In the meanwhile, recent progress on the 2dF QSO redshift (2QZ) survey has been reported by Shanks et al. (2000). An interesting scientific aim of the 2QZ survey is to obtain new constraints on the cosmological constant from the geometric test, which was originally proposed by Alcock & Pancynski (1979), with the QSO clustering statistics. Several authors have proposed possible cosmological tests using the clustering of high-redshift objects (Ryden 1995; Ballinger et al. 1996; Matsubara & Suto 1996; Popowski et al. 1998; Nair 1999). In a series of work (Suto et al. 2000; Yamamoto et al. 2000, hereafter Paper I; references therein), a useful theoretical formula has been developed for predicting the correlation functions of high-$`z`$ objects, incorporating the light-cone effect and the redshift-space distortions, as well as the geometric distortion, simaltaneously. The theoretical formula is useful because it is expressed in a semi-analytic form, which enable us to compute the two-point correlation functions corresponding to a survey sample based on specific cosmological models without huge numerical simulations. Therefore it will be worth to examine the feasibility of the geometric test as a probe of the cosmic equation of state of the dark energy with assuming a realistic QSO clustering statistics.

Unfortunately, however, the QSO clustering bias is not well-understood at present. This ambiguity of the clustering bias should be crucial for the geometric test because the evolution of bias affects the predicted correlation functions. In Paper I, behavior of the QSO correlation functions is partially examined. On the other hand the stochastic bias has been discussed as a possible character of the galaxy biasing by several authors, (e.g., Dekel & Lahav 1999; Tegmark & Peebles 1998; Taruya et al. 1998). If the QSO clustering bias possesses the stochastic character, it affects the redshift-space correlation functions (Pen 1998). In the present paper we consider the feasibility of the geometric test as a probe of the cosmic equation of state of the dark energy component, including the possible stochasticity of the QSO clustering bias. This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we briefly review the theoretical formula for the two-point statistics. In section 3, sensitivity of the correlation functions to the evolution of a bias model is investigated. Section 4 is devoted to summary and conclusions. Throughout this paper we use the unit in which the light velocity $`c`$ equals $`1`$.

## 2 Contents for Theoretical Prediction

We restrict ourselves to a spatially flat FRW universe, and follow the quintessential cosmological model consisting a scalar field slowly rolling down its effective potential. The effective equation of state of the dark energy, $`w_Q=p_Q/\rho _Q`$, can be a function of redshift in general case, however, we will consider the QCDM model with a constant equation of state for simplicity. In this case the dark energy density evolves $`\rho _Qa(z)^{3(1+w_Q)}`$, where $`a(z)`$ is the scale factor. Then the relation between the comoving distance and the redshift is

$`r(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{H_0}}{\displaystyle _0^z}{\displaystyle \frac{dz^{}}{[\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z^{})^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_Q(1+z^{})^{3(1+w_Q)}]^{1/2}}},`$ (1)
where $`H_0=100h\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{Mpc}`$ is the Hubble constant, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q(=1\mathrm{\Omega }_m)`$ denote the density parameters of the matter component and the dark energy, respectively, at present.

Wang & Steinhardt (1998) have given a useful approximate formula for the linear growth index, which we adopt for computation of the $`f`$-factor defined by $`f(z)d\mathrm{ln}D_1(z)/d\mathrm{ln}a(z)`$, where $`D_1(z)`$ is the linear growth rate. Simple fitting formulas for the linear transfer function and the nonlinear mass perturbation power spectrum are presented by Ma et al. (1999) for the QCDM model, which we adopt for modeling the CDM mass density perturbations. The formulas are applicable for the QCDM model with the constant equation of state $`1w_Q\stackrel{<}{}1/3`$ and up to $`z4`$ with errors $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 10 %. In addition we adopt the normalization by cluster abundance (Wang & Steinhardt 1998; Wang et al. 2000). Throughout this paper we assume the Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum.

In predicting clustering statistics of high-redshift objects in a redshift survey, several observational effects must be incorporated for careful comparison between theoretical predictions and observational results. A useful theoretical formula for the two-point statistics has been developed incorporating the redshift distortions due to peculiar motion of sources and the light-cone effect simaltaneously, as well as the geometric distortion (Suto et al. 2000; Paper I). According to the theoretical formula, the two-point correlation function is given by a Fourier transform of the power spectrum on a light cone $`P_l^{\mathrm{LC}}(k)`$

$$\xi _l(R)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2i^l}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^2j_l(kR)P_l^{\mathrm{LC}}(k),$$
(2)
where $`P_l^{\mathrm{LC}}(k)`$ is obtained by averaging the local power spectrum $`P_l^{\mathrm{crs}}(k,z)`$ over the redshift

$$P_l^{\mathrm{LC}}(k)=\frac{𝑑zW(z)P_l^{\mathrm{crs}}(k,z)}{𝑑zW(z)}$$
(3)
with the weight factor

$$W(z)=\left(\frac{dN}{dz}\right)^2\left(\frac{s^2ds}{dz}\right)^1,$$
(4)
where $`dN/dz`$ denotes the number count of the objects per unit redshift and per unit solid angle, and $`s=s(z)`$ denotes the distance-redshift relation of the radial coordinate that we chose to plot a map of sources. In the present paper we adopt the distance-redshift relation of the Einstein de Sitter universe, i.e., $`s(z)=2H_0^1[1(1+z)^{1/2}]`$. In equation (3) $`z`$-integration arises from the light-cone effect within the small-angle approximation. The power spectrum $`P_l^{\mathrm{crs}}(k,z)`$ in (3) is given by

$`P_l^{\mathrm{crs}}(k,z)={\displaystyle \frac{2l+1}{c_{}^2c_{}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\mu L_l(\mu )`$
$`\times P_{\mathrm{QSO}}\left(q_{}{\displaystyle \frac{k\mu }{c_{}}},|𝐪_{}|{\displaystyle \frac{k\sqrt{1\mu ^2}}{c_{}}},z\right),`$ (5)
where $`P_{\mathrm{QSO}}(q_{},|𝐪_{}|,z)`$ is the QSO power spectrum, $`q_{}`$ ($`𝐪_{}`$) is the wave number component parallel (perpendicular) to the line-of-sight direction in the real space, and $`L_l(\mu )`$ is the Legendre polynomial. In equation (5), we denoted $`k=|𝐤|`$, $`c_{}=r(z)/s(z)`$ and $`c_{}=dr(z)/ds(z)`$ with the comoving distance in the real space $`r(z)`$, equation (1).

We model the power spectrum of QSO distribution by introducing the bias factor $`b(z)`$,

$`P_{\mathrm{QSO}}(q_{},|𝐪_{}|,z)=\{b(z)^2+2b(z)f(z)(z)\left({\displaystyle \frac{q_{}}{q}}\right)^2`$
$`+f(z)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{q_{}}{q}}\right)^4\}P_{\mathrm{mass}}(q,z)D[q_{}\sigma _P(z)],`$ (6)
where $`q=\sqrt{q_{}^2+|𝐪_{}|^2}`$, and $`P_{\mathrm{mass}}(q,z)`$ is the CDM mass power spectrum. The terms in proportion to $`f(z)`$ in (6) is traced back to the linear distortion (Kaiser) effect. To describe a cross correlation between the QSO distribution and the CDM mass distribution, we here introduced the cross correlation coefficient $`(z)`$. In the case of the deterministic bias, the cross correlation coefficient can be set $`(z)=1`$, however, in the case of the stochastic bias, the cross correlation coefficient is allowed to deviate from unity (e.g., Pen 1998).

In (6), $`D[q_{}\sigma _P(z)]`$ is the damping factor due to the Finger-of-God effect, for which we adopt the exponential model for the distribution of the pairwise velocity dispersion $`\sigma _P`$. For $`\sigma _P`$ we adopt an approximate formula whose validity is investigated by several authors (see Magira et al. 2000; Mo et al. 1997). The nonlinear effect is not a dominant effect on large length scales, however, it can not be neglected. Therefore we here take the nonlinear effects into account for definiteness.

Recently, Boyle et al. (2000) have reported on the evolution of QSO optical luminosity function using their preliminary result of the 2QZ survey. The evolution of the luminosity function is compared with analytic fitting formulas. For theoretical predictions which correspond to the on-going 2QZ survey, we adopt their quasar luminosity function with best-fitted parameters of a power-low polynomial evolution of luminosity under the assumption of the Einstein de Sitter universe. Then the number count $`dN/dz`$ brighter than the limiting magnitude $`B20.85`$ can be obtained by integrating the luminosity function. 111For the K-correction we assume the quasar energy spectrum $`L_\nu \nu ^{0.5}`$.

## 3 Sensitivity

The QSO clustering bias is a challenging problem and a few authors have proposed theoretical models (Fang & Jing 1998; Martini & Weinberg 2000; Haiman & Hui 2000). However, these models seem to be prototype models, hence we here adopt a model whose evolution is phenomenologically parameterized, for simplicity, as (c.f., Matarrese et al. 1997),

$$b(z)=\alpha +\left(b(z_{})\alpha \right)\left(\frac{1+z}{1+z_{}}\right)^\beta ,$$
(7)
where $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`b(z_{})`$ are free parameters, $`\beta `$ specifies the speed of redshift evolution, $`b(z_{})`$ is the amplitude at a mean redshift $`z_{}`$, and $`\alpha `$ corresponds to the amplitude of bias at $`z=0`$ in the limit of $`z_{}1`$. Throughout the present paper we fix $`\alpha =0.5`$, however, this does not change the results for $`0\stackrel{<}{}\alpha \stackrel{<}{}1`$. We define the mean redshift by

$`z_{}={\displaystyle \frac{_{z_{\mathrm{min}}}^{z_{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑zzW(z)}{_{z_{\mathrm{min}}}^{z_{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑zW(z)}},`$ (8)
with the weight factor (4). Here we consider the sample in the range $`0.3z2.2`$, in this case we have $`z_{}=1.2`$. We note that $`b(z_{})`$ is almost same as the mean amplitude of the bias defined in the similar way to (8).

For the geometric test, the ratio of the correlation functions $`\xi _2(R)/\xi _0(R)`$ will be an important quantity to characterize the geometric distortion effect. Figure 1 shows contours of $`\xi _2/\xi _0`$ on the $`(\beta b(z_{}))`$ plane with the separation $`R`$ fixed as $`20h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ for various cosmological models (solid lines). Panels (a) and (b) show the cases of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3,w_Q=1)`$ and the QCDM model $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3,w_Q=1/2)`$, respectively. In both panels we show the case of the deterministic bias. This figure shows that the value of $`\xi _2/\xi _0`$ is sensitive only to the parameter $`b(z_{})`$, and not to the speed of evolution $`\beta `$.

Recently it is reported that the QSO correlation function is consistent with being $`\xi =(r/r_0)^{1.8}`$ with $`r_0=4h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ from the preliminary result of the 2QZ survey (Shanks et al. 2000). Previous result of the QSO surveys similar to the 2QZ survey reported $`r_0=6h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ (Croom & Shanks 1996). The dashed lines on the panels show the contours satisfying $`R_c=4h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ and $`R_c=6h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, where the characteristic correlation length $`R_c`$ is defined by $`\xi _0(R_c)=1`$. The observational constraint is not strict at present because of statistical errors. Then Figure 1 should be regarded as a demonstration. However, it is instructive. Taking the constraint $`4h^1\mathrm{Mpc}R_c6h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ into account, the ratio of the correlation function is $`\xi _2/\xi _02.01.4`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model, and $`\xi _2/\xi _01.41.0`$ for the QCDM model. We fixed as $`R=20h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ in Figure 1, however, similar behavior appears at other values of $`R`$. For example, in the case $`R=30h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, $`\xi _2/\xi _03.52.3`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model and $`\xi _2/\xi _02.31.8`$ for the QCDM model. The reason why $`\xi _2/\xi _0`$ depends on the cosmological model can be explained as follows. One reason is the difference of the linear growth rate $`D_1(z)`$, which affects the Kaiser factor. The other effect is the scaling effect due to the geometric distortion, which is described by the factors $`c_{}`$ and $`c_{}`$. The latter effect is dominant. It is clear from Figure 2 that the less negative value of $`w_Q`$ $`(w_Q>1)`$ decreases the coefficients $`c_{}(z)`$ and $`c_{}(z)`$. This causes the difference in $`\xi _2/\xi _0`$ depending on the cosmology.

Now let us discuss a possible effect from stochastic character of the bias by considering the case $`(z)1`$ in (6). For simplicity we consider the case $`(z)`$ is constant. The panel (c) in Figure 1 plots the contour of $`\xi _2/\xi _0`$ of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model same as the panel (a) but with $`(z)=0.6`$. As is clear from the panels (b) and (c), the both panel becomes almost same. That is, the ratio $`\xi _2/\xi _0`$ takes the same values in the cases $`(w_Q=1/2,=1)`$ and $`(w_Q=1,=0.6)`$. Thus the signal from the cosmological model can be confused with that from the stochastic character of the bias. This fact suggests that an optimistic geometric test suffers from degeneracy between the cosmological model parameter and the stochasticity parameter of the bias.

The panel (d) in Figure 1 is same as the panel (b) but with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.35`$, which shows $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$-dependence. By comparing (d) and (b), ambiguity of the density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ might not be negligible too.

To solve the degeneracy due to the stochastic character of the bias, $`\xi _4(R)`$ might be useful. Figure 3 plots contours of $`\xi _4/\xi _0`$ for the various cosmological models, whose parameters are same as those in Figure 1. Similar feature to Figure 1 can be seen in Figure 3. However, Figure 3 shows that $`\xi _4/\xi _0`$ is rather insensitive to the stochasticity $``$ and the density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, as is expected from the investigation of the linear stochastic biasing in redshift-space (Pen 1998). Therefore $`\xi _4/\xi _0`$ might be useful to break the degeneracy, if it could be measured precisely. However, the amplitude of the signal is rather small, which is of order of $`10`$% compared with $`\xi _2/\xi _0`$.

## 4 Discussions

In the present paper, we have examined the sensitivity of correlation functions in a QCDM cosmological model to the bias evolution, incorporating the various observational effect, i.e., the light-cone effect, the linear distortion effect, and the non-linear and the finger of God effects. Then the feasibility of the geometric test is discussed as a probe of the cosmic equation of state assuming the future 2dF QSO sample. The amplitude of the correlation functions is sensitive to the mean amplitude of the bias, and is rather insensitive to the speed of evolution due to the light-cone effect. We have found that the systematic difference appears in the ratio of the correlation functions depending on the effective cosmic equation of state, due to the geometric distortion effect. We have also shown that, if the QSO bias has a stochastic character, the signal from the cosmological model can be confused with that from the stochastic bias. Hence the simple geometric test with only $`\xi _2/\xi _0`$ suffers from the degeneracy between the cosmological parameter and the bias parameter unless the stochasticity character is clarified. For example, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with $`(z)=0.6`$ and the QCDM model with $`w_Q=1/2`$ and $`(z)=1`$ predict almost same value of $`\xi _2/\xi _0`$ at $`R=20h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. Therefore other cosmological information is required, e.g., the higher order multipole moment of the correlation function $`\xi _4/\xi _0`$. However the signal from $`\xi _4`$ seems to become noisy, more detailed investigations will be need for the viability.

Finally it will be worth to discuss the robustness of our results for several assumptions adopted in the present paper. Another choice of the cosmological redshift-space $`s(z)`$ alters the shape of the correlation function (Paper I), hence the predicted values of $`\xi _2/\xi _0`$ will be altered. However, the sensitivity on the cosmic equation of state will not be significantly altered, neither will be the feasibility of the geometric test. The bias model (equation ) seems to express general evolution of the bias, then our result is not sensitive to the bias model unless the scale-dependece of the bias is significant. Concerning the QCDM cosmological model, our investigation is restricted to the case $`w_Q`$ is a constant. And we used the fitting formula by Ma et al. (1999), which is applicable to that case. In most cases, the quintessence equation of state changes slowly with time, however, we believe that predictions are well-approximated by treating $`w_Q`$ as an averaged constant value (e.g., Wang et al. 1998). An open CDM model shows the similar result with the QCDM model in $`\xi _2/\xi _0`$ (Paper I), then our conclusion is based on the assumption of the spatially flat universe.

We thank Y. Kojima, A. Taruya and T. Chiba for useful discussion and comment. This work is supported by the Inamori Foundation.


text:
# Antilambda production in Au+Au collisions at 11.7 𝐴⋅GeV/𝑐

The E917 Collaboration

## Abstract

We present results from Experiment E917 for antilambda and antiproton production in Au+Au collisions at 11.7 $`A`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$. We have measured invariant spectra and yields for both species in central and peripheral collisions. We find that the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$/$`\overline{p}`$ ratio near mid-rapidity increases from $`0.26_{0.15}^{+0.19}`$ in peripheral collisions to $`3.6_{1.8}^{+4.7}`$ in central collisions, a value that is substantially larger than current theoretical estimates.

Enhanced antimatter and strangeness production have both been proposed as signatures of the phase transition from normal hadronic matter to the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) RafMu82 ; Raf82 ; Koch86 . The yields of strange antibaryons combine both of these signatures in a single production channel, and may prove to be a particularly sensitive probe for the formation of the QGP. Of particular interest is the ratio $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$/$`\overline{p}`$ RafMu82 , which reflects the relative abundance of $`\overline{s}`$ quarks to light antiquarks.

However, both $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ are also produced when the collision does not form a QGP. Hadronic matter with sufficient rescattering can reach a chemical equilibrium containing the full spectrum of hadrons. Equilibrium chemical models of heavy-ion collisions are generally able to reproduce the measured ratios of total yields of particles such as pions and kaons. Such models also predict values for the ratio $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$/$`\overline{p}`$ in the range 0.15–0.9 at AGS beam energies RafDanos94 ; Bec00 . A thermal model analysis that accounts for the measured K$`{}_{}{}^{+}/\pi ^+`$ and K-/K+ ratios Welke98  gives a most probable value of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$/$`\overline{p}`$ = 1, with unrealistic values yielding an upper limit of 2 for Au+Au collisions.

Hadronic cascade models which explicitly follow the reactions and trajectories of hadrons in the collision zone Stoecker97 ; Bass99  predict values for the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$/$`\overline{p}`$ ratio of less than 1. The absorption cross-section for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$-N processes is not well known at these energies, opening the possibility for differential absorption of the two species to play a role in determining the value of the ratio $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\overline{p}`$ and its rapidity dependence. However, a study has shown that a reasonable interpretation of this value cannot bring the predictions of cascade models above a ratio of $`1`$ Welke98 . Recent data from E877 on the anti-flow of $`\overline{p}`$ e877pbar  are successfully described by the hadronic cascades that use the normal antiproton annihilation cross-section.

Enhanced antibaryon production may also be due to many-body collisions between pions, e.g. $`n\pi \overline{p}+p`$ Rap00 ; Greiner00 . The rate of antibaryon production can be estimated from the inverse reaction $`\overline{p}+pn\pi `$. Calculations by Rapp Rap00  and Greiner Greiner00  indicate that a significant number of both $`\overline{p}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ may come from these processes, but it is not yet clear how to incorporate these many-body collisions into current hadronic cascade calculations.

In summary, hadronic models with reasonable inputs generally predict $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\overline{p}1`$. Thus the experimental detection of a $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$/$`\overline{p}`$ ratio significantly larger than 1 may signal the breakdown of these hadronic models, and possibly the onset of other degrees of freedom in the system. Of particular interest is the centrality dependence of the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$/$`\overline{p}`$ ratio, which may discriminate Bleicher99  between the various models attempting to describe antibaryon production: QGP, hadronic scattering, and thermal models. Canonical thermal models should be used in this comparison, since the volume of the emitting system has been shown to affect the ratio of strange to non-strange particles by up to a factor of four Hamieh00 .

There are indications of an abnormally large value of the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$/$`\overline{p}`$ ratio from other experiments. Experiment E859 reported a directly measured $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$/$`\overline{p}`$ ratio of $`2.9\pm 0.9(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.5(\mathrm{sys})`$ near mid-rapidity in central Si+Au collisions, at a beam energy of 14.6 $`A`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ GSFS . An indirect estimate of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\overline{p}>2.3`$ (98% C.L.) at y=1.6 for $`p_{}0`$ in central Au+Pb collisions was obtained at a beam energy of 11.5 $`A`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ by comparing inclusive antiproton yields from two different experients (E864 and E878) with largely different acceptances E864paper .

In this letter, we present a direct measurement of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ in Au+Au collisions near mid-rapidity and over an extended range in $`p_{}`$. We also measure the total $`\overline{p}`$ spectrum, which includes contributions from both direct $`\overline{p}`$ production and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ decay. Using the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ measurement, we can estimate the contribution to $`\overline{p}`$ from $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ decay and thus extract the yield of directly produced antiprotons ($`\overline{p}_{direct}`$). We find the ratio $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\overline{p}_{direct}`$ to be large in central collisions, and much lower in more peripheral collisions.

The experiment was carried out using the magnetic tracking spectrometer previously employed in AGS experiments E802, E859, and E866 as described in detail in Refs. nim ; Chen98 ; kpkm ; Back99 . An efficient second-level trigger was used in order to study the production of rare particles such as antiprotons. A 197Au beam with momentum 11.7 $`A`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ was incident on a 1-g/cm2 thick Au target. The movable spectrometer subtended polar angles from $`19^{}`$ to $`34^{}`$. Magnetic field settings of $`\pm 0.4`$ T were used, for which the momentum resolution of the spectrometer, $`\delta p/p`$, ranges from 1% to 2%. At these angle and field settings, we have acceptance for $`\overline{p}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ in the rapidity range $`1.0<y<1.4`$, where mid-rapidity is $`y=1.6`$ at this beam energy. Particle identification is based on the measured momentum combined with a time-of-flight (TOF) wall with a resolution of 135 ps situated 6 m from the target.

We define centrality classes based on the fraction of the total interaction cross-section ($`\sigma _{tot}=6.8\mathrm{barns}`$ Geer95 ). Using the total kinetic energy of spectator particles measured in a zero-degree calorimeter, the data were divided into two centrality classes, called “Central” and “Peripheral”, containing $`0\%12\%`$ and $`12\%77\%`$ of $`\sigma _{tot}`$, respectively. We also report a “Minimum Bias” data set without centrality cuts.

The reconstruction, particle identification and tracking algorithms have been described in detail elsewhere kpkm . Antiprotons are accepted up to momentum $`2.9\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, above which the $`3\sigma `$ identification bands of the K- and $`\overline{p}`$ time of flight spectrum begin to overlap. A lower momentum cutoff of $`0.5\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ was necessitated by hadronic interaction rates in the spectrometer material. Pions used to reconstruct $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$’s were required to have momenta between 0.35–1.8 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$.

A firm understanding of the background in the TOF-identified $`\overline{p}`$ sample is required for the measurement of the $`\overline{p}`$ spectrum. Spectra of the time-of-flight residuals $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=(t_{meas}t_{expected})/\sigma `$ were created in order to estimate these backgrounds in the $`\overline{p}`$ sample. Here $`t_{meas}`$ and $`t_{expected}`$ are the measured and expected flight times of $`\overline{p}`$’s to the TOF wall, and $`\sigma `$ is a particle-by-particle estimate of the timing resolution based on the TOF wall resolution combined with a Monte Carlo simulation of the tracking in the spectrometer. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions are parameterized by a Gaussian for the true $`\overline{p}`$ signal and a background with two components: an exponentially falling contribution from the tails of K- and $`\pi ^{}`$ bands, and a flat random contribution due to misidentified particles. The backgrounds extracted range from 15% to 75% of the total signal, with the largest backgrounds at the extremes of the momentum ranges. Rapidity-transverse mass bins for which the background fraction exceeds 50% have been excluded from further analysis.

The counting statistics in determining the background are included in the reported statistical error bars. We estimate an additional systematic error in the extracted $`\overline{p}`$ yield due to background corrections and acceptance uncertainties to be 10%, and the error in the $`\overline{p}`$ inverse slope, arising mostly from acceptance uncertainties, to be 5%. The measured $`\overline{p}`$ invariant spectra are shown as open circles in Fig. 1 as a function of transverse mass ($`m_{}=\sqrt{p_{}^2+m_0^2}`$), along with independent fits (dashed lines) of a Boltzmann form, $`B(T)`$, i.e.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi m_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N}{dm_{}dy}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dy}}B(T)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dy}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}m_{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}((m_{}m_0)/T)}{m_0^2T+2m_0T^2+2T^3}}.`$
The parameters of the fit to the total $`\overline{p}`$ spectra ($`dN_{\overline{p}_{total}}/dy`$, $`T_{\overline{p}_{total}}`$) are given in columns two and three of Table 1. These spectra include contributions from both direct production ($`\overline{p}_{direct}`$) and anti-hyperon decay ($`\overline{p}_{decay}`$), which we now consider.

We reconstruct $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$’s through direct measurement of $`(\overline{p},\pi ^+)`$ pairs. This decay channel has a branching ratio of 63.9% PDB . The spectrum of reconstructed invariant mass for accepted $`(\overline{p},\pi ^+)`$ pairs is shown in Fig. 2. The experimental resolution for reconstructing $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$’s is found by initially reconstructing the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ invariant mass spectrum in the same data set. The peak of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ spectrum is found to be at $`1.1161\pm 0.0004\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, consistent with the accepted value of $`m_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.1157\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The Gaussian width of the peak is $`\sigma =1.3\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$, which is attributable to experimental resolution. To define $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ candidates, a cut of $`\pm 3\sigma `$ is taken around the nominal $`m_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. To estimate the background under the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ peak, we have constructed a mixed-event background, shown as the solid histogram in Fig. 2. Pairs are constructed by selecting random $`\overline{p}`$’s and $`\pi ^+`$’s from the set of all pairs in the centrality class being considered. The background is normalized to the region outside the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ peak, defined as more than $`6\sigma `$ from $`m_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Both real and mixed pairs were included only if their opening angle was greater than 15 mrad. This removes most of the inefficiency for detecting close tracks. The remaining two-track inefficiency is estimated by comparison with the mixed-event sample. The correction is then applied on a pair-by-pair basis in generating the background invariant mass spectrum as well as to the signal’s final $`m_{}`$ spectra. This correction has less than a 5% effect on the yields.

We further correct the estimated background for the residual correlations arising from the presence of particles from signal pairs in the mixed-event background. Pairs in the mixed-event background with a member that came from the signal region are assigned a weight equal to the background fraction. This must be done in an iterative fashion; four iterations are sufficient to attain convergence. This correction increases the extracted $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ yields by approximately 15%. From the small remaining discrepancy between the shape of the mixed-event sample and the actual sample, we estimate the systematic error on the measured $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ yield arising from background subtraction to be 15%. The $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ invariant spectra are shown as solid circles in Fig. 1 as a function of transverse mass in all centrality classes.

Since the $`\overline{p}`$ spectra have a strong contribution from $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ decays, it is advantageous to perform a simultaneous fit to both spectra, in order to obtain the most accurate measure of the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$/$`\overline{p}`$ ratio. We have used a Monte Carlo study to parameterize the distribution of $`\overline{p}`$’s originating from $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ decay, as a function of the characteristics of the original $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ spectrum. For a $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ spectrum of Boltzmann form with inverse slopes $`T`$ in the range $`150\mathrm{MeV}<T<300\mathrm{MeV}`$, we find that the resulting spectrum of $`\overline{p}`$’s within the E917 spectrometer is also Boltzmann in shape, with parameters:

$`T_{\overline{p}_{decay}}`$ $`=`$ $`(0.834\pm 0.006)T_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}+(0.004\pm 0.001)(\mathrm{GeV})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{\overline{p}_{decay}}}{dy}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.639{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}{dy}}.`$
The errors reflect the quality of the Boltzmann fits to the $`\overline{p}_{decay}`$ spectra, and result in a negligible systematic error to the final results.

The $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ transverse mass spectra were therefore fit simultaneously using the functions

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi m_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}{dm_{}dy}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}{dy}}B(T_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}),\mathrm{and}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi m_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N_{\overline{p}}}{dm_{}dy}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}{dy}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B(T_{\overline{p}_{direct}})}{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\overline{p}_{direct}}}+0.639B(T_{\overline{p}_{decay}})\right).`$
From these fits, shown in Fig. 1, we obtain values of the four free parameters $`T_{\overline{p}_{direct}}`$, $`dN_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}/dy`$, $`T_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\overline{p}_{direct}`$, listed in Table 1. The $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$/$`\overline{p}`$ ratio and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ yield obtained in this manner are consistent with those obtained from separate fits to the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ spectra, but the precision of the simultaneous fitting method is superior due to the additional constraint on the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ inverse slope provided by the shape of the $`\overline{p}`$ spectrum.

In summary, we have made a direct measurement of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ production in Au+Au collisions at the AGS. We find that the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ production increases sharply with centrality, from $`\frac{dN}{dy}=1.2_{0.6}^{+0.7}\mathrm{x10}^3`$ in peripheral collisions to $`\frac{dN}{dy}=19_5^{+4}\mathrm{x10}^3`$ in central collisions. The total $`\overline{p}`$ production is of comparable magnitude to the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ yield, with a substantial fraction of the measured $`\overline{p}`$ signal attributable to decay products from the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$.

We find that the ratio $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$/$`\overline{p}`$ near mid-rapidity increases from $`0.26_{0.15}^{+0.19}`$ in peripheral collisions to $`3.6_{1.8}^{+4.7}`$ in central collisions. When combined with the prior observations of elevated ratios in central Si+Au collisions GSFS  and the indirect evidence from experiments E864 and E878 E864paper , the present results indicate that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ production is larger than direct $`\overline{p}`$ production in central collisions—and not in peripheral collisions—at AGS beam energies. This effect is clearly shown in Fig. 3. The mechanism responsible for the large $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$/$`\overline{p}`$ ratio is currently unknown.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contracts with ANL (No. W-31-109-ENG-38), BNL (No. DE-AC02-98CH10886), MIT (No. DE-AC02-76ER03069), UC Riverside (No. DE-FG03-86ER40271), UIC (No. DE-FG02-94ER40865) and the University of Maryland (No. DE-FG02-93ER40802), the National Science Foundation under contract with the University of Rochester (No. PHY-9722606), and the Ministry of Education and KOSEF (No. 951-0202-032-2) in Korea.