text:
# Signature Transition and Compactification

## Abstract

It is shown that a change in the signature of the space-time metric together with compactification of internal dimensions could occur in a six-dimensional cosmological model. We also show that this is due to interaction with Maxwell fields having support in the internal part of the space-time.

PACS: 0.420.Gz,0.4.50+h Keywords: signature change,higher dimensions
It is generally supposed in quantum cosmology, either in no-boundary proposal or tunneling model that, the universe has experienced a transition in the signature of its metric from Euclidean to Lorentzian. It is argued that this change of signature prevents the appearance of singularities as a result of fluctuations in the space-time topology.

There have been recent attempts to study this effect in the framework of classical general relativity . There are also studies of the effect in the framework of higher dimensional models . In particular in  it was suggested that signature transition could serve as a mechanism for compactification of the internal dimensions. This idea was pursued further in  in which a change in the signature of the space-time metric induces compactification of the internal dimension in a cosmological model with a negative cosmological constant and no matter fields. In both of these works, it was assumed that the internal space has a compact topology (for example $`S^1`$ in ) ab initio, but its size becomes unobservabley small as a result of the dynamics being induced by signature change. Now it is also interesting to ask whether signature transition could have any role in a true dynamical compactification , that is in a scheme in which one starts with an internal space which may or may not be compact and compactifies it through some dynamics.

In this paper we use the results of  and present a model in which both a change in the signature of the four dimensional part of space-time metric and compactification of the internal dimensions occur as a result of interaction of gravity with an electromagnetic field living in the internal space. We start with a noncompact internal manifold. A change in the signature of the metric of the internal manifold occurs and this induces a signature transition in the four dimensional metric via interaction with the Maxwell fields leading to the compactification of the internal dimensions. It should be added that the field equations alone cannot induce compactification since they constrain the manifold only locally. It is then obvious that some extra assumptions are implied here .

Here we consider a model in which Maxwell fields interact with gravity. The action is

$$S=\frac{1}{16\pi G}R\sqrt{g}d^6x\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\sqrt{g}d^6x,$$
(1)
leading to the field equations

$$R^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }R=8\pi GT^{\mu \nu },$$
(2)
$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\mu \left(\sqrt{g}F^{\mu \nu }\right)=0,$$
(3)
where $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ are the components of the energy momentum tensor associated with the Maxwell fields

$$T^{\mu \nu }=F_\rho ^\mu F^{\nu \rho }\frac{1}{4}F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }g^{\mu \nu }.$$
(4)
We are interested in solutions which are of the form of the product of a 2-dimensional (semi-)Riemannian manifold $`M_2`$ and a 4-dimensional one , $`M_4`$ ,with the following metric

$$ds^2=ds_2^2+ds_4^2,$$
(5)
where choosing the chart $`(x^1,\mathrm{},x^6)`$ we may write $`ds_2^2`$ and $`ds_2^4`$ as

$$ds_2^2=g_{mn}dx^mdx^n,$$
(6)
$$ds_4^2=g_{pq}dx^pdx^q,$$
(7)
with $`m,n=5,6`$ and $`p,q=1,2,3,4.`$ In the above equations $`g_{mn}`$ are functions of $`x^5,x^6`$ while $`g_{pq}`$ are functions of $`x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4`$ with $`(x^1,\mathrm{},x^4)`$ and $`(x^5,x^6)`$ being charts on $`M_4`$ and $`M_2`$ respectively.

Maxwell equations ((3) together with $`_{[\lambda }F_{\mu \nu ]}=0`$ ) admit the following solution

$$F^{\mu \nu }=\frac{fϵ^{\mu \nu }}{\sqrt{\left|g_2\right|}},$$
(8)
in which $`ϵ^{\mu \nu }`$ is the same as $`ϵ^{mn}`$ whenever $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ take the the values $`m,n`$ and vanishes whenever they take the values $`p,q`$. Here $`ϵ^{mn}`$ is the alternating tensor with $`ϵ^{56}=1`$ , $`g_2`$ is the determinant of $`g_{mn}`$ and $`f`$ is a constant. The above solution represents electromagnetic fields living only in the internal space. For this $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ we have

$$T^{mn}=F_\rho ^mF^{n\rho }\frac{1}{4}F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }g^{mn},$$
(9)
$$T^{pq}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }g^{pq},$$
(10)
where $`\alpha `$,$`\beta `$$`=1,\mathrm{},6`$. Thus the Einstein’s field equations (2) become

$$R^{mn}\frac{1}{2}g^{mn}R=8\pi G\left(F_\rho ^mF^{n\rho }\frac{1}{4}F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }g^{mn}\right),$$
(11)
$$R^{pq}\frac{1}{2}g^{pq}R=8\pi G\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }g^{pq}\right).$$
(12)
The r.h.s of equation (12) and the second term in the r.h.s of (11) are obviously proportional to some overall cosmological terms. The first term in the r.h.s of (11) which may be written as $`F_{\sigma \rho }F^{n\rho }g^{m\sigma }`$ will also be proportional to $`g^{mn}`$ after taking (8) into account, and hence is a cosmological term. Thus the Maxwell fields induce cosmological constants with different values on $`M_2`$ and $`M_4`$.

Now inserting (8) into (11) and (12) and noting that $`R_4=g_{pq}R^{pq}`$ and $`R_2=g_{mn}R^{mn}`$ are the scalar curvatures of $`M_4`$ and $`M_2`$ respectively, so that $`R=R_2+R_4`$, we obtain the following relations

$$R_4=\lambda sign\left(g_2\right),$$
(13)
$$R_2=\frac{3}{2}\lambda sign\left(g_2\right),$$
(14)
in which $`\lambda =8\pi Gf^2`$ and $`sign(g_2)=\frac{|g_2|}{g_2}.`$ The signs of $`R_4`$ and $`g_2`$ are the same while the sign of $`R_2`$ is the opposite to that of $`g_2`$. Therefore when the time dimension is in $`R_4`$ , that is $`g_2>0`$, the internal space $`M_2`$ is compact and vice versa. This is because a negative (in our notation) scalar curvature implies that the manifold is compact which is itself a consequence of certain theorems in global differential geometry . Therefore equations (13) and (14) imply spontaneous compactification of the internal dimensions.

Now consider the following as the metric of the space-time

$$g=tdt^2+a^2\left(t\right)\left(\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)+\frac{1}{b^2\left(\tau \right)}\left(\tau d\tau ^2+dx^2\right),$$
(15)
This metric represents an internal space with $`\tau ,x`$ as coordinates and $`b^1(\tau )`$ as the scale factor and a FRW type space-time as $`M_4`$. The signature of $`ds_4^2`$ is determined by the sign of $`t`$. In other words $`M_4`$ has a Euclidean metric whenever $`t`$ is negative and a Lorentzian metric when $`t`$ is positive. So the signature of the metric on $`M_4`$ changes whenever $`t`$ changes sign. Similarly the metric on $`M_2`$ has a Euclidean signature for positive $`\tau `$ and a Lorentzian one for negative $`\tau `$ and the signature of the metric on $`M_2`$ changes whenever $`\tau `$ changes sign. We have required $`g`$ to have only one time- dimension, that is, we only consider regions where $`t<0,\tau <0`$ and $`t>0,\tau >0`$.

Inserting $`(8)`$ and $`(15)`$ into Einstein equations $`(11)`$ and $`(12)`$ we obtain the following equations

$$\frac{3}{t}\left(\frac{\dot{a}^2+kt}{a^2}\right)\frac{1}{\tau }\left(b\ddot{b}\dot{b}^2\frac{b\dot{b}}{2\tau }\right)=\frac{1}{2}\lambda sign\left(g_2\right),$$
(16)
$$\frac{1}{t}\left(2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{a}^2+kt}{2at}\right)+\frac{1}{\tau }\left(b\ddot{b}\dot{b}^2\frac{b\dot{b}}{2\tau }\right)=\frac{1}{2}\lambda sign\left(g_2\right),$$
(17)
$$\frac{3}{t}\left(\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{a}^2+kt}{a^2}\frac{\dot{a}}{2at}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\lambda sign\left(g_2\right),$$
(18)
where a dot denotes differentiation with respect to the argument.

Let us restrict ourselves to the case of $`k=+1`$. Equation (18) contains $`a(t)`$ only and hence can be solved easily. A solution is as follows; for $`g_2>0`$, (corresponding to $`t>0`$)

$$a\left(t\right)=\frac{1}{H}\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{2}{3}Ht^{3/2}\right),$$
(19)
with $`12H^2=\lambda `$ and therefore (16) and (17) consistently yield

$$\frac{1}{\tau }\left(b\ddot{b}\dot{b}^2\frac{b\dot{b}}{2\tau }\right)=\frac{3}{4}\lambda .$$
(20)
A solution to (20) is

$$b\left(\tau \right)=\frac{\sqrt{3\lambda }}{2h}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2}{3}h\tau ^{3/2}\right),$$
(21)
with $`h`$ being a constant. Thus for positive $`t`$ (which corresponds to positive $`\tau `$) we have a compact (one point compactified) internal space decreasing in size with time $`\tau `$, up to $`b^1(\tau =(\frac{3\pi }{4h})^{2/3})=\frac{2h}{\sqrt{3\lambda }}`$ while the four dimensional space has the de Sitter geometry. If we do not deploy the one point compactification scheme, we will have a bounded non-compact internal manifold (a two-sphere with its north pole removed). Of course models based on bounded non-compact internal manifolds have also been proposed, see e.g., . For $`g_2<0`$, (corresponding to $`t<0`$)

$$a\left(t\right)=\frac{1}{H}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2}{3}H\left(t\right)^{3/2}\right).$$
(22)
This solution together with (19) correspond to a scale factor which is continuous across the signature change hypersurface $`t=0`$. Now from (16) and (17) we obtain

$$\frac{1}{\tau }\left(b\ddot{b}\dot{b}^2\frac{b\dot{b}}{2\tau }\right)=\frac{3}{4}\lambda ,$$
(23)
and a solution to this equation is

$$b\left(\tau \right)=\frac{\sqrt{3\lambda }}{2l}\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{2}{3}l\left(\tau \right)^{3/2}\right),$$
(24)
in which $`l`$ is a constant. Thus in this region $`M_4`$ has an oscillatory scale factor while $`M_2`$ is noncompact and its size grows with its time $`\tau `$. The (Euclidean time) $`t`$-interval between the big bang and the time at which signature transition occurred is given by the the first zero of $`a(t)`$ in (22), that is $`t=(\frac{3\pi }{4H})^{2/3}`$.

We can say in conclusion that there are solutions, which accommodate both compactification of internal dimensions and a signature transition in the metric of the four dimensional part of the space-time due to the interaction of electromagnetic fields with gravity. In contrast to previous studies in which a signature transition is caused by conversion of a space-like dimension to a time-like one , in our model the transition occurs only by shifting the time-like dimension. Also in our model there is no dynamical matter field in the 4-dimensional sector. It should be interesting to study this model in the framework of quantum cosmology.

I would like to thank H.R. Sepangi , R.W. Tucker and an anonymous referee for useful comments. Part of this work was done during my visit to the Department of Physics at Lancaster University.


format: text

text:
# Modified 𝑁=1 Green-Schwarz superstring with irreducible first class constraints

## 1 Introduction

Manifestly super Poincare invariant formulation of branes implies appearance of mixed first and second class fermionic constraints in the Hamiltonian formalism (equivalently one has infinitely reducible local $`\kappa `$-symmetry in the Lagrangian formalism) \[1-10\]. Typically, first and second class constraints (2CC) are treated in a rather different way in quantum theory111Quantization scheme for mixed constraints was developed in . Application of this scheme to concrete models may conflict with manifest Poincare covariance .. In particular, to construct formal expression for the covariant path integral one needs to have splitted and irreducible constraints . So, it is necessary at first to split the constraints, which can be achieved by using of covariant projectors of one or other kind \[15-17, 12\]. Details depend on the model under consideration. For example, for CBS superparticle  one introduces two auxilliary vector variables in addition to the initial superspace coordinates . For the Green-Schwarz (GS) superstring the projectors can be constructed in terms of the initial variables only . After that the problem reduces to quantization of the covariantly separated but infinitely reducible constraints. Despite a lot of efforts (see \[15-23\] and references therein) this problem has no fully satisfactory solution up to date. Namely, infinitely reducible 1CC imply infinite tower of “ghost for ghosts” variables . For reducible 2CC the problem is (besides the problem of quantum realization) that the covariant Dirac bracket obeys the Jacobi identity on the second class constraints surface only . A revival of interest to the problem is due to recent work  where it was shown that scattering amplitudes for superstring can be constructed in a manifestly covariant form, as well as due to progress in the light-cone quantization of superstring on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background .

One possibility to avoid the problem of quantization of infinitely reducible constraints is the supplementation trick which was formulated in the Hamiltonian framework in . The basic idea is to introduce additional fermionic variables subject to their own reducible constraints (the constraints are chosen in such a way that the additional sector do not contains physical degrees of freedom). Then the original constraints can be combined with one from the additional sector into irreducible set. For the latter one imposes a covariant and irreducible gauge. It implies, in particular, a possibility to construct correct Dirac bracket for the theory.

Next problem arising in this context is the problem of linearisation of the physical sector dynamics. Crucial property of the standard noncovariant gauge $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\theta =0`$ is that equations of motion in this case acquire linear form. Then it is possible to find their general solution. While not necessary for construction of the formal path integral, namely this fact allows one to fulfill really the canonical quantization procedure. Similarly to this, the covariant gauge will be reasonable only if it has the same property. Unfortunately, for the superstring in the covariant gauge for $`\kappa `$-symmetry and in the usual gauge for world sheet symmetry, equations of motion remain nonlinear. It will be shown that the problem can be avoided if one imposes “off-diagonal gauge” for $`d=2`$ fields.

In symmary, the necessary steps toward to manifestly covariant formulation look as follows: mixed constraints $``$ separated but reducible constraints $``$ separeted irreducible constraints $``$ covariant irreducible gauge $``$ free dynamics of the physical sector. The final formulation admits application of the standard quantization methods in the covariant form.

To apply the recipe for concrete model one needs to find a modified Lagrangian action which reproduces the desired irreducible constraints. Some examples were considered , in particular, the modified $`N=1`$ GS superstring action was proposed in . But it was pointed in  that the action is not equivalent to the initial one (to split the constraints, an additional bosonic variables were introduced. Zero modes of the variables survive in the physical sector).

In this work we present modified action which is equivalent to $`N=1`$ GS superstring and which allows one to realize the supplementation trick. We consider $`N=1`$ theory as a toy example for type II GS superstring and restrict our attention to 1CC only. The reason is that, due to special structure of type II theory, its 2CC do not represent a problem and can be combined into irreducible set.

The work is organized as follows. To fix our notations, we review main steps of the supplementation scheme in Sec. 2 (see also ). In Sec. 3 we consider bosonic string (in ADM representation for $`d=2`$ metric) and discuss its dynamics in the off-diagonal gauge. It will be shown that the resulting Fock space picture of state spectrum is the same as in the standard gauge. We present also relation among string coordinates in these two gauges. The trick turns out to be necessary for linearisation of the superstring equations of motion in the covariant gauge for $`\kappa `$-symmetry. In Sec. 4 modified formulation of $`N=1`$ GS superstring action is presented and proved to be equivalent to the initial one. First and second class constraints are covariantly separated, 1CC form irreducible set. Equations of motion and their solution in the covariant gauge for $`\kappa `$-symmetry are discussed in Sec. 5. Some technical details are arranged in the Appendixes.

## 2 Supplementation of the reducible constraints.

It will be convenient to work in 16-component formalism of the Lorentz group $`SO(1,9)`$, then $`\theta ^\alpha `$, $`\psi _\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},16`$, are Majorana–Weyl spinors of opposite chirality. Real, symmetric $`16\times 16`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \alpha \beta }`$ obey the algebra $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\nu +\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu =2\eta ^{\mu \nu },\eta ^{\mu \nu }=(+,,\mathrm{},)`$. Momenta conjugate to configuration space variables $`q^i`$ are denoted as $`p_{qi}`$.

Let us consider a dynamical system with fermionic pairs $`(\theta ^\alpha ,p_{\theta \alpha })`$ being presented among the phase space variables $`z^A`$. Typical situation for the models under consideration is that the following constraints

$`L_\alpha p_{\theta \alpha }iB_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}\theta ^\beta 0,D^\mu D_\mu 0,`$ (1)
are presented among others. Here, the $`B^\mu \left(z\right)`$ and $`D^\mu \left(z\right)`$ are some functions of phase variables $`z`$, so that $`D^20`$ is first class constraint. Poisson bracket of the fermionic constraints is

$`\{L_\alpha ,L_\beta \}=2iD_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}.`$ (2)
The system $`L_\alpha 0`$ is mixture of first and second class constraints, as it will be proved momentarily. Supplementation scheme for the mixed constraints consist of the following steps.

A). Manifestly covariant separation of the constraints.
Let us extend the initial phase space by a pair of vectors $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu ,p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu })`$ subject to constraints

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^20,p_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu 0.`$ (3)
Supposing that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }D0`$ (which will be true for the models under consideration), one can extract two 2CC: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^20`$, $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }D0`$ and nine 1CC: $`\stackrel{~}{p}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu p_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \frac{p_\mathrm{\Lambda }D}{\mathrm{\Lambda }D}\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu 0`$ (there is identity $`D\stackrel{~}{p}_\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$). Thus the variables introduced are non physical. Eq.(3) has first stage of reducibility and can be quantized by standard methods .

Below the following two facts will be used systematically (proof is presented in the Appendix 2).
1). Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha =0`$ are 16 equations. Then
a). The system

$`D^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }=0,`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }=0,`$ (5)
is equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha =0`$.
b) The quantities (4), (5) belong to $`P_{},P_+`$ subspaces correspondingly.
c) Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha =0`$ represent 16 independent equations. Then Eq.(4) contains 8 independent equations. In $`SO\left(8\right)`$ notations they mean that $`8_s`$ part $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\dot{a}}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha `$ can be presented through $`8_c`$ part $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ (or vice-versa). The same is true for Eq.(5).
2). Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha =0,\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha =0`$ are $`16+16`$ independent equations. Consider the system

$`D^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }=0,\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=0.`$ (6)
Then a) Eq.(6) contains 16 independent equations according to 1).
b) The equations

$`D^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=0,`$ (7)
are equivalent to the system (6). Thus the system (7) consist of 16 independent equations (i.e. it is irreducible).

The system (1) can be rewritten now in the equivalent form

$`L^{\left(1\right)\alpha }D_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \alpha \beta }L_\beta 0,`$ (8)
$`L^{\left(2\right)\alpha }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \alpha \beta }L_\beta 0.`$ (9)
The equivalence follows from the statement 1), or directly from invertibility of the matrix222To split the constraints one can also use true projectors instead of the matrices $`D_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$, see Appendix 2. It allows one to avoid possible “second class patalogy”  in the 1CC algebra . $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu +D_\mu \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}`$: $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu +D_\mu \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \left(L^{\left(1\right)}+L^{\left(2\right)}\right)2\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)L.`$ Among 1CC $`L^{\left(1\right)}0`$ and 2CC $`L^{\left(2\right)}0`$ there are in eight linearly independent (see Appendix 1).

B). Auxiliary sector subject to reducible constraints.
Let us further introduce a pair of spinors $`(\eta ^\alpha ,p_{\eta \alpha })`$ subject to the constraints

$`p_{\eta \alpha }0,T_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}\eta ^\beta 0.`$ (10)
These equations contain 8 independent 1CC among $`p_\eta ^{\left(1\right)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu p_\eta 0`$ and 8+8 independent 2CC among $`p_\eta ^{\left(2\right)}D_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu p_\eta 0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \eta 0`$. Note that the covariant gauge $`D_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \eta =0`$ may be imposed. After that the complete system (constraints + gauges) is equivalent to $`p_\eta 0`$, $`\eta 0`$.

C). Supplementation up to irreducible constraints.
Now part of the constraints can be combined into covariantly separated and irreducible sets. According to the statement 2), the system (8)-(10) is equivalent to

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(1\right)\alpha )}L^{\left(1\right)\alpha }+p_\eta ^{\left(1\right)\alpha }=D_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \alpha \beta }L_\beta +\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \alpha \beta }p_{\eta \beta }0,`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(2\right)\alpha }L^{\left(2\right)\alpha }+p_\eta ^{\left(2\right)\alpha }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \alpha \beta }L_\beta +D_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \alpha \beta }p_{\eta \beta }0,`$ (12)
$`T_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}\eta ^\beta 0,`$ (13)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(1\right)\alpha }0`$ ($`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(2\right)\alpha }0`$) are 16 irreducible 1CC (2CC) and $`T_\alpha 0`$ include 8 linearly independent 2CC. In the result first class constraints of the extended formulation form irreducible set (11). As it was mentioned above the type II superstring presents an example of more attractive situation as compare to the general case (11)-(13). Due to special structure of the theory the 2CC can also be combined into irreducible set.

## 3 Bosonic string in “off-diagonal gauge”.

In this section, on example of the bosonic string, we discuss two additional tools which will be used below. First, the modified superstring action acquires more elegant form in ADM representation for $`d=2`$ metric. Second, to analyze equations of motion in the covariant gauge for $`\kappa `$-symmetry it will be convenient to use a trick which we refer here as off-diagonal gauge for $`d=2`$ fields.

Starting from the bosonic string

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2\sigma \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}g^{ab}_ax^\mu _bx^\mu },`$ (14)
let us consider ADM representation

$`g^{00}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma N^2}},g^{01}={\displaystyle \frac{N_1}{\gamma N^2}},g^{11}={\displaystyle \frac{N_1^2N^2}{\gamma N^2}},\sqrt{g}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma N}},`$ (15)
then

$`N={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{detg^{ab}}}{g^{00}}},N_1={\displaystyle \frac{g^{01}}{g^{00}}},\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{g^{00}}{detg^{ab}}}.`$ (16)
The action (14) acquires now the form

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2\sigma \frac{1}{N}D_+x^\mu D_{}x^\mu },`$ (17)
$`D_\pm x^\mu _0x^\mu +N_\pm _1x^\mu ,N_\pm N_1\pm N,`$ (18)
while the world-sheet reparametrisations in this representation look as

$`\delta \sigma ^a=\xi ^a,\delta N_\pm =_0\xi ^1+\left(_1\xi ^1_0\xi ^0\right)N_\pm _1\xi ^0N_\pm ^2.`$ (19)
By direct application of the Dirac procedure one obtains the Hamiltonian

$`H={\displaystyle 𝑑\sigma \left[\frac{N}{2}\left(\frac{1}{T}p^2+T\left(_1x\right)^2\right)N_1\left(p_1x\right)+\lambda _Np_N+\lambda _{N1}p_{N1}\right]},`$ (20)
where $`\lambda _q`$ are the Lagrangian multipliers for the corresponding primary constraints. Dynamics is governed by the equations of motion

$`_0x^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{N}{T}}p^\mu N_1_1x^\mu ,_0p^\mu =_1\left[TN_1x^\mu +N_1p^\mu \right],`$ (21)
which are accompanied by the first class constraints

$`p_N=0,p_{N1}=0,`$ (22)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}p^\mu \pm _1x^\mu \right)^2=0.`$ (23)
In the standard gauge

$`N=1,N_1=0,`$ (24)
one has

$`_0x^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}p^\mu ,_0p^\mu =T_1_1x^\mu ,`$ (25)
which implies $`\left(_0^2_1^2\right)x^\mu =0,\left(_0^2_1^2\right)p^\mu =0`$. Now one can look for solution in terms of oscillators. Let us show that, instead of this, one can equivalently to start from the system $`_{}\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu =0,_{}\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu =0`$ and look for its general solution333It follows immediately from the wave equation for $`x^\mu `$. We prefer to work with the Hamiltonian equations of motion since it gives automatically brackets for oscillators.. From the latter one restores the general solution of Eq.(25). Actually, Eq.(25) can be rewritten as

$`_+x^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu ,`$ (26)
$`_{}\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu =0,`$ (27)
where $`\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu p^\mu T_1x^\mu `$. Eq.(27) has the solution $`\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )=\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \left(\sigma ^+\right)`$. Then (26) is ordinary differential equation with the solution $`x^\mu =z^\mu \frac{1}{T}_0^{\sigma ^+}𝑑l\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \left(l\right)`$, where $`z^\mu `$ is general solution for $`_+z^\mu =0`$. Equivalently, one solves $`_{}\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu =0`$, then $`z^\mu =\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu \left(\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\right)`$. Collecting all this one has the following result:
Let $`\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu `$ represent general solution of the system

$`_{}\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu =0,_{}\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu =0.`$ (28)
Then the quantities

$`x^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )=\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu \left(\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}{\displaystyle _0^{\sigma ^+}}𝑑l\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \left(l\right),`$ (29)
$`p^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu T_{}\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu \left(\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\right)\right],`$ (30)
give general solution of the system (25).

Note that Eq.(28) can be obtained from Eq.(21) if one takes444Curious fact is that the membrane equations of motion turn out to be free also for similar choice.

$`N=0,N_1=1,`$ (31)
instead of the gauge (24). Note also that while the action (17) is not well defined for the value $`N=0`$, the Hamiltonian formulation (20)-(23) admits formally Eq.(31) as the gauge fixing conditions for the constraints (22).

One more observation is that the transition (29) to the initial variables is not necessary in the canonical quantization framework. Namely, solution of Eq.(28) in terms of oscillators leads to the same description of state space as those of (25). Actually, solution of Eq.(28) is ($`0\sigma \pi `$, closed string)

$`x^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )=X^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{\pi T}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\beta _n^\mu e^{2in\left(\tau +\sigma \right)},`$ (32)
$`p^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}P^\mu 2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{T}{\pi }}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}\gamma _n^\mu e^{2in\left(\tau +\sigma \right)}.`$ (33)
From these expressions one extracts the Poisson brackets for coefficients. For the variables

$`\overline{\alpha }_n^\mu \beta _n^\mu +\gamma _n^\mu ,\alpha _n^\mu \beta _n^\mu \gamma _n^\mu ,\alpha _0^\mu =\overline{\alpha }_0^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi T}}}P^\mu ,`$ (34)
one obtains the properties

$`\{\alpha _n^\mu ,\alpha _k^\nu \}=\{\overline{\alpha }_n^\mu ,\overline{\alpha }_k^\nu \}=in\eta ^{\mu \nu }\delta _{n+k,0},\{X^\mu ,P^\nu \}=\eta ^{\mu \nu },`$ (35)
$`\left(\alpha _n^\mu \right)^{}=\alpha _n^\mu ,\left(\overline{\alpha }_n^\mu \right)^{}=\overline{\alpha }_n^\mu .`$ (36)
In terms of these variables the Virasoro constraints (23) acquire the standard form

$`L_n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\alpha _{nk}\alpha _k=0,\overline{L}_n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\overline{\alpha }_{nk}\overline{\alpha }_k.`$ (37)
Eqs.(35), (37) have the same form as those of string in the gauge (24) \[31-33\]. Thus, instead of the standard gauge one can equivalently use the conditions (31), which gives the same structure of state space. This fact will be used in Sec. 5 for the superstring. If it is necessary, the initial string coordinate $`x^\mu `$ can be restored by means of Eq.(29).

## 4 $`N=1`$ Green-Schwarz superstring with irreducible first class constraints.

Consider GS superstring action with $`N=1`$ space time supersymmetry

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2\sigma \left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}g^{ab}\mathrm{\Pi }_a^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_b^\mu +2i\epsilon ^{ab}_ax^\mu \theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _b\theta \right]},`$ (38)
where $`\sqrt{g}=\sqrt{detg^{ab}},\mathrm{\Pi }_a^\mu _ax^\mu i\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _a\theta ,\epsilon ^{01}=1`$. Let us denote

$`B^\mu p^\mu +T\mathrm{\Pi }_1^\mu ,\widehat{p}^\mu p^\mu iT\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _1\theta ,`$ (39)
$`D^\mu \widehat{p}^\mu +T\mathrm{\Pi }_1^\mu =p^\mu +T_1x^\mu 2iT\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _1\theta ,`$ (40)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \widehat{p}^\mu T\mathrm{\Pi }_1^\mu =p^\mu T_1x^\mu .`$ (41)
Then constraints under the interest for Eq.(38) can be written as

$`L_\alpha p_{\theta \alpha }iB_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}\theta ^\beta 0,D^20,`$ (42)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^20.`$ (43)
From Eqs.(39)-(42) and from the standard requirement that the induced metric is non degenerated it follows

$`D\mathrm{\Lambda }=\widehat{p}^2T\mathrm{\Pi }_1^20.`$ (44)
The constraints obey the algebra

$`\{L_\alpha ,L_\beta \}=2iD_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}\delta \left(\sigma \sigma ^{}\right);`$ (45)
$`\{D^2,D^2\}=4T\left[D^2\left(\sigma \right)+D^2\left(\sigma ^{}\right)\right]_\sigma \delta \left(\sigma \sigma ^{}\right),`$ (46)
$`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\}=4T\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\left(\sigma \right)+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\left(\sigma ^{}\right)\right]_\sigma \delta \left(\sigma \sigma ^{}\right),`$ (47)
$`\{D^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\}=0;`$ (48)
$`\{L_\alpha ,D^2\}=8iTD^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _1\theta \right)_\alpha \delta \left(\sigma \sigma ^{}\right)`$ (49)
From comparison of Eqs(42)-(45) with Eqs.(1)-(3) one concludes that the first step of supplementation scheme is not necessary here, since the quantity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu `$ with the properties $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=0,\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)0`$ is constructed from the variables in our disposal. Thus one needs to find only a modification which will lead to Eq.(10).

To achieve this it will be convenient to work in the ADM representation (15). The action (38) acquires then the following form:

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2\sigma \left[\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{\Pi }_+^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_{}^\mu +2i\epsilon ^{ab}_ax^\mu \theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _b\theta \right]},`$ (50)
where it was denoted

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm ^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_0^\mu +N_\pm \mathrm{\Pi }_1^\mu ,N_\pm N_1\pm N.`$ (51)
Modified action to be examined is

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2\sigma \left[\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{\Pi }_+^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^\mu +i\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \chi \right)+2i\epsilon ^{ab}_ax^\mu \theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _b\theta \frac{1}{4N}\left(\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \chi \right)^2\right]},`$ (52)
where two additional Majorana-Weyl fermions $`\eta ^\alpha (\tau ,\sigma ),\chi ^\alpha (\tau ,\sigma )`$ were introduced. Our aim now will be to show canonical equivalence of this action and the initial one. Then the additional sector will be used to arrange 1CC of the theory into irreducible set.

Direct application of the Dirac algorithm gives us the Hamiltonian

$`H={\displaystyle }d\sigma [{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}\widehat{p}^2+T\mathrm{\Pi }_1^2)N_1\left(\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Pi }_1\right){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\widehat{p}^\mu T\mathrm{\Pi }_1^\mu )\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \chi +`$ (53)
$`\lambda _Np_N+\lambda _{N1}p_{N1}+\lambda _\eta p_\eta +\lambda _\chi p_\chi +L\lambda _\theta ],`$ (54)
where $`\lambda _q`$ are the Lagrangian multipliers for the corresponding primary constraints. After determining of secondary constraints, complete constraint system can be written in the following form (in the notations (39))

$`p_N=0,p_{N1}=0,`$ (55)
$`H_+D^24TL_1\theta =0,H_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^24T_1\eta p_\eta 4T_1\chi p_\chi =0,`$ (56)
$`L_\alpha p_{\theta \alpha }iB_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}\theta ^\beta =0,`$ (57)
$`G_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \eta \right)_\alpha =0,p_{\eta \alpha }=0.`$ (58)
$`S_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \chi \right)_\alpha =0,p_{\chi \alpha }=0.`$ (59)
Note that the desired constraints (10) appear in duplicate form (58), (59). Combinations of the constraints in Eq.(56) are chosen in such a way that all mixed brackets (i.e. those among Eq.(56) and Eqs.(57)-(59)) vanish. The constraints $`H_\pm ,L_\alpha `$ obey the Poisson bracket algebra (45), (46), while the remaining non zero brackets are written in the Appendix 3. The constraints (55), (56) are first class. Important moment is that there are no of tertiary constraints in the problem. Actually, from the condition that the constraints (57)-(59) are conserved in time, one obtains

$`D^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \left(\lambda _\theta N_+_1\theta \right)=0,`$ (60)
$`Z^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \lambda _\eta \right)_\alpha +iT\left[_1\left(\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \chi \right)\right]\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \eta \right)_\alpha =0,`$ (61)
and the same as (61) for $`\lambda _\chi `$. Eq.(60) allows one to determine half of the multipliers $`\lambda _\theta `$. According to statement 1), Eq.(61) is equivalent to

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu Z=0,`$ (62)
$`D^\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu Z=0.`$ (63)
One finds that (62) vanishes on the constraint surface, while manifest form of (63) is

$`2\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\stackrel{~}{P}_\beta ^\alpha \lambda _\eta ^\beta =iTD^\mu \left[_1\left(\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu \chi \right)\right]\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu \eta \right)^\alpha .`$ (64)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{P}_\pm `$ are covariant projectors (A.12) on eight-dimensional subspaces. From Eqs.(63), (64), (A.17) it follows that both sides of Eq.(64) belong to the same subspace $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{}`$. So, Eq.(64) do not contains of new constraints and allows one to determine half of the multipliers $`\lambda _\eta `$.

To proceed further, let us make partial fixation of gauge. One imposes $`N=1,N_1=0`$ for Eq.(55) and $`D^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \chi =0`$ for 1CC $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu p_\chi =0`$ contained in Eq.(59). After that, the pairs $`(N,p_N),(N_1,p_{N1}),(\chi ,p_\chi )`$ can be omitted from consideration. The Dirac bracket for the remaining variables coincides with the Poisson one. In the same fashion, the pair $`\eta ,p_\eta `$ can be omitted also. Then the remaining constraints (as well as equations of motion) coincide with those of the GS superstring, which proves equivalence of the actions (38) and (52).

On other hand, retaining the constraints (58), the system (57), (58) can be rewritten equivalently as in (11)-(13), or, in the manifest form

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha \left(\widehat{p}^\mu +T\mathrm{\Pi }_1^\mu \right)\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu L\right)^\alpha +\left(\widehat{p}^\mu T\mathrm{\Pi }_1^\mu \right)\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu p_\eta \right)^\alpha =0,`$ (65)
$`\left(\widehat{p}^\mu T\mathrm{\Pi }_1^\mu \right)\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu L\right)^\alpha +\left(\widehat{p}^\mu +T\mathrm{\Pi }_1^\mu \right)\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu p_\eta \right)^\alpha =0,`$ (66)
$`\left(\widehat{p}^\mu T\mathrm{\Pi }_1^\mu \right)\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \eta \right)_\alpha =0,`$ (67)
with the irreducible 1CC (65) which are separated from the 2CC (66).

Covariant and irreducible gauge for Eq. (65) can be chosen as

$`R_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \theta \right)_\alpha +D^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \eta \right)_\alpha =0,`$ (68)
or, equivalently

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \theta \right)_\alpha =0,D^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \eta \right)_\alpha =0.`$ (69)
Matrix of the Poisson brackets

$`\{\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha ,R_\beta \}=\left[2\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\delta _\beta ^\alpha +4iTD^\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu _1\theta \right)^\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu \eta \right)_\beta \right]\delta \left(\sigma \sigma ^{}\right),`$ (70)
has a body on its diagonal and is invertible. It means that Eqs.(65), (68) allows one to construct the Dirac bracket without fermionic patalogies.

## 5 Superstring dynamics in the covariant gauge for $`\kappa `$-symmetry.

To study equations of motion for physical variables let us consider the gauge $`D^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \chi =0`$ and Eq.(69). Then the variables $`(\chi ,p_\chi ),(\eta ,p_\eta )`$ can be omitted. Equations of motion for the theory look now as follows

$`_0x^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{N}{T}}p^\mu N_1_1x^\mu i\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \left(\lambda _\theta N_+_1\theta \right),`$ (71)
$`_0p^\mu =_1\left[TN_1x^\mu N_1p^\mu iT\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \left(\lambda _\theta N_+_1\theta \right)\right],`$ (72)
$`_0\theta =\lambda _\theta ^\alpha .`$ (73)
The remaining constraints are (55)-(57), which are acompanied by the covariant gauge condition

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \theta =0.`$ (74)
Its conservation in time gives the condition

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \left(\lambda _\theta N_{}_1\theta \right)=0.`$ (75)
The Lagrangian multipliers $`\lambda _\theta `$ can be determined now from Eqs.(60), (75)

$`\lambda _\theta ^\alpha =N_1_1\theta ^\alpha +N\stackrel{~}{K}^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}_{1}^{}\theta ^\beta .`$ (76)
By using of this result in Eq.(71) one has

$`_0x^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{N}{T}}p^\mu N_1_1x^\mu +2iN\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \stackrel{~}{P}_{}_1\theta ,`$ (77)
$`_0p^\mu =_1\left[TN_1x^\mu N_1p^\mu +2iNT\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \stackrel{~}{P}_{}_1\theta \right],`$ (78)
$`_0\theta ^\alpha =N_1_1\theta ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{K}^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}_{1}^{}\theta ^\beta .`$ (79)
In the standard gauge $`N=1,N_1=0`$ for the constraints (55) one obtains equations of motion in the following form: $`_0\theta ^\alpha =\stackrel{~}{K}^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}_{1}^{}\theta ^\beta `$, $`_0x^\mu =\frac{1}{T}p^\mu +i\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _+\theta ,`$ $`_0p^\mu =T_1\left[_1x^\mu i\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _+\theta \right]`$. Thus, they remain nonlinear. Moreover, in this gauge we failed to find an appropriate set of variables that would obey to the free equations (the only quantity with desired property is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu `$: $`_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu =0`$).

Nevertheless, usual picture of the Fock space can be obtained in the covariant gauge. To resolve the problem one can use the same trick which was considered above for the bosonic case. Namely, after substitution $`N=0,N_1=1`$ (equivalent choice is $`N_1=1`$) into Eq.(77), one obtains free equations of motion

$`_{}x^\mu =0,_{}p^\mu =0,_{}\theta _a=0,`$ (80)
where $`\theta _a,a=1,\mathrm{},8`$ is $`8_c`$ part of $`\theta ^\alpha `$, while $`8_s`$ part $`\theta _{\dot{a}}`$ is determined by the covariant gauge condition $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \theta =0`$. Fermionic dynamics is the same as in the light-cone gauge $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\theta =0`$. Bosonic sector leads to correct description as it was proved in Sec. 3. Thus the covariant gauge (74) allows one to obtain the same structure of state space as those in the light-cone gauge.

## 6 Conclusion

In this work we have proposed modified action (52) for $`N=1`$ GS superstring. In addition to usual superspace coordinates it involves a pair of the Majorana-Weyl spinors. The additional variables are subject to reducible constraints (58), (59) which supply their nonphysical character (see discussion after Eq.(10)). Equivalence of the modified action and the initial one was proved in the canonical quantization framework (see discussion after Eq.(64)). We have demonstrated also how the state spectrum can be studied in the covariant gauge for $`\kappa `$-symmetry.

In the modified formulation first class constraints form irreducible set (65) and are separated from the second class one (66). The corresponding covariant gauge (68) is irreducible also, which garantees applicability of the usual path integral methods for the 1CC sector of the theory. In the considered theory with one supersymmetry, reducibility of the second class constraints can not be avoided. But it turns out to be possible for type IIB GS superstring. For this case the theory has two copies of the fermionic constraints (which correspond to two $`\theta ^A,A=1,2`$) with the same chirality. It allows one to consider their Poincare covariant combinations. In this case both first and second class constraints can be arranged into covariant sets in the initial formulation. For the type IIA theory the two copies of constraints have an opposite chirality and can not be combined in the initial formulation. Repeating the same procedure as in $`N=1`$ case, one finds that all the second class constraints can be combined into irreducible sets. These results will be presented in a forthcoming work.

## Acknowledgments.

The work has been supported partially by Project GRACENAS No 97-6.2-34.

## Appendix 1. $`SO(1,9)`$ and $`SO(8)`$ notations

Manifest expression of $`SO(1,9)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices $`16\times 16`$ through $`SO\left(8\right)`$ $`\gamma `$-matrices is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}_8& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_8\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}_8& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_8\end{array}\right),`$ (A.5)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \gamma _{}^{i}{}_{a\dot{a}}{}^{}\\ \overline{\gamma }^i_{\dot{a}a}& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \gamma _{}^{i}{}_{a\dot{a}}{}^{}\\ \overline{\gamma }^i_{\dot{a}a}& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (A.10)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^9=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}_8& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_8\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^9=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}_8& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_8\end{array}\right).`$ (A.15)
Here $`\gamma _{}^{i}{}_{a\dot{a}}{}^{}`$, $`\overline{\gamma }^i{}_{\dot{a}a}{}^{}\left(\gamma _{}^{i}{}_{a\dot{a}}{}^{}\right)^\mathrm{T}`$ are real $`SO\left(8\right)`$ $`\gamma `$-matrices which obey

$$\gamma ^i\overline{\gamma }^j+\gamma ^j\overline{\gamma }^i=2\delta ^{ij}\mathrm{𝟏}_8,$$
(A.16)
and $`i,a,\dot{a}=1,\mathrm{},8`$. Majorana-Weyl spinors of $`SO(1,9)`$ group $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha ,\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ can be decomposed in terms of their $`SO\left(8\right)`$ components. Namely, from Eq.(A.1) it follows that in the decomposition

$`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha =(\mathrm{\Psi }_a,\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\dot{a}}),\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha =(\mathrm{\Phi }_a,\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\dot{a}}),`$ (A.17)
the part $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\dot{a}}\right)`$ is $`8_c\left(8_s\right)`$ representation of $`SO\left(8\right)`$ group. The matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^0\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }^9\right)`$ can be used to extract these components: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{\Psi }8_c`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }8_s`$. It breaks $`SO(1,9)`$ symmetry up to $`SO\left(8\right)`$ subgroup. To keep $`SO(1,9)`$ group one needs to use covariant projectors described in Appendix 2.

Fermionic constraints (1) in $`SO\left(8\right)`$ notations are

$`L_a=p_{\theta a}i\left(\sqrt{2}B^{}\theta _aB^i\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^i\overline{\theta }_{\dot{a}}\right)=0,`$ (A.18)
$`\overline{L}_{\dot{a}}=\overline{p}_{\theta \dot{a}}i\left(\sqrt{2}B^+\overline{\theta }_{\dot{a}}B^i\overline{\gamma }_{\dot{a}a}^i\theta _a\right)=0,`$ (A.19)
and obey the algebra

$`\{L_a,L_b\}=2\sqrt{2}iD^{}\delta _{ab},\{\overline{L}_{\dot{a}},\overline{L}_{\dot{b}}\}=2\sqrt{2}iD^+\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}},`$ (A.20)
$`\{L_a,\overline{L}_{\dot{b}}\}=2iD^i\gamma _{a\dot{b}}^i,`$ (A.21)
as a consequence of Eq.(2). Thus they have no of definite class. In the separated form (8), (9) one has

$`\{L^{\left(1\right)\alpha },L^{\left(1\right)\beta }\}=\{L^{\left(1\right)\alpha },L^{\left(2\right)\beta }\}0,`$ (A.22)
$`\{L^{\left(2\right)\alpha },L^{\left(2\right)\beta }\}4i\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)^{\alpha \beta },`$ (A.23)
on the constraint surface. Eqs.(8), (9) contains in eight linearly independent equations according to the statement 1). In $`SO\left(8\right)`$ notations one has

$`L_a^{\left(1\right)}=\sqrt{2}D^+L_aD^i\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^i\overline{L}_{\dot{a}},\overline{L}_{\dot{a}}^{\left(1\right)}=\sqrt{2}D^{}\overline{L}_{\dot{a}}D^i\overline{\gamma }_{\dot{a}a}^iL_a,`$ (A.24)
$`L_a^{\left(2\right)}=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^+L_a\mathrm{\Lambda }^i\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^i\overline{L}_{\dot{a}},\overline{L}_{\dot{a}}^{\left(2\right)}=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\overline{L}_{\dot{a}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^i\overline{\gamma }_{\dot{a}a}^iL_a.`$ (A.25)
One can take $`L_a^{\left(1\right)}=0,L^{(2})_a=0`$ as linearly independent sets of first and second class constraints. Then the corresponding non zero bracket

$`\{L_a^{\left(2\right)},L_b^{\left(2\right)}\}4\sqrt{2}i\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\delta _{ab},`$ (A.26)
is manifestly invertible.

## Appendix 2. Covariant projectors and their properties.

To extract $`8_c`$ or $`8_s`$ part of any quantity $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \right)`$ one can use the matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\pm \right)`$. Covariant generalisation of the latter is given by the projectors $`\stackrel{~}{P}_\pm \left(P_\pm \right)`$ defined below.

Starting from $`SO(1,9)`$ vectors $`D^\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu `$ and antisymmetric product of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =2\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu +\eta ^{\mu \nu }\right)=2\left(\eta ^{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \right),`$ (A.9)
one has

$`D^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \nu }\right)^\alpha {}_{\gamma }{}^{}D_{}^{\rho }\mathrm{\Lambda }^\delta \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\rho \delta }\right)^\gamma {}_{\beta }{}^{}=4[\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)D^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2]\delta _\beta ^\alpha .`$ (A.10)
Let $`D^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=0,\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)0`$. Then the matrix

$`\stackrel{~}{K}^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}}D^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \nu }\right)^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{},`$ (A.11)
obeys $`\stackrel{~}{K}^\alpha {}_{\gamma }{}^{}\stackrel{~}{K}_{}^{\gamma }{}_{\beta }{}^{}=\delta _\beta ^\alpha `$. It allows one to define the projectors $`\left(\stackrel{~}{P}_++\stackrel{~}{P}_{}=1,\stackrel{~}{P}_{}^2=\stackrel{~}{P}_{},\stackrel{~}{P}_+^2=\stackrel{~}{P}_+,\stackrel{~}{P}_+\stackrel{~}{P}_{}=0\right)`$

$`\stackrel{~}{P}_{\pm \beta }^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\delta _\beta ^\alpha \pm \stackrel{~}{K}^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}).`$ (A.12)
It is convenient to introduce also the “untilded” projectors

$`P_{\pm \alpha }{}_{}{}^{\beta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\delta _\alpha ^\beta \pm K_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }),`$ (A.13)
$`K_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}}D^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }\right)_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta },K^2=1.`$ (A.14)
Their properties are as follows:

$`\left(P_\pm \right)_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }=\left(\stackrel{~}{P}_{}\right)^\beta {}_{\alpha }{}^{},`$ (A.15)
$`\left(D\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)=2\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\stackrel{~}{P}_{},\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)\left(D\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)=2\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\stackrel{~}{P}_+.`$ (A.16)
Commutation rules for the matrices $`\stackrel{~}{K},K`$

$`\stackrel{~}{K}^\alpha {}_{\gamma }{}^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu \right)_{}^{\gamma \beta }={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}}[D^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(D\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)]^{\alpha \beta }+\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu \right)^{\alpha \gamma }K_\gamma {}_{}{}^{\beta },`$ (A.17)
$`\stackrel{~}{K}\left(D\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}}\left[\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)D\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}D^2\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right],`$ (A.18)
$`\stackrel{~}{K}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}}\left[\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2D\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right],`$ (A.19)
$`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)\stackrel{~}{K}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}}\left[\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }^2D\mathrm{\Gamma }\right],`$ (A.20)
$`\left(D\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)\stackrel{~}{K}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}}\left[\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)D\mathrm{\Gamma }D^2\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }\right],`$ (A.21)
imply

$`\stackrel{~}{P}_\pm \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu =\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu P_\pm \pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}}D^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(D\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right),`$ (A.23)
$`\stackrel{~}{P}_+\left(D\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{D^2}{2\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}0,`$ (A.24)
$`\stackrel{~}{P}_+\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}}D\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }},`$ (A.25)
$`\stackrel{~}{P}_{}\left(D\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)=D\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{D^2}{2\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}D\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }},`$ (A.26)
$`\stackrel{~}{P}_{}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}}D\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}0,`$ (A.27)
$`\left(D\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)\stackrel{~}{P}_+=D\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{D^2}{2\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }D\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ (A.28)
$`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)\stackrel{~}{P}_+={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}}D\mathrm{\Gamma }0,`$ (A.29)
$`\left(D\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)\stackrel{~}{P}_{}={\displaystyle \frac{D^2}{2\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }0,`$ (A.30)
$`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)\stackrel{~}{P}_{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}}D\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ (A.31)
Properties for the untilded quantities are obtained from Eqs.(A.16)-(A.18) by substitution $`\stackrel{~}{P}_\pm P_\pm ,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Eqs.(A.17), (A.18) mean that the matrix $`\left(D\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)_{\alpha \beta }`$ belong to $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{}`$ subspace for the first index and to $`P_+`$ subspace for the second index. The matrix $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)`$ has an opposite properties.

These properties allows one to prove two statements formulated in Sec.2. 1a) follows from invertibility of the matrix $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu +D_\mu \right)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu `$: $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu +D_\mu \right)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu \left[D\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Psi }\right]2\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\mathrm{\Psi }`$. 1b) follows from Eqs.(A.17), (A.18). 1c) follows from manifest form of Eq.(4) in $`SO\left(8\right)`$ notations

$`\sqrt{2}D^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_aD^i\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\dot{a}}=0,`$ (A.32)
$`\sqrt{2}D^+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\dot{a}}D^i\overline{\gamma }_{\dot{a}a}^i\mathrm{\Psi }_a=0.`$ (A.33)
From Eq.(A.20) one has

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\dot{a}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}D^+}}D^i\overline{\gamma }_{\dot{a}a}^i\mathrm{\Psi }_a.`$ (A.34)
Substitution of Eq.(A.21) into Eq.(A.19) gives identity on the surface $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=D^2=0`$.

The statement 2) is immediate consequence of the statement 1) and Eqs.(A.17), (A.18).

Instead of the weak projectors (A.12), (A.13) one can define the strong one, starting from the matrix

$`\stackrel{~}{K}^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2b}}D^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \nu }\right)^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{},b\sqrt{\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)D^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2},`$ (A.35)
instead of Eq.(A.11).

## Appendix 3. Constraint algebra

Some useful Poisson brackets are

$`\{D^\mu ,D^\nu \}=2T\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\sigma \delta ,\{D^\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu \}=0,`$ (A.23)
$`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu \}=2T\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\sigma \delta ,`$ (A.24)
$`\{L_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \}=0,\{L_\alpha ,D^\mu \}=4iT\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _1\theta \right)_\alpha \delta ,`$ (A.25)
where $`\delta \delta \left(\sigma \sigma ^{}\right)`$. Non zero brackets of the constraints (56)-(59) consist of Eqs.(45), (46) as well as the following one:

$`\{G_\alpha ,p_{\eta \beta }\}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu \delta ,\{S_\alpha ,p_{\chi \beta }\}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu \delta ,`$ (A.26)
$`\{G_\alpha ,G_\beta \}=T[\left(\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \right)_\alpha \left(\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \right)_\beta \left(\sigma \right)+`$ (A.27)
$`\left(\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \right)_\alpha \left(\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \right)_\beta \left(\sigma ^{}\right)]_\sigma \delta +T(\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _1\eta )\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _{\alpha \beta }\delta ,`$ (A.28)
$`\{S_\alpha ,S_\beta \}=T[\left(\chi \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \right)_\alpha \left(\chi \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \right)_\beta \left(\sigma \right)+`$ (A.29)
$`\left(\chi \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \right)_\alpha \left(\chi \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \right)_\beta \left(\sigma ^{}\right)]_\sigma \delta +T(\chi \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _1\chi )\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _{\alpha \beta }\delta ,`$ (A.30)
$`\{G_\alpha ,S_\beta \}=2T[\left(\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \right)_\alpha \left(\chi \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \right)_\beta \left(\sigma \right)_\sigma \delta `$ (A.31)
$`2T\left(\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \right)_\alpha \left(_1\chi \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \right)_\beta \delta .`$ (A.32)
Note that to check Eq.(45) one needs to use $`D=10`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrix identity

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha (\beta }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \sigma )}^\mu =0.`$ (A.33)