text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Non-perturbative (instanton) quantum corrections in compactified M-theory/strings are believed to be crucial for solving the fundamental problems of vacuum degeneracy and supersymmetry breaking . Some instanton corrections to various physical quantities in the effective lower-dimensional supergravity theory, originating from the string/M-theory compactification on a Calabi-Yau (CY) threefold $`𝒴`$, can be understood in terms of the Euclidean five-branes wrapped about the entire CY space and the Euclidean membranes (two-branes) wrapped about special (supersymmetric) three-cycles $`𝒞`$ of $`𝒴`$ 222The supersymmetric 3-cycle $`𝒞`$ is a three-dimensional submanifold of the CY space, which obeys $`J|_𝒞=\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{\Omega })|_𝒞=0`$, where $`J`$ is the Kähler form and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the holomorphic $`(3,0)`$ form in $`𝒴`$. The supersymmetric cycles minimize volume in their homology class , while the corresponding wrapped brane configurations lead to the BPS states. Being solitonic (BPS) classical solutions to the higher dimensional (Euclidean) equations of motion with non-vanishing topological charges, these wrapped branes are localized in the uncompactified dimensions and thus can be identified with the instantons. The instanton actions are essentially given by the volumes of the cycles on which the branes are wrapped.

For instance, the compactification of the type-IIA superstring theory on $`𝒴`$ gives rise to the four-dimensional (4d) N=2 superstrings whose Low-Energy Effective Action (LEEA) is given by the 4d, N=2 supergravity coupled to N=2 vector supermultiplets and hypermultiplets. Any other N=2 matter multiplet (of physical spin $`1`$ or $`1/2`$) can be dualized to an N=2 vector multiplet or a hypermultiplet, respectively. The numbers of the N=2 matter vector multiplets and hypermultiplets are dictated by the topological data about $`𝒴`$, namely, the Hodge numbers $`h_{1,1}`$ and $`h_{1,2}+1`$, respectively, where $`h_{p,q}`$ are the dimensions of the Dolbeaux cohomology groups of $`𝒴`$ . The hypermultiplet LEEA is most naturally described by the Non-Linear Sigma-Model (NLSM), whose scalar fields parametrize the quaternionic target space $`_H`$ . The instanton corrections to the LEEA due to the wrapped fivebranes and membranes can be easily identified and distinguished from each other in the semi-classical limit, since the fivebrane instanton corrections are organized by powers of $`e^{1/g_{\mathrm{string}}^2}`$, whereas the membrane instanton corrections are given by powers of $`e^{1/g_{\mathrm{string}}}`$, where $`g_{\mathrm{string}}`$ is the type-IIA superstring coupling constant .

From the M-theory perspective, the compactified field theory (LEEA) is given by the five-dimensional supergravity with the same number of unbroken supercharges. The effective supergravities in four and five dimensions are related via the compacification of the latter on a circle, which does not affect the NLSM target space $`_H`$ in the hypermultiplet sector. The vacuum expectation value of the four-dimensional dilaton field $`\varphi `$ in the compacitified type-IIA superstring is simply related to the CY volume $`V_{\mathrm{CY}}`$ in M-theory, $`V_{\mathrm{CY}}=e^{2\varphi }`$, so that the type-IIA superstring loop expansion amounts to the derivative expansion of the M-theory action .

The unbroken local supersymmetry with eight supercharges (e.g., N=2 in 4d) put severe constraints on the LEEA of matter supermultiplets or, equivalently, on their moduli space. In fact, it requires the whole moduli space $``$ be the local product, $`=_V\times _H`$, where $`_V`$ is the special Kähler manifold associated with the N=2 vector multiplets , and $`_H`$ is the quaternionic manifold associated with the hypermultiplets 333See e.g., ref.  for a review. Any CY compactification has the co-called Universal Hypermultiplet (UH) containing a dilaton, an axion, a complex RR-type pseudo-scalar and a Dirac dilatino . The constraints imposed by 4d, N=2 local supersymmetry on the four-dimensional UH moduli space are even stronger then in higher dimensions: the target space of the universal hypermultiplet NLSM has to be an Einstein space with the (anti)self-dual Weyl tensor (these spaces are called the self-dual Einstein spaces or simply the Einstein-Weyl spaces in the mathematical literature).

The N=2 vector multiplet moduli space $`_V`$ is relatively well understood, whereas much less is known about the hypermultiplet moduli space $`_H`$ . The conjectured duality between the type-IIA superstring compactification on CY and the heterotic string compactification on $`K3\times T^2`$, which is supposed to exchange $`_V`$ and $`_H`$ in the same moduli space $``$, was used in the past to get information about $`_H`$ on the type-II string side from the knowledge about $`_V`$ on the heterotic string side, although with only partial success . Since the UH transforms into the N=2 supergravity multiplet under type-II mirror symmetry, any quantum corrections to the classical UH metric are essentially gravitational in nature .

The standard instanton calculus gives us another technical device after taking into account the partial supersymmetry breaking induced by the BPS branes . Being applied to the bosonic instanton background, broken supersymmetries generate fermionic (Goldstino) zero modes that are to be absorbed by extra terms in the effective field theory. These instanton-induced interactions are quartic in the fermionic fields (by index theorems) and thus contribute to the curvature tensor of the supersymmetric NLSM. By supersymmetry, the instanton corrections to the NLSM curvature imply the corresponding deformations in the NLSM metric. To calculate these non-perturbative corrections by using the standard instanton technology, one may integrate over the fermionic zero modes and then compute the fluctuation determinants, which is apparently the hard problem . In this paper we restrict ourselves to a calculation of the instanton corrections to the universal hypermultiplet NLSM metric, by analyzing generic quaternionic deformations of the classical UH metric. We apply the most direct procedure based on the fact that the (anti)self-dual Weyl tensor already implies the integrable system of partial differential equations on the components of the UH moduli space metric. Additional simplifications arise due to the Einstein condition and the physically motivated isometries. The UH metric in question is supposed to be regular and complete.

The local data about the underlying CY threefold $`𝒴`$ is described in terms of the $`h_{p,q}`$ complex moduli. In the compactified theory, the $`h_{1,2}`$ moduli are promoted to the non-universal matter hypermultiplets. The universal hypermultiplet is ‘universal’ in the sense that its own moduli space does not depend upon the CY moduli, or, equivalently, the UH is merely sensitive to the global information about the CY space (like topology, volume, charges and symmetries).

Some instanton solutions to the effective Euclidean (UH + supergravity) equations of motion and the corresponding instanton actions were found in refs. . The instanton solutions carry charges descending from the wrapped brane charges, and they preserve a part (half) of type-IIA supersymmetry. The instanton actions are also dependent upon the charges of the instanton and the complex structure (or central charge) at the moduli space infinity. Unfortunately, no exact quaternionic metrics in the UH moduli space beyond string perturbation theory were constructed, which would amount to a calculation of the exact LEEA of the universal hypermultiplet. In this paper we report about the results of our investigation initiated in ref. .

The paper is organized as follows. In sect. 2 we review the four-dimensional classical LEEA (or NLSM) of the universal hypermultiplet in the background of 4d, N=2 supergravity , and discuss its perturbative deformations  and the origin of non-perturbative corrections due to the wrapped BPS branes . The symmetry structure of the classical UH moduli space is given in sect. 3. The D-instanton corrections due to the wrapped membranes (D2-branes) in the hyper-Kähler limit  are presented in sect. 4, whereas their quaternionic generalizations are described in sect. 5. In sect. 6 we demonstrate that the zero-charge fivebrane instanton corrections to the UH metric are described by the Tod-Hitchin metric. Its physical interpretation as the gradient flow in the UH moduli space is also given in sect. 6. Generic UH metrics are briefly discussed in sect. 7. In Appendix A we collect basic facts about the quaternionic symmetric space $`SU(2,1)/U(2)`$. Appendix B is devoted to basic definitions of theta functions and some useful identities between them.

## 2 M-theory, type-IIA string perturbation theory, and the UH classical moduli space metric

The eleven-dimensional (11d) M-theory is supposed to substitute the ten-dimensional (10d) type-IIA superstring theory at strong string coupling, while the M-theory LEEA is described by 11d supergravity . The action of 11d supergravity is unique, and its bosonic part reads  444The 11d signature is $`(,+,+,\mathrm{},+)`$.

$$S_{11}=\frac{1}{2\kappa _{11}^2}d^{11}x\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left(\widehat{}\frac{1}{48}\widehat{F}^2\right)+\frac{1}{12\kappa _{11}^2}\widehat{A}_3\widehat{F}_4\widehat{F}_4,$$
$`(2.1)`$
where $`\kappa _{11}`$ is the 11d gravitational constant, $`\widehat{F}_4=d\widehat{A}_3`$, and all quantities with ‘hats’ refer to 11d. Though the 11d supergravity action is only the leading (LEEA) part of the full (unknown) M-theory action, it is already enough to study the BPS states in M-theory. The latter are given by the solitonic classical solutions (called M-branes) to 11d supergravity, which preserve some part (say, a half) of 11d supersymmetry. The BPS condition amounts to the existence of a Majorana-Killing 11d spinor $`\epsilon _\alpha (x)`$ obeying the first-order linear differential equation

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_M\epsilon [(_M+\frac{1}{4}\omega _M{}_{}{}^{BC}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BC}^{})\frac{1}{288}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_M{}_{}{}^{NPQS}8\delta _M^N\mathrm{\Gamma }^{PQS}\right)F_{NPQS}]\epsilon =0,$$
$`(2.2)`$
where $`M=0,1,\mathrm{},10`$, $`\omega _M^{BC}`$ is the 11d supergravity spin connection, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s are the antisymmetric products (with unit weight) of 11d Dirac matrices. The M-theory supersymmetry algebra is just the most general super-Poincaré algebra in 11d ,

$$\{Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta \}=(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^M)_{\alpha \beta }P_M+\frac{1}{2!}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN})_{\alpha \beta }Z_{MN}+\frac{1}{5!}(C\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQS})_{\alpha \beta }Y_{MNPQS},$$
$`(2.3)`$
where $`Q_\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},32`$, are the 11d supersymmetry charges, $`P_M`$ are 11d translations, $`C`$ is the 11d charge conjugation matrix, whereas $`Z_{MN}`$ and $`Y_{MNPQS}`$ stand for the ‘electric’ and ‘magnetic’ charges, respectively,

| $`Z_{MN}=`$ | $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{M2}\mathrm{brane}}}𝑑x^Mdx^N,`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`Y_{MNPQS}=`$ | $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{M5}\mathrm{brane}}}𝑑x^Mdx^Ndx^Pdx^Qdx^S.`$ |

$`(2.4)`$
Equation (2.3) is just the 11d Fierz rearrangement formula for $`\{Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta \}\underset{¯}{528}`$ of $`Spin(32)`$. The M-theory solitons are thus given by membranes  and fivebranes , which are in fact dual to each other under the ‘electric-magnetic’ duality in 11d.

The physical and topological significance of the abelian (‘electric’ and ‘magnetic’) charges in eq. (2.3) become clear from the 11d equations of motion, which follow from the action (2.1). In particular, one has

$$d{}_{11}{}^{}\widehat{F}_{4}^{}+\frac{1}{2}\widehat{F}_4^2=d\left({}_{11}{}^{}\widehat{F}_{4}^{}+\frac{1}{2}\widehat{A}_3\widehat{F}_4\right)=0,$$
$`(2.5)`$
where $`{}_{11}{}^{}\widehat{F}_{4}^{}`$ is the 11d dual to $`\widehat{F}_4`$. Hence, the ‘electric’ charge of an M2-brane ,

$$Q_\mathrm{e}=\frac{1}{\kappa _{11}\sqrt{2}}_{S^7}\left({}_{11}{}^{}\widehat{F}_{4}^{}+\frac{1}{2}\widehat{A}_3\widehat{F}_4\right),$$
$`(2.6)`$
is conserved, where $`S^7`$ is the asymptotic seven-sphere surrounding the M2-brane (cf. Gauss law in Maxwell electrodynamics). Similarly, the ‘magnetic’ charge of the M5-brane ,

$$Q_\mathrm{m}=\frac{1}{\kappa _{11}\sqrt{2}}_{S^4}\widehat{F}_4,d\widehat{F}_4=0,$$
$`(2.7)`$
is also conserved, where $`S^4`$ is the asymptotic four-sphere surrounding the M5-brane (cf. Dirac monopole charge). The Dirac quantization condition implies

$$Q_\mathrm{e}Q_\mathrm{m}=2\pi (\mathrm{}c)𝐙.$$
$`(2.8)`$
Demanding the membrane and fivebrane (worldvolume) actions be well defined in quantum theory gives rise to a quantization of their electric and magnetic charges or, equivalently, the M-brane tension quantization ,

$$2\pi T_5=T_2^2\mathrm{and}\kappa _{11}^2T_2T_5=\pi 𝐙.$$
$`(2.8)`$
A connection to type-IIA superstrings is obtained by compactifying M-theory/11d supergravity on a cirle of radius $`r=\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$ with the Kaluza-Klein (KK) Ansatz

$$d\widehat{s}_{11}^2=e^{2\varphi /3}d\stackrel{~}{s}_{10}^2+e^{4\varphi /3}(dx^{11}A_mdx^m)^2,$$
$`(2.9)`$
where $`d\stackrel{~}{s}_{10}^2=\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}dx^mdx^n`$ is the 10d spacetime metric (in the string frame) with $`m,n=0,1,\mathrm{},9`$, $`A_m`$ is the KK (type-IIA) vector field, and $`\varphi `$ is the 10d dilaton. The gravitational constants in 11d and 10d are related by $`\kappa _{10}^2=\kappa _{11}^2/(2\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}})`$. Performing the dimensional reduction of the action (2.1) on the circle with the help of eq. (2.9) gives rise to the bosonic part of the type-IIA supergravity action in the string frame. The latter is related to the canonical form of the type-IIA supergravity action (in the Einstein frame) via the Weyl rescaling $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}=e^{\varphi /2}g_{mn}`$. This yields the standard bosonic part of the 10d type-IIA supergravity action,

| $`S_{10}=`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa _{10}^2}}{\displaystyle d^{10}x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{1}{2}(_m\varphi )^2\right]}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\kappa _{10}^2}}{\displaystyle \left[e^{\varphi /2}F_4{}_{10}{}^{}F_{4}^{}+e^\varphi H_3{}_{10}{}^{}H_{3}^{}\right]}`$ |
| --- | --- |
|  | $`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\kappa _{10}^2}}{\displaystyle B_2}F_4F_4,`$ |

$`(2.10)`$
where $`H_3=dB_2`$ and $`F_4=dA_3`$ originate from the three-form $`\widehat{A}_3`$ and its field strength $`\widehat{F}_4`$ in 11d, e.g., $`\widehat{A}_3=A_3+B_2dx^{11}`$, etc.

The 10d type-IIA supergravity is known to be the LEEA of 10d type-IIA strings in the (string) tree approximation . The double dimensional reduction of the 11d (M-theory) membrane yields a (type-IIA) fundamental string in 10d. The fundamental string in 10d is dual to a solitonic (NS-NS) five-brane. In M-theory compactified on the circle $`S^1`$ the 11d fivebrane can be wrapped about $`S^1`$, which gives rise to the (RR-charged) type-IIA fourbrane called D4-brane . In 10d this D4-brane is dual to the 10d (RR-charged) membrane called D2-brane .

The non-perturbative (instanton) corrections to the four-dimensional UH originate from the 10d type-IIA membranes (D2-branes) wrapped about certain (supersymmetric or special Lagrangian) 3-cycles $`𝒞`$ of CY, and the 10d type-IIA NS-NS fivebranes wrapped about the entire CY space . From the 11d M-theory perspective, the dilaton expectation value is related to the volume of the CY space (sect. 1), whereas the expectation value of the RR scalar $`C`$ is related to the CY period $`_𝒞\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The universal sector (UH) of the CY compactification of the 10d type-IIA supergravity in four dimensions is most easily obtained by using the following Ansatz for the 10d metric :

$$ds_{10}^2=g_{mn}dx^mdx^n=e^{\varphi /2}ds_{\mathrm{CY}}^2+e^{3\varphi /2}g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu ,$$
$`(2.11)`$
while keeping only $`SU(3)`$ singlets in the internal CY indices  and ignoring all CY complex moduli. In eq. (2.11) $`\varphi (x)`$ stands for the 4d dilaton, $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ is the spacetime metric in four uncompactified dimensions, $`\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3`$, and $`ds_{\mathrm{CY}}^2`$ is the (Kähler and Ricci-flat) metric of the internal CY threefold $`𝒴`$ in complex coordinates,

$$ds_{\mathrm{CY}}^2=g_{i\overline{j}}(y,\overline{y})dy^id\overline{y}^{\overline{j}},$$
$`(2.12)`$
where $`i,j=1,2,3`$. By definition, the CY threefold $`𝒴`$ possesses the $`(1,1)`$ Kähler form $`J`$ and the holomorphic $`(3,0)`$ form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The universal hypermultipet (UH) unites the dilaton $`\varphi `$, the axion $`D`$ coming from dualizing the three-form field strength $`H_3=dB_2`$ of the NS-NS two-form $`B_2`$ in 4d, and the complex scalar $`C`$ representing the RR three-form $`A_3`$ with $`A_{ijk}(x,y)=\sqrt{2}C(x)\mathrm{\Omega }_{ijk}(y)`$. When using a flat (or rigid) CY (cf. a six-torus of equal radii $`r=\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$), with

$$g_{i\overline{j}}=\delta _{i\overline{j}}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ijk}=\epsilon _{ijk},$$
$`(2.13)`$
the reduction of eq. (2.10) down to four dimensions with the help of eqs. (2.12) and (2.13) yields the so-called Ferrara-Sabharwal action 555The 4d spacetime signature is $`(,+,+,+)`$. The 4d gravitational constant $`\kappa _4`$ is related to the
10d gravitational constant $`\kappa _{10}`$ via the equation $`\kappa _4^2=\kappa _{10}^2/(2\pi r)^6=\kappa _{10}^2/(2\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}})^6`$.

| $`S_4=`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa _4^2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[2(_m\varphi )^22e^{2\varphi }\left|_\mu C\right|^2\right]}`$ |
| --- | --- |
|  | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\kappa _4^2}}{\displaystyle \left[e^{4\varphi }H_3{}_{4}{}^{}H_{3}^{}2iH_3\overline{C}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\mathrm{-}\mathrm{}\hfill \\ d\hfill \end{array}C4H_3dD\right]},`$ |

$`(2.14)`$
where the real 4d Lagrange multiplier $`D`$ has been introduced to enforce the Bianchi relation $`dH_3=0`$. Removing $`H_3`$ via its equations of motion from eq. (2.14) results in the dual action

$$S_4=\frac{1}{\kappa _4^2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{1}{2}+(_m\varphi )^2+e^{2\varphi }\left|_\mu C\right|^2+e^{4\varphi }\left(_\mu D+\frac{i}{2}\overline{C}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\mathrm{-}\mathrm{}\hfill \\ _\mu \hfill \end{array}C\right)^2\right].$$
$`(2.15)`$
The equivalent action in the string frame reads

| $`S_{4,\mathrm{string}}=`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _4^2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}e^{2\varphi }\left\{\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{}+2(_\mu \varphi )^2\frac{1}{6}H_{\mu \nu \lambda }^2\right\}}`$ |
| --- | --- |
|  | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _4^2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\left[_\mu C^\mu \overline{C}+\frac{i}{2}H^\mu \left(C_\mu \overline{C}\overline{C}_\mu C\right)\right]},`$ |

$`(2.16)`$
where $`H^\rho =\frac{1}{6\sqrt{g}}\epsilon ^{\rho \mu \nu \lambda }H_{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ is the Hodge dual of the field strength $`H_3=dB_2`$. The N=2 supergravity background in eqs. (2.14), (2.15) and (2.16) is merely represented by the 4d spacetime metric. The NLSM action of the UH thus has the following target space metric :

$$\kappa _4^2ds_{\mathrm{classical}}^2=d\varphi ^2+e^{2\varphi }\left|dC\right|^2+e^{4\varphi }\left(dD+\frac{i}{2}\overline{C}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\mathrm{-}\mathrm{}\hfill \\ d\hfill \end{array}C\right)^2,$$
$`(2.17)`$
whose right-hand-side is regular and positively definite. This metric is of purely gravitational origin, with $`\kappa _4^2`$ being the only coupling constant.

The perturbative (one-loop) string corrections to the UH metric (2.17) originate from the $`(Riemann)^4`$ terms  in M-theory compactified on a CY three-fold $`𝒴`$ . These quantum corrections are proportional to the CY Euler number $`\chi =2\left(h_{1,1}h_{1,2}\right)`$ . The one-loop corrected action of UH coupled to gravity in the string frame reads

| $`S_{4,\mathrm{one}\mathrm{loop}}=`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _4^2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\left\{\left(e^{2\varphi }+\widehat{\chi }\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{6}H_{\mu \nu \lambda }^2\right)+\frac{2e^{4\varphi }}{e^{2\varphi }+\widehat{\chi }}(_\mu \varphi )^2\right\}}`$ |
| --- | --- |
|  | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _4^2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\left[_\mu C^\mu \overline{C}+\frac{i}{2}H^\mu \left(C_\mu \overline{C}\overline{C}_\mu C\right)\right]},`$ |

$`(2.18)`$
where $`\widehat{\chi }`$ is proportional to $`\chi `$666The relative coefficient varies in the literature, see e.g., ref. . The superstring (loop) perturbation theory is controlled by the powers of $`e^{2\varphi }`$, whereas the second line of eq. (2.18) cannot be multiplied by any power of $`e^{2\varphi }`$ without breaking the perturbative Peccei-Quinn type symmetry $`CC+const`$. This non-renormalization argument does not, however, exclude the non-perturbative (gravitational-type) corrections due to the wrapped branes, which break the Peccei-Quinn type symmetries (sects. 4 and 5).

The string one-loop corrected NLSM metric dictated by eq. (2.18) is related to the classical metric of eq. (2.17) by a local field redefinition, $`e^{2\varphi }e^{2\varphi }+\widehat{\chi }`$, so that the local UH geometry is not affected by perturbtaive string corrections . String duality, however, implies some discrete (global) identifications in the UH moduli space, which are the consequence of the brane charge (and tension) quantization in M-theory  (see the next sect. 3).

## 3 Classical metric and perturbative deformations

The NLSM of UH with the target space metric (2.17) can be rewritten to the form

$$_{\mathrm{NLSM}}=\frac{1}{\kappa _4^2}\left(𝒦_{,S\overline{S}}_\mu S^\mu \overline{S}+𝒦_{,S\overline{C}}_\mu S^\mu \overline{C}+𝒦_{,C\overline{S}}_\mu C^\mu \overline{S}+𝒦_{,C\overline{C}}_\mu C^\mu \overline{C}\right)$$
$`(3.1)`$
in terms of two complex variables, $`C`$ and $`S`$,

$$S=e^{2\varphi }+2iD+C\overline{C},$$
$`(3.2)`$
where commas in subscripts denote partial derivatives, and the Kähler potential reads

$$𝒦=\mathrm{log}\left(S+\overline{S}2C\overline{C}\right)=\mathrm{log}\left(2e^{2\varphi }\right).$$
$`(3.3)`$
Equation (3.1) makes manifest the Kähler nature of the classical NLSM metric,

$$ds_{\mathrm{NLSM}}^2=e^{2𝒦}\left[dSd\overline{S}2CdSd\overline{C}2\overline{C}d\overline{S}dC+2(S+\overline{S})dCd\overline{C}\right].$$
$`(3.4)`$
Other useful parametrizations are given in Appendix A. In particular, after the change of variables (A.9) or its inverse,

$$S=\frac{1z_1}{1+z_1},C=\frac{z_2}{1+z_1},$$
$`(3.5)`$
and the Kähler gauge transformation (A.4) with $`f(z)=\mathrm{log}[\frac{1}{2}(1+z_1)]`$, the Kähler potential (3.3) takes the form (A.3) that is associated with the standard (Bergmann) metric (A.1) of the non-compact symmetric space $`SU(2,1)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$. When using the new coordinates (A.5), one arrives at the classical UH metric in the form (A.6), with the $`SU(2)`$ isometry of the metric being manifest.

The classical quaternionic space $`Q=G/HSU(2,1)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$ has the eight-dimensional non-abelian isometry group $`G=SU(2,1)`$ whose left action on $`Q`$ after the compensating right action of the ‘gauge’ subgroup $`H=SU(2)\times U(1)`$ leaves the metric (A.1) of $`Q`$ intact.

As far as quantum corrections within the type-IIA string (loop) perturbation theory are concerned, the UH metric is supposed to be invariant under the so-called Peccei-Quinn type symmetries . These symmetries are given by constant shifts of the NS-NS axion $`D`$,

$$SS+i\eta ,$$
$`(3.6)`$
and constant shifts of the R-R field $`C`$ ,

$$CC+\gamma i\beta ,SS+2(\gamma +i\beta )C+\gamma ^2+\beta ^2,$$
$`(3.7)`$
where $`\eta `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are the real parameters. The Peccei-Quinn type transformations (3.6) and (3.7) form the non-abelian Heisenberg group . It is usually assumed  that the Peccei-Quinn type symmetries do not change their form in string perturbation theory. Since our considerations are purely local, we ignore the global group structure and refer to the symmetry (3.6) as $`U_D(1)`$.

The instantons originating from the fivebranes wrapped over the entire CY space break both symmetries (3.6) and (3.7) (cf. the breaking of the translational invariance of the $`\theta `$-parameter in QCD by instantons), whereas the D-instantons (wrapped membranes) break the symmmetry (3.7) but keep the symmetry (3.6) .

The $`U(1)`$ subgroup of the $`SU(2)H`$ symmetry is given by the duality rotations $`U_C(1)`$ of the complex R-R pseudo-scalar $`C`$,

$$Ce^{i\alpha }C,SS,$$
$`(3.8)`$
with the real parameter $`\alpha `$. The duality rotations (3.8) are believed to be exact in quantum theory, even when all quantum (or instanton) corrections are taken into account .

The remaining four clasical symmetries of the coset $`SU(2,1)/U(2)`$ are given by scale transformations,

$$SS+\lambda S,CC+\frac{1}{2}\lambda C,$$
$`(3.9)`$
with the real parameter $`\lambda `$, and

| $`S`$ | $`S+\frac{i}{4}ϵ_1S^2+\frac{1}{2}(ϵ_2+iϵ_3)CS,`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`C`$ | $`C+\frac{i}{4}ϵ_1CS+\frac{1}{2}ϵ_2(C^2\frac{1}{2}S)+\frac{i}{2}ϵ_3(C^2+\frac{1}{2}S),`$ |

$`(3.10)`$
with the real parameters $`ϵ_1`$, $`ϵ_2`$ and $`ϵ_3`$. The symmetries (3.9) and (3.10) are always broken by instanton corrections.

The conserved Noether charges associated with the isometries (3.6) and (3.7) were calculated in ref. ,

| $`J_\eta =`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\kappa _4^2}}e^{2𝒦}\left(dSd\overline{S}+2C\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\mathrm{-}\mathrm{}\hfill \\ d\hfill \end{array}\overline{C}\right),`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`J_\beta =`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{\kappa _4^2}}e^𝒦\left(dCd\overline{C}\right)+2\left(C+\overline{C}\right)J_\eta ,`$ |
| $`J_\gamma =`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa _4^2}}e^𝒦\left(dC+d\overline{C}\right)2i\left(C\overline{C}\right)J_\eta .`$ |

$`(3.11)`$
The Noether charge (over a supersymmetric three-cycle $`𝒞`$)

$$Q_\eta =_𝒞{}_{4}{}^{}J_{\eta }^{}$$
$`(3.12)`$
descends from the fivebrane charges (2.4), whereas the other two Noether charges,

$$Q_\beta =_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_3}{}_{4}{}^{}J_{\beta }^{}\mathrm{and}Q_\gamma =_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_3}{}_{4}{}^{}J_{\gamma }^{},$$
$`(3.13)`$
descend from the D2-brane (RR) charges. The existence of two charges is related to the existence of two homology classes of a three-cycle $`𝒞`$ . The BPS brane charge quantization (sect. 2) implies that only a discrete subgroup of the continuous Peccei-Quinn type symmetries (3.6) and (3.7) is going to survive in full quantum theory after taking into account both membrane and fivebrane instanton corrections . The discrete identifications of the UH scalars can be read off from eqs. (3.6) and (3.7),

| $`S`$ | $`S+in_\eta +2(n_\gamma +in_\beta )C+n_\gamma ^2+n_\beta ^2,`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`C`$ | $`C+n_\gamma in_\beta ,`$ |

$`(3.14)`$
where now all $`n_{\eta ,\beta ,\gamma }`$ are integers . The transformations (3.14) define a discrete non-abelian group $`𝒵`$. The global (topological) structure of the UH moduli space $``$ is thus given by $`Q/𝒵`$ .

Since the type-IIA string loop corrections are invariant under the perturbative Peccei-Quinn type symmetries (3.6) and (3.7), it is natural to rewrite the UH metric in terms of the new quantities $`(u,v,\varphi )`$ defined by eq. (A.14), which are all invariant under (3.6) and (3.7). When using the notation (A.14), it is not difficult to convince oneself that the unique quaternionic deformation of the classical UH action within the string perturbation theory is described by eq. (2.18) indeed . Hence, the local UH metric (2.17) does not receive any perturbative quaternionic corrections modulo the UH field redefinitions (sect. 2).

## 4 Hyper-Kähler versus quaternionic geometry

The D-instanton corrections to the UH moduli space metric due to the wrapped D2-branes were explicitly calculated in the hyper-Kähler limit by Ooguri and Vafa . In this limit the 4d, N=2 supergravity decouples , and the c-map applies .

In the absence of fivebrane corrections, the unbroken symmetry of the UH metric is given by $`U_D(1)\times U_C(1)`$ (sect. 3). In adapted coordinates with respect to the $`U_D(1)`$ isometry the UH metric can be written down in the LeBrun form ,

$$ds_\mathrm{K}^2g_{ab}d\varphi ^ad\varphi ^b=W^1(dt+\mathrm{\Theta }_1)^2+W\left[e^u(dx^2+dy^2)+d\omega ^2\right],$$
$`(4.1)`$
where two potentials $`W`$ and $`u`$, and a one-form $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1`$ have been introduced. The metric Ansatz (4.1) is valid for any Kähler metric $`g_{ab}`$ in four real dimensions, $`a,b=1,2,3,4`$, with a Killing vector $`K^a`$ that preserves the Kähler structure. We use the adapted coordinates $`\varphi ^a=(t,x,y,\omega )`$ where $`t`$ is the coordinate along the trajectories of the Killing vector associated with $`U_D(1)`$, whereas $`(x,y,\omega )`$ are the coordinates in the space of trajectories, $`W^1=g_{ab}K^aK^b0`$. Accordingly, no metric components are dependent upon $`t`$ in eq. (4.1).

The Kähler condition on the metric (4.1) also implies a linear equation on $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1`$ ,

$$d\mathrm{\Theta }_1=W_xdyd\omega +W_yd\omega dx+(We^u)_\omega dxdy.$$
$`(4.2)`$
In turn, this gives rise to the following integrability condition on $`W`$ :

$$W_{xx}+W_{yy}+(We^u)_{\omega \omega }=0.$$
$`(4.3)`$
The hyper-Kähler geometry implies, by definition, the existence of three linearly independent Kähler structures $`(J_k)_a^b`$, $`k=1,2,3`$, which are covariantly constant, $`_c(J_k)_a{}_{}{}^{b}=0`$, and obey a quaternionic algebra. Moreover, in four real dimensions, a hyper-Kähler metric necessarily has the Anti-Self-Dual (ASD) Riemann curvature, and vice versa . As regards four-dimensional hyper-Kähler metrics, they are just Kähler and Ricci-flat, and vice versa .

If the Killing vector $`K^a`$ is triholomorphic (i.e. it is consistent with N=2 supersymmetry), one may further restrict the metric (4.1) by taking $`u=0`$. The Riemann ASD condition then amounts to a linear system ,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }W=0\mathrm{and}\stackrel{}{}W+\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Theta }}=0,$$
$`(4.4)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the Laplace operator in three flat dimensions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4g_{\mathrm{string}}^2_z\overline{}_{\overline{z}}+_\omega ^2`$, and $`z=g_{\mathrm{string}}(x+iy)`$. The complex coordinate $`z`$ represents the RR-type complex scalar, so that the unbroken $`U_C(1)`$ symmetry (3.8) implies that a solution to eq. (4.4) may depend upon $`z`$ only via its absolute value $`\left|z\right|`$.

One may now think of $`W`$ as the electro-static potential for a collection of electric charges distributed in three dimensions near the axis $`z=0`$ with unit density in $`\omega `$. The unique regular (outside the positions of charges) solution to this problem in the limit $`g_{\mathrm{string}}0`$, while keeping $`\left|z\right|/g_{\mathrm{string}}`$ finite, reads

$$W=\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{z\overline{z}}\right)+\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{cos}(2\pi m\omega )}{\pi }K_0\left(\frac{2\pi \left|mz\right|}{g_{\mathrm{string}}}\right),$$
$`(4.5)`$
where $`K_0`$ is the modified Bessel function. The solution (4.5) can be trusted for large $`\left|z\right|`$, where it amounts to the infinite D-instanton/anti-instanton sum ,

| $`W=`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{z\overline{z}}}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \left|mz\right|}{g_{\mathrm{string}}}}\right)\mathrm{cos}(m\omega )`$ |
| --- | --- |
|  | $`\times {\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\frac{1}{2})}{\sqrt{\pi }n!\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\frac{1}{2})}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{string}}}{4\pi \left|mz\right|}}\right)^{n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}.`$ |

$`(4.6)`$
The $`\mathrm{exp}(1/g_{\mathrm{string}})`$ type dependence of the solution (4.6) apparently agrees with the general expectations  that it describes the D-instantons indeed.

If merely the vanishing scalar curvature of the Kähler metric (4.1) or a non-triholomorphic isometry of the hyper-Kähler metric were required, we would end up with the non-linear equation

$$u_{xx}+u_{yy}+(e^u)_{\omega \omega }=0.$$
$`(4.7)`$
The equation (4.7) is known as the $`SU(\mathrm{})`$ Toda field equation  since it appears in the large-$`N`$ limit of the standard (two-dimensional) Toda system for $`SU(N)`$. See, e.g., ref.  for more about the Toda equation (4.7), and ref.  for more about the four-dimensional hyper-Kähler NLSM. The Einstein-Kähler deformations of the Bergmann metric of $`SU(2,1)/U(2)`$ in eq. (A.1) were investigated in refs. .

## 5 D-instantons and quaternionic UH metric

A quaternionic manifold admits three independent almost complex structures $`(\stackrel{~}{J}_k)_a^b`$, which are, however, not covariantly constant but satisfy $`_a(\stackrel{~}{J}_k)_b{}_{}{}^{c}=(T_a)_k{}_{}{}^{n}(\stackrel{~}{J}_n)_{b}^{}^c`$, where $`(T_a)_k^n`$ is the NLSM torsion . This torsion is induced by 4d, N=2 supergravity because the quaternionic condition on the hypermultiplet NLSM target space metric is the direct consequence of local N=2 supersymmetry in four spacetime dimensions . As regards four-dimensional quaternionic manifolds (relevant for UH), they all have Einstein-Weyl geometry of negative scalar curvature , i.e.

$$W_{abcd}^{}=0,R_{ab}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}g_{ab},$$
$`(5.1)`$
where $`W_{abcd}`$ is the Weyl tensor and $`R_{ab}`$ is the Ricci tensor for the metric $`g_{ab}`$. The overall coupling constant of the 4d NLSM has the same dimension as $`\kappa _4^2`$, while in the N=2 locally supersymmetric NLSM these coupling constants are proportional to each other with the dimensionless coefficient $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ . We take $`\kappa _4^2=1`$ for simplicity.

Since the quaternionic and hyper-Kähler conditions are not compatible, the canonical form (4.1) should be revised. 777A generic Einstein-Weyl manifold does not have a Kähler structure. Nevertheless, the exact quaternionic metric is governed by the same three-dimensional Toda equation (4.7) . Indeed, when using another (Tod) Ansatz

$$ds_\mathrm{Q}^2=\frac{P}{\omega ^2}\left[e^u(dx^2+dy^2)+d\omega ^2\right]+\frac{1}{P\omega ^2}(dt+\mathrm{\Theta }_1)^2$$
$`(5.2)`$
for a quaternionic metric with an abelian isometry, it is straightforward to prove that the restrictions (5.1) on the metric (5.2) precisely amount to eq. (4.7) on the potential $`u=u(x,y,\omega )`$, while $`P`$ is given by

$$P=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left(\omega u_\omega 2\right),$$
$`(5.3)`$
whereas the one-form $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1`$ obeys the linear equation

$$d\mathrm{\Theta }_1=P_xdyd\omega P_yd\omega dxe^u(P_\omega +\frac{2}{\omega }P+\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\omega }P^2)dxdy.$$
$`(5.4)`$
The limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, where 4d, N=2 supergravity decouples, should be taken with care. After rescaling $`u\mathrm{\Lambda }u`$ in eq. (4.7) we get

$$u_{xx}+u_{yy}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }u})_{\omega \omega }=0.$$
$`(5.5)`$
This equation gives rise to the 3d Laplace (linear!) equation when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, as expected. We can, therefore, conclude that the non-linear Toda equation (4.7) substitutes the linear Laplace equation (4.4) in the presence of 4d, N=2 supergravity. The ‘cosmological’ constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be considered as the most relevant parameter of the deformation that converts a given UH hyper-Kähler metric into the ‘gravitationally dressed’ quaternionic UH metric via eq. (5.2), based on the same solution to the Toda equation (4.7) .

In terms of the complex coordinate $`\zeta =x+iy`$, the 3d Toda equation (4.7) takes the form

$$4u_{\zeta \overline{\zeta }}+(e^u)_{\omega \omega }=0.$$
$`(5.6)`$
It is not difficult to check that this equation is invariant under holomorphic transformations of $`\zeta `$,

$$\zeta \widehat{\zeta }=f(\zeta ),$$
$`(5.7)`$
with an arbitrary function $`f(\zeta )`$, provided that it is accompanied by the shift of the Toda potential,

$$u\widehat{u}=u\mathrm{log}(f^{})\mathrm{log}(\overline{f}^{}),$$
$`(5.8)`$
where the prime means differentiation with respect to $`\zeta `$ or $`\overline{\zeta }`$, respectively. The transformations (5.7) can be interpreted as the residual diffeomorphisms in the NLSM target space of the universal hypermultiplet, which keep invariant the quaternionic Ansatz (5.2) under the compensating ‘Toda gauge transformations’ (5.8).

To make contact with particular four-dimensional hyper-Kähler geometries (with isometries) , it is natural to search for separable exact solutions to the Toda equation, having the form

$$u(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta },\omega )=F(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })+G(\omega ).$$
$`(5.9)`$
Equation (4.7) now reduces to two separate equations,

$$F_{\zeta \overline{\zeta }}+\frac{c^2}{2}e^F=0$$
$`(5.10)`$
and

$$_\omega ^2e^G=2c^2,$$
$`(5.11)`$
where $`c^2`$ is a separation constant. After taking into account the positivity of $`e^G`$, the general solution to eq. (5.11) reads

$$e^G=c^2(\omega ^2+2\omega b\mathrm{cos}\alpha +b^2),$$
$`(5.12)`$
where $`b`$ and $`\alpha `$ are arbitrary real integration constants.

Equation (5.10) is the 2d Liouville equation that is well known in 2d quantum gravity . Its general solution reads

$$e^F=\frac{4\left|f^{}\right|^2}{(1+c^2|f|{}_{}{}^{2})^2}$$
$`(5.13)`$
in terms of arbitrary holomorphic function $`f(\zeta )`$. The ambiguity associated with this function is, however, precisely compensated by the Toda gauge transformation (5.8), so that we have the right to choose $`f(\zeta )=\zeta `$ in eq. (5.13). This yields the following regular exact solution to the 3d Toda equation:

$$e^u=\frac{4c^2(\omega ^2+2\omega b\mathrm{cos}\alpha +b^2)}{(1+c^2|\zeta |{}_{}{}^{2})^2}.$$
$`(5.14)`$
It is obvious now that the konstant $`c^2`$ is positive indeed. It also follows from eqs. (5.2), (5.3) and (5.14) that any separable exact solution to the quaternionic UH metric possesses the rigid $`U_C(1)`$ duality symmetry with respect to the duality rotations $`\zeta e^{i\alpha }\zeta `$ of the complex RR-field $`\zeta `$.

Though the quaternionic NLSM metric defined by eqs. (5.2), (5.3), (5.4) and (5.14) is apparently different from the classical UH metric (2.17), these metrics are nevertheless equivalent in the classical region of the UH moduli space where all quantum corrections are suppressed. The classical approximation corresponds to the conformal limit $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ and $`\left|\zeta \right|\mathrm{}`$, while keeping the ratio $`\left|\zeta \right|^2/\omega `$ finite. Then one easily finds that $`P\mathrm{\Lambda }^1=const.>0`$, whereas the metric (5.2) takes the form

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\left(\left|dC\right|^2+d\lambda ^2\right)+\frac{1}{\lambda ^4}(dD+\mathrm{\Theta })^2,$$
$`(5.15)`$
in terms of the new variables $`C=1/\zeta `$ and $`\lambda ^2=\omega `$, after a few rescalings. The metric (5.15) reduces to that of eq. (2.17) when using $`\lambda ^2=e^{2\varphi }`$. Another interesting limit is $`\omega 0`$ and $`\left|\zeta \right|\mathrm{}`$, where one gets a conformally flat metric $`(AdS_4)`$.

Based on the fact that both hyper-Kähler and quaternionic metrics under consideration are governed by the same Toda equation, a natural mechanism 888The different mechanism, which associates the quaternionic metric in $`4(n+1)`$ real dimensions
to a given (special) hyper-Kähler metric in $`4n`$ real dimensions, was proposed in ref. . of generating the quaternionic metrics from known hyper-Kähler metrics in the same (four) dimensions arises: first, one deduces a solution to the Toda equation (4.7) from a given four-dimensional hyper-Kähler metric having a non-triholomorphic or rotational isometry, by rewriting it to the form (4.1), and then one inserts the obtained exact solution into the quaternionic Ansatz (5.2) to deduce the corresponding quaternionic metric with the same isometry. Being applied to the D-instantons, this mechanism results in their dressing with respect to 4d, N=2 supergravity background .

The $`SU(\mathrm{})`$ Toda equation is known to be notoriously difficult to solve, while a very few its exact solutons are known . Nevertheless, the proposed connection to the hyper-Kähler metrics can be used as the powerful vehicle for generating exact solutions to eq. (4.7). It is worth mentioning that eq. (4.3) follows from eq. (4.7) after a substitution

$$W=_\omega u,$$
$`(5.16)`$
while eq. (5.2) is solved by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_1=_yu(dx)\pm _xu(dy).$$
$`(5.17)`$
This is known as the Toda frame for a hyper-Kähler metric . It is not difficult to verify that the separable solution (5.14) is generated from the Eguchi-Hanson (hyper-Kähler) metric along these lines . Another highly non-trivial solution to the Toda equation (4.17) follows from the Atiyah-Hitchin (hyper-Kähler) metric . The transform to the Toda frame for the Atiyah-Hitchin metric is known ,

$$y+\mathrm{i}x=K(k)\sqrt{1+k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{sinh}^2\nu }\left(\mathrm{cos}\vartheta +\frac{\mathrm{tanh}\nu }{K(k)}_0^{\pi /2}d\gamma \frac{\sqrt{1k^2\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma }}{1k^2\mathrm{tanh}^2\nu \mathrm{sin}^2\gamma }\right)$$

$$\omega =\frac{1}{8}K^2(k)\left(k^2\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta +k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(1+\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta \mathrm{sin}^2\psi )\frac{2E(k)}{K(k)}\right),$$
$`(5.18)`$
where $`(\vartheta ,\psi ,\phi ;k)`$ are the new coordinates (in four dimensions). The parameter $`k`$ plays the role of modulus here, $`0<k<1`$, while $`k^{}=\sqrt{1k^2}`$ is called the complementary modulus. The remaining definitions are

$$\nu \mathrm{log}\left(\mathrm{tan}\frac{\vartheta }{2}\right)+i\psi ,\tau =2\left(\phi +\mathrm{arg}(1+k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{sinh}^2\nu )\right),$$
$`(5.19)`$
in terms of the standard complete elliptic integrals of the first and second kind, $`K(k)`$ and $`E(k)`$, respectively. The solution to the Toda equation (4.7) now reads

$$\mathrm{e}^u=\frac{1}{16}K^2(k)\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta \left|1+k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{sinh}^2\nu \right|.$$
$`(5.20)`$
The physical significance of the related quaternionic metric solution is apparent in the perturbative region $`k1`$, where

$$k^{}e^{S_{\mathrm{inst}.}},\mathrm{and}S_{\mathrm{inst}.}+\mathrm{}.$$
$`(5.21)`$
In this limit the Atiyah-Hitchin metric is exponentially close to the Taub-NUT metric , while the exponentially small corrections can be interpreted as the (mixed) D instantons and anti-instantons. The D-instanton action $`S_{\mathrm{inst}.}`$ represents here the volume of the corresponding suppersymmetric three-cycle $`𝒞`$, on which the D-brane is wrapped . It is worth mentioning that the same exact solution also describes the hypermultiplet moduli space metric in the 3d, N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory with the $`SU(2)`$ gauge group, which was obtained via the c-map in ref. .

## 6 Fivebrane instantons and Tod-Hitchin metric

As was demonstrated in ref. , the BPS condition on the fivebrane instanton solution with the vanishing charge $`Q_\eta `$ of eq. (3.12) defines a gradient flow in the hypermultiplet moduli space. The flow implies the $`SU(2)`$ isometry of the UH metric since the non-degenerate action of this isometry in the four-dimensional UH moduli space gives rise to the well defined three-dimensional orbits which can be parametrized by the ‘radial’ coordinate to be identified with the flow parameter. In the case of the classical UH moduli space $`SU(2,1)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$ the radial coordinate $`(r)`$ is defined by eq. (A.5), while its relation to the complex $`(S,C)`$ coordinates is given by

$$r^2=\frac{\left|1S\right|^2+4\left|C\right|^2}{\left|1+S\right|^2},$$
$`(6.1)`$
where we have used eqs. (3.5) and (A.5). It is worth mentioning that the non-abelian $`SU(2)`$ symmetry includes the abelian duality rotations (3.8). However, it does not imply the preservation of the rest of the $`SU(2,1)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$ symmetries (other than $`SU(2)`$) including the Peccei-Quinn type symmetries (3.6) and (3.7). Hence, the $`SU(2)`$-invariant deformations of the classical UH metric, subject to the quaternionic constraints (5.1), should describe the zero-charge fivebrane instanton corrections.

The action of a fivebrane instanton with the vanishing charge may merely depend upon the complex structure modulus at infinity . Therefore, we expect the corresponding UH moduli space metric be merely dependent upon the complex structure on the boundary of the coset $`SU(2,1)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$. The conformal boundary metric for the coset $`SU(2,1)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$ is known to be degenerate, i.e. it possess a zero eigenvalue. This happens because the conformal structure, associated with the Bergmann metric in the form (A.6) inside the unit ball in $`𝐂^2`$, does not extend across the boundary since the coefficient at $`\sigma _2^2`$ in eq. (A.6) decays faster than the coefficients at $`\sigma _1^2`$ and $`\sigma _3^2`$. However, the conformal structure survives in the two-dimensional (2d) subspace annihilated by $`\sigma _2`$. The 2d complex structure has a single real parameter – the central charge  – which should appear in the UH metric. The exact metric solutions, given below in this section, confirm these expectations.

Let’s consider a generic $`SU(2)`$-invariant metric in four Euclidean dimensions. In the Bianchi IX formalism, where the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry is manifest, the general Ansatz for such metrics reads (see Appendix A for our notation)

$$ds^2=w_1w_2w_3dt^2+\frac{w_2w_3}{w_1}\sigma _1^2+\frac{w_3w_1}{w_2}\sigma _2^2+\frac{w_1w_2}{w_3}\sigma _3^2,$$
$`(6.2)`$
in terms of the (left)-invariant one-forms $`\sigma _i`$ defined by eq. (A.7), and the radial coordinate $`t`$. The metric (6.2) is dependent upon three functions $`w_i(t)`$, $`i=1,2,3`$. The most general $`SU(2)`$-invariant metric is given by a quadratic form with respect to $`\sigma _i`$. However, it can always be chosen in the diagonal form, as in eq. (6.2), without loss of generality.

The quaternionic constraints on the metric amount to the ASD-Weyl equation and the Einstein equation — see eq. (5.1). The exact $`SU(2)`$-invariant solutions to these equations were found by Tod  and Hitchin . The main results of refs.  are briefly described below.

Being applied to the metric (6.2), the ASD Weyl condition gives rise to a system of Ordinary Differential Equations (ODE) ,

| $`\underset{1}{\overset{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{A}}=`$ | $`A_2A_3+A_1(A_2+A_3),`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`\underset{2}{\overset{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{A}}=`$ | $`A_3A_1+A_2(A_3+A_1),`$ |
| $`\underset{3}{\overset{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{A}}=`$ | $`A_1A_2+A_3(A_1+A_2),`$ |

$`(6.3)`$
where the dots denote differentiation with respect to $`t`$, and the functions $`A_i(t)`$ are defined by the auxiliary ODE system,

| $`\underset{1}{\overset{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{w}}=`$ | $`w_2w_3+w_1(A_2+A_3),`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`\underset{2}{\overset{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{w}}=`$ | $`w_3w_1+w_2(A_3+A_1),`$ |
| $`\underset{3}{\overset{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{w}}=`$ | $`w_1w_2+w_3(A_1+A_2).`$ |

$`(6.4)`$
The ODE system (6.3) is known in the mathematical literature as the classical Halphen system . The Bergmann metric (A.6) is the simplest solution to eqs. (6.3) and (6.4) with $`A_i=0`$ for all $`i=1,2,3`$. This follows from comparison of eqs. (6.3), (6.4) and (A.6). Note that despite of the fact that all $`A_i=0`$, the Bergmann metric (A.6) is, nevertheless, non-trivial (or non-flat) since eq. (A.6) is still a non-trivial solution to eq. (6.4).

Given a metric solution to the ASD Weyl equations, the Einstein equation of eq. (5.1) can be easily satisfied after proper Weyl rescaling of the ASD Weyl metric, because any local Weyl transformation does not affect the vanishing Weyl tensor. Having obtained an explicit solution to the Halphen system (6.3), it may be substituted into the ODE system (6.4). To solve eq. (6.4), it is convenient to change variables as

| $`w_1=`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{x}}{\sqrt{x(1x)}}},`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`w_2=`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_2\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{x}}{\sqrt{x^2(1x)}}},`$ |
| $`w_3=`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_3\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{x}}{\sqrt{x(1x)^2}}},`$ |

$`(6.5)`$
where the new variables $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i(x)`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, are constrained by an algebraic condition,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2=\frac{1}{4}.$$
$`(6.6)`$
The algebraic relation (6.6) reduces the number of the newly introduced functions in eq. (6.5) from four to three, as it should. In fact, eq. (6.6) is also dictated by the quaternionic nature of the metric .

In terms of the new variables (6.5), the ODE system (6.4) takes the form

| $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{}=`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_2\mathrm{\Omega }_3}{x(1x)}},`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}=`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_3\mathrm{\Omega }_1}{x}},`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3^{}=`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2}{1x}},`$ |

$`(6.7)`$
where the primes denote differentiation with respect to $`x`$. It is not difficult to verify that the algebaric constraint (6.6) is preserved under the flow (6.7), so that the highly non-linear transformation (6.5) is fully consistent. In terms of the new variables $`(x,\mathrm{\Omega }_i)`$, the Einstein condition of eq. (5.1) on the metric (6.2) in the form

$$ds^2=e^{2u}\left[\frac{dx^2}{x(1x)}+\frac{\sigma _1^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2}+\frac{(1x)\sigma _2^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2}+\frac{x\sigma _3^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2}\right]$$
$`(6.8)`$
amounts to the algebraic relation

$$96\kappa ^2e^{2u}=\frac{8x\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+2\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2\mathrm{\Omega }_3(x(\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2)(14\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2)(\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2(1x)\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2))}{(x\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2+2\mathrm{\Omega }_3(\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2(1x)\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2))^2}$$
$`(6.9)`$
which yields the Weyl factor $`u(x)`$ in terms of the functions $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i(x)`$.

The Halphen system (6.3) has a long history . Perhaps, its most natural (manifestly integrable) derivation is provided via a reduction of the $`SL(2,𝐂)`$ anti-self-dual Yang-Mills equations from four Euclidean dimensions to one . A classification of all possible reductions is known in terms of the so-called Painlevé groups that give rise to six different types of integrable Painlevé equations . It remains to identify those of them that lay behind the ASD-Weyl (or quaternionic-Kähler) geometry with the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry. There are only two natural (or nilpotent, in the terminology of ref. ) types (III and VI) that give rise to a single non-linear integrable equation. In the geometrical terms, it is the Painlevé III equation that lays behind the four-dimensional Kähler spaces with vanishing scalar curvature , whereas the Painlevé VI equation is known to be behind the ASD-Weyl geometries having the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry . A generic Painlevé VI equation has four real parameters , but they are all fixed by the quaternionic property , as in eq. (6.6). This means that the quaternionic metrics with the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry are all governed by the particular Painlevé VI equation:

| $`y^{\prime \prime }=`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{yx}}\right)(y^{})^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{yx}}\right)y^{}`$ |
| --- | --- |
|  | $`+{\displaystyle \frac{y(y1)(yx)}{x^2(x1)^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{8y^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x1}{8(y1)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3x(x1)}{8(yx)^2}}\right],`$ |

$`(6.10)`$
where $`y=y(x)`$, and the primes denote differentiation with respect to $`x`$.

The equivalence between eqs. (6.3) and (6.10) via eqs. (6.4) and (6.5) is known to mathematicians . Explicitly, in the Einstein case, it is given by the relations

| $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2=`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{(yx)^2y(y1)}{x(1x)}}\left(v{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(y1)}}\right)\left(v{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2y}}\right),`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2=`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{(yx)y^2(y1)}{x}}\left(v{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(yx)}}\right)\left(v{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(y1)}}\right),`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2=`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{(yx)y(y1)^2}{(1x)}}\left(v{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2y}}\right)\left(v{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(yx)}}\right),`$ |

$`(6.11)`$
where the auxiliary variable $`v`$ is defined by the equation

$$y{}_{}{}^{}=\frac{y(y1)(yx)}{x(x1)}(2v\frac{1}{2y}\frac{1}{2(y1)}+\frac{1}{2(yx)}).$$
$`(6.12)`$
An exact solution to the Painlevé VI equation (6.10), which leads to a regular (and complete) quaternionic metric (6.2), is unique . The Hitchin solution  can be expressed in terms of the standard theta-functions $`\vartheta _\alpha (z|\tau )`$, where $`\alpha =1,2,3,4`$999We use the standard definitions and notation for the theta functions  — see Appendix B.

In order to write down the Hitchin solution to eq. (6.10), the theta-function arguments should be related, $`z=\frac{1}{2}(\tau k)`$, where $`k`$ is an arbitrary (real and positive) parameter. The variable $`\tau `$ is related to the variable $`x`$ of eq. (6.10) via

$$x=\vartheta _3^4(0)/\vartheta _4^4(0),$$
$`(6.13)`$
where the value of the variable $`z`$ is explicitly indicated, as usual. One finds

| $`y(x)=`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _1^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)}{3\pi ^2\vartheta _4^4(0)\vartheta _1^{}(0)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _3^4(0)}{\vartheta _4^4(0)}}\right]`$ |
| --- | --- |
|  | $`+{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _1^{\prime \prime \prime }(z)\vartheta _1(z)2\vartheta _1^{\prime \prime }(z)\vartheta _1^{}(z)+2\pi i(\vartheta _1^{\prime \prime }(z)\vartheta _1(z)\vartheta _1^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(z))}{2\pi ^2\vartheta _4^4(0)\vartheta _1(z)(\vartheta _1^{}(z)+\pi i\vartheta _1(z))}}.`$ |

$`(6.14)`$
The parameter $`k>0`$ describes the monodromy of the solution (6.14) around its essential singularities (branch points) $`x=0,1,\mathrm{}`$. This (non-abelian) monodromy is generated by the matrices (with the purely imaginary eigenvalues $`\pm i`$)

$$M_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right),M_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i^{1k}\\ i^{1+k}& 0\end{array}\right),M_3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i^k\\ i^k& 0\end{array}\right).$$
$`(6.15)`$
Another explicit (equivalent) form of the Hitchin exact solution to the metric coefficients $`w_i`$ in eqs. (6.2) and (6.4) was derived in ref. , in terms of the theta functions with characteristics, by the use of the fundamental Schlesinger system and the isomonodromic deformation techniques.

The function (6.14) is meromorphic outside its essential singularities at $`x=0,1,\mathrm{}`$, while is also has simple poles at $`\overline{x}_1,\overline{x}_2,\mathrm{}`$, where $`\overline{x}_n(x_n,x_{n+1})`$ and $`x_n=x(ik/(2n1))`$ for each positive integer $`n`$. Accordingly, the metric is well-defined (complete) for $`x(\overline{x}_n,x_{n+1}]`$, i.e. in the unit ball with the origin at $`x=x_{n+1}`$ and the boundary at $`x=\overline{x}_n`$ . Near the boundary the Tod-Hitchin metric (6.2) has the asymptotical behaviour

| $`ds^2=`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{dx^2}{(1x)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(1x)\mathrm{cosh}^2(\pi k/2)}}\sigma _1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{(1x)^2\mathrm{sinh}^2(\pi k/2)\mathrm{cosh}^2(\pi k/2)}}\sigma _2^2`$ |
| --- | --- |
|  | $`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(1x)\mathrm{sinh}^2(\pi k/2)}}\sigma _3^2+\mathrm{regular}\mathrm{terms}.`$ |

$`(6.16)`$
As is clear from eq. (6.16), the coefficient at $`\sigma _2^2`$ vanishes faster than the coefficients at $`\sigma _1^2`$ and $`\sigma _3^2`$ when approaching the boundary, $`x1^{}`$, similarly to eq. (A.6). On the two-dimensional boundary annihilated by $`\sigma _2`$ one has the natural conformal structure

$$\mathrm{sinh}^2(\pi k/2)\sigma _1^2+\mathrm{cosh}^2(\pi k/2)\sigma _3^2.$$
$`(6.17)`$
The only relevant parameter $`\mathrm{tanh}^2(\pi k/2)`$ in eq. (6.17) represents the central charge (or the conformal anomaly) on the boundary. This result is apparently consistent with (i) the fact that the type-IIA fivebranes can be described in terms of an exact (super)conformal field theory , (ii) the Zamolodchikov $`c`$-theorem , and (iii) the holographic principle .

The constraints (5.1) do not seem to imply any quantization condition on the monodromy parameter $`k`$ since the regular metric solutions exist for any $`k>0`$. The central charge (or the critical exponent $`k`$) is quantized in solvable 2d, N=2 superconformal field theories (the minimal N=2 superconformal models) which are associated with compact (simply-laced) Lie groups . The absence of central charge quantization in our case may be related to the negative scalar curvature of the metrics. The Einstein-Weyl metrics of the positive scalar curvature take the similar form given by eqs. (6.2) or (6.8), while they are known to be related to the so-called Poncelet $`n`$-polygons that give rise to the quantization condition $`k=2/n`$, where $`n𝐙`$ . It is thus the non-compact nature of the Lie group $`SU(2,1)`$ that is responsible for the absence of the central charge quantization in the boundary conformal field theory.

## 7 Conclusion

The universal hypermultiplet gives us the unique opportunity to learn more about the non-perturbative quantum corrections in string/M-theory via better understanding of the exact quaternionic geometry governing the hypermultiplet LEEA (or NLSM) in the 4d, N=2 supergravity background.

The D-instanton corrections to the classical UH moduli space metric are calculable due to the residual $`U_D(1)\times U_C(1)`$ symmetry (sects. 4 and 5). No such corrections arise when all the other fields (except UH) are turned off. The fivebrane instanton corrections are calculable at vanishing fivebrane charges (sect. 6). In a generic case with non-vanishing charges, there may be also contributions from the membranes ending on fivebranes wrapped on a CY space . Then only $`U_C(1)`$ isometry may be left. However, the quaternionic Ansatz (5.2) still applies, this time with respect to the $`U_C(1)`$ isometry. The absence of any other symmetry means that generic instanton corrections are described by non-separable exact solutions to the three-dimensional Toda equation (4.7). This observation is consistent with another observation that the instanton action is not a sum of membrane and fivebrane contributions .

More general (than Atiyah-Hitchin) regular hyper-Kähler four-manifolds with a rotational isometry are known , though in the rather implicit form (as the algebraic curves). It is also known that the Toda equation (4.7) can be reduced in a highly non-trivial way to the Painlevé equations . It is not clear to us how to extract the specific information from this knowledge, which would be relevant for the problem mentioned in the title.

## Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Klaus Behrndt, Vicente Cortes, Evgeny Ivanov, Olaf Lechtenfeld, Werner Nahm, Hermann Nicolai, Paul Tod, Galliano Valent, Stefan Vandoren and Bernard de Wit for discussions. This paper is based on the invited talks given by the author at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Hannover and the Max-Planck-Institute for Mathematics in Bonn, within the national (DFG) programm ‘String Theory’.

## Appendix A: coset space $`SU(2,1)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$

The homogeneous symmetric space $`SU(2,1)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$ is topologically equivalent to the open ball in $`𝐂^2`$ with the Bergmann metric

$$ds^2=\frac{dz_1d\overline{z}_1+dz_2d\overline{z}_2}{1\left|z_1\right|{}_{}{}^{2}\left|z_2\right|^2}+\frac{(\overline{z}_1dz_1+\overline{z}_2dz_2)(z_1d\overline{z}_1+z_2d\overline{z}_2)}{(1|z_1\left|{}_{}{}^{2}\right|z_2|{}_{}{}^{2})^2},$$
$`(A.1)`$
where $`\left|z_1\right|^2+\left|z_2\right|^2<1`$ and $`\left|z\right|{}_{}{}^{2}=z\overline{z}`$. The metric (A.1) is Kähler,

$$ds^2=(_a\overline{}_bK)dz_ad\overline{z}_b=e^Kdz_ad\overline{z}_a+e^{2K}(\overline{z}_adz_a)(z_bd\overline{z}_b),a,b=1,2,$$
$`(A.2)`$
with the Kähler potential

$$K=\mathrm{log}(1|z_1\left|{}_{}{}^{2}\right|z_2|{}_{}{}^{2}).$$
$`(A.3)`$
The Kähler potential is defined modulo the Kähler gauge transformations,

$$K(z,\overline{z})\stackrel{~}{K}(z,\overline{z})=K(z,\overline{z})+f(z)+\overline{f}(\overline{z}),$$
$`(A.4)`$
with an arbitrary holomorphic function $`f(z_1,z_2)`$.

Equation (A.3) clearly shows that the Bergmann metric is dual to the Fubini-Study metric on the compact complex projective space $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^2=SU(3)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$ . The homogeneous space $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^2`$ is symmetric, while it is also an Einstein space of positive scalar curvature with the (anti)self-dual Weyl tensor. 101010The Weyl tensor is the traceless part of the Riemann curvature. The non-compact coset space $`SU(2,1)/U(2)`$ is, therefore, also an Einstein space (though of negative scalar curvature), with the (anti)self-dual Weyl tensor. In other words, the coset space $`SU(2,1)/U(2)`$ is an Einstein-Weyl (or a self-dual Einstein) space. In four dimensions, the Einstein-Weyl spaces are called quaternionic by definition .

After the coordinate change

$$z_1=r\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i(\phi +\psi )/2},z_2=r\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i(\phi \psi )/2},$$
$`(A.5)`$
the metric (A.1) can be rewritten to the diagonal form in the Bianchi IX formalism with manifest $`SU(2)`$ symmetry,

$$ds^2=\frac{dr^2}{(1r^2)^2}+\frac{r^2\sigma _2^2}{(1r^2)^2}+\frac{r^2}{(1r^2)}(\sigma _1^2+\sigma _3^2),$$
$`(A.6)`$
where we have introduced the $`su(2)`$ (left)-invariant one-forms

| $`\sigma _1=`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\phi +\mathrm{cos}\psi d\theta \right),`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`\sigma _2=`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}\left(d\psi +\mathrm{cos}\theta d\phi \right)`$ |
| $`\sigma _3=`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{sin}\psi d\theta \mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\phi \right),`$ |

$`(A.7)`$
in terms of four real coordinates $`0r<1`$, $`0\theta <\pi `$, $`0\phi <2\pi `$ and $`0\psi <4\pi `$. The one-forms (A.6) obey the relations

$$\sigma _i\sigma _j=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{ijk}d\sigma _k,i,j,k=1,2,3.$$
$`(A.8)`$
Another useful parametrization of the coset $`SU(2,1)/U(2)`$ arises after the following change of variables:

$$z_1=\frac{1S}{1+S},z_2=\frac{2C}{1+S}.$$
$`(A.9)`$
The Kähler potential in terms of the new complex variables $`(S,C)`$ reads

$$𝒦=\mathrm{log}\left(S+\overline{S}2C\overline{C}\right),$$
$`(A.10)`$
with the Kähler metric

$$ds^2=e^{2𝒦}\left(dSd\overline{S}2CdSd\overline{C}2\overline{C}d\overline{S}dC+2(S+\overline{S})dCd\overline{C}\right).$$
$`(A.11)`$
This form of the metric was used by Ferrara and Sabharwal  in their analysis of the type-II superstring vacua on Calabi-Yau spaces, in terms of the complex RR-type scalar $`C`$ and the complex scalar

$$S=e^{2\varphi }+2iD+C\overline{C},$$
$`(A.12)`$
where $`\varphi `$ stands for the dilaton field and $`D`$ stands for the axion field in four spacetime dimensions. The metric (A.11) can also be rewritten to the form

$$ds^2=\left|u\right|{}_{}{}^{2}+\left|v\right|{}_{}{}^{2},$$
$`(A.13)`$
where

$$ue^\varphi dC\mathrm{and}ve^{2\varphi }\left(\frac{1}{2}dS\overline{C}dC\right),$$
$`(A.14)`$
by using the relations

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[(S+\overline{S}2C\overline{C})/2\right]$$
$`(A.15)`$
and

$$e^𝒦=\frac{1}{2}e^{2\varphi },$$
$`(A.16)`$
in accordance with eqs. (A.10) and (A.12). The notation (A.13) and (A.14) was used by Strominger  in his investigation of the one-loop string corrections to the universal hypermultiplet. Of course, the metric (A.13) is not flat, since the one-forms $`u`$ and $`v`$ of eq. (A.14) are not exact. Here are some useful identities

| $`du=`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}u(v+\overline{v}),`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`dv=`$ | $`v\overline{v}+u\overline{u},`$ |
| $`d\varphi =`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}(v+\overline{v}).`$ |

$`(A.17)`$
## AppendixB: Basic facts about theta-functions

The first theta-function $`\vartheta _1(z|\tau )`$ is defined by the series

| $`\vartheta _1(z)\vartheta _1(z|\tau )`$ | $`=i{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n\mathrm{exp}i\left\{\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2\pi \tau +(2n+1)z\right\}`$ |
| --- | --- |
|  | $`=2{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^nq^{(n+1/2)^2}\mathrm{sin}(2n+1)z,q=e^{i\pi \tau },`$ |

$`(B.1)`$
where $`\tau `$ is regarded as the fundamental complex parameter, whose imaginary part must be positive, $`q`$ is called the nome of the theta-function, $`\left|q\right|<1`$, and $`z`$ is the complex variable. The other theta-functions are defined by

| $`\vartheta _2(z|\tau )`$ | $`=\vartheta _1(z+\frac{1}{2}\pi )|\tau )={\displaystyle }^+\mathrm{}_{n=\mathrm{}}q^{(n+1/2)^2}e^{i(2n+1)z}`$ |
| --- | --- |
|  | $`=2{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}q^{(n+1/2)^2}\mathrm{cos}(2n+1)z,`$ |

$`(B.2)`$
| $`\vartheta _3(z|\tau )`$ | $`=\vartheta _4(z+\frac{1}{2}\pi )|\tau )={\displaystyle }^+\mathrm{}_{n=\mathrm{}}q^{n^2}e^{2inz}`$ |
| --- | --- |
|  | $`=1+2{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}q^{n^2}\mathrm{cos}2nz,`$ |

$`(B.3)`$
and

$$\vartheta _4(z|\tau )=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^nq^{n^2}e^{2inz}=1+2\underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^nq^{n^2}\mathrm{cos}2nz.$$
$`(B.4)`$
The identities

$$\vartheta _3^4(0)=\vartheta _2^4(0)+\vartheta _4^4(0),$$
$`(B.5)`$
$$\vartheta _1^{}(0)=\vartheta _2(0)\vartheta _3(0)\vartheta _4(0),$$
$`(B.6)`$
and

$$\frac{\vartheta _1^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)}{\vartheta _1^{}(0)}=\frac{\vartheta _2^{\prime \prime }(0)}{\vartheta _2(0)}+\frac{\vartheta _3^{\prime \prime }(0)}{\vartheta _3(0)}+\frac{\vartheta _4^{\prime \prime }(0)}{\vartheta _4(0)},$$
$`(B.7)`$
where the primes denote differentiation with respect to $`z`$, may be used to rewrite eq. (6.4) to other equivalent forms (cf. ).


format: text

text:
# Muon 𝑔-2, Dark Matter Detection and Accelerator Physics

## Abstract

We examine the recently observed deviation of the muon $`g2`$ from the Standard Model prediction within the framework of gravity mediated SUGRA models with R parity invariance. Universal soft breaking (mSUGRA) models, and models with non-universal Higgs and third generation squark/slepton masses at $`M_G`$ are considered. All relic density constraints from stau-neutralino co-annihilation and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ NLO corrections for $`bs\gamma `$ decay are included, and we consider two possibilities for the light Higgs: $`m_h>114`$ GeV and $`m_h>120`$ GeV. The combined $`m_h`$, $`bs\gamma `$ and $`a_\mu `$ bounds give rise to lower bounds on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`m_{1/2}`$, while the lower bound on $`a_\mu `$ gives rise to an upper bounds on $`m_{1/2}`$. These bounds are sensitive to $`A_0`$, e.g. for $`m_h>114`$ GeV, the $`95\%`$ C.L. is $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >7(5)`$ for $`A_0=0(4m_{1/2})`$, and for $`m_h>120`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >15(10)`$. The positive sign of the $`a_\mu `$ deviation implies $`\mu >0`$, eliminating the extreme cancellations in the dark matter neutralino-proton detection cross section so that almost all the SUSY parameter space should be accessible to future planned detectors. Most of the allowed parts of parameter space occur in the co-annihilation region where $`m_0`$ is strongly correlated with $`m_{1/2}`$. The lower bound on $`a_\mu `$ then greatly reduces the allowed parameter space. Thus using $`90\%`$ C. L. bounds on $`a_\mu `$ we find for $`A_0=0`$ that $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 10`$ and for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 40`$ that $`m_{1/2}=(290550)`$ GeV and $`m_0=(70300)`$ GeV. Then the tri-lepton signal and other SUSY signals would be beyond the Tevatron Run II (except for the light Higgs), only the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ and $`h`$ and (and for part of the parameter space) the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_1`$ will be accessible to a 500 GeV NLC , while the LHC would be able to see the full SUSY mass spectrum.

preprint: CTP-TAMU-08-01

The remarkable accuracy with which the muon gyromagnetic ratio can be measured makes it an excellent probe for new physics beyond the Standard Model. The recently reported result of the Brookhaven E821 experiment now gives a $`2.6\sigma `$ deviation from the predicted value of the Standard Model :

$$a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}=43(16)\times 10^{10}$$
(1)
where $`a_\mu =(g_\mu 2)/2`$. Efforts were made initially to calculate a possible deviation from the Standard Model within the framework of global supersymmetry (SUSY) . However, one may show that in the limit of exact global supersymmetry, $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ will vanish , and thus one needs broken supersymmetry to obtain a non-zero result. The absence of a phenomenologically viable way of spontaneously breaking global supersymmetry made realistic predictions for these models difficult. In contrast, spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry in supergravity (SUGRA) is easy to achieve, and the advent of supergravity grand unified models  led to the first calculations of $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUGRA}}`$ , of which  was the first complete analysis. Since that time there have been a number of papers updating that result. (See e.g. .)

In SUGRA models, the spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry triggers the Higgs VEV and hence the breaking of $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$, relating then these two mass scales. Thus the scale of the new SUSY masses is predicted to be $`100`$ GeV - 1 TeV. It was then possible to predict in  that the SUGRA contributions would be comparable or larger than the electroweak contribution, $`15.2(4)\times 10^{10}`$ , in accord with the now observed deviation of Eq. (1). This scale for the SUSY masses was further confirmed by the LEP data showing that consistency with grand unification could be obtained if the SUSY masses also lie in the above range . Finally, we note that SUGRA models with R-parity invariance predict a dark matter candidate (the lightest neutralino) with the astronomically observed amount of relic density if the SUSY masses again lie in this range.

It is thus reasonable to investigate whether the observed deviation from $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ can be understood within the framework of SUGRA models, and in this paper we consider gravity mediated SUSY breaking with R-parity invariance for models with universal soft breaking masses (mSUGRA) and also models with non-universal masses in the Higgs and third generation sector. SUGRA models have a wide range of applicability including cosmological phenomena and accelerator physics, and constraints in one area affect predictions in other areas. In particular, as first observed in  and emphasized in , that $`a_\mu `$ increases with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, as do dark matter detection rates. Thus as we will see, the deviation of Eq. (1) will significantly effect the minimum neutralino -proton cross section, $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$, for terrestial detectors. Even more significant is the fact that the astronomical bounds on the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ relic density restrict the SUSY parameter space and hence the SUGRA predictions for $`a_\mu `$ as well as what may be expected to be seen at the Tevatron RUN II and the LHC. In order to carry out this analysis, however, it is necessary to include all the co-annihilation effects for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, as well as the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ corrections to $`m_b`$ and $`m_\tau `$ (which are needed to correctly determine the corresponding Yukawa coupling constants) and the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ NLO corrections to the $`bs\gamma `$ decay . In addition, the light Higgs ($`h`$) mass bounds play an important role in limiting the SUSY parameter space and it is necessary to include the one and two loop corrections, and the pole mass corrections. The above corrections for dark matter (DM) calculations were carried out in , and we will use the same corrections here. Recently several papers have appeared analysing the SUGRA contribution to $`a_\mu `$ in light of the final LEP bounds on $`m_h`$ and the deviation of Eq.(1). Relic density constraints were not considered in Refs.  and coannihilation effects apparently not included in Refs. . Also Refs.  do not seem to have included the constraints from the $`bs\gamma `$ decay. As will be seen below, these effects are of major importance in determining the SUGRA predictions.

Before proceeding on, we state the range of parameters we assume. We take a $`2\sigma `$ bound of Eq. (1),

$$11\times 10^{10}<a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUGRA}}<75\times 10^{10},$$
(2)
a $`2\sigma `$ bound on the $`bs\gamma `$ branching ratio, $`1.8\times 10^4<BR(bs\gamma )<4.5\times 10^4`$, and a neutralino relic density range of $`0.02<\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2<0.25`$. (Assuming a lower bound of 0.1 does not affect results significantly.) The $`b`$-quark mass is assumed to have the range $`4.0\mathrm{GeV}<m_b(m_b)<4.4`$ GeV. We consider two bounds on the Higgs mass: $`m_h>114`$ GeV and $`m_h>120`$ GeV. The first is the current LEP bound and the second is likely within reach of the Tevatron Run II. However, the theoretical calculations of $`m_h`$ have still some uncertainty as well as uncertainty in the $`t`$-quark mass, and so we will conservatively interpret these bounds to mean that our theoretical values obey $`m_h>111`$ GeV and 117 GeV respectively. (Our calculations of $`m_h`$ are consistent with .) The scalar and gaugino masses at the GUT scale obey $`(m_0,m_{1/2})<1`$ TeV. We examine the range $`2<\mathrm{tan}\beta <40`$, and the cubic soft breaking mass is parameterized at the GUT scale by $`|A_0|<4m_{1/2}`$. Non-universal masses deviate from universality according to $`m_0^2(1+\delta )`$ where $`1<\delta <+1`$. Other parameters are as in .

We consider first the mSUGRA model, which depends on the four parameters $`m_0`$, $`m_{1/2}`$, $`A_0`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =H_2/H_1`$ ( where $`H_{(1,2)}`$ give rise to $`(d,u)`$ quark masses) and the sign of the $`\mu `$ parameter of the Higgs mixing part of the superpotential ($`W=\mu H_1H_2`$). The SUSY contribution to $`a_\mu `$ arises from two types of loop diagrams, i. e. those with chargino -sneutrino intermediate states, and those with neutralino-smuon intermediate states. The dominant contribution arises from the former term with the light chargino ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$). For moderate or large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and when ($`\mu \pm \stackrel{~}{m}_2)^2M_W^2`$, one finds

$$a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUGRA}}\frac{\alpha }{4\pi }\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}\left(\frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }\mu }\right)\frac{\mathrm{tan}\beta }{1\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2}{\mu ^2}}\left[1\frac{M_W^2}{\mu ^2}\frac{1+3\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2}{\mu ^2}}{\left(1\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2}{\mu ^2}\right)^2}\right]F(x)$$
(3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i=(\alpha _i/\alpha _G)m_{1/2}`$, $`i=1,2,3`$ are the gaugino masses at the electroweak scale and $`\alpha _G1/24`$ is the GUT scale gauge coupling constant. (One has $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }\stackrel{~}{m}_20.8m_{1/2}`$, and the gluino ($`\stackrel{~}{g}`$) mass is $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\stackrel{~}{m}_3`$.) In Eq. (3), the form factor is $`F(x)=(13x)(1x)^22x^2(1x)^3\mathrm{ln}x`$, where $`x=(m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}/m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm })^2`$. The sneutrino and chargino masses being related to $`m_0`$ and $`m_{1/2}`$ by the renormalization group equations (RGE) . (The contribution from the heavy chargino, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm `$ reduces this result by about a third.) One finds for large $`m_{1/2}`$ that $`F(x)0.6`$ so that $`a_\mu `$ decreases as $`1/m_{1/2}`$, while for large $`m_0`$, $`F`$ decreases as $`\mathrm{ln}(m_0^2)/m_0^2`$ (exhibiting the SUSY decoupling phenomena).

Eq. (3) exhibits also the fact discussed in  that the sign of $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUGRA}}`$ is given by the sign of $`\mu `$. Eq. (1) thus implies that $`\mu `$ is positive (as pointed out in ). This then has immediate consequences for dark matter detection. Thus as discussed in , for $`\mu <0`$, accidental cancellations can occur reducing the neutralino-proton cross section to below $`10^{10}`$ pb over a wide range of SUSY parameters, and making halo neutralino dark matter unobservable for present or future planned terrestial detectors. Thus this possibility has now been eliminated, and future detectors (e.g. GENIUS) should be able to scan almost the full SUSY parameter space for $`m_{1/2}<1`$ TeV.

The lower bound of Eq. (1) plays a central role in limiting the $`\mu >0`$ SUSY parameter space, particularly when combined with the bounds on the Higgs mass and the $`bs\gamma `$ constraints. As seen above, lowering $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can be compensated in $`a_\mu `$ by also lowering $`m_{1/2}`$. However, $`m_h`$ decreases with both decreasing $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and decreasing $`m_{1/2}`$. Thus the combined Higgs and $`a_\mu `$ bounds put a lower bound on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. This bound is sensitive to $`A_0`$ since $`A_0`$ enters in the L-R mixing in the stop (mass)2 matrix and affects the values of the stop masses. We find for $`m_h>111`$ GeV (i.e. the 114 GeV experimental bound), that $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >7`$ for $`A_0=0`$, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >5`$ for $`A_0=4m_{1/2}`$. At higher $`m_h`$ the bound on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is more restrictive. Thus for $`m_h>117`$ GeV (corresponding to an experimental 120 GeV bound), one has $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >15`$ for $`A_0=0`$, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >10`$ for $`A_0=4m_{1/2}`$. As the Higgs mass increases, the bound on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ increases. As discussed in , for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the relic density constraints leave only co-annihilation regions possible, and these are very sensitive to the value of $`A_0`$. Fig. 1 exhibits the allowed regions in the $`m_0m_{1/2}`$ plane for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$, $`m_h>111`$ GeV for $`A_0=0,2m_{1/2}`$, and $`4m_{1/2}`$ (from bottom to top). The corridors terminate at low $`m_{1/2}`$ due to the $`bs\gamma `$ and $`m_h`$ constraints. Without the $`a_\mu `$ constraint, the corridors would extend up to the end of the parameter space ($`m_{1/2}=1`$ TeV). We see also that the relic density constraint effectively determines $`m_0`$ in terms of $`m_{1/2}`$ in this region. The lower bound of Eq. (1), however, cuts off these curves (at the verticle lines) preventing $`m_0`$ and $`m_{1/2}`$ from getting too large. Thus for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the $`g_\mu 2`$ experiment puts a strong constraint on the SUSY parameter space.

The restriction of the SUSY parameter space by the $`a_\mu `$ constraint affects the predicted dark matter detection rates. Thus the exclusion of the large $`m_0`$ and large $`m_{1/2}`$ domain of Fig. 1 generally raises the lower bounds on the neutralino-proton cross section. In Fig. 2 we have plotted $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ as a function of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$ for the allowed corridors for $`A_0=2m_{1/2},4m_{1/2}`$ and 0 (bottom to top). The curves terminate at high $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ due to the lower bound on $`a_\mu `$ of Eq. (1). (Note that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}0.4m_{1/2}`$.) Again one sees the sensitivity of results to the value of $`A_0`$, both for the high $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ termination point and for the magnitude of the cross section. Over the full range one has that $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}>6\times 10^{10}`$ pb, and hence should generally be accessible to future planned detectors.

If we reduce $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ , one might expect the minimum value of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ to significantly decrease. However, the $`a_\mu `$ bound then becomes more constraining, eliminating more and more of the high $`m_{1/2}`$, high $`m_0`$ region. This is shown in Fig. 3 where the minimum value of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ is plotted as a function of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, $`\mu >0`$, $`m_h>111`$ GeV, for $`A_0=4m_{1/2}`$ (lower curve), $`A_0=0`$ (upper curve). The $`A_0=0`$ curve terminates at low $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ due to the Higgs mass bound, while the $`A=4m_{1/2}`$ terminates due to the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint. The termination at high $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ is due to the $`a_\mu `$ lower bound of Eq. (1). We see that the parameter space is now quite restricted, and so even though $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is quite reduced, we find $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}>4\times 10^{10}`$ pb. The co-annihilation region begins at $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{>}{}140`$ GeV, and so the earlier part of these curves lie in the non co-annihilation domain.

If we raise $`m_h`$ and require $`m_h>117`$ GeV ( corresponding to an experimental bound of 120 GeV), then $`m_h`$ controls the termination of the curves at low $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$. Thus for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$, the curves of Fig. 2 start at $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}=200`$ GeV for $`A_0=2m_{1/2}`$, at $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}=215`$ GeV for $`A_0=0`$, and at $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}=246`$ GeV for $`A_0=4m_{1/2}`$ (i. e. the $`A_0=4m_{1/2}`$ curve is almost completely eliminated by the $`m_h`$ constraint). One has thus only a narrow range of allowed $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ . The allowed range becomes even narrower with decreasing $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and the entire parameter space is eliminated when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$.

We turn next to consider non-universal soft breaking models with non-universal masses at $`M_G`$ in the third generation squarks and sleptons and in the Higgs masses:

$`m_{H_1}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0^2(1+\delta _1);m_{H_2}^{2}=m_0^2(1+\delta _2);`$ (4)
$`m_{q_L}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0^2(1+\delta _3);m_{t_R}^{2}=m_0^2(1+\delta _4);m_{\tau _R}^{2}=m_0^2(1+\delta _5);`$ (5)
$`m_{b_R}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0^2(1+\delta _6);m_{l_L}^{2}=m_0^2(1+\delta _7).`$ (6)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{q}_L=(\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{b}_L)`$ squarks, $`\stackrel{~}{l}_L=(\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau ,\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L)`$ sleptons, etc. and we assume $`1<\delta _i<+1`$. As discussed in , the value of $`\mu `$ significantly controls both the relic density and $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$, and one may understand qualitatively how $`\mu `$ varies from its analytic expression which is valid for low and intermediate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$:

$`\mu ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{t^21}}[({\displaystyle \frac{13D_0}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1D_0}{2}}(\delta _3+\delta _4)`$ (7)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+D_0}{2}}\delta _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _1}{t^2}}]m_0^2+\mathrm{universal}\mathrm{parts}+\mathrm{loop}\mathrm{corrections}.`$ (8)
Here $`t=\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and $`D_01(m_t/200\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{sin}\beta )^20.25`$. One sees that the universal $`m_0^2`$ term is quite small, and one can easily choose the $`\delta _i`$ to make the coefficient of $`m_0^2`$ negative. A reduction of $`\mu ^2`$ increases the higgsino content of the neutralino, and thus increases the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0Z`$ coupling. In , it was shown that this allowed the opening of a new region of allowed relic density at high $`m_{1/2}`$ and high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. We consider first the simple case where only $`\delta _2`$ is non zero and choose $`\delta _2=1`$. Fig. 4 shows $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ as a function of $`m_{1/2}`$ for this case when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$, $`\mu >0`$, $`m_h>111`$ GeV and $`A_0=m_{1/2}`$. The lower line corresponds to the usual stau-neutralino co-annihilation corridor. The upper dashed curves show the new allowed band arising from increased early universe annihilation through the $`Z`$ s-channel pole. It is quite broad and has a large scattering cross section. The curves terminate at low $`m_{1/2}`$ due to the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint, and we have terminated the curves at the high end when $`m_0`$ or $`m_{1/2}`$ exceed 1 TeV. The vertical lines are the high $`m_{1/2}`$ endpoints due to the lower bound on $`a_\mu `$ of Eq. (1). One sees that the parameter space is significantly reduced, though there is still a large $`Z`$-channel band remaining. Increasing $`m_h`$ increases the lower bound of $`m_{1/2}`$. For $`m_h>117`$ GeV we find the co-annihilation (solid line) now begins at $`m_{1/2}=510`$ GeV, and the $`Z`$ channel band begins at 500 GeV due to the $`m_h`$ constraint, leaving a sharply reduced region of parameter space.

A second example of new non-universal effects is furnished by choosing $`\delta _{10}`$ ( $`=\delta _3=\delta _4=\delta _5`$) to be non-zero (as might be the case for an $`SU(5)`$ or $`SO(10)`$ model). We consider here $`\delta _{10}=0.7`$. In this case  the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ co-annihilation corridor occurs at a much higher value of $`m_0`$ than in the universal case (i. e. for $`m_0=600800`$ GeV), and is somewhat broadened. The $`Z`$ channel band lies above it and is considerably broader. In Fig. 5 we have plotted $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ as a function of $`m_{1/2}`$ for the lower side of the co-annihilation corridor (lower curve) and for the upper side of the $`Z`$ channel band (upper curve) for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$, $`\mu >0`$, $`A_0=m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_h>111`$ GeV. (Note that while the $`Z`$ channel lies at a higher $`m_0`$ in the $`m_0m_{1/2}`$ plane than the co-annihilation corridor, the cross section is still larger since $`\mu ^2`$ is reduced.) The curves terminate at the left due to the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint. The vertical lines show the termination at high $`m_{1/2}`$ due to the lower bound on $`a_\mu `$, significantly shrinking the allowed parameter space. For $`m_h>117`$ GeV, the Higgs mass governs the termination at low $`m_{1/2}`$, and the co-annihilation (lower curve) now begins at $`m_{1/2}=515`$ GeV, and the $`Z`$ channel (upper curve) begins at $`m_{1/2}=520`$ GeV.

The above discussion shows that for SUGRA models, and particularly for mSUGRA, the $`a_\mu `$ data, when combined with the $`m_h`$, $`bs\gamma `$ and relic density constraints have begun to greatly limit the SUSY parameter space. Thus the $`m_h`$ and $`bs\gamma `$ constraints determine a lower bound on $`m_{1/2}`$ and hence an upper bound on $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUGRA}}`$, while the experimental lower bound on $`a_\mu `$ determines an upper bound on $`m_{1/2}`$. The combined $`a_\mu `$ and $`m_h`$ bound puts lower bound on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for a given value of $`A_0`$. This can be seen most clearly in Fig. 6, where the mSUGRA contribution to $`a_\mu `$ is plotted as a function of $`m_{1/2}`$ for $`A_0=0`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ (lower curve), $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ (middle curve)and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$ (upper curve). Further, most of the allowed $`m_{1/2}`$ region lies in the the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ co-annihilation domain ( $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{>}{}350`$ GeV), and so from Fig. 1 one can see that $`m_0`$ is approximately determined in terms of $`m_{1/2}`$. In Fig.6, the $`m_h`$ bound determines the lower limit on $`m_{1/2}`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$=10, while $`bs\gamma `$ determines it for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$. Both are equally constraining for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =`$30. If we consider the 90% C. L. bound ($`a_\mu >21\times 10^{10}`$)), one finds for $`A_0=0`$ that $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 10`$, and for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 40`$ that $`m_{1/2}=(290550)`$ GeV, and $`m_0=(70300)`$ GeV. This greatly constrains SUSY particle spectrum expected at accelerators, as can be seen in Table 1. Thus at the $`90\%`$ C.L. bound on $`a_\mu `$ the tri-lepton signal will be unobservable at the Tevatron Run II since $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`m_{1/2}`$ are relatively large , and the other SUSY particles are also beyond its reach, except for the light Higgs, provided $`m_h\stackrel{<}{}130`$ GeV . (One would need to triple the Tevatron’s energy to see a significant part of the SUSY mass spectrum.) Only the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_1`$ would possibly be within the reach of a 500 GeV NLC (and very marginally the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$), while all the SUSY particles would be accessible to the LHC. The Brookhaven E821 experiment has a great deal more data that can reduce the error by a factor of about 2. When analysed, this would greatly narrow the predictions made here.

One of the interesting features of Fig. 6 is that mSUGRA can no longer accommodate large values of $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUGRA}}`$. If the full E821 data should require a value significantly larger than $`40\times 10^{10}`$, this would be a signal for the existance of non-universal soft breaking. From Eq.(3) one sees that one can increase $`a_\mu `$ by reducing $`\mu `$, and from Eq. (5) this might be accomplished by non-universal soft breaking of the scalar masses (and also from non-universal gaugino masses at $`M_G`$.) Thus the $`g_\mu 2`$ experiment may give us significant insight into the nature of physics beyond the GUT scale.

This work was supported in part by National Science Foundation grant No. PHY-0070964.

Table 1. Allowed ranges for SUSY masses in GeV for mSUGRA assuming 90% C. L. for $`a_\mu `$ for $`A_0=0`$. The lower value of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$can be reduced to 240 GeV by changing $`A_0`$ to -$`4m_{1/2}`$. The other masses are not sensitive to $`A_0`$.

| $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ | $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{e}_1`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{u}_1`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (123-237) | (230-451) | (740-1350) | (134-264) | (145-366) | (660-1220) | (500-940) |