text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently there has been renewed interest in the study of gauged/massive supergravity theories due to the AdS/CFT correspondence . In gauged supergravity theories either a subgroup of the $`R`$-symmetry group (the automorphism group of the supersymmetry algebra) or isometries of the scalar manifold are gauged by some of the vector fields in the spectrum . Such theories can be constructed from their ungauged ‘cousins’ by adding appropriate terms to the action or field equations and changing the supersymmetry transformation laws accordingly. This procedure does not change the spectrum and the number of supercharges but generically does change the properties of the ground state. For example, a Minkowskian spacetime which always is a solution of the ungauged theory ceases to be a ground state of the gauged supergravity in most cases. Instead the supersymmetric ground states are often of the anti-de-Sitter (AdS) type or domain-wall solutions.

A particular subclass of gauged supergravities are the massive supergravities. In these theories some of the vector (or tensor) fields become massive through a generalized Higgs mechanism. Such theories occur for a specific gauging which allows the possibility of a Higgs-type mechanism. A prominent example is the massive type IIA supergravity in $`D=10`$ constructed by Romans . In string theory massive supergravities typically arise in lower dimensions through generalized Scherk-Schwarz reduction  provided that some field strength $`F_{p+1}`$ of the $`p`$-form tensor field $`A_p`$ is given a non-trivial background value (flux) along the compact directions . Such background fluxes can be turned on consistently if the action or the field equations depend on $`A_p`$ only through its field strength $`F_{p+1}`$.

Gauged supergravities have also been studied in the context of string dualities and $`D`$-branes. For example, the massive type IIA supergravity has a domain wall solution which preserves $`1/2`$ of the 32 supercharges of type IIA  and can be given an interpretation of a type IIA D-8-brane . This observation has led to the search for possible duality connections involving massive supergravity theories analogous to the existing U-duality relations in the massless cases. This required the construction of other massive supergravities in lower dimensions through generalized dimensional reduction . However, it has remained an interesting and open question to what extent these generalized compactifications respect the duality properties of the massless cases. Along this line, Kaloper and Myers  showed that a generalized Scherk-Schwarz reduction of the heterotic string on a $`d`$-torus can still be written in a manifestly $`O(d,d+16)`$ invariant form provided T-duality transformations also act on the background fluxes.

In a parallel line of developments Calabi-Yau compactifications with background fluxes have also been studied because of their phenomenological properties . One finds that background fluxes generically generate a potential for some of the moduli fields of the theory without fluxes and as a consequence the moduli space – and hence the arbitrariness of the theory – is reduced. In addition the resulting ground states can break supersymmetry spontaneously.

In this paper we study a generalized $`K3`$ reduction of ten-dimensional massive type-IIA theory with all possible background fluxes turned on. Our goal is to investigate the fate of the perturbative $`O(4,20)`$ duality symmetry and the non-perturbative S-duality with the heterotic string compactified on $`T^4`$. We also discuss the relation of massive type IIA theory with M-theory. The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we recall the massive type II theory and derive its $`K3`$ compactification with all R-R background fluxes turned on. We find that the resulting six-dimensional theory is a new massive (gauged) supergravity with manifest $`O(4,20)`$ symmetry. In section 3 we study domain wall solutions of this massive supergravity. We show that the D-8 brane of massive type IIA when wrapped on $`K3`$ is T-dual to a solution of massless type IIA with an appropriate four-form flux turned on. Thus T-duality interpolates between vacua of massive and massless type IIA theories. This property also allows to further relate massive type II vacua to eleven dimensional solutions. This is discussed in section 4 where massive IIA theory is given a concrete eleven-dimensional interpretation. Finally we conclude in the section 5.

## 2 $`K3`$ Compactification of Massive Type IIA Supergravity

The type IIA supergravity in ten dimensions, which describes the low energy limit of type IIA superstrings, contains in the massless spectrum the graviton $`\widehat{g}_{MN}`$, the dilaton $`\widehat{\varphi }`$, an NS-NS two-form $`\widehat{B}_2`$, a R-R one-form $`\widehat{A}_1`$ and a R-R three-form $`\widehat{C}_3`$. The fermionic fields consist of two gravitini and two Majorana spinors. It was shown by Romans  that this supergravity can be generalized to include a mass term for the $`\widehat{B}`$-field without disturbing the supersymmetry. The $`\widehat{B}`$-field becomes massive through a Higgs type mechanism in which it eats the vector field $`\widehat{A}_1`$. The supersymmetric action for massive IIA theory in the string frame is given by

$`S={\displaystyle }[`$ $`e^{2\widehat{\varphi }}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\widehat{R}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{}}1+d\widehat{\varphi }{}_{}{}^{\widehat{}}d\widehat{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{H}_3{}_{}{}^{\widehat{}}\widehat{H}_{3}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{F}_2{}_{}{}^{\widehat{}}\widehat{F}_{2}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{F}_4{}_{}{}^{\widehat{}}\widehat{F}_{4}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{}}1`$ (1)
$`+d\widehat{C}_3d\widehat{C}_3\widehat{B}_2+2d\widehat{C}_3d\widehat{A}_1\widehat{B}_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}d\widehat{A}_1d\widehat{A}_1\widehat{B}_2^3+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}md\widehat{C}_3\widehat{B}_2^3+2md\widehat{A}_1\widehat{B}_2^4+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}m^2\widehat{B}_2^5]`$
$`+\mathrm{fermionic}\mathrm{part},`$
where we have adopted the notation that every product of forms is understood as a wedge product. The signature of the metric is $`(+\mathrm{}+)`$ and for a $`p`$-form we use the convention

$$F_p=\frac{1}{p!}F_{M_1\mathrm{}M_p}dx^{M_1}\mathrm{}dx^{M_p},$$
(2)
while the Poincare dual is given by

$`{}_{}{}^{\widehat{}}F_{p}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{p!(10p)!}}F_{M_1\mathrm{}M_p}ϵ_{M_{p+1}\mathrm{}M_{10}}^{M_1\mathrm{}M_p}dx^{M_{p+1}}\mathrm{}dx^{M_{10}},`$
$`{}_{}{}^{\widehat{}\widehat{}}F_{p}^{}=(1)^{p(10p)}F_p,`$ (3)
and $`{}_{}{}^{\widehat{}}1=\sqrt{\widehat{g}}d^{10}x`$. $`m`$ is the mass parameter and the various field strengths in the Lagrangian (1) are defined as

$$\widehat{H}_3=d\widehat{B}_2,\widehat{F}_2=d\widehat{A}_1+2m\widehat{B}_2,\widehat{F}_4=d\widehat{C}_3+2\widehat{B}_2d\widehat{A}_1+2m\widehat{B}_2^2.$$
(4)
$`\widehat{A}_1`$ and $`\widehat{C}_3`$ only appear through their derivatives in the Lagrangian (1) and thus obey the standard $`p`$-form gauge invariance $`A_pA_p+d\mathrm{\Lambda }_{p1}`$. The two-form $`\widehat{B}_2`$ on the other hand also appears without derivatives but nevertheless the ‘Stueckelberg’ gauge transformation

$$\delta \widehat{A}_1=2m\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\delta \widehat{B}_2=d\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\delta \widehat{C}_3=2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1d\widehat{A}_1$$
(5)
leave the Lagrangian invariant. Finally, the conventional massless type IIA theory is recovered from the action (1) in the limit $`m0`$.

Before we turn to the compactification let us first recall some facts about $`K3`$ manifolds. $`K3`$ is a compact, Ricci flat complex manifold with Betti numbers $`b_0=1,b_1=0,b_2=22,b_3=0,b_4=1`$. Thus there exist 22 harmonic two-forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^i(i=1,\mathrm{},22)`$ and their intersection matrix

$$\eta _{ij}=_{K3}\mathrm{\Omega }_2^i\mathrm{\Omega }_2^j$$
(6)
is a Lorentzian metric with signature $`(3,19)`$. We choose conventions for the two-forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^i`$ such that $`\eta `$ is given by

$$\eta _{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \sigma \\ 0& I_{16}& 0\\ \sigma & 0& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{where}\sigma =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(7)
and $`I_n`$ represents the $`n`$-dimensional identity matrix. Since $`K3`$ is four-dimensional the Hodge-dual of the harmonic 2-forms can again be expanded in terms of two-forms. More precisely one has

$$^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2^i=M_j^i\mathrm{\Omega }_2^j,$$
(8)
where the matrix $`M_j^i`$ depends on the $`3\times 19=57`$ moduli parameterizing the deformations of the metric $`\delta g_{mn}`$ of constant volume on $`K3`$. For $`K3`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}=1`$ holds which implies

$$M_j^iM_k^j=\delta _k^i,\eta _{ij}M_k^j=\eta _{kj}M_i^j,$$
(9)
so that $`M_i^j\eta _{jk}M_l^k=\eta _{il}`$. Thus $`M`$ is an element of the coset $`O(3,19)/O(3)\times O(19)`$ .

Let us now turn to the compactification of the massive type IIA theory on $`K3`$. The standard Kaluza-Klein reduction considers the theory in a spacetime background $`M_D\times K_d`$, where $`M_D`$ is a non-compact $`D`$-dimensional manifold with Lorentzian signature while $`K_d`$ is a $`d`$-dimensional compact manifold. This ansatz is consistent whenever the spacetime background satisfies the $`D+d`$-dimensional field equations. However, for massive type IIA there are no direct product $`M_6\times K3`$ solutions; instead the ground states are domain-wall solutions . A similar situation occurs in the $`S^1`$ compactification of massive type IIA discussed in . However, as argued there one can also expand around a solution which strictly speaking is not a direct product $`M_D\times K_d`$, but rather the compact manifold $`K_d`$ is allowed to vary over the spacetime manifold $`M_D`$.333Or in other words the moduli of $`K_d`$ are not constant in the background but vary over $`M_D`$. For the case at hand such a solution exists and is given by the D-8-brane solution of massive type IIA theory wrapped on a $`K3`$ . We discuss this solution in the next section and will find that it can be interpreted as the product of a $`6`$-dimensional domain wall with a warped $`K3`$ whose volume varies over the transverse direction. This spacetime dependence of the volume ensures that the equations of motion of massive type IIA theory are fulfilled.

Thus for the 10-dimensional metric we take the standard ansatz

$$\widehat{G}_{MN}(x,z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{\mu \nu }(x)& 0\\ 0& g_{mn}^0(z)+\delta g_{mn}(x,z)\end{array}\right),$$
(10)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ is the metric and $`x`$ are the coordinates of $`M_6`$. $`g_{mn}^0(z)`$ is a fixed background metric on $`K3`$ (with coordinates $`z`$) and $`\delta g_{mn}(x,z)`$ denotes the allowed deformations of the $`K3`$ metric. These deformations are parameterized by $`57+1`$ moduli where the extra modulus corresponds to the overall volume of $`K3`$.444The metric on the moduli space of sigma models on $`K3`$ does not change with respect to the standard Kaluza-Klein reduction of massless type IIA theory and can therefore be taken from that case .

For the dilaton and the two-form $`\widehat{B}_2`$ we take the standard ansatz precisely as in massless type IIA theories

$$\widehat{\varphi }(x,z)=\widehat{\varphi }(x),\widehat{B}_2(x,z)=B_2(x)+b^i(x)\mathrm{\Omega }_2^i(z),$$
(11)
where $`B_2(x)`$ is a two-form in $`D=6`$ and the $`b^i(x)`$ are 22 additional scalar fields. (Thus the total number of scalars is $`58+22+1=81`$.)

For the one-form $`\widehat{A}_1`$ and the three-form $`\widehat{C}_3`$ we take a generalized Kaluza-Klein ansatz where background values (fluxes) of the corresponding field strengths are included

$`d\widehat{A}_1(x,z)=dA_1(x)+m^i\mathrm{\Omega }_2^i(z),`$
$`d\widehat{C}_3(x,z)=dC_3(x)+dC_1^i(x)\mathrm{\Omega }_2^i(z)\stackrel{~}{m}\mathrm{\Omega }_4(z).`$ (12)
This ansatz introduces 23 new mass parameters $`m^i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ parameterizing fluxes along the 22 two-cycles and the four-cycle on $`K3`$. This generalization is possible since $`\widehat{A}_1,\widehat{C}_3`$ appear in the action only with derivative couplings (i.e. via their field strength) and an appropriate background value can be consistently turned on .

Altogether, the bosonic spectrum of the reduced six-dimensional theory consists of the graviton $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, the two form $`B_2`$, 22+1 one-form gauge fields $`(C_1^i,A_1)`$, a three-form $`C_3`$ and 81 scalar fields $`\varphi ,b^i,\delta g_{mn}`$. From their definition it is clear that $`C_1^i`$ and $`b^i`$ both transform in the vector representation of $`O(3,19)`$. In $`D=6`$ a three-form is Poincare dual to a one-form and thus the above spectrum combines into a gravitational multiplet consisting of the graviton, the two-form, four vector fields and the dilaton and 20 vector multiplets each containing a one-form and four scalars.

In order to obtain the action of the massless modes for this theory we substitute the ansatz (10)-(12) into the action (1). The resulting six-dimensional bosonic action reads

$`S_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^{2\varphi }(R{}_{}{}^{}1+4d\varphi {}_{}{}^{}d\varphi 2H_3{}_{}{}^{}H_{3}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{Tr}d^1{}_{}{}^{}d){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_2^a(^1)_{ab}{}_{}{}^{}_{2}^{b}`$ (13)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^a(^1)_{ab}{}_{}{}^{}m_{}^{b}+B_2_2^a_{ab}_2^b2B_2^2m^a_{ab}_2^b+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}B_2^3m^a_{ab}m^b],`$
where

$$2\varphi =2\widehat{\varphi }\mathrm{ln}\omega ,H_3=dB_2,_2^a=d𝒜_1^a+2m^aB_2.$$
(14)
The index $`a`$ takes values $`a=1,\mathrm{},24`$ and we have defined

$$m^a(\stackrel{~}{m},m^i,m),𝒜_1^a(\stackrel{~}{A}_1,C_1^i,A_1).$$
(15)
$`d\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$ is the Poincare dual of the 4-form $`dC_3`$ defined as

$$d\stackrel{~}{A}_1=\omega {}_{}{}^{}(dC_3+2B_2dA_1+2mB_2^2)+2b_i(dC_1^i+b^idA_1)+2(\stackrel{~}{m}+2b_i(m^i+mb^i))B_2,$$
(16)
where the indices $`i,j`$ are contracted with the metric $`\eta _{ij}`$ and $`\omega (x)`$ is the modulus associated with the overall volume $`V`$ of the $`K3`$

$$V=\omega (x)_{K3}\mathrm{\Omega }_4.$$
(17)
From eq. (16) we learn that $`d\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is an $`O(3,19)`$ invariant 2-form field strength. Finally, the scalar matrix $`^{ab}`$ which appears in the action (13) depends on the $`58`$ moduli of $`K3`$ and the 22 $`b^i`$ in the following way

$$^1=𝒱^T𝒱,𝒱=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\omega ^{\frac{1}{2}}& 2\omega ^{\frac{1}{2}}\overline{b}& 2\omega ^{\frac{1}{2}}\overline{b}b\\ 0& v& 2vb\\ 0& 0& \omega ^{\frac{1}{2}}\end{array}\right),$$
(18)
where $`\overline{b}(\eta b)^T=b^T\eta `$. The $`22\times 22`$ sub-matrix $`v`$ depends only on the $`57`$ moduli of $`K3`$ (without the volume) and determines the inverse of the matrix $`M^{ij}=M_k^i\eta ^{kj}`$ introduced in (8)

$$M^1=v^Tv,v\eta v^T=\eta .$$
(19)
The matrices $``$ and $`𝒱`$ satisfy

$$𝒱𝒱^T=,^T=,^T=,$$
(20)
where $``$ is the $`O(4,20)`$ metric

$$=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& \eta & 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(21)
The action (13) is invariant under global $`O(4,20)`$ transformations acting according to

$`UU^T,𝒜^aU_b^a𝒜^b,m^aU_b^am^b,`$
$`\varphi \varphi ,BB,g_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu },`$ (22)
where $`UO(4,20)`$. These symmetry transformations except the transformations of the mass parameters are precisely the T-duality transformations of the standard (massless) type IIA theory on $`K3`$. Indeed, in the limit $`m^a0`$ the action (13) reduces to the action of massless type IIA on $`K3`$ . In the massive case the symmetry can be maintained if the 24 mass parameters $`m^a`$ transform in the vector representation of $`O(4,20)`$. This transformation of masses means that under the action of the duality group a massive IIA compactified on $`K3`$ with fluxes transforms into another massive IIA with a different set of background fluxes as determined by the symmetry. We emphasize that the action (13) represents a unification of a wide class of massive supergravities related to each other via the action of $`O(4,20)`$ symmetry. Any particular choice of the mass vector $`m^a`$ represents a different massive theory. For example, if we set $`m^a=(0,\mathrm{},0,m)`$ in the action (13) the theory represents a pure massive IIA compactified on $`K3`$ without any fluxes. Similarly a different choice $`m^a=(\stackrel{~}{m},0,\mathrm{},0)`$ in the above action represents a six-dimensional massive theory obtained through generalized reduction of type IIA on $`K3`$ with 4-form flux. We will show explicitely in the next sections that these two theories with single mass parameters are related via an element of the duality symmetry (22).

Apart from ordinary gauge invariance $`𝒜_1^a𝒜_1^a+d\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^a`$ the field strengths given in (14), the Bianchi identities $`d_2^a=2m^aH_3,dH_3=0`$ as well as the action (13) exhibit a Stueckelberg type gauge symmetry of the form

$$\delta B_2=d\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\delta 𝒜_1^a=2m^a\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ is a one-form. This gauge invariance can be used to absorb one of the 24 gauge fields into $`B_2`$ and render it massive. Such a gauge fixed version of the theory breaks the $`O(4,20)`$ symmetry spontaneously since in a given vacuum only one of the $`A`$-fields can be absorbed. Nevertheless, at the level of the action the $`O(4,20)`$ symmetry is manifest and will play an important role in determining new vacuum configurations.

## 3 Domain Wall solutions

Generally, massive supergravities admit domain-wall solutions which preserve half of the supersymmetries. So we also expect this to be the case for the six-dimensional massive theory in (13). It is known that the ten-dimensional massive IIA theory has a D-8-brane (domain-wall) solution which preserves 16 supercharges . In the string frame metric it is given by

$`d\widehat{s}^2=H^{1/2}(dt^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}}dx_i^2)+H^{1/2}dy^2,`$
$`2\widehat{\varphi }={\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{ln}H,`$ (24)
where $`H=1+2m|yy_0|`$ is a harmonic function of the transverse coordinate $`y`$ and all other fields have vanishing backgrounds. This solution can be compactified by wrapping four of the world-volume directions on $`K3`$. In other words one can also write a D-8-brane solution with four of its brane directions being along $`K3`$

$`d\widehat{s}^2=H^{1/2}(dt^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}dx_i^2+ds_{K3}^2)+H^{1/2}dy^2,`$
$`2\widehat{\varphi }={\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{ln}H,H=1+2m|yy_0|.`$ (25)
That this is indeed a solution of the equations of motion has been shown in , where it is argued that one can replace the spatial part of the D-8-brane’s worldvolume by any manifold of the form $`_{8d}\times K_d`$ with a Ricci-flat $`K_d`$. It is further shown that for $`K_d=K3`$ the solution preserves 8 supercharges.555As anticipated in section 2 the solution (3) is a warped product of a six-dimensional domain wall and a $`K3`$. The corresponding six-dimensional domain-wall solution can be written as

$`ds_6^2=H^{1/2}(dt^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}dx_i^2)+H^{1/2}dy^2,`$
$`2\varphi =2\widehat{\varphi }\mathrm{ln}\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{ln}H,`$
$`m^a=(0,\mathrm{},0,m),`$
$`^1=\mathrm{diag}(H,1,\mathrm{},1,H^1),`$ (26)
while all other six-dimensional background values vanish. The breathing mode $`\omega `$ defined in (17) is given by $`H^1`$ in this example. Furthermore in (3) we have chosen a special point in the moduli space of $`K3`$ where (8) reads

$$^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2^i=\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{23i},^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{23i}=\mathrm{\Omega }_2^i,\mathrm{for}i=1,2,3;^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2^j=\mathrm{\Omega }_2^j,\mathrm{for}j=4,\mathrm{},19.$$
(27)
The solution (3) still has $`8`$ unbroken supersymmetries.

Now, by applying an $`O(4,20)`$ duality transformation (22) on the background in (3) new solutions with non-trivial R-R fluxes can be generated. Let us first consider the special case where the matrix $`U`$ is taken to be

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& I_{22}& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(28)
Inserting $`U`$ and the configuration (3) in (22) we get $`\omega \omega ^{}=1/\omega `$ and

$$m^a=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ .\\ .\\ 0\\ m\end{array}\right)m^a=\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ .\\ .\\ 0\end{array}\right),^1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}H& 0& 0\\ 0& I_{22}& 0\\ 0& 0& H^1\end{array}\right)_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}H^1& 0& 0\\ 0& I_{22}& 0\\ 0& 0& H\end{array}\right),$$
(29)
while the six-dimensional metric and the dilaton remain the same. The transformed mass vector $`m^a`$ implies that the new configuration is a solution of a massless IIA compactified on $`K3`$ with an equivalent amount of four-form flux turned on along $`K3`$. When (29) is lifted to ten dimensions we get the following new configuration

$`d\widehat{s}^2=H^{1/2}(dt^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}dx_i^2)+H^{1/2}(dy^2+ds_{K3}^2),`$
$`2\widehat{\varphi }^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}H,\widehat{F}_4^{}=m\mathrm{\Omega }_4.`$ (30)
Since this solution is obtained by the duality transformation (22) the number of preserved supercharges is unchanged. It can also be checked explicitly that (3) leaves $`8`$ supercharges unbroken. Since under the duality transformation (29) $`\omega 1/\omega `$, which amounts to making T-duality along all the four directions of $`K3`$, the background (3) represents a stack of D-4-branes filling the $`K3`$ with non-trivial 4-form flux along $`K3`$. This configuration can be further lifted to eleven dimensions as we will see in the next section.

By applying an $`O(4,20)`$ T-duality transformation we transformed a solution of massive type IIA to a solution of massless type IIA with non-trivial four-form flux. Thus, the $`O(4,20)`$ duality interpolates between vacua of massive IIA and massless IIA. In spirit this is similar to the situation encountered in the case of massive type II duality in $`D=9`$ .

Further solutions in $`D=6,10`$ can be generated by using other elements of the duality group which mix the mass $`m`$ with the fluxes $`m^i`$ of the 2-cycles. Let us consider the case

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& I_{20}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(31)
which mixes $`m`$ and $`m_{22}`$. Note that the duality element in (31) preserves the $`O(4,20)`$ metric as can be checked using the explicit form for $`\eta `$ given in (7). When we apply (31) on the configuration (3), using (22) we find $`\omega 1`$ and

$$m^a=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ .\\ .\\ 0\\ m\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ .\\ .\\ m\\ 0\end{array}\right),^1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}H& 0& 0\\ 0& I_{22}& 0\\ 0& 0& H^1\end{array}\right)^1=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& H& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& I_{20}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& H^1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(32)
while all other six-dimensional fields remaining unchanged. Again from the analysis of the new mass-vector it can be seen that this new six-dimensional configuration corresponds to massless IIA compactified on $`K3`$ but now with a two-form flux along a 2-cycle of $`K3`$. When lifted to ten dimensions we have a new solution of massless IIA theory as

$`d\widehat{s}^2=H^{1/2}(dt^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}dx_i^2)+ds_{K3}^2+H^{1/2}dy^2,`$
$`2\widehat{\varphi }^{}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{ln}H,\widehat{F}_2^{}=m\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{(22)},`$ (33)
where $`ds_{K3}^2`$ is the deformed metric on $`K3`$ such that the deformation corresponds to the nontrivial moduli matrix $`^1`$ in (32). $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{(22)}`$ is a 2-cycle on $`K3`$. This background configuration (3) preserves the same amount of supersymmetries as the one in (3).

One can go through a similar analysis for solutions which depend on more than one mass or flux parameter. Let us consider the following solution of the massive IIA theory in (1)

$`d\widehat{s}^2=H^{1/2}H^{1/2}(dt^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}dx_i^2)+H^{1/2}H^{1/2}ds_{K3}^2+H^{1/2}H^{1/2}dy^2,`$
$`2\widehat{\varphi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(HH^5),\widehat{F}_4=\stackrel{~}{m}\mathrm{\Omega }_4,\widehat{F}_2=0=\widehat{B}_2,`$
$`H^{}=1+2m|y|,H=1+2\stackrel{~}{m}|y|.`$ (34)
For the special case when $`\stackrel{~}{m}=m,H^{}=H`$ it reduces to

$`d\widehat{s}^2=H^1(dt^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}dx_i^2)+Hdy^2+ds_{K3}^2,`$
$`2\widehat{\varphi }=3\mathrm{ln}H,\widehat{F}_4=\stackrel{~}{m}\mathrm{\Omega }_4,\widehat{F}_2=0=\widehat{B}_2,`$ (35)
which preserves $`8`$ supercharges as can be checked explicitly. This can be compactified to six dimensions and using the $`U`$-matrix of (31) it can be transformed as

$`m^a=\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ .\\ .\\ 0\\ m\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ m_1=m\\ 0\\ .\\ .\\ 0\\ m_{22}=m\\ 0\end{array}\right),^1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& I_{22}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& I_{22}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (56)
Lifting this solution back to ten dimensions we get

$`d\widehat{s}^2=H^1(dt^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}dx_i^2)+Hdy^2+ds_{K3}^2,`$
$`2\widehat{\varphi }=3\mathrm{ln}H,\widehat{F}_4=0,\widehat{F}_2=m_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{(1)}+m_{22}\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{(22)}.`$ (57)
$`\widehat{F}_2`$ is self-dual since $`m_1=m_{22}=m`$. This is the solution obtained in  for massless type IIA.

## 4 A Lift to M-theory

It is conjectured that the strong coupling limit of type IIA is governed by M-theory  whose low energy limit is believed to be 11-dimensional supergravity . In fact one can obtain massless type IIA supergravity as an $`S^1`$ compactification of 11-dimensional supergravity and in this way all $`p`$-brane solutions of massless type IIA can be lifted to eleven dimensions. However, the 8-brane solution of massive IIA given in (24) cannot be lifted easily to 11-dimensions since that would require a massive version of 11-dimensional supergravity  which does not exist . In ref.  a general relation between massive IIA theory and M- and F-theory has been proposed. We will see here that taking the detour of compactifying massive IIA on $`K3`$ provides another possibility to relate the 8-brane solution to M-theory.666It would be interesting to understand the connection with ref.  in more detail. In order to show this in slightly more detail let us write down the map among the fields of massive and massless type IIA on $`K3`$. As discussed above, the six-dimensional theory in (13) with the mass vector $`m^a=(\stackrel{~}{m},0,\mathrm{},0)`$ represents an ordinary type IIA on $`K3`$ with RR-4-flux. On the other hand the theory with mass vector $`m^a=(0,\mathrm{},0,m)`$ represents massive IIA on $`K3`$ without any RR-flux. These two massive six-dimensional theories are related by the duality element (28). In section 3, eqs. (3)–(3) we displayed the T-duality between a domain wall solution of massive IIA and a stack of solitonic D-4-branes of massless type IIA. In fact one can not only map the solutions onto each other but the entire actions. Under the transformation given in (28) massive IIA with no fluxes transforms into massless IIA with 4-form flux as

$`\omega ^1\omega +4b^TM^1b+{\displaystyle \frac{4(b^2)^2}{\omega }},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{b}}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{4b^2\overline{b}}{\omega }}+2b^TM^1,M^1M^1,{\displaystyle \frac{2b^2}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{2b^2}{\omega }},`$
$`d\stackrel{~}{A}dA+2mB,dA+2mBd\stackrel{~}{A},dC^idC^i,`$
$`\varphi \varphi ,BB,g_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }.`$ (58)
Under this map the mass parameter $`m`$ of massive type IIA is mapped to the four-form flux $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ on $`K3`$ of massless IIA and vice versa.

Since massless type IIA on $`K3`$ is equivalent to M-theory on $`S^1\times K3`$, all solutions of massive IIA can be lifted to eleven dimensions by first mapping them to solutions of the massless theory using the map (58). The solution given in (3) corresponds to the following eleven dimensional solution

$`ds_{(11)}^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{4\widehat{\varphi }}{3}}(dx_{11}+\widehat{A}^Mdx_M)^2+e^{\frac{2\widehat{\varphi }}{3}}ds_{(10)}^2`$
$`=`$ $`H^{\frac{1}{3}}(dt^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}dx_i^2+dx_{11}^2)+H^{\frac{2}{3}}(dy^2+ds_{K3}^2),`$
$`G_4`$ $`=`$ $`m\mathrm{\Omega }_4,H=1+2m|y|.`$ (59)
where $`G_4`$ is the 4-form field strength of eleven-dimensional supergravity. The solution (4) is a stack of M5-branes which couple magnetically to the 4-form field strength.777 It is possible to establish a similar map as in (58) between the backgrounds of massive IIA compactified on $`K3`$ (with $`m^i0`$) and the backgrounds of massless IIA on $`K3`$ (with $`m^i0`$). However, it is not clear whether those can be lifted to 11 dimensions since this would require a globally defined $`\widehat{A}_1`$.

Thus it seems that the conjectured duality between type IIA compactified on $`K3`$ and M-theory on $`K3\times S^1`$ extends to the massive case. It is shown in ref.  that for M-theory on $`K3\times S^1`$ the compactifications on $`K3`$ and $`S^1`$ commute even in the presence of 4-form flux on $`K3`$. Here we have seen that massless type IIA compactified on $`K3`$ with ‘4-form flux along $`K3`$’ is T-dual to massive IIA compactified on $`K3`$ without flux. Thus we are led to conjecture that M-theory on $`K3\times S^1`$ with ‘4-form flux on $`K3`$’ is dual to massive type IIA compactified on a $`K3`$ without flux. In this duality the mass of Romans theory is mapped to the 4-form flux of M-theory along $`K3`$.

|  |  | M-theory on $`S^1\times K3`$ $`\&`$ 4-Flux |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | $``$ |
| massive IIA on $`K3`$ | $`\stackrel{(\omega \frac{1}{\omega })}{}`$ | massless IIA on $`K3`$ $`\&`$ 4-Flux |

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper we derived the action for $`K3`$ compactifications of ten-dimensional massive type IIA theory with all Ramond-Ramond background fluxes turned on. We found that the resulting six-dimensional theory is a new massive (gauged) supergravity with an action having manifest $`\frac{O(4,20)}{O(4)\times O(20)}`$ duality symmetry provided the mass (flux) parameters transform accordingly. ¿From this we learn that the perturbative T-duality survives even at the massive level when appropriate masses and fluxes are switched on.

We have seen in this paper that the massive six-dimensional theory of (13) interpolates between ten-dimensional massive and massless type IIA theories. The wrapped D-8-brane solution of massive type IIA turns out to be T-dual to a supersymmetric solution of massless IIA theory on $`K3`$ with four-form flux. The relationship between massless and massive IIA on $`K3`$ also suggests a new 11-dimensional interpretation of massive IIA theory.

As it is known, in addition to the perturbative T-duality there also is a non-perturbative S-duality between massless type IIA on $`K3`$ and massless heterotic string on $`T^4`$ . Both theories have the same perturbative T-duality group $`\frac{O(4,20)}{O(4)\times O(20)}`$ and their respective dilatons are related by $`\varphi _{Het}\varphi _{IIA}`$. Let us recall that there also exists an $`O(d,d+n)`$ symmetric massive compactification of the heterotic string on $`T^d`$ . However, the non-perturbative S-duality seems no longer to be valid in the massive theories. The major difference is that in the type IIA theory (13) it is the tensor field B which becomes massive after eating the vector fields while in the heterotic theory vector fields become massive after eating some scalars . This is similar to the situation encountered in the duality between massive M-theory on $`K3`$ and heterotic theory on $`T^3`$ . Furthermore there is a runaway dilaton potential in both theories driving the dilaton to weak coupling. As a consequence strong-weak S-duality can no longer hold.

Finally, it is interesting to consider a further reduction of the massive six-dimensional theory (13) on $`S^1`$ and explore some duality relationship with type IIB on $`K3\times S^1`$ with fluxes. It is clear from the action (13) that there are no axions in this theory so the further reduction on $`S^1`$ will not produce any new mass parameter. On the other hand the standard reduction of type IIB on $`K3`$ produces exactly 24 axions in six dimensions which upon further generalized compactification on $`S^1`$ will generate 24 mass parameters in five dimensions. Through a duality relation one should be able to relate the 24 mass parameters of massive IIA on $`K3\times S^1`$ to those of type IIB on $`K3\times S^1`$. This should be related to the duality of massive type IIA and type IIB in $`D=9`$ .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work of M.H. is supported by the DFG (the German Science Foundation) and the DAAD (the German Academic Exchange Service). The work of J.L. is supported by GIF (the German–Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research), the DFG and the DAAD. The work of H.S. is supported by AvH (the Alexander von Humboldt foundation).


format: text

text:
# Drell-Yan Massive Lepton-Pair’s Angular Distributions at Large 𝑄_𝑇

## Abstract

By measuring Drell-Yan massive lepton-pair’s angular distributions, we can identify the polarization of the virtual photon of invariant mass $`Q`$ which decays immediately into the lepton-pair. In terms of a modified QCD factorization formula for Drell-Yan process, which is valid even if $`Q_TQ`$, we calculate the massive lepton-pair’s angular distributions at large $`Q_T`$. We find that the virtual photons produced at high $`Q_T`$ are more likely to be transversely polarized. We discuss the implications of this finding to the J/$`\psi `$ mesons’ polarization measured recently at Fermilab.

Recent data on J/$`\psi `$ polarization measured by CDF collaboration at Fermilab Tevatron seem to be inconsistent with the predictions from various models of J/$`\psi `$ production . The CDF data shows that the J/$`\psi `$ mesons produced at $`\sqrt{S}=1.8`$ TeV become more longitudinally polarized as the transverse momentum ($`Q_T`$) increases . On the other hand, the various theoretical calculations predict the J/$`\psi `$ mesons to be more transversely polarized at large $`Q_T`$ .

In order to help solving this puzzle, it was proposed to measure the Drell-Yan massive lepton-pair’s angular distributions at the kinematics similar to that of J/$`\psi `$ production, and to extract the virtual photon’s polarization from the lepton-pair’s angular distributions . Production of the virtual photons in the Drell-Yan process at large $`Q_T`$ and small $`Q^2`$ has a lot in common with the production of J/$`\psi `$ mesons at high $`Q_T`$. They both have two large physical scales: $`Q_T`$ and $`Q^2`$, which is equal to $`M_{\mathrm{J}/\psi }^2`$ in the case of J/$`\psi `$ production; and $`Q_T^2`$ is much larger than $`Q^2`$. If the collision energy $`\sqrt{S}`$ is large enough, and the logarithmic contributions from resumming all powers of $`\mathrm{ln}^n(Q_T^2/Q^2)`$ dominate the production cross sections, the virtual photon and J/$`\psi `$ production will share the same partonic subprocesses, labeled by the $`R`$ in Fig. 1. Then, the only difference between the virtual photon and J/$`\psi `$ production at large $`\sqrt{S}`$ and high $`Q_T`$ is the difference in the fragmentation functions. The virtual photon fragmentation functions are completely perturbative if $`Q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$ , while the parton to J/$`\psi `$ fragmentation functions involve final-state nonperturbative soft interactions . The measurements of the virtual photon and J/$`\psi `$ polarization at high $`Q_T`$ can help us to isolate the final-state effect in J/$`\psi `$ production, and to narrow the questions about J/$`\psi `$ formation.

In this letter, we calculate Drell-Yan massive lepton-pair’s angular distributions in Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). We present the polarization parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}}`$ as a function of $`Q_T`$, which can be in principle measured at Fermilab Tevatron. We find that the virtual photons at high $`Q_T`$ are likely to be transversely polarized, which is different from the data on the polarization parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{J}/\psi }`$ measured at Fermilab . If our predictions for the $`\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}}`$ are confirmed by future experiments, we may conclude that the non-perturbative final-state interactions are very important for the formation of J/$`\psi `$ mesons.

When $`Q_T`$ and $`Q^2`$ are both large, cross sections for Drell-Yan massive lepton-pair production in hadronic collisions, $`A(P_A)+B(P_B)\gamma ^{}(l\overline{l}(Q))+X`$, can be systematically calculated according to QCD factorization theorem . Since we are mainly interested in the cross sections at high $`Q_T`$ and low $`Q^2`$, we neglect the $`Z`$ channel contributions in the following discussions.

After integrating over the azimuthal angle distribution, the Drell-Yan lepton-pair’s angular distributions, as sketched in Fig. 2, can be expressed as

$$\frac{d\sigma _{ABl\overline{l}(Q)+X}}{dQ^2dQ_T^2dyd\mathrm{cos}\theta }=\frac{d\sigma _{ABl\overline{l}(Q)+X}}{dQ^2dQ_T^2dy}\frac{3}{2(3+\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}})}\left[1+\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right]$$
(1)
where the polarization parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}}`$ is given in terms of the cross sections for producing a polarized virtual photon,

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}}\left(\frac{d\sigma _{AB\gamma _T^{}(Q)+X}}{dQ_T^2dy}\frac{d\sigma _{AB\gamma _L^{}(Q)+X}}{dQ_T^2dy}\right)/\left(\frac{d\sigma _{AB\gamma _T^{}(Q)+X}}{dQ_T^2dy}+\frac{d\sigma _{AB\gamma _L^{}(Q)+X}}{dQ_T^2dy}\right).$$
(2)
The subscripts, $`T`$ and $`L`$ in Eq. (2) represent the transverse and longitudinal polarizations, respectively. The inclusive Drell-Yan cross section in Eq. (1) can also be expressed in terms of the cross sections for producing a polarized virtual photon,

$$\frac{d\sigma _{ABl\overline{l}(Q)+X}}{dQ^2dQ_T^2dy}=\left(\frac{\alpha _{em}}{3\pi Q^2}\right)\left[2\frac{d\sigma _{AB\gamma _T^{}(Q)+X}}{dQ_T^2dy}+\frac{d\sigma _{AB\gamma _L^{}(Q)+X}}{dQ_T^2dy}\right]$$
(3)
where the factor 2 is a consequence that the virtual photon has two transverse polarization states .

When $`Q_T`$ and $`Q^2`$ are both large, the differential cross section for producing a virtual photon of polarization $`\lambda =T`$ or $`L`$ in Eqs. (2) and (3) can be factorized as

$$\frac{d\sigma _{AB\gamma _\lambda ^{}(Q)+X}}{dQ_T^2dy}=\underset{a,b}{}𝑑x_1\varphi _{a/A}(x_1,\mu )𝑑x_2\varphi _{b/B}(x_2,\mu )\frac{d\widehat{\sigma }_{ab\gamma _\lambda ^{}(Q)X}}{dQ_T^2dy}(x_1,x_2,Q,Q_T,y;\mu )$$
(4)
where $`_{a,b}`$ run over all parton flavors, the $`\mu `$ represents both renormalization and factorization scales, and $`\varphi _{a/A}`$ and $`\varphi _{b/B}`$ are normal parton distributions. The short-distance parts, $`d\widehat{\sigma }_{ab\gamma _\lambda ^{}(Q)X}/dQ_T^2dy`$ in Eq. (4) are perturbatively calculable in terms of a power series in $`\alpha _s`$ . When $`Q_TQ`$, the perturbatively calculated short-distance parts receive a large logarithm $`\mathrm{ln}(Q_T^2/Q^2)`$ for every power of $`\alpha _s`$ beyond the leading order. Therefore, we need to resum such logarithms to all orders in $`\alpha _s`$ in order to derive a reliable cross section for the virtual photon production at large $`Q_T`$.

It was shown  that the large logarithms $`\mathrm{ln}^n(Q_T^2/Q^2)`$ come from the partonic subprocesses in which the virtual photon is produced from the decay of a parton that itself was produced at a distance scale $`1/Q_T`$. Because the parent parton can radiate massless partons before it radiates the virtual photon, there is one power of large $`\mathrm{ln}(Q_T^2/Q^2)`$ for an additional power of $`\alpha _s`$. Since all powers of the large logarithms are from the final-state bremsstrahlung of a parton produced at a short-distance, such logarithms can be resumed into a fragmentation function for the parton to fragment into the virtual photon. Berger, Qiu, and Zhang  derived a modified factorization formula for calculating Drell-Yan cross section at $`Q_TQ`$, which includes the resummation of the large logarithms,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{AB\gamma _\lambda ^{}(Q)+X}}{dQ_T^2dy}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a,b,c}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z^2}𝑑x_1\varphi _{a/A}(x_1,\mu )𝑑x_2\varphi _{b/B}(x_2,\mu )}`$ (5)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }_{abcX}}{dp_{c_T}^2dy}}(x_1,x_2,p_c=\widehat{Q}/z;\mu )\right]D_{c\gamma _\lambda ^{}}(z,\mu ;Q)`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1\varphi _{a/A}(x_1,\mu )𝑑x_2\varphi _{b/B}(x_2,\mu )\frac{d\widehat{\sigma }_{ab\gamma _\lambda ^{}(Q)X}^Y}{dQ_T^2dy}(x_1,x_2,Q,Q_T,y;\mu )}`$ (7)
where $`a,b,`$ and $`c`$ run over all parton flavors, $`\widehat{Q}^\mu `$ is the on-shell part of momentum $`Q^\mu `$, and $`\mu `$ represents the renormalization, factorization, and fragmentation scales. The first term on the right-hand-side of Eq. (7) represents the resummed contributions, which include all powers of the large logarithms; and the second term is free of the large logarithms and carries the same physical meaning as the $`Y`$-term in the resummation formula for $`Q_TQ`$ . In Eq. (7), the $`D_{c\gamma _\lambda ^{}}`$ are the fragmentation functions for the partons of flavor $`c`$ to fragment into a virtual photon of invariant mass $`Q`$ and polarization $`\lambda `$, and their operator definitions are given in Ref. . The resummation of the large $`\mathrm{ln}(Q_T^2/Q^2)`$ to all orders in $`\alpha _s`$ can be achieved by solving the evolution (or renormalization group) equations for these fragmentation functions . In Eq. (7), the partonic part $`d\widehat{\sigma }_{abcX}/dp_{c_T}^2dy`$ are perturbatively calculable and represent the production of partons of flavor $`c`$ at a distance scale $`1/p_{c_T}1/Q_T`$ . Since the $`Y`$-term is defined to be the perturbative difference between Drell-Yan cross section and the resummed part of the cross section, the corresponding partonic parts at the order of $`\alpha _s^n`$ are given by

$$\widehat{\sigma }_{ab\gamma _\lambda ^{}(Q)X}^{Y(n)}\widehat{\sigma }_{ab\gamma _\lambda ^{}(Q)X}^{(n)}\underset{m=2}{\overset{n}{}}\widehat{\sigma }_{abcX}^{(m)}D_{c\gamma _\lambda ^{}(Q)}^{(nm)}$$
(8)
where $``$ represents the convolution over $`z`$ as defined in Eq. (7), and $`D^{(n)}`$ are perturbatively calculated virtual photon fragmentation functions at order of $`\alpha _s^n`$.

The modified factorization formula in Eq. (7) should be valid for all $`Q_TQ`$. When $`Q_TQ`$, the resummed part dominates the cross sections, and the $`Y`$-term represents a small correction. When $`Q_TQ`$, the logarithms are small and the cross sections are dominated by the $`Y`$-term. All short-distance parts in Eq. (7) are evaluated at the same short-distance scale $`1/Q_T`$ and free of the large logarithms. All leading logarithmic contributions from a distance scale of $`1/Q_T`$ to $`1/Q`$ are resummed into the fragmentation functions. With the modified factorization formula in Eq. (7), we are able to calculate the polarization parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}}`$ in Eq. (2) reliably in QCD perturbation theory by calculating the short-distance parts order-by-order in $`\alpha _s`$.

From the modified factorization formula in Eq. (7), we obtain the leading order contributions to the virtual photon cross sections by calculating the lowest order contributions to both $`\widehat{\sigma }_{abc}`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }_{ab\gamma _\lambda ^{}}^Y`$. From Eq. (7), the lowest order contributions to the short-distance $`d\widehat{\sigma }_{abcX}/dp_{c_T}^2dy`$ are independent of the virtual photon’s polarization, and are given by the lowest order two-to-two partonic tree diagrams at $`O(\alpha _s^2)`$,

$$\frac{d\widehat{\sigma }_{abcd}}{dp_{c_T}^2dy}(x_1,x_2,p_c=\widehat{Q}/z;\mu )=\pi \frac{\alpha _s^2(\mu )}{x_1x_2S}|\frac{1}{g^2}\overline{M}_{abcd}|^2\delta (\widehat{s}+\widehat{t}+\widehat{u}),$$
(9)
where $`g`$ is the strong coupling constant and $`S=(P_A+P_B)^2`$ is the collision energy. In Eq. (9), $`\widehat{s}`$, $`\widehat{t}`$, and $`\widehat{u}`$ are the parton level Mandelstam variables. The lowest order two-to-two matrix element squares in Eq. (9) are given in Ref. .

The lowest order contributions to the partonic cross sections $`\widehat{\sigma }_{ab\gamma _\lambda ^{}}`$ in Eq. (8) are at order of $`O(\alpha _{em}\alpha _s)`$ from the subprocesses: $`q\overline{q}\gamma ^{}(Q)g`$ and $`qg\gamma ^{}(Q)q`$. Since the subtraction term in Eq. (8) starts at order of $`O(\alpha _{em}\alpha _s^2)`$, we have the leading order contributions to the $`Y`$-term as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }_{ab\gamma _\lambda ^{}(Q)}^{(YLO)}}{dQ_T^2dy}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }_{ab\gamma _\lambda ^{}(Q)}^{(LO)}}{dQ_T^2dy}}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{em}(\mu )\alpha _s(\mu )}{x_1x_2S}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{eg}}\overline{M}_{ab\gamma _\mu ^{}d}ϵ_\lambda ^\mu (Q)\right|^2\delta (\widehat{s}+\widehat{t}+\widehat{u}Q^2),`$ (11)
where $`e`$ is the electron charge and $`\widehat{s}`$, $`\widehat{t}`$, and $`\widehat{u}`$ are again the parton level Mandelstam variables. The matrix element squares in Eq. (11) for producing a polarized virtual photon depend on the photon’s polarization vector $`ϵ_\lambda ^\mu (Q)`$.

The choice of the polarization vectors are not unique . But, it should be consistent with the definition of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}}`$ in Eqs. (1) and (2). The angle $`\theta `$ in Eq. (1) depends on the frame choice and its $`z`$-axis . As a result, the extracted value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}}`$ as well as the polarization vectors used to define the polarized virtual photon cross sections in Eq. (2) are also sensitive to the frame choice and its $`z`$-axis. For the consistency of the QCD factorization formula in Eq. (7), it is very important to use the same polarization vectors to calculate both the virtual photon fragmentation functions and the $`Y`$-term. Since we are interested in the region where $`Q_TQ`$, we will not choose the Collins-Soper frame , which offers special advantage when $`Q_TQ`$. Instead, as shown in Fig. 2, we choose the $`z`$-axis along the direction of the virtual photon’s momentum $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ and angle $`\theta `$ to be the angle between the $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{l}`$, the direction of one of the decay leptons. Our choice of the $`z`$-axis corresponds to the “S-helicity” frame defined in Ref. . With our choice of the helicity frame and angle $`\theta `$, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}}=+1(1)`$ corresponds to the virtual photon in a purely transverse (longitudinal) polarization state.

To minimize the frame dependence, we present our results in terms of the covariant hadronic tensors $`w_{[ab]\mu \nu }`$ and polarization vector $`ϵ_\lambda ^\mu (Q)`$, which are defined as

$$\left|\frac{1}{eg}\overline{M}_{ab\gamma _\mu ^{}d}ϵ_\lambda ^\mu (Q)\right|^2w_{[ab]\mu \nu }ϵ_\lambda ^\mu (Q)ϵ_\lambda ^\nu (Q).$$
(12)
For quark-antiquark annihilation subprocess: $`q(p_1)\overline{q}(p_2)\gamma ^{}(Q)g`$, we obtain the hadronic tensor,

$`w_{[q\overline{q}]}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`e_q^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{t}\widehat{u}}}\right]\{4Q^2[(p_1^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{p_1Q}{Q^2}}Q^\mu )(p_1^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{p_1Q}{Q^2}}Q^\nu )`$ (13)
$`+(p_2^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{p_2Q}{Q^2}}Q^\mu )(p_2^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{p_2Q}{Q^2}}Q^\nu )]`$ (14)
$`(g^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{Q^\mu Q^\nu }{Q^2}})[(2p_1Q)^2+(2p_2Q)^2]\}`$ (15)
with quark’s fractional charge $`e_q`$; and for the “Compton” subprocess: $`g(p_1)q(p_2)\gamma ^{}(Q)q`$, we have

$`w_{[gq]}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`e_q^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{s}(\widehat{u})}}\right]\{4Q^2(p_1^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{p_1Q}{Q^2}}Q^\mu )(p_1^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{p_1Q}{Q^2}}Q^\nu )`$ (16)
$`8Q^2\left(p_2^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{p_2Q}{Q^2}}Q^\mu \right)\left(p_2^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{p_2Q}{Q^2}}Q^\nu \right)`$ (17)
$`4Q^2[(p_1^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{p_1Q}{Q^2}}Q^\mu )(p_2^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{p_2Q}{Q^2}}Q^\nu )`$ (18)
$`+(p_2^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{p_2Q}{Q^2}}Q^\mu )(p_1^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{p_1Q}{Q^2}}Q^\nu )]`$ (19)
$`(g^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{Q^\mu Q^\nu }{Q^2}})[(Q^2\widehat{s})^2+(Q^2\widehat{u})^2]\}.`$ (20)
With our choice of the helicity frame, we have the polarization vector for a longitudinally polarized virtual photon as

$$ϵ_L^\mu (Q)=\frac{Q}{\sqrt{(PQ)^2Q^2S}}\left[P^\mu \frac{PQ}{Q^2}Q^\mu \right]$$
(21)
where $`P^\mu P_A^\mu +P_B^\mu `$. The polarization vector $`ϵ_L^\mu (Q)`$ in Eq. (21) reduces to the unit vector $`\widehat{z}^\mu `$ in the photon’s rest frame . By contracting the hadronic tensors in Eqs. (15) and (20) with the polarization tensor $`ϵ_L^\mu (Q)ϵ_L^\nu (Q)`$ (or $`g^{\mu \nu }`$), one can easily obtain the matrix element squares for producing longitudinally polarized (or unpolarized) virtual photons. Because of the ambiguities in choosing the $`x`$\- or $`y`$-axis, the functional forms of the transverse polarization vectors $`ϵ_{T_i}^\mu (Q)`$ with $`i=1,2`$ are not unique. One can derive the matrix element squares for producing a transversely polarized virtual photon by using the polarization tensor $`\frac{1}{2}_{i=1,2}ϵ_{T_i}^\mu (Q)ϵ_{T_i}^\nu (Q)`$ , or by taking the one half of the difference in the matrix element squares for unpolarized and longitudinally polarized virtual photons.

For deriving our numerical results, we use CTEQ5M parton distributions  and the virtual photon fragmentation functions from Ref. . We set the renormalization, factorization, and fragmentation scales equal to $`\mu =\kappa \sqrt{Q^2+Q_T^2}`$ with $`\kappa `$ a constant of order one.

With the large $`Q_T`$ setting up the scale of hard collision, the QCD factorization formula in Eq. (7) should be valid for $`Q^2`$ as small as a few GeV2. Since we are interested in the kinematics similar to J/$`\psi `$ production at high $`Q_T`$, we choose $`Q=2`$ and 5 GeV in following plots.

In Fig. 3, we plot the polarization parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}}`$ in the proton-antiproton collisions as a function of $`Q_T`$ at $`\sqrt{S}=2`$ TeV (new Tevatron energy). The dashed lines represent the $`\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}}`$ with only the leading order $`Y`$-term derived from Eqs. (15) and (20). The solid lines are equal to the $`\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}}`$ with both the $`Y`$-term and the resummed contributions. In Fig. 4, we plot the same polarization parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}}`$ in the proton-proton collisions at $`\sqrt{S}=500`$ GeV (the RHIC energy). The constant $`\kappa =1`$ in both Figs. 3 and 4. By varying the $`\kappa `$ from $`1/2`$ to $`2`$, we find that the cross sections are not very sensitive to the choice of $`\kappa `$ , and the numerical values of the $`\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}}`$ are relatively stable.

From Figs. 3 and 4, we see that the virtual photons in Drell-Yan massive lepton-pair production are likely to be transversely polarized at high $`Q_T`$. The resummed contributions provide significant corrections to the numerical values of the polarization parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}}`$, and they are more important at the low $`Q^2`$. As pointed out in Ref. , the longitudinally polarized virtual photon fragmentation functions dominate the threshold region. Consequently, we expect that the resummed contributions to the cross sections of longitudinally polarized virtual photons are more important in low $`Q_T`$ than high $`Q_T`$ region, which are clearly evident in the difference between the solid and dashed lines. Since the perturbatively calculable partonic hard parts in the modified QCD factorization formula in Eq. (7) are evaluated at a single hard scale $`Q_T`$ without large logarithms, high order corrections should not alter the polarization parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}}`$ dramatically . We therefore conclude that the virtual photons of invariant mass $`Q`$ in Drell-Yan massive lepton-pair production are likely to be transversely polarized when $`Q_TQ`$.

When $`Q_TM_{\mathrm{J}/\psi }`$, hadronic J/$`\psi `$ and the virtual photon production have a lot in common. The key difference is the difference between their respective fragmentation functions, as shown in Fig. 1. As argued in Ref. , the virtual photon fragmentation functions are completely perturbative, while the parton to J/$`\psi `$ fragmentation functions involve final-state radiations and soft interactions . As shown in Fig. 1, the fragmentation functions from a parton $`d`$ to a physical J/$`\psi `$ can be approximated by the fragmentation functions to a virtual gluon of invariant mass $`Q`$, which immediately decay into a $`c\overline{c}`$-pair, convoluted with a transition from the $`c\overline{c}`$-pair to a physical J/$`\psi `$ . The first part of the fragmentation functions for a parton to a virtual gluon should be perturbatively calculable. Since a gluon can directly couple to a gluon, the evolution equations for the virtual gluon fragmentation functions can have a nonvanish leading order inhomogeneous evolution kernel for a gluon to a virtual gluon of mass $`Q`$. Consequently, the quark-to-virtual-gluon and gluon-to-virtual-gluon fragmentation functions should be equally important, while the gluon-to-virtual-photon fragmentation functions are much smaller than quark-to-virtual-photon fragmentation functions . However, this difference should not have too much effect on the ratio of the transverse and longitudinal polarizations. We then expect that at high $`Q_T`$, the virtual gluon, so as the $`c\overline{c}`$-pair immediately produced from the decay of the virtual gluon, are more likely to be transversely polarized.

The produced charm and anticharm quark pair of invariant mass $`Q`$ can in principle radiate gluons and have soft interactions with other partons in the collisions. However, due to the heavy quark mass, such final-state interactions during the transition from the produced $`c\overline{c}`$-pair to a physical J/$`\psi `$ meson are not expected to significantly change the polarization . If the formation from the $`c\overline{c}`$-pair of invariant mass $`Q`$ to a physical J/$`\psi `$ meson does not change the polarization, one can expect the polarization of the J/$`\psi `$ mesons produced at high $`Q_T`$ to be similar to the polarization of the virtual photon in Drell-Yan massive lepton-pair production at the same kinematics. For example, the non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD) model of J/$`\psi `$ production precisely predicts the J/$`\psi `$ mesons to be transversely polarized at large $`Q_T`$ , which is not consistent with recent Fermilab data .

Since J/$`\psi `$ production at high $`Q_T`$ involves both perturbative and nonperturbative physics, we have to find answers to the following two questions in order to resolve this inconsistency. The first question is about the reliability of the perturbative calculations for the relevant kinematics. The second question is about the separation between perturbative and nonperturbative physics. These two questions can be summarized into one: if there is a reliable QCD factorization for hadronic J/$`\psi `$ production . The measurements of the virtual photon polarization in Drell-Yan massive lepton-pair production can help us to answer the first question. Since the QCD factorization for Drell-Yan massive lepton-pair production is expected to be valid when $`Q_TQ`$ , the measurements of the polarization parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}}`$ provide excellent tests of the reliability of perturbative calculations for the kinematic region similar to J/$`\psi `$ production. Although the measurements of the $`\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}}`$ cannot test the final-state effect of J/$`\psi `$ production or answer the second question, the measured difference between $`\alpha _{\mathrm{DY}}`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{J}/\psi }`$ can help us to isolate the role of the final-state effect, and to narrow the questions about the J/$`\psi `$ production.

This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-87ER40731.