format: text

text:
# Reversible entanglement in a Kerr-like interaction Hamiltonian: an integrable model

## I Introduction

Nowadays it is widely accepted that quantum entanglement is an essential ingredient for the implementation of quantum information processing devices werner . It is notable that until recently quantum information science was restricted over discrete, finite dimensional Hilbert space elements, however, interest on continuous variables has been developing in various contexts: from teleportation braunstein98 , cryptography ralph  to cloning braunstein01 . This is closely connected to the recent advances of enhancing nonlinear coupling via electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) mechanism schmidt  using a Bose-Einstein condensate, which has opened possibilities of strong non-linear interaction of ultra slow light pulses hau  of tiny energies belonging to different modes of electromagnetic fields lurkin ; deng . Such advances ranges from building a quantum logic gates based on photonic qubits without resorting to photonic crystals petrosyan , entangling continuous variable states braunstein98 ; silberhorn , and preparing entangled states of radiation from mixed thermal states filip  in conventional media. Facing these recent developments, it is important to understand the entanglement properties of Kerr-type interaction particularly for Gaussian states, which are one of the states that can be generated by simple experimental devices like beam splitters and phase shifters.

In the present work, we have studied the entanglement properties of a model describing a bipartite system of two degrees of freedom, an integrable version of two quartic oscillators milburn86 ; agarwal98 , coupled via a Kerr-type interaction. One could think of some coupled cavities scheme with a Kerr medium scully ; opatrny  as a possible realization of these type of interactions. The nonlinearity of each of the subsystem oscillator keep some of the properties present in one degree of freedom such as collapses and revivals of the quadrature mean values of each field. Also, this soluble model in which the nonlinearity is present can be used to understand the role of Kerr-type nonlinearity on the entanglement dynamics of initially coherent Gaussian states. Another case we have considered is the non-classical number states brune  for the initial disentangled state, which does not entangle via Kerr-type coupling, but via usual bilinear coupling in a rotating wave approximation (RWA), and show several differences in the entanglement dynamics.

The paper is organized as follows: In section II the model is introduced and the exact solutions for initially disentangled states, in the cases of number states and coherent states, are presented. Analytical expressions for the subsystem density operators and some mean values are calculated. Section III is reserved to present the exact subsystem linear entropies for both initial states, analyze the conditions for re-coherences and recurrences and discuss the differences in the entanglement dynamics in the proposed cases. Also, we examine the differences of the short time dynamics where no interference phenomenon is possible and the longer time dynamics where such effects do affect the evolution of the subsystems. Another issue treated here is the limit where Planck’s constant becomes much smaller than the typical action in phase space. As we shall see, the two cases present distinct semi-classical behaviors. Finally in section IV we present our conclusions.

## II The model

Our theoretical model will be inspired on two field modes in a cavity with a low-loss Kerr media, described by the creation and annihilation operators $`\widehat{a}_k`$ and $`\widehat{a}_k^{}`$ ($`k=1,2`$), such that each mode has the usual non-linear interaction term of the form $`\chi \widehat{a}_k^2\widehat{a}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ agarwal98 . Besides this non-linear self-interaction term we add two coupling interaction between the field modes: one is the usual RWA coupling mokarzel  and the other is the Kerr-type non-linear interaction scully ,

$`\widehat{H}_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left[\mathrm{}\omega _k\left(\widehat{a}_k^{}\widehat{a}_k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\right]+\mathrm{}\lambda \left(\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2+\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^{}\right)`$
$`+\mathrm{}^2g\left(\widehat{a}_1^2\widehat{a}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\widehat{a}_2^2\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)+\mathrm{}^2g^{^{}}\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2.`$
where the constants $`g`$ and $`g^{^{}}`$ 18  depend upon the third-order non-linear susceptibility $`\chi `$ and no losses will be considered. Since our purpose here is to have an exactly soluble model with the nonlinearities in such a way that we could trace out the effect of each interaction term on the entanglement dynamics, we will just set $`g^{^{}}=2g`$ and also choose the resonant case ($`\omega _1=\omega _2`$) such that the Hamiltonian can be re-written in the following form:

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\omega _0{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left[\left(\widehat{a}_k^{}\widehat{a}_k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\right]+\mathrm{}\lambda \left(\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2+\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^{}\right)`$ (1)
$`+\mathrm{}^2g\left(\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1+\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2+1\right)^2`$
$`=`$ $`\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{V_\lambda }+\widehat{V_g}.`$
Notice that the entire Kerr type interaction is now in the form of the square of the free Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H_0}`$, and hence the following commutation relations hold

$`[\widehat{H}_0,\widehat{V_\lambda }]=[\widehat{V}_g,\widehat{V_\lambda }]=0.`$ (2)
This property is important for two reasons: first, it is associated to the presence of a constant of motion ($`\widehat{𝒩}=\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1+\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2`$); and second, it allows us to study separately the action of each interaction term in the evolution operator on the initial state, and hence its consequences on the entanglement process. In what follows, we study the cases of initially uncorrelated number and coherent states.

### II.1  Analytical solution for product of number states

For the case of initially disentangled number states of the harmonic oscillators:

$$|\psi (0)=|n_1|n_2.$$
(3)
We can write $`\widehat{H}`$ in Eq.(1) in terms of two new quartic oscillators diagonalizing the RWA-coupling, using the transformation proposed by Zoubi et al zoubi ,

$`\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}_1=\frac{\widehat{A}_1+\widehat{A}_2}{\sqrt{2}}\widehat{a}_2=\frac{\widehat{A}_1\widehat{A}_2}{\sqrt{2}}.\end{array}`$ (5)
The resulting Hamiltonian can be written in terms of the number operators $`\widehat{N}_k=\widehat{A}_k^{}\widehat{A}_k`$, of the new oscillators as follows:

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\left(\omega _0+\lambda \right)\left(\widehat{N}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)+\mathrm{}\left(\omega _0\lambda \right)\left(\widehat{N}_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)`$ (6)
$`+\mathrm{}^2g\left(\widehat{N}_1+\widehat{N}_2+1\right)^2.`$
Using Eq.(5), we can connect the two different basis of the two oscillators Hilbert space by the relation

$$|n_1,n_2_a=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n_1}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n_2}{}}c_{i,j}(n_1,n_2)|𝒩\left(i+j\right),\left(i+j\right)_A,$$
(7)
where

$`c_{i,j}(n_1,n_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^j\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n_1}{i}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n_2}{j}}\right)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{[𝒩(i+j)]!(i+j)!}{2^𝒩n_1!n_2!}}},`$
$`𝒩`$ $`=`$ $`n_1,n_2|\widehat{𝒩}|n_1,n_2=n_1+n_2.`$ (8)
The sub-index ‘$`a`$’ or ‘$`A`$’ indicates the bosonic representation the ket belongs to. It is to be noticed that at the right hand side of Eq.(7), only those states with the total number $`𝒩`$ fixed by the initial state are present. Using the Hamiltonian in the diagonal form, Eq.(6), and Eq.(7) the time-evolved state can be written as

$`|\psi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ı\mathrm{\Phi }}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n_2}{}}}c_{i,j}(n_1,n_2)e^{2ı(i+j)\lambda t}\times `$ (9)
$`|𝒩(i+j),(i+j)_A,`$
where the quantity $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\omega _0t(𝒩+1)+\lambda t𝒩+\mathrm{}gt(𝒩+1)^2`$ is a global phase. This phase factor will be relevant in Section II.2, where this result will be used to construct the solution for the case of coherent states. Hence, for the number states, Eq.(9) shows that the dynamics of the stationary states are completely determined by the RWA coupling and the effect of non-linear part of the Hamiltonian is only in the global phase.

After a little algebra we can re-write the above state Eq.(9) in a more instructive form:

$`\begin{array}{c}|\psi (t)=\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{12}^{(n_1)}(t)\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{21}^{(n_2)}(t)|0,0,\\ \\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{kk^{}}^{(n)}(t)\frac{\left(\widehat{a}_k^{}\mathrm{cos}\lambda tı\widehat{a}_k^{}^{}\mathrm{sin}\lambda t\right)^n}{\sqrt{n!}}.\end{array}`$ (13)
The sub-indexes “12”(“21”) of the operators $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ emphasize the entanglement features of the dynamics. Here, we omitted the remaining global phase, and used the fact that the vacuum state in both representations spaces must be the same.
Now, we can extract some informations of entanglement process of number states under the action solely of the RWA interaction. At times $`T_l=\frac{\pi }{\lambda }(l+\frac{1}{2})`$, with $`l`$ integer, Eq.(13) gives

$`|\psi (T_l)`$ $`=`$ $`(ı)^{n_1+n_2}(1)^{l(n_1+n_2)}|n_2,n_1,`$ (14)
indicating that the system is in a disentangled state, but not the same as the initial one. However, at times $`\tau _l=l\frac{\pi }{\lambda }`$ we recover the exact initial state (modulo an overall phase):

$`|\psi (\tau _l)=(1)^{l(n_1+n_2)}|n_1,n_2.`$ (15)
Hence, for the case of initially disentangled number states, we have found two characteristic times: (a) the re-coherence times $`T_l`$, for the which the subsystems recover the purity of the initial state, and (b) the recurrence times $`\tau _l`$, when the evolved state becomes equal to the initial state. This allows us to classify $`|\psi (0)`$ in Eq.(3) as a reversible state for this particular interaction. Consequently, we may define a period of reversibility for such states: $`\tau _R=\frac{\pi }{\lambda }`$. For the special case of equal initial number states ($`n_1=n_2`$), the difference between the re-coherence and recurrence times disappears and the reversibility occurs earlier, as can be seen in Eq.(14).

### II.2  Analytical solution for coherent states

Consider an initially disentangled product of two coherent states as follows:

$`|\psi (0)`$ $`=`$ $`|\alpha _1|\alpha _2`$
$`=`$ $`e^{\frac{|\alpha _1|^2}{2}}e^{\frac{|\alpha _2|^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1^n}{\sqrt{n!}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2^m}{\sqrt{m!}}}|n,m.`$
The time-evolved state can be obtained using the previous result Eq.(13), including the $`𝒩`$-dependent phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$`|\psi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{|\alpha _1|^2|\alpha _2|^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1^n(t)}{\sqrt{n!}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2^m(t)}{\sqrt{m!}}}e^{ı\mathrm{}g\left(n+m+1\right)^2t}\times `$ (17)
$`\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{(n)}(t)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{(m)}(t)|0,0,`$
where $`\alpha _k(t)=\alpha _ke^{ı(\omega _0+2\mathrm{}g)t}`$. In this result we have already omitted a global phase.

It is easy to see that for $`g=0`$ the RWA-coupling does not entangle the oscillators, since the two summations of Eq.(17) can be factorized, and each oscillator remains in a coherent form

$`|\psi (t)|_{g=0}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{D}_1[\beta _1(t)]\widehat{D}_2[\beta _2(t)]|0,0`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`|\beta _1(t),\beta _2(t),`$
where

$`\beta _{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{2}}(t)=(\alpha _{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{2}}e^{ı\omega _0t}\mathrm{cos}\lambda tı\alpha _{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2}{1}}e^{ı\omega _0t}\mathrm{sin}\lambda t),`$ (19)
and $`\widehat{D}_k[\beta _k(t)]=e^{\left(\beta _k\widehat{a}_k^{}\beta _k^{}\widehat{a}_k\right)}`$ is the displacement operator in the phase space of the $`k`$-th oscillator.

Using this particular result, we can solve the general case of initially disentangled coherent states in a more intuitive way. The commutation relations (2) allow us to apply separately the piece of the evolution operator associated to the non-linear term of $`\widehat{H}`$, Eq. 1, and use the previously derived results \[Eqs.( 1718)\]. The final exact solution for the temporal evolution of two initially coherent states is given by

$`|\psi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{gt\widehat{H}_0^2}{ı\mathrm{}}}e^{\frac{\omega t\widehat{H}_0+\lambda t\widehat{V}}{ı\mathrm{}}}|\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$
$`=`$ $`e^{\frac{gt\widehat{H}_0^2}{ı\mathrm{}}}|\beta _1(t),\beta _2(t)`$
$`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\left|\beta _1\left(t\right)\right|^2+\left|\beta _2\left(t\right)\right|^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}e^{ı\mathrm{}gt𝒩^2}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\beta _1(t)e^{ı2g\mathrm{}t}\right]^n}{\sqrt{n!}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\beta _2(t)e^{ı2g\mathrm{}t}\right]^m}{\sqrt{m!}}}|n,m.`$
Here, the expressions of $`\beta _k(t)`$ are the ones depicted in Eq. (19).

In order to calculate other quantities like the mean values and variances of the quadrature operators, and discuss the phenomenon of collapses and revivals, let us calculate the density operator of the system. Since we are interested in the case where the global system is isolated, the total density operator is a projector onto the state $`|\psi (t)`$

$`\widehat{\rho }\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`|\psi \left(t\right)\psi \left(t\right)|`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{},m^{}}{}}e^{ı\mathrm{}gt\left[\left(n+m+1\right)^2\left(n^{}+m^{}+1\right)^2\right]}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^n\beta _1^n^{}\beta _2^m\beta _2^m^{}}{\sqrt{n!n^{}!m!m^{}!}}}|n,mn^{},m^{}|,`$
where we have defined $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left|\beta _1\right|^2+\left|\beta _2\right|^2`$, a constant of motion associated to the mean value of $`\widehat{𝒩}`$. We shall denote from here on $`\beta _k(t)`$ simply as $`\beta _k`$. We calculated the reduced density operators $`\widehat{\rho }_k(t)`$ ($`k=1,2`$) by tracing over the undesired degree of freedom, corresponding to one of the original oscillators:

$`\widehat{\rho }_1\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^n}{\sqrt{n!}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^m}{\sqrt{m!}}}e^{|\beta _2|^2e^{2ı\mathrm{}gt\left(nm\right)}}`$ (22)
$`\times `$ $`e^{ı\mathrm{}gt\left[n^2m^2+2\left(nm\right)\right]}|nm|,`$
with a similar expression for $`\widehat{\rho }_2\left(t\right)`$. The field quadrature operators $`\widehat{Q_k}`$ and $`\widehat{P_k}`$ are given in terms of the creation and annihilation operators as follows:

$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{Q}_k}{\widehat{P}_k}}\right)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ ı& ı\end{array}\right]\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}_k}{\widehat{a}_k^{}}}\right),`$ (25)
and analytical expressions for the mean values are given by

$`\widehat{Q}_k(t)`$ $`=`$ $`Tr_k[\widehat{Q}_k\widehat{\rho }_k(t)]`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}\text{Re}\left[\beta _k(t)e^{3ı\omega _gt}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2\mathrm{}}\left(1e^{2ı\omega _gt}\right)}\right],`$
$`\widehat{P}_k(t)`$ $`=`$ $`Tr_k[\widehat{P}_k\widehat{\rho }_k(t)]`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}\text{Im}\left[\beta _k(t)e^{3ı\omega _gt}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2\mathrm{}}\left(1e^{2ı\omega _gt}\right)}\right],`$
where we defined the frequency associated to the non-linear term as $`\omega _g=\mathrm{}g`$.

The above expressions contain exponentials of oscillatory terms, which produces the collapses and revivals phenomena agarwal89  at times odd multiple of $`\frac{\pi }{2\omega _g}`$ and integer multiples of $`\frac{\pi }{\omega _g}`$ respectively, as shown in Fig.1(a) where we plotted the mean value of $`\widehat{Q}_k`$ quadrature as a function of $`\omega _gt`$.

One can also calculate analytically the variances $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_k(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_k(t)`$. The results are complicated expressions which we shall omit. However, we illustrate its general behavior in Fig.1(b), where we can see the same periodic structure present in the quadrature mean value temporal behavior. These results for the subsystem variances are very similar to those obtained for the one degree of freedom quartic oscillator milburn86 . The most instructive information is the relation between the collapse and the phase space’s delocalization in phase of the state, as can be seen in the projected Q-function that will be illustrated in the next section for a particular set of parameters.

Due to the fact that here we have two interacting subsystems, their entanglement prevent the appearance of superpositions of coherent states for each oscillator for low integer fractions of the re-coherence times. But, in contrast to the case coupled to a reservoir milburn2 , we will see in what follows that at the revival time the subsystem entropy goes to zero (re-coherence), and the system do come back to the initial state (recurrence) under appropriate conditions. Another initially disentangled state that can be solved is the product of the form $`|\alpha _1|n_2`$, where this type of analysis can be done and find the times at re-coherence allows superposition states angelo .

## III Entanglement properties and its semi-classical behavior.

In this section we are going to discuss the entanglement dynamics of time-evolved states found in Section II; namely, the product of number states and coherent states. We analyze the subsystem entropy, one important tool that gives a measure of entanglement for globally pure bipartite systems, and also the Husimi distribution or Q-function, in order to follow the evolution of the partial distribution in phase space. The Q-function for the global system is usually defined by:

$$Q(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p})=\frac{1}{\pi }\gamma _1\gamma _2\left|\widehat{\rho }(t)\right|\gamma _1\gamma _2,$$
(28)
where we choose $`\gamma _k=\frac{q_k+ıp_k}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}}`$ ($`k=1,2`$). Particularly, we investigate the role played by the non-linear interaction term in the Hamiltonian (1) which appears associated to the frequency $`\omega _g`$ in the various analytical expressions derived. Moreover, we would like to find the behavior of the subsystem linear entropies in the semi-classical limit.

### III.1  Entanglement properties for number state: linear and Von Neumann entropies.

We are interested in the calculation of both, the subsystem linear entropy (SLE) and the Von Neumann entropy, usually defined by

$`\delta _k`$ $`=`$ $`1Tr_k(\widehat{\rho }_k^2)`$
$`S_k`$ $`=`$ $`Tr_k(\widehat{\rho }_k\mathrm{ln}\widehat{\rho }_k),`$ (29)
where the label $`k`$ is associated to one of the degrees of freedom. For the initially disentangled number states Eq.(3), the reduced density operator is diagonal in the number state basis; therefore, it can be directly expressed in terms of its eigenvalues as follows

$$\rho _k(t)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{n_1+n_2}{}}\lambda _l(t)|ll|,$$
(30)
where the trace condition $`\lambda _l(t)=1`$ must be satisfied. The eigenvalues $`\lambda _l(t)`$ are given by:

$$\lambda _l(t)=\underset{i,i^{}=0}{\overset{n_1}{}}\underset{m,m^{}=0}{\overset{n_2}{}}c_{i,m}(t)c_{i^{},m^{}}^{}(t)\delta _{im,i^{}m^{}}\delta _{n_1l,im}$$
(31)
$`c_{i,m}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n_1}{i}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n_2}{m}}\right)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(n_1i+m)!(n_2i+m)!}{n_1!n_2!}}}\times `$ (32)
$`\times (\mathrm{cos}\lambda t)^{n_1+n_2(i+m)}(ı\mathrm{sin}\lambda t)^{i+m}.`$
Then, in terms of the reduced density operator eigenvalues, the subsystem entropies assume a familiar form:

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta _k(t)=1\underset{l=0}{\overset{n_1+n_2}{}}\lambda _l(t)^2\\ \\ S_k(t)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{n_1+n_2}{}}\lambda _l(t)\mathrm{ln}\left(\lambda _l(t)\right).\end{array}$$
(33)
The dependence of the eigenvalues on the periodic functions confirms the rule for the re-coherence times, Eq.(14) and Eq.(15). To illustrate what has been discussed above, we present some simple examples:

* For $`|\psi (0)=|1,0`$ we have:

$`\{\begin{array}{c}\delta _k\left(t\right)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\lambda t,\hfill \\ \\ S_k\left(t\right)=\mathrm{cos}^2\lambda t\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{cos}^2\lambda t\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\lambda t\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{sin}^2\lambda t\right).\hfill \end{array}`$ (37)
* For $`|\psi (0)=|1,1`$ we have:

$`\{\begin{array}{c}\delta _k\left(t\right)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^22\lambda t}{4}\left(5+3\mathrm{cos}4\lambda t\right),\hfill \\ \\ S_k\left(t\right)=\mathrm{cos}^22\lambda t\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{cos}^22\lambda t\right)\mathrm{sin}^22\lambda t\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}^22\lambda t}{2}\right).\hfill \end{array}`$ (41)
* For $`|\psi (0)=|2,0`$ we have:

$`\{\begin{array}{c}\delta _k\left(t\right)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^22\lambda t}{16}\left(13+3\mathrm{cos}4\lambda t\right),\hfill \\ \\ S_k\left(t\right)=\mathrm{cos}^4\lambda t\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{cos}^4\lambda t\right)\mathrm{sin}^4\lambda t\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{sin}^4\lambda t\right)+\hfill \\ \\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}^22\lambda t}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}^22\lambda t}{2}\right).\hfill \end{array}`$ (47)

These analytical results for the SLE are shown in Fig.2(a). An interesting fact is the appearance of the oscillatory structures between two successive re-coherences for particular values of $`n_k`$. This is illustrated in Fig.2(b) where the SLE is plotted for $`n_1=3`$ and several successive values of $`n_2`$. We can see that both, the number of oscillations and the maximum value of SLE, increases as $`n_2`$ is increased. This feature can be understood from Eq.(30), where the number of accessible states is given by $`n_1+n_2+1`$ which increases with increasing $`n_2`$. This accounts for the increase in the maximum value, and also the subsystem is allowed to pass through many more possible mixed states. Notice that no dependence on $`\mathrm{}`$ or $`g`$ is essentially left in the expression of the time-evolved state (9), and the same happens to the calculated SLE’s \[Eqs.(37-47)\]. This is the case where the non-linear interaction plays no role, and the semi-classical limit is related to the presence of many photons (large $`n_k`$).

### III.2 Entanglement properties for coherent states and semi-classical behavior.

In order to study the entanglement dynamics and reversibility properties for the initial product of coherent states, we calculate the SLE defined in Eq.( 29). Using previous result Eq.(LABEL:eq:psit2d), an exact expression for this quantity can be calculated:

$`\delta _1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`1Tr_1\left(\widehat{\rho }_1^2(t)\right)`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`1e^{2|\beta _1\left(t\right)|^2}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\beta _1\left(t\right)|^{2n}}{n!}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\beta _1\left(t\right)|^{2m}}{m!}}`$
$`\times `$ $`e^{4|\beta _2\left(t\right)|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left[\mathrm{}gt\left(nm\right)\right]}.`$
In a similar fashion as in the case of the number states, we can find the re-coherence times studying the conditions under which $`\delta _1(t)`$ is equal to zero, indicating that the subsystems are disentangled. A simple analysis of Eq.(48) shows that this happens in the following situations:

1. For any initial conditions excluding the vacuum state ($`|0,0`$), the re-coherence times associated to the non-linear interaction are $`\mathrm{}gT_l=l\pi `$, when the argument of the sine-function is an integer multiple of $`\pi `$:

$$T_l=l\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}g},\text{(}l>0\text{ integer)}.$$
(49)
2. For those initial conditions such that one of the arguments $`\beta _k(t)=0`$, one can find other instants when SLE is zero. These conditions are associated exclusively with RWA coupling and special initial conditions. In terms of the quadratures of the initial values $`\alpha _k`$, using the expression (19) one can write these conditions as follows:

$`q_1q_2+p_1p_2=0`$,

and we have disentangled states for times 19 :

$`t_1=\frac{1}{\lambda }arctan(\frac{q_1}{p_2})`$, or $`t_2=\frac{1}{\lambda }arctan(\frac{p_1}{q_2})`$.

Among these re-coherence times, we can identify those at which we also have recurrences by examining Eq.(LABEL:eq:psit2d). Only the first class of re-coherences produces recurrences, and this happens when the following condition is satisfied: for a given value of $`T_l`$, when the ratio $`l\frac{\omega _0}{\omega _g}`$ and $`l\frac{\lambda }{\omega _g}`$ are integer numbers.

Now we will choose a particular parameter sets to illustrate the semi-classical limit of the SLE, since in contrast to the case of the number states, we have an explicit dependence on $`\mathrm{}`$, actually on the frequency $`\omega _g=\mathrm{}g`$. This allows us to study the semi-classical behavior of the SLE. The natural parameter to measure the ‘quantumness’ of the system here is the ratio $`=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (defined in Section II.2) is a characteristic action in phase space. In Fig.3 we plotted the time evolution of the SLE for several values of $``$. Here, we adopted the convention to fix the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and vary $`\mathrm{}`$ instead of the opposite way. The first thing to be noticed is the fact that all curves coincides at the short time scale, where the SLE increases monotonically until it reaches the maximum value. The maximum value of SLE depends on $``$, which increases as we let $`1`$. This has to do with the increasing number of accessible states as we let the spectrum become denser, and also implies in loss of information. We will call this first regimen the ‘phase spread regimen’ in connection to the behavior of the Q-function of each subsystem that we shall see in what follows. After reaching the maximum value, oscillations start to happen in the SLE, which can be seen as a partial recovering of coherence, until the first re-coherence time $`T_1=\frac{\pi }{g\mathrm{}}`$ (see Eq.(49)) at which $`\delta _k=0`$ and the subsystem recovers purity. This second regimen will be called ‘self-interference regimen’ since the time-evolved subsystem Q-function shows the phenomenon of self-interference typical of the Kerr-type nonlinearity. This is consistent with the fact that in the limit $`0`$ the re-coherence time goes to infinity and the initial purity will never be recovered. We will call break time $`t_b`$, the time at which the transition from the phase spread regimen (rising) to the self-interference (oscillating) regimen occurs. It is clear from Fig.3 that this time increases with the inverse power of $``$, and we also expect it to go to infinity in the classical limit 20 .
Let us illustrate the differences between the two regimens by means of the subsystem Q-function which will show the proper signatures in each regimen. In Fig. 4 we plotted Q-function in various instants of the phase spread regimen for the same Hamiltonian parameters used in Fig. 3, and the quantumness parameter $`=0.025`$ . The sequence of plots is in the quadrature plane of the oscillator-$`1`$, beginning at $`t=0`$ until $`tt_b`$. Where the center of the initially coherent Gaussian wave-packet follows essentially the classical trajectory, as predicted by the Ehrenfest theorem ehrenfest , circulating around the origin and, due to the nature of the self-interaction term, the packet itself spreads in phase angle in the phase space. During the interval of time before the front of the packet reaches its tail milburn2 , no re-coherences can happen.

In Fig.5, another sequence of contour plots of Q-functions of the subsystem-$`1`$ shows a time evolution during the self-interference regimen in the interval of time after the break time $`t_b`$, until the first re-coherence time $`T_1`$. We also add a plot at the recurrence time ($`\tau _1=2T_1`$ for this particular set of parameters). It is remarkable the appearance of several peaks along the annular region, a signature of self-interference phenomenon where a kind of standing waves with $`M`$-peaks forms at times $`t=T_1/M`$ (for $`t>t_b`$), when the SLE assumes the value $`\delta _k1\frac{1}{M}`$ at a local minimum. This kind of behavior is a hallmark of the self-interference regimen, an essentially quantum phenomena which is at the core of re-coherence and reversibility in this system.

This sequence of phenomena phase spread and self-interference is reproduced many times latter since the entanglement process in this case is reversible. We call the attention to the fact that in this particular case shown, the standing waves are not Schrödinger cat states, in fact it is a mixture of cat states, in contrast to the case reported in Ref. agarwal98 ; banerji  for a similar Kerr-type Hamiltonian. We present this calculation in the Appendix A.

## IV  Conclusions

We have solved analytically the problem of two resonant RWA-interacting fields in the presence of non-linear Kerr-like interactions. The time-evolved state was exactly determined and this allowed us to identify analytically how the collapses and revivals are produced in the quadrature mean values for the initially coherent state. All properties of the entanglement dynamics have been studied for initial states which are products of both coherent and number states.

In particular, we presented all the necessary conditions to the re-coherence of the initially non-entangled number and coherent states. We have calculated the exact expressions for the subsystem entropies in both cases. Also, some conditions for the recurrence has been established for the coherent state case, related to the commensurability of the physical frequencies of the model.

We also identified, in the case of coherent initial states, two distinct regimens of entanglement: the first one (phase spread regimen) happens during the time where the initial coherent state spreads in phase angle in the phase space; whereas the second one (self-interference regimen) occurs when the phase spread state starts to self-interfere. The time at which self-interference becomes important for the evolution of this type of initial states, we call it break time ($`t_b`$), and it delimits the beginning of the essentially quantum processes responsible for the re-coherence. We also have shown that the self-interference of each oscillator produces the standing waves, where no single Schrödinger cat state is allowed but a mixture of Schrödinger cat states, consistent with the entanglement. Finally, we show how in the semi-classical limit ($`\mathrm{}0`$) both the re-coherence times and the recurrence times go away and the entanglement process becomes irreversible for all practical purposes in this type of model for Gaussian initial states.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors acknowledge K. F. Romero for helpful discussions and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) (Contracts No.300651/85-6,No.146010/99-0) and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa de São Paulo (FAPESP) (Contract No.98/13617-4) for financial support.

## Appendix A  A demonstration of mixture of Schrödinger cat states

We first re-write Eq. (LABEL:eq:psit2d) in a more compact notation

$`|\psi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}c_n\left(\gamma _1\right)c_m\left(\gamma _2\right)e^{ıg\mathrm{}t(n+m)^2}|n,m`$ (50)
$`c_n(\gamma )=e^{\frac{|\gamma |^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^n}{\sqrt{n!}}}`$ (51)
where $`\gamma _k=\beta _ke^{ı2g\mathrm{}t}`$ and $`\beta _k`$ are functions of time. We are interested in the instants $`t_{r,s}=\frac{\pi }{g\mathrm{}}\frac{r}{s}=T_1\frac{r}{s}`$, where $`r`$ and $`s`$ are mutually prime with $`r<s`$. Using the discrete Fourier transform

$`e^{ı\pi n^2\frac{r}{s}}={\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{l1}{}}}a_q^{(r,s)}e^{ı2\pi n\frac{p}{l}}`$ (52)
where

$`l=\{\begin{array}{c}s,\text{if }r\text{ is odd and }s\text{ is even, or vice-versa,}\hfill \\ 2s,\text{if both }r\text{ and }s\text{ are odd;}\hfill \end{array}`$ (55)
and

$`a_q^{(r,s)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{l1}{}}}e^{ı\pi k\left(k\frac{r}{s}2\frac{q}{l}\right)},`$ (56)
we re-write Eq.(50) at the mentioned instants as follows:

$`|\psi (t_{r,s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}c_n\left(\gamma _1\right)c_m\left(\gamma _2\right)e^{ı\pi \frac{r}{s}(n+m)^2}|n,m`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q,p=0}{\overset{l1}{}}}a_qa_p{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}c_n\left(\eta _{1q}e^{ı2\pi m\frac{r}{s}}\right)c_m\left(\eta _{2p}\right)|n,m`$
(58)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q,p=0}{\overset{l1}{}}}a_qa_p{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}|\eta _{1q}e^{ı2\pi m\frac{r}{s}}c_m\left(\eta _{2p}\right)|m`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}|𝒞_m{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{l1}{}}}a_pc_m\left(\eta _{2p}\right)|m.`$
Here $`\eta _{kq}=\gamma _ke^{ı2\pi \frac{q}{l}}=\beta _ke^{ı2\pi \left(\frac{q}{l}+\frac{r}{s}\right)}`$, and we have defined the following cat-like states for the oscillator-$`1`$

$`|𝒞_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{l1}{}}}a_q|\eta _{1q}e^{ı2\pi m\frac{r}{s}}.`$ (59)
Then, constructing the global density operator and tracing over the oscillator-$`2`$, i.e., summing over the left over number states, we finally get the following mixture of cat states:

$`\rho _1(t_{r,s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\xi _m|𝒞_m𝒞_m|`$ (60)
$`\xi _m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p,p^{}=0}{\overset{l1}{}}}a_pa_p^{}^{}c_m(\eta _{2p})c_m^{}(\eta _{2p^{}}).`$ (61)


text:
# Untitled Document

.

IFT-P.074/2002

N=2 Sigma Models for Ramond-Ramond Backgrounds

Nathan Berkovits1 e-mail: nberkovi@ift.unesp.br

Instituto de Física Teórica, Universidade Estadual Paulista

Rua Pamplona 145, 01405-900, São Paulo, SP, Brasil

Using the U(4) hybrid formalism, manifestly N=(2,2) worldsheet supersymmetric sigma models are constructed for the Type IIB superstring in Ramond-Ramond backgrounds. The Kahler potential in these N=2 sigma models depends on four chiral and antichiral bosonic superfields and two chiral and antichiral fermionic superfields. When the Kahler potential is quadratic, the model is a free conformal field theory which describes a flat ten-dimensional target space with Ramond-Ramond flux and non-constant dilaton. For more general Kahler potentials, the model describes curved target spaces with Ramond-Ramond flux that are not plane-wave backgrounds. Ricci-flatness of the Kahler metric implies the on-shell conditions for the background up to the usual four-loop conformal anomaly.

October 2002

1. Introduction

Because of the AdS/CFT correspondence , understanding the superstring in backgrounds with Ramond-Ramond (RR) flux is an important problem. For plane-wave RR backgrounds, one can use the light-cone Green-Schwarz (GS) formalism to compute the physical spectrum . In principle, the light-cone GS formalism can also be used to compute scattering amplitudes, however, there are complications caused by interaction-point operators and contact terms. For RR backgrounds which do not allow a light-cone gauge choice, one can use the classical covariant GS formalism to study supergravity properties of the background . However, it is difficult to compute string-related properties of the background because of quantization problems in the covariant GS formalism.

An alternative approach to study RR backgrounds is to use the new covariant formalism involving pure spinors . This formalism manifestly preserves all isometries of the background and is easy to quantize using a BRST operator. Unfortunately, although it is straightforward to construct quantizable actions for the superstring in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$  and plane-wave RR backgrounds  using this formalism, the resulting actions are non-linear and it is not yet known how to simplify or solve them.

Recently , it has been realized that another approach called the U(4) hybrid formalism  may be very useful for studying Type IIB RR backgrounds. This U(4) hybrid formalism is manifestly N=(2,2) worldsheet supersymmetric and contains four chiral and antichiral bosonic superfields, $`X^l`$ and $`X^{\overline{l}}`$ for $`l=1`$ to 4, two chiral and antichiral fermionic superfields, $`(\mathrm{\Theta }_L,\mathrm{\Theta }_R)`$ and $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R)`$, and two semi-chiral and semi-antichiral fermionic superfields, $`(W_L,W_R)`$ and $`(\overline{W}_L,\overline{W}_R)`$. Although this formalism only manifestly preserves 25 of the 45 SO(9,1) Lorentz transformations, it is also manifestly invariant under 20 of the 32 Type IIB supersymmetries. As was shown in , the formalism is a critical N=2 superconformal field theory which is related by a field redefinition to the N=1 $``$ N=2 embedding of the RNS superstring. And in light-cone gauge, where the fermionic superfields are gauged away, the U(4) hybrid formalism reduces to the light-cone GS formalism including the correct interaction-point operators .

In , the U(4) hybrid formalism was used to describe plane-wave RR backgrounds  in which all non-zero RR field strengths have a spacetime $`+`$ index. (Throughout this paper, the $`\pm `$ index will always refer to the $`x^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x^9\pm x^0)`$ spacetime directions.) For plane-wave RR backgrounds, the U(4) worldsheet action depends trivially on the $`(W,\overline{W})`$ superfields and closely resembles the light-cone GS action . However, unlike the light-cone GS action, the U(4) worldsheet action does not require contact terms and quantum superconformal invariance of the action implies the on-shell conditions of the background.2 It was recently claimed that any plane-wave RR background which satisfies the supergravity equations at lowest order in $`\alpha ^{}`$ is a consistent superstring background. In the U(4) formalism, this claim implies that any plane-wave RR background which is superconformally invariant at one-loop is superconformally invariant at all loops. This is reasonable since, as was discussed in , plane-wave RR backgrounds involve interaction vertices which are quadratic in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Since there are only four independent $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$’s, any divergent counterterm can involve at most two interaction vertices. But above one-loop, all known counterterms in N=2 sigma models involve more than two vertices. For example, the well-known four-loop $`R^4`$ counterterm  involves a minimum of four vertices. So if one could prove that all possible counterterms above one-loop in N=2 sigma models involve more than two vertices, one will have proven the claim of .

Although plane-wave RR backgrounds are interesting to study because they are Penrose limits of the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background, it would be useful to also have simple conformal field theory descriptions of more general RR backgrounds. As will be shown here, the U(4) hybrid formalism can not only be used to describe backgrounds with RR field strengths containing a spacetime $`+`$ index, but can also be used to describe certain RR field strengths containing a spacetime $``$ index. Such backgrounds do not allow a light-cone gauge choice and therefore cannot be described using the light-cone GS formalism.

In the U(4) hybrid formalism, there are two special RR field strengths containing a spacetime $``$ index whose vertex operators are $`d^2zd^4\kappa W_L\overline{W}_R`$ and $`d^2zd^4\kappa W_R\overline{W}_L`$ where $`(W_R,W_L,\overline{W}_R,\overline{W}_L)`$ are the semi-chiral and semi-antichiral superfields. If these RR field strengths have non-zero flux, the $`W`$ superfields satisfy auxiliary equations of motion and can be integrated out of the worldsheet action. The resulting worldsheet action is an N=(2,2) sigma model which depends on four chiral and antichiral bosonic superfields, $`X^l`$ and $`\overline{X}^{\overline{l}}`$, and two chiral and antichiral fermionic superfields, $`(\mathrm{\Theta }_L,\mathrm{\Theta }_R)`$ and $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R)`$, through a Kahler potential $`S=d^2zd^4\kappa K(X,\overline{X},\mathrm{\Theta },\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }})`$. The background is on-shell up to the usual four-loop conformal anomaly  when the Kahler metric $`G_{M\overline{N}}=_M\overline{}_{\overline{N}}K`$ is Ricci-flat .

It is interesting to ask what types of superstring backgrounds are described by the Kahler potential $`K(X,\overline{X},\mathrm{\Theta },\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }})`$. When the Kahler potential is quadratic, i.e. $`K=X^l\overline{X}^{\overline{l}}+\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R+\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L`$, it will be argued that the background is a flat ten-dimensional spacetime containing non-zero RR field strengths with a spacetime $``$ index and a non-constant dilaton field $`\varphi `$ which depends quadratically on $`x^{}`$. So this RR background with a non-constant dilaton is described by a free conformal field theory. It would be interesting to construct vertex operators and compute scattering amplitudes in this RR background using the free-field OPE’s implied by the action.

More general Kahler potentials will be shown to describe certain curved backgrounds which contain non-zero RR field strengths with both spacetime $`+`$ and $``$ indices. It should be possible to use standard N=(2,2) superconformal methods to study the physical spectrum and scattering amplitudes in these RR backgrounds which do not allow a light-cone gauge choice. Hopefully, this information will be useful for learning more about the AdS/CFT correspondence.

In section 2 of this paper, the U(4) hybrid formalism and its field redefinition to the RNS formalism will be reviewed in a flat background. In section 3, the RR vertex operators $`d^2zd^4\kappa W_L\overline{W}_R`$ and $`d^2zd^4\kappa W_R\overline{W}_L`$ will be added to the flat action and the resulting linear N=2 sigma model will be discussed. And in section 4, the properties of more general non-linear N=2 sigma models using the U(4) hybrid formalism will be described.

2. U(4) Hybrid Formalism in a Flat Background

One way of understanding the U(4) hybrid formalism in a flat background is as a field redefinition from the N=1$``$N=2 embedding of the RNS formalism . Recall that the critical N=1 description of the RNS superstring can be embedded into a critical N=2 description by defining the $`\widehat{c}=2`$ N=2 superconformal generators as

$$T=T_{N=1}^{matter}+T_{N=1}^{ghost}+\frac{1}{2}(bc+\xi \eta ),$$

$$G=j_{BRST},$$

$$\overline{G}=b,$$

$$J=bc+\xi \eta ,$$

where $`Q=𝑑zj_{BRST}`$ is the RNS BRST operator and $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ come from bosonizing the N=1 super-reparameterization ghosts as $`\beta =\xi e^\varphi `$ and $`\gamma =\eta e^\varphi `$. Note that the term $`\frac{1}{2}(bc+\xi \eta )`$ in $`T`$ shifts the conformal weights of the RNS ghosts so that $`G`$ and $`\overline{G}`$ have conformal weight $`\frac{3}{2}`$. As discussed in , physical states in the RNS formalism can be defined as N=2 superconformally invariant states with respect to these N=2 generators, and RNS scattering amplitudes can be computed using standard N=2 rules.

Although the RNS worldsheet variables transform in a complicated non-linear manner under the N=2 superconformal transformations generated by $`[T,G,\overline{G},J]`$, one can define a field redefinition to U(4) hybrid variables which transform linearly under these N=2 transformations. These left-moving U(4) hybrid variables are

$$[x^l,\overline{x}^{\overline{l}},s_L^l,\overline{s}_L^{\overline{l}},p_L,\overline{p}_L,\theta _L,\overline{\theta }_L,\lambda _L,\overline{\lambda }_L,w_L,\overline{w}_L]\mathrm{for}l=1\mathrm{to}4$$

and are related to the left-moving RNS variables $`[x_{RNS}^\mu ,\psi ^\mu ,b,c,\xi ,\eta ,\varphi ]`$ for $`\mu =0`$ to 9 by the field redefinition

$$x^l=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x_{RNS}^l+ix_{RNS}^{l+4}),$$

$$\overline{x}^{\overline{l}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x_{RNS}^lix_{RNS}^{l+4}+c\xi e^\varphi (\psi ^li\psi ^{l+4})),$$

$$s^l=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\eta e^\varphi (\psi ^l+i\psi ^{l+4})+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}c_L(x_{RNS}^l+ix_{RNS}^{l+4}),$$

$$\overline{s}^{\overline{l}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\xi e^\varphi (\psi ^li\psi ^{l+4}),$$

$$p_L=b\eta e^{\frac{3}{2}\varphi }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{++++}+$$

$$e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }(_Lx_{RNS}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+++++}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}_L(x_{RNS}^l+ix_{RNS}^{l+4})\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\overline{l}})_L(x_L^{}e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+++++}),$$

$$\overline{p}_L=e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}_L(cx_L^{}\xi e^{\frac{3}{2}\varphi }\mathrm{\Sigma }^+),$$

$$\theta _L=e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+++++},$$

$$\overline{\theta }_L=c\xi e^{\frac{3}{2}\varphi }\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,$$

$$\lambda _L=\eta e^{\frac{3}{2}\varphi }(_Lx_{RNS}^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{++++}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}_L(x_{RNS}^l+ix_{RNS}^{l+4})\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+\overline{l}})+$$

$$c_L(e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+++++})+b\eta _L\eta e^{\frac{5}{2}\varphi }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+++++},$$

$$\overline{\lambda }_L=\xi e^{\frac{3}{2}\varphi }\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,$$

$$w_L=Q(c\xi e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{++++}+x_L^{}e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+++++}),$$

$$\overline{w}_L=x_L^{}\xi e^{\frac{3}{2}\varphi }\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,$$

where $`x_L^{}`$ and $`x_R^{}`$ are the right and left-moving contributions to

$$x_{RNS}^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x_{RNS}^9x_{RNS}^0)=x_L^{}+x_R^{},$$

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\pm \pm \pm \pm \pm }`$ are the 32 RNS spin fields constructed by bosonizing $`\psi ^\mu `$, and

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+\overline{l}}=(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{++++},\mathrm{\Sigma }^{++++},\mathrm{\Sigma }^{++++},\mathrm{\Sigma }^{++++}),$$

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\overline{l}}=(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+++},\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+++},\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+++},\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+++}).$$

Although the field redefinition of (2.1) looks complicated, it can be derived by first defining $`x^l`$ and $`\overline{x}^{\overline{l}}`$ such that $`b_0(x^l)=Q(\overline{x}^{\overline{l}})=0`$, which implies that $`x^l`$ and $`\overline{x}^{\overline{l}}`$ are N=2 chiral and antichiral with respect to the generators of (2.1). One then defines $`s^l=Q(x^l)`$ and $`\overline{s}^{\overline{l}}=b_0(\overline{x}^{\overline{l}})`$. The next step is to define $`p_L`$ and $`\overline{p}_L`$ such that $`𝑑z_Lp_L`$ and $`𝑑z_L\overline{p}_L`$ are the $`q_{\frac{1}{2}}^{++++}`$ and $`q_{\frac{1}{2}}^{}`$ supersymmetry generators in the $`+\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}`$ picture of Friedan-Martinec-Shenker , and then adds total derivative terms to $`p_L`$ and $`\overline{p}_L`$ so that they have non-singular OPE’s with each other. $`\theta _L`$ and $`\overline{\theta }_L`$ are then defined to be conjugates to $`\overline{p}_L`$ and $`p_L`$. Finally, one defines $`\lambda _L=Q(\theta _L)`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }_L=b_0(\overline{\theta }_L)`$, and defines $`w_L`$ and $`\overline{w}_L`$ to be conjugates to $`\overline{\lambda }_L`$ and $`\lambda _L`$ which have non-singular OPE’s with the other fields. Similarly, the field redefinition for the right-moving U(4) hybrid variables is obtained by replacing all left-moving fields with right-moving fields in (2.1).

In terms of the U(4) hybrid variables, one can check that the left-moving N=2 generators of (2.1) are mapped to

$$T_L=_Lx^l_L\overline{x}^{\overline{l}}\frac{1}{2}(s_L^l_L\overline{s}_L^{\overline{l}}+\overline{s}_L^{\overline{l}}_Ls_L^l)$$

$$\overline{p}_L_L\theta _Lp_L_L\overline{\theta }_L+\frac{1}{2}(w_L_L\overline{\lambda }_L\overline{\lambda }_L_Lw_L)+\frac{1}{2}(\overline{w}_L_L\lambda _L\lambda _L_L\overline{w}_L),$$

$$G_L=s_L^l_L\overline{x}^{\overline{l}}+\lambda _L\overline{p}_L+w_L_L\overline{\theta }_L,$$

$$\overline{G}_L=\overline{s}_L^{\overline{l}}_Lx^l+\overline{\lambda }_Lp_L+\overline{w}_L_L\theta _L,$$

$$J_L=s_L^l\overline{s}_L^{\overline{l}}w_L\overline{\lambda }_L+\overline{w}_L\lambda _L,$$

and the RNS worldsheet action is mapped to

$$S=d^2z[_Lx^l_Rx^{\overline{l}}s_L^l_R\overline{s}_L^{\overline{l}}s_R^l_L\overline{s}_R^{\overline{l}}$$

$$p_L_R\overline{\theta }_L\overline{p}_L_R\theta _L+w_L_R\overline{\lambda }_L+\overline{w}_L_R\lambda _Lp_R_L\overline{\theta }_R\overline{p}_R_L\theta _R+w_R_L\overline{\lambda }_R+\overline{w}_R_L\lambda _R].$$

So the U(4) variables of (2.1) satisfy free-field OPE’s and transform linearly under the N=2 superconformal transformations generated by (2.1).

To construct these linearly transforming variables, it was necessary to explicitly separate $`x_{RNS}^{}`$ into its left and right-moving parts as $`x_{RNS}^{}=x_L^{}+x_R^{}`$. As will now be discussed, this separation implies that physical states in the U(4) hybrid formalism must not only be N=2 superconformally invariant, but must also satisfy an additional global constraint.

Using the field redefinition of (2.1), one can check that

$$\lambda _L\overline{\lambda }_L\overline{\theta }_L_L\theta _L=_Lx_{RNS}^+\mathrm{and}\lambda _R\overline{\lambda }_R\overline{\theta }_R_R\theta _R=_Rx_{RNS}^+.$$

Since $`𝑑z_L_Lx_{RNS}^+=𝑑z_R_Rx_{RNS}^+`$ for any closed contour, the U(4) hybrid variables satisfy the global constraint

$$𝑑z_L(\lambda _L\overline{\lambda }_L\overline{\theta }_L_L\theta _L)𝑑z_R(\lambda _R\overline{\lambda }_R\overline{\theta }_R_R\theta _R)=0.$$

Using canonical commutation relations, the constraint of (2.1) generates the global isometry

$$\delta w_L=\alpha \lambda _L,\delta \overline{w}_L=\alpha \overline{\lambda }_L,\delta w_R=\alpha \lambda _R,\delta \overline{w}_R=\alpha \overline{\lambda }_R,$$

$$\delta p_L=\alpha _L\theta _L,\delta \overline{p}_L=\alpha _L\overline{\theta }_L,\delta p_R=\alpha _R\theta _R,\delta \overline{p}_R=\alpha _R\overline{\theta }_R.$$

And from (2.1), one can check that this isometry corresponds in the RNS formalism to

$$\delta x_L^{}=\alpha ,\delta x_R^{}=\alpha .$$

So physical states in the U(4) hybrid formalism must satisfy the global constraint of (2.1), which implies that they only depend on $`x_L^{}`$ and $`x_R^{}`$ in the combination $`x_{RNS}^{}=x_L^{}+x_R^{}`$.

Since the U(4) hybrid variables transform linearly under N=(2,2) worldsheet supersymmetry, it is convenient to combine them into the N=(2,2) chiral and antichiral superfields

$$X^l(\kappa _L,\kappa _R)=x^l+\kappa _Ls_L^l+\kappa _Rs_R^l+\kappa _L\kappa _Rt^l,\overline{X}^{\overline{l}}(\overline{\kappa }_L,\overline{\kappa }_R)=\overline{x}^{\overline{l}}+\overline{\kappa }_L\overline{s}_L^{\overline{l}}+\overline{\kappa }_R\overline{s}_R^{\overline{l}}+\overline{\kappa }_L\overline{\kappa }_R\overline{t}^{\overline{l}},$$

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_L(\kappa _L,\kappa _R)=\theta _L+\kappa _L\lambda _L+\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Theta }_R(\kappa _L,\kappa _R)=\theta _R+\kappa _R\lambda _R+\mathrm{},$$

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L(\overline{\kappa }_L,\overline{\kappa }_R)=\overline{\theta }_L+\overline{\kappa }_L\overline{\lambda }_L+\mathrm{},\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R(\overline{\kappa }_L,\overline{\kappa }_R)=\overline{\theta }_R+\overline{\kappa }_R\overline{\lambda }_R+\mathrm{},$$

and the N=(2,2) semi-chiral and semi-antichiral superfields,

$$W_L(\kappa _L,\kappa _R,\overline{\kappa }_L)=\mathrm{}+\kappa _Lw_L\kappa _L\overline{\kappa }_Lp_L+\mathrm{},W_R(\kappa _L,\kappa _R,\overline{\kappa }_R)=\mathrm{}+\kappa _Rw_R\kappa _R\overline{\kappa }_Rp_R+\mathrm{},$$

$$\overline{W}_L(\kappa _L,\overline{\kappa }_L,\overline{\kappa }_R)=\mathrm{}+\overline{\kappa }_L\overline{w}_L\overline{\kappa }_L\kappa _L\overline{p}_L+\mathrm{},\overline{W}_R(\kappa _R,\overline{\kappa }_L,\overline{\kappa }_R)=\mathrm{}+\overline{\kappa }_R\overline{w}_R\overline{\kappa }_R\kappa _R\overline{p}_R+\mathrm{},$$

where $`t^l`$, $`\overline{t}^{\overline{l}}`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ denote auxiliary fields which can be gauged away or vanish on-shell in a flat background. Defining

$$D_L=\frac{}{\kappa _L}+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\kappa }_L_L,D_R=\frac{}{\kappa _R}+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\kappa }_R_R,$$

$$\overline{D}_L=\frac{}{\overline{\kappa }_L}+\frac{1}{2}\kappa _L_L,\overline{D}_R=\frac{}{\overline{\kappa }_R}+\frac{1}{2}\kappa _R_R,$$

these superfields are constrained to satisfy the chirality constraints

$$\overline{D}_LX^l=\overline{D}_RX^l=D_L\overline{X}^{\overline{l}}=D_R\overline{X}^{\overline{l}}=0,$$

$$\overline{D}_L\mathrm{\Theta }_L=\overline{D}_R\mathrm{\Theta }_L=\overline{D}_L\mathrm{\Theta }_R=\overline{D}_R\mathrm{\Theta }_R=D_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L=D_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L=D_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R=D_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R=0,$$

$$\overline{D}_RW_L=\overline{D}_LW_R=D_R\overline{W}_L=D_L\overline{W}_R=0.$$

In terms of these N=(2,2) superfields, the N=2 left-moving stress-tensor of (2.1) is

$$𝒯_L=(\overline{D}_L\overline{W}_L)D_L\mathrm{\Theta }_L(D_LW_L)\overline{D}_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L+D_LX^l\overline{D}_L\overline{X}^{\overline{l}},$$

the worldsheet action of (2.1) is

$$S=d^6Z[X^l\overline{X}^{\overline{l}}+W_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L+W_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R+\overline{W}_L\mathrm{\Theta }_L+\overline{W}_R\mathrm{\Theta }_R],$$

the global constraint of (2.1) is

$$d^3Z_L\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_Ld^3Z_R\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R=0,$$

and the isometry of (2.1) is

$$\delta W_L=\alpha \mathrm{\Theta }_L,\delta W_R=\alpha \mathrm{\Theta }_R,\delta \overline{W}_L=\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L,\delta \overline{W}_R=\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R,$$

where $`d^6Z`$ denotes $`d^2z\overline{D}_L\overline{D}_RD_LD_R`$, $`d^3Z_L`$ denotes $`\frac{1}{2}𝑑z_L(\overline{D}_LD_LD_L\overline{D}_L)`$ and $`d^3Z_R`$ denotes $`\frac{1}{2}𝑑z_R(\overline{D}_RD_RD_R\overline{D}_R)`$.

With respect to SO(9,1) super-Poincaré transformations, the U(4) hybrid formalism is manifestly invariant under 20 of the 32 Type IIB spacetime supersymmetries which are generated by

$$q_L^{+l}=d^3Z_LX^l\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L,q_L^{+\overline{l}}=d^3Z_L\overline{X}^{\overline{l}}\mathrm{\Theta }_L,$$

$$q_L^{}=d^3Z_LW_L,q_L^{++++}=d^3Z_L\overline{W}_L,$$

$$q_R^{+l}=d^3Z_RX^l\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R,q_R^{+\overline{l}}=d^3Z_R\overline{X}^{\overline{l}}\mathrm{\Theta }_R,$$

$$q_R^{}=d^3Z_RW_R,q_R^{++++}=d^3Z_R\overline{W}_R,$$

under 25 of the 45 Lorentz transformations generated by

$$M^{l\overline{m}}=d^3Z_LX^l\overline{X}^{\overline{m}}+d^3Z_RX^l\overline{X}^{\overline{m}},$$

$$M^{+l}=d^3Z_LX^l\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L+d^3Z_RX^l\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R,$$

$$M^{+\overline{l}}=d^3Z_L\overline{X}^{\overline{l}}\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L+d^3Z_R\overline{X}^{\overline{l}}\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R,$$

$$M^+=d^3Z_L(W_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L\overline{W}_L\mathrm{\Theta }_L)+d^3Z_R(W_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R\overline{W}_R\mathrm{\Theta }_R),$$

and under 9 of the 10 translations generated by

$$P^l=d^3Z_LX^l=d^3Z_RX^l,$$

$$P^{\overline{l}}=d^3Z_L\overline{X}^{\overline{l}}=d^3Z_R\overline{X}^{\overline{l}},$$

$$P^+=d^3Z_L\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L=d^3Z_R\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R.$$

Note that the translation generator $`P^{}`$ does not act on the U(4) hybrid variables since the field redefinition of (2.1) does not involve the zero mode of $`x_{RNS}^+`$.

In this paper, only the Type IIB version of the U(4) formalism will be discussed. As was recently shown in , treating the Type IIA superstring in an N=(2,2) worldsheet supersymmetric manner requires switching one of the four superfields $`X^l`$ from a chiral superfield to a twisted-chiral superfield which breaks the manifest U(4) down to U(1) $`\times `$ U(3). For the heterotic version of the U(4) formalism, only N=(2,0) worldsheet supersymmetry is present and the right-moving sector of the superstring is the same as in the RNS formalism.

3. Linear N=2 Sigma Model

In a recent paper with Maldacena , it was shown that the U(4) hybrid formalism can be generalized to plane-wave backgrounds in which the non-zero RR field strengths carry a spacetime $`+`$ index. These RR field strengths appear in the worldsheet action through the vertex operator

$$d^6Z[f_1(X,\overline{X})\mathrm{\Theta }_L\mathrm{\Theta }_R+f_2(X,\overline{X})\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{f}_1(X,\overline{X})\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R\overline{f}_2(X,\overline{X})\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R],$$

which is constructed from left-right products of the spacetime supersymmetry generators $`(q_L^{+l},q_L^{+\overline{l}})`$ and $`(q_R^{+l},q_R^{+\overline{l}})`$ of (2.1). In this section, the U(4) hybrid formalism will be generalized to a background containing certain RR field strengths containing a spacetime $``$ index. These field strengths will couple through the vertex operator

$$d^6Z[fW_L\overline{W}_R\overline{f}\overline{W}_LW_R],$$

which is constructed from left-right products of the spacetime supersymmetry generators $`(q_L^{},q_L^{++++})`$ and $`(q_R^{},q_R^{++++})`$ of (2.1). Although $`f`$ and $`\overline{f}`$ will be assumed to be constants in this paper, it might be possible to consider more general RR vertex operators which depend on both $`W`$ and $`X`$.

If one defines

$$F^{\alpha \beta }=F_{(1)}^\mu \gamma _\mu ^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{1}{6}F_{(3)}^{\mu \nu \rho }\gamma _{\mu \nu \rho }^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{1}{480}F_{(5)}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \tau }\gamma _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \tau }^{\alpha \beta },$$

where $`[F_{(1)}^\mu ,F_{(3)}^{\mu \nu \rho },F_{(5)}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \tau }]`$ are the Type IIB RR field strengths and $`(\alpha ,\beta )=1`$ to 16 are Majorana-Weyl spinor indices, then turning on the vertex operator of (3.1) corresponds to giving $`e^\varphi F^{\alpha \beta }`$ the background value

$$e^\varphi F^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}M_\gamma ^\alpha (\gamma ^{})^{\gamma \delta }\overline{M}_\delta ^\beta f+\frac{1}{2}\overline{M}_\gamma ^\alpha (\gamma ^{})^{\gamma \delta }M_\delta ^\beta \overline{f}$$

where $`\varphi `$ is the dilaton and

$$M_\alpha ^\beta =\frac{1}{4}[(\gamma ^1+i\gamma ^5)(\gamma ^2+i\gamma ^6)(\gamma ^3+i\gamma ^7)(\gamma ^4+i\gamma ^8)]_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta },$$

$$\overline{M}_\alpha ^\beta =\frac{1}{4}[(\gamma ^1i\gamma ^5)(\gamma ^2i\gamma ^6)(\gamma ^3i\gamma ^7)(\gamma ^4i\gamma ^8)]_\alpha ^\beta $$

are matrices which select the appropriate bispinor components of the RR field strength. So adding the vertex operator of (3.1) corresponds to giving non-zero flux to the components $`F_{}^{(1)}`$, $`F_{l\overline{l}}^{(3)}`$, and $`F_{lm\overline{l}\overline{m}}^{(5)}`$ with relative coefficients which depend on $`f`$ and $`\overline{f}`$.

When $`f`$ and $`\overline{f}`$ are constants, the vertex operator of (3.1) is $`d^2z(fp_L\overline{p}_R+\overline{f}p_R\overline{p}_L)`$. So the worldsheet action of (2.1) or (2.1) is still quadratic after adding this vertex operator. In the presence of this vertex operator, the equations of motion for $`W`$ and $`\overline{W}`$ become auxiliary and one can integrate them out  to obtain the linear sigma model action

$$S=d^6Z(X^l\overline{X}^{\overline{l}}+\overline{f}^1\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R+f^1\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L)$$

$$=d^2z[_Lx^l_R\overline{x}^{\overline{l}}+\overline{f}^1(_R\theta _L)(_L\overline{\theta }_R)+f^1(_L\theta _R)(_R\overline{\theta }_L)$$

$$s_L^l_R\overline{s}_L^{\overline{l}}s_R^l_L\overline{s}_R^{\overline{l}}+w_L_R\overline{\lambda }_L+\overline{w}_L_R\lambda _L+w_R_L\overline{\lambda }_R+\overline{w}_R_L\lambda _R].$$

Note that $`(\mathrm{\Theta }_L,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L)`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Theta }_R,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R)`$ are no longer left and right-moving functions on-shell. In components,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_L(\kappa _L,\kappa _R)=\theta _L+\kappa _L\lambda _L+\overline{f}\kappa _Rw_R+\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Theta }_R(\kappa _L,\kappa _R)=\theta _R+\kappa _R\lambda _R+f\kappa _Lw_L+\mathrm{},$$

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L(\overline{\kappa }_L,\overline{\kappa }_R)=\overline{\theta }_L+\overline{\kappa }_L\overline{\lambda }_Lf\overline{\kappa }_R\overline{w}_R+\mathrm{},\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R(\overline{\kappa }_L,\overline{\kappa }_R)=\overline{\theta }_R+\overline{\kappa }_R\overline{\lambda }_R\overline{f}\overline{\kappa }_L\overline{w}_L+\mathrm{},$$

where $`\mathrm{}`$ are auxiliary fields which vanish on-shell. The left and right-moving stress-tensors are now

$$𝒯_L=\overline{f}^1(\overline{D}_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R)(D_L\mathrm{\Theta }_L)f^1(D_L\mathrm{\Theta }_R)(\overline{D}_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L)+D_LX^l\overline{D}_L\overline{X}^{\overline{l}},$$

$$𝒯_R=f^1(\overline{D}_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L)(D_R\mathrm{\Theta }_R)\overline{f}^1(D_R\mathrm{\Theta }_L)(\overline{D}_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R)+D_RX^l\overline{D}_R\overline{X}^{\overline{l}},$$

and are still quadratic in this RR background.

Unlike the U(4) formalism in the plane-wave RR backgrounds discussed in , the global constraint of (2.1) needs to be modified in this RR background since $`(\mathrm{\Theta }_L,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L)`$ are no longer left-moving and $`(\mathrm{\Theta }_R,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R)`$ are no longer right-moving. To find the correct modification to (2.1), note that the action of (3.1) is invariant under the global transformation

$$\delta \mathrm{\Theta }_L=\alpha \overline{f}\mathrm{\Theta }_R,\delta \mathrm{\Theta }_R=\alpha f\mathrm{\Theta }_L,\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L=\alpha f\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R,\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R=\alpha \overline{f}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L.$$

Furthermore, the auxiliary equations of motion for $`W`$ and $`\overline{W}`$ imply that they transform under (3.1) in the same way as in (2.1).

Using the Noether method, the invariance under (3.1) implies that

$$J_L=\overline{D}_LD_L(\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R),J_R=\overline{D}_RD_R(\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R),$$

is a conserved current satisfying $`_RJ_L+_LJ_R=0`$. One can therefore restrict physical states to carry zero charge with respect to this current, i.e. to satisfy the global constraint

$$d^3Z_L(\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R)+d^3Z_R(\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R)=0.$$

Or in components,

$$𝑑z_L(\lambda _L\overline{\lambda }_L+f\overline{f}w_L\overline{w}_L\overline{\theta }_L_L\theta _L+\overline{\theta }_R_L\theta _R)=$$

$$𝑑z_R(\lambda _R\overline{\lambda }_R+f\overline{f}w_R\overline{w}_R\overline{\theta }_R_R\theta _R+\overline{\theta }_L_R\theta _L).$$

Note that this global constraint reduces to (2.1) when $`f=\overline{f}=0`$ and $`(\theta _{L/R},\overline{\theta }_{L/R})`$ are left/right-moving.

Since the worldsheet action of (3.1) is N=2 superconformal invariant at the quantum level, an obvious question is what on-shell supergravity background is it describing. From the form of the action, it is clear that the metric is flat and there is non-zero RR flux in the directions described in (3.1). In string gauge, the graviton equation of motion implies that

$$e^{2\varphi }(R_{\mu \nu }2_\mu _\nu \varphi )+(F^2)_{\mu \nu }=0.$$

Using the RR field strength of (3.1), the only non-zero component of $`(F^2)_{\mu \nu }`$ is $`(F^2)_{}=4e^{2\varphi }f\overline{f}`$. So the background satisfies (3.1) if $`R_{\mu \nu }=0`$, $`(F^2)_{}=4e^{2\varphi }f\overline{f}`$, and

$$\varphi (x)=f\overline{f}(x^{})^2+\varphi _0.$$

One can easily check that this choice of $`\varphi `$ and $`F`$ is a solution of all the supergravity equations of motion in string gauge. Note that $`e^\varphi 0`$ as $`|x^{}|\mathrm{}`$, so the energy density of this classical supergravity solution is everywhere finite. Furthermore, one can argue that this solution is not affected by $`\alpha ^{}`$ corrections to the supergravity equations because of the inability to construct Lorentz-invariant quantities out of $`\varphi `$, $`F`$, and their derivatives.

So even though the worldsheet action of (3.1) is free, it describes a non-trivial supergravity background with RR flux and non-constant dilaton. It would be interesting to construct vertex operators and compute scattering amplitudes using this quadratic worldsheet action and compare with analogous supergravity computations.

Since the action of (3.1) is so simple, it seems reasonable to look for a generalization of the field redefinition of (2.1) in this RR background with non-constant $`\varphi `$. Although it is not known how to construct RNS sigma model actions in RR backgrounds, there exists an alternative hybrid formalism which was developed with Gukov and Vallilo in  for describing compactifications to two dimensions. When the eight-dimensional compactification manifold is flat, the worldsheet variables in this d=2 hybrid formalism are almost the same as in the U(4) hybrid formalism and consist of

$$[x^+,x^{},x^l,\overline{x}^{\overline{l}},s_L^l,s_R^l,\overline{s}_L^{\overline{l}},\overline{s}_R^{\overline{l}},\theta _L,\theta _R,\overline{\theta }_L,\overline{\theta }_R,p_L,p_R,\overline{p}_L,\overline{p}_R,\sigma _L,\sigma _R,\rho _L,\rho _R]$$

where $`(\rho _L,\sigma _L)`$ and $`(\rho _R,\sigma _R)`$ are left and right-moving chiral bosons. So the only difference between the worldsheet variables of (3.1) and the U(4) hybrid variables is that $`[x^+,x^{},\rho _L,\sigma _L,\rho _R,\sigma _R]`$ is exchanged with $`[\lambda _L,\lambda _R,\overline{\lambda }_L,\overline{\lambda }_R,w_L,w_R,\overline{w}_L,\overline{w}_R]`$.

It was shown in  how to construct a sigma model action for RR backgrounds using the d=2 hybrid formalism, so it should be possible to find the field redefinition which maps the U(4) and d=2 hybrid formalisms into each other in the background of (3.1). As in a flat background, this field redefinition will require splitting $`x^{}`$ into $`x_L^{}`$ and $`x_R^{}`$, and there will be a resulting global constraint on the U(4) variables. One should be able to verify that this global constraint is (3.1) and that the isometry of (3.1) is generated by $`\delta x_L^{}=\alpha `$ and $`\delta x_R^{}=\alpha `$ as in (2.1). Also, it should be possible to understand the non-constant dilaton of (3.1) as coming from a non-trivial Jacobian in the field redefinition.

4. Non-Linear N=2 Sigma Model

The linear sigma model $`S=d^6Z(X^l\overline{X}^{\overline{l}}+\overline{f}^1\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R+f^1\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L)`$ of the previous section has an obvious generalization to the non-linear sigma model

$$S=d^6ZK(X,\overline{X},\mathrm{\Theta },\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }})$$

where $`K(X,\overline{X},\mathrm{\Theta },\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }})`$ is the Kahler potential.3 One can also add to the non-linear sigma model of (4.1) the Fradkin-Tseytlin-like term $`\alpha ^{}d^2z[𝑑\kappa _L𝑑\kappa _R\mathrm{\Phi }(X,\mathrm{\Theta })R+𝑑\overline{\kappa }_L𝑑\overline{\kappa }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\overline{X},\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }})\overline{R}]`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(X,\mathrm{\Theta })`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\overline{X},\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }})`$ are chiral and antichiral target-space superfields and $`R`$ and $`\overline{R}`$ are chiral and antichiral worldsheet superfields which describe the N=(2,2) supercurvature. In components, $`R=\mathrm{}+\kappa _R\kappa _L(r+it)`$ and $`\overline{R}=\mathrm{}+\overline{\kappa }_R\overline{\kappa }_L(rit)`$ where $`r`$ is the worldsheet curvature and $`t`$ is the U(1) field strength for worldsheet R-symmetry . So this term contains the usual $`\alpha ^{}d^2z\varphi r`$ coupling where $`\varphi =\mathrm{\Phi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is the spacetime dilaton superfield. In order to describe a consistent superstring background, this non-linear sigma model must be N=(2,2) superconformal invariant at the quantum level and must be invariant under a global isometry analogous to (3.1).

Although it would be very interesting to study the most general action which satisfies these conditions, we shall restrict our attention in this paper to the action

$$S=d^6Z[k(X,\overline{X})+a(X,\overline{X})\mathrm{\Theta }_L\mathrm{\Theta }_R+\overline{a}(X,\overline{X})\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L$$

$$+b(X,\overline{X})(\frac{\sqrt{f}}{\sqrt{\overline{f}}}\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R+\frac{\sqrt{\overline{f}}}{\sqrt{f}}\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L)+d(X,\overline{X})\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R],$$

which is invariant under the isometry of (3.1),

$$\delta \mathrm{\Theta }_L=\alpha \overline{f}\mathrm{\Theta }_R,\delta \mathrm{\Theta }_R=\alpha f\mathrm{\Theta }_L,\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L=\alpha f\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R,\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R=\alpha \overline{f}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L.$$

So physical states in this background must be N=2 superconformal invariant and must satisfy the global constraint

$$d^3Z_L\sqrt{f\overline{f}}b(X,\overline{X})(\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R)+d^3Z_R\sqrt{f\overline{f}}b(X,\overline{X})(\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R)=0,$$

which generates the isometry of (4.1). As will now be shown, the action of (4.1) describes a background which includes both RR fluxes with a spacetime $`+`$ index that appear in plane-wave backgrounds and RR fluxes with a spacetime $``$ index that were discussed in the previous section.

To learn what superstring background is described by (4.1), it is useful to put back the $`(W,\overline{W})`$ dependence in the action. Defining the isometry transformation of $`W`$ and $`\overline{W}`$ as in the previous sections, i.e.

$$\delta W_L=\alpha \mathrm{\Theta }_L,\delta W_R=\alpha \mathrm{\Theta }_R,\delta \overline{W}_L=\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L,\delta \overline{W}_R=\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R,$$

the term

$$d^6Z[W_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L+W_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R+\overline{W}_L\mathrm{\Theta }_L+\overline{W}_R\mathrm{\Theta }_R+fW_L\overline{W}_R+\overline{f}W_R\overline{W}_L]$$

is invariant under the isometry of (4.1) and (4.1). After adding (4.1) to the action of (4.1) and integrating out $`W`$ and $`\overline{W}`$, the only effect is to shift $`b(X,\overline{X})b(X,\overline{X})+\frac{1}{\sqrt{f\overline{f}}}`$. So (4.1) is equivalent to

$$S=S_0+d^6Z[\widehat{k}(X,\overline{X})+a(X,\overline{X})\mathrm{\Theta }_L\mathrm{\Theta }_R+\overline{a}(X,\overline{X})\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L+fW_L\overline{W}_R+\overline{f}W_R\overline{W}_L$$

$$+\widehat{b}(X,\overline{X})(\frac{\sqrt{f}}{\sqrt{\overline{f}}}\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R+\frac{\sqrt{\overline{f}}}{\sqrt{f}}\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L)+d(X,\overline{X})\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R]$$

where $`S_0`$ is the action of (2.1) in a flat background,

$$\widehat{k}(X,\overline{X})=k(X,\overline{X})X^l\overline{X}^{\overline{l}}\mathrm{and}\widehat{b}(X,\overline{X})=b(X,\overline{X})\frac{1}{\sqrt{f\overline{f}}}.$$

By comparing with the massless vertex operators in a flat background, one can easily determine the linearized values of the supergravity background fields which contribute to (4.1). One finds

$$g_{l\overline{m}}=\delta _{l\overline{m}}+_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}\widehat{k},g_{++}=d+(\overline{}_{\overline{l}}a)(_l\overline{a}),g_+=1,$$

$$\varphi (x)=\varphi _0+\frac{1}{4}(x^{})^2f\overline{f},$$

$$e^\varphi F^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma ^l)^{\alpha \gamma }\overline{M}_\gamma ^\delta \gamma _{\delta \kappa }^+(\gamma ^m)^{\kappa \beta }_l_m\overline{a}+\frac{1}{2}(\gamma ^{\overline{l}})^{\alpha \gamma }M_\gamma ^\delta \gamma _{\delta \kappa }^+(\gamma ^{\overline{m}})^{\kappa \beta }\overline{}_{\overline{l}}\overline{}_{\overline{m}}a$$

$$+\frac{1}{8}(\gamma ^{\overline{l}})^{\alpha \gamma }M_\gamma ^\delta \gamma _{\delta \kappa }^+\overline{M}_\rho ^\kappa (\gamma ^m)^{\rho \beta }\frac{\sqrt{f}}{\sqrt{\overline{f}}}\overline{}_{\overline{l}}_m\widehat{b}+\frac{1}{8}(\gamma ^l)^{\alpha \gamma }\overline{M}_\gamma ^\delta \gamma _{\delta \kappa }^+M_\rho ^\kappa (\gamma ^{\overline{m}})^{\rho \beta }\frac{\sqrt{\overline{f}}}{\sqrt{f}}_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}\widehat{b}$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}M_\delta ^\alpha (\gamma ^{})^{\delta \kappa }\overline{M}_\kappa ^\beta f+\frac{1}{2}\overline{M}_\delta ^\alpha (\gamma ^{})^{\delta \kappa }M_\kappa ^\beta \overline{f}$$

where $`(g_{l\overline{m}},g_{++},g_+)`$ are the non-zero components of the metric, $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ are components of the RR field strength written in the bispinor notation of (3.1), $`(\gamma ^l)^{\alpha \beta }=e_c^l(\gamma ^c)^{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`(\gamma ^{\overline{l}})^{\alpha \beta }=e_c^{\overline{l}}(\gamma ^c)^{\alpha \beta }`$, $`c=0`$ to 9 is a tangent-space vector index, $`(e_c^l,e_c^{\overline{l}},e_c^+,e_c^{})`$ is the vielbein satisfying $`e_c^le_d^{\overline{m}}\eta ^{cd}=g^{l\overline{m}}`$ and $`e_c^le_d^m\eta ^{cd}=e_c^{\overline{l}}e_d^{\overline{m}}\eta ^{cd}=0`$, and $`M_\alpha ^\beta `$ and $`\overline{M}_\alpha ^\beta `$ are defined in (3.1).

Since the background values of (4.1) have been determined from infinitesimal vertex operators, they are only guaranteed to be correct to linearized order in the fields

$$[\widehat{k},a,\overline{a},\widehat{b},d,f,\overline{f}].$$

But certain backreactions which are quadratic in these fields can be determined from other analysis. For example, the quadratic term $`(\overline{}_{\overline{l}}a)(_l\overline{a})`$ in $`g_{++}`$ comes from integrating out the auxiliary variables $`t^l`$ and $`\overline{t}^{\overline{l}}`$ of (2.1) in a plane-wave background. And the quadratic dependence on $`f`$ in $`\varphi (x)`$ comes from the solution of (3.1) in a pure RR background. However, there are certainly other backreactions which are cubic or higher-order in the fields of (4.1) and which have been neglected in (4.1). So in the following analysis, the background values of (4.1) will be assumed to be correct only up to quadratic order in the fields of (4.1). For example, the $`f\overline{f}(x^{})^2`$ dependence in $`\varphi `$ will be neglected when considering the background value of $`e^\varphi F^{\alpha \beta }`$ in the following analysis since this dependence only affects terms which are at least cubic order in the fields of (4.1).

It will now be shown that up to quadratic order in (4.1), N=2 superconformal invariance implies that the background fields in (4.1) satisfy the Type IIB supergravity equations of motion. Note that superconformal invariance of an N=2 sigma model implies up to a four-loop anomaly  that the Kahler metric is Ricci-flat , i.e.

$$_M\overline{}_{\overline{N}}[\mathrm{log}sdet(\overline{}K)]=0$$

where $``$ denotes derivatives with respect to $`(X^l,\mathrm{\Theta }_L,\mathrm{\Theta }_R)`$ chiral superfields and $`\overline{}`$ denotes derivatives with respect to $`(\overline{X}^{\overline{l}},\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R)`$ antichiral superfields. Defining $`K`$ to be the Kahler potential of (4.1) where $`\widehat{k}=kX^l\overline{X}^{\overline{l}}`$ and $`\widehat{b}=b\frac{1}{\sqrt{f\overline{f}}}`$, one finds that

$$sdet(\overline{}K)=f\overline{f}detg[12\sqrt{f\overline{f}}\widehat{b}$$

$$+\mathrm{\Theta }_L\mathrm{\Theta }_Rg^{l\overline{m}}_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}a+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_Lg^{l\overline{m}}_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}\overline{a}+(\sqrt{\frac{f}{\overline{f}}}\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R+\sqrt{\frac{\overline{f}}{f}}\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L)(g^{l\overline{m}}_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}\widehat{b}+\sqrt{f\overline{f}}d)$$

$$+\mathrm{\Theta }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_L\mathrm{\Theta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_R(g^{l\overline{m}}_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}d(_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}a)(\overline{}_{\overline{l}}_m\overline{a})+(_l\overline{}_{\overline{l}}a)(_m\overline{}_{\overline{m}}\overline{a})$$

$$+(_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}\widehat{b})(\overline{}_{\overline{l}}_m\widehat{b})(_l\overline{}_{\overline{l}}\widehat{b})(_m\overline{}_{\overline{m}}\widehat{b}))+\mathrm{}]$$

where $`g^{l\overline{m}}_l_{\overline{m}}=_l_{\overline{l}}(_m\overline{}_{\overline{l}}\widehat{k})_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ is at least cubic order in the fields of (4.1). So up to terms quadratic order in these fields, (4.1) implies the equations

$$_m\overline{}_{\overline{n}}(\mathrm{log}detg2\sqrt{f\overline{f}}\widehat{b})=0,$$

$$\overline{}_{\overline{n}}(g^{l\overline{m}}_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}a)=0,$$

$$_n(g^{l\overline{m}}_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}\overline{a})=0,$$

$$g^{l\overline{m}}_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}\widehat{b}+\sqrt{f\overline{f}}d=0,$$

$$g^{l\overline{m}}_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}d(_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}a)(\overline{}_{\overline{l}}_m\overline{a})+(_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}\widehat{b})(\overline{}_{\overline{l}}_m\widehat{b})=0.$$

It will now be shown that (4.1) implies that the background fields of (4.1) satisfy the Type IIB supergravity equations in string gauge. When the NS-NS $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ field vanishes, the Type IIB supergravity equations can be written in terms of the bispinor $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ of (3.1) as

$$e^{2\varphi }(R_{\mu \nu }2_\mu _\nu \varphi )=\frac{1}{64}\gamma _\mu ^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _\nu ^{\gamma \delta }F_{\alpha \gamma }F_{\beta \delta }+\frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{64}F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta },$$

$$(\gamma _{\mu \nu })^\alpha {}_{\gamma }{}^{}F_{}^{\gamma \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }=0,$$

$$R=4_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi +4^\mu _\mu \varphi ,$$

$$\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu _\mu F^{\beta \gamma }=\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu _\mu F^{\gamma \beta }=0.$$

Note that (4.1) comes from varying $`B^{\mu \nu }`$ in the supergravity action and then setting $`B^{\mu \nu }=0.`$

To verify that these supergravity equations are implied by (4.1), first note that the matrices $`M_\alpha ^\beta `$ and $`\overline{M}_\alpha ^\beta `$ of (3.1) satisfy

$$(\gamma ^m)^{\alpha \beta }M_\beta ^\gamma =(\gamma ^{\overline{m}})^{\alpha \beta }\overline{M}_\beta ^\gamma =M_\alpha ^\beta (\gamma ^{\overline{m}})_{\beta \gamma }M_\delta ^\gamma =\overline{M}_\alpha ^\beta (\gamma ^m)_{\beta \gamma }\overline{M}_\delta ^\gamma =0,$$

which implies that the background value of (4.1) for $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ satisfies

$$F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \gamma }=F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\gamma \beta }=0,$$

and that the only non-zero components of $`e^{2\varphi }\gamma _\mu ^{\alpha \gamma }\gamma _\nu ^{\beta \delta }F_{\alpha \beta }F_{\gamma \delta }`$ are

$$e^{2\varphi }\gamma _+^{\alpha \gamma }\gamma _+^{\beta \delta }F_{\alpha \beta }F_{\gamma \delta }=64(_l_m\overline{a})(\overline{}_{\overline{l}}\overline{}_{\overline{m}}a)+64(_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}\widehat{b})(_m\overline{}_{\overline{l}}\widehat{b}),$$

$$e^{2\varphi }\gamma _{}^{\alpha \gamma }\gamma _{}^{\beta \delta }F_{\alpha \beta }F_{\gamma \delta }=256f\overline{f},$$

$$e^{2\varphi }\gamma _l^{\alpha \gamma }\gamma _{\overline{m}}^{\beta \delta }F_{\alpha \beta }F_{\gamma \delta }=128\sqrt{f\overline{f}}_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}\widehat{b}.$$

Also, the background value for $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ of (4.1) implies that the Ricci tensor $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ satisfies

$$R_{++}=g^{l\overline{m}}_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}g_{++}=g^{l\overline{m}}_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}(d(\overline{}_{\overline{n}}a)(_n\overline{a})),$$

$$R_{l\overline{m}}=_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}(\mathrm{log}detg),R_{}=R_{lm}=R_{\overline{l}\overline{m}}=0.$$

Putting together (4.1) and (4.1), one finds that

$$R_{++}=(_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}\widehat{b})(\overline{}_{\overline{l}}_m\widehat{b})(_l_m\overline{a})(\overline{}_{\overline{l}}\overline{}_{\overline{m}}a)\mathrm{and}R_{l\overline{m}}=2\sqrt{f\overline{f}}_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}\widehat{b}.$$

So (4.1) is satisfied using the values of (4.1) and (3.1) for $`(FF)_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\varphi `$. Furthermore, (4.1) is implied by (4.1), and (4.1) is implied (up to quadratic order in (4.1)) by (4.1) and the fourth equation of (4.1).

Finally, (4.1) can be verified using the background value of (4.1) for $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ together with the identities $`\gamma ^{lm}_l_m=\gamma ^{\overline{l}\overline{m}}\overline{}_{\overline{l}}\overline{}_{\overline{m}}=0`$, $`\{\gamma ^l,\gamma ^{\overline{m}}\}=2g^{l\overline{m}}`$, and (4.1) to obtain

$$\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu _\mu F^{\beta \gamma }=(\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^l_l+\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{\overline{l}}\overline{}_{\overline{l}}+\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{}_{}+\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^+_+)F^{\beta \gamma }$$

$$=M_\alpha ^\delta \gamma _{\delta \kappa }^+(\gamma ^{\overline{m}})^{\kappa \gamma }_l\overline{}_{\overline{l}}\overline{}_{\overline{m}}a+\overline{M}_\alpha ^\delta \gamma _{\delta \kappa }^+(\gamma ^m)^{\kappa \gamma }\overline{}_{\overline{l}}_l_m\overline{a}$$

$$+\frac{1}{4}M_\alpha ^\delta \gamma _{\delta \kappa }^+\overline{M}_{\kappa \rho }(\gamma ^m)^{\rho \gamma }\frac{\sqrt{f}}{\sqrt{\overline{f}}}_l\overline{}_{\overline{l}}_m\widehat{b}+\frac{1}{4}\overline{M}_\alpha ^\delta \gamma _{\delta \kappa }^+M_{\kappa \rho }(\gamma ^{\overline{m}})^{\rho \gamma }\frac{\sqrt{\overline{f}}}{\sqrt{f}}\overline{}_{\overline{l}}_l\overline{}_{\overline{m}}\widehat{b}$$

$$+\frac{1}{4}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^+w_+{}_{}{}^{cd}[(\gamma _{cd})^\beta {}_{\delta }{}^{}F_{}^{\delta \gamma }+(\gamma _{cd})^\gamma {}_{\delta }{}^{}F_{}^{\beta \delta }]$$

where

$$\frac{1}{4}w_+{}_{}{}^{cd}(\gamma _{cd})_{}^{\beta }{}_{\delta }{}^{}=\frac{1}{4}[_lg_{++}(\gamma ^+\gamma ^l)^\beta {}_{\delta }{}^{}+\overline{}_{\overline{l}}g_{++}(\gamma ^+\gamma ^{\overline{l}})^\beta {}_{\delta }{}^{}]$$

$$=\frac{1}{4}[_ld(\gamma ^+\gamma ^l)^\beta {}_{\delta }{}^{}+\overline{}_{\overline{l}}d(\gamma ^+\gamma ^{\overline{l}})^\beta {}_{\delta }{}^{}]$$

is the $`+`$ component of the spin connection to linearized order in (4.1). Using (4.1) and

$$\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^+(\gamma ^+\gamma ^l)^\gamma {}_{\delta }{}^{}F_{}^{\beta \delta }=M_\alpha ^\sigma \gamma _{\sigma \kappa }^+\overline{M}_\rho ^\kappa (\gamma ^l)^{\rho \gamma }f,$$

$$\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^+(\gamma ^+\gamma ^{\overline{l}})^\gamma {}_{\delta }{}^{}F_{}^{\beta \delta }=\overline{M}_\alpha ^\sigma \gamma _{\sigma \kappa }^+M_\rho ^\kappa (\gamma ^{\overline{l}})^{\rho \gamma }\overline{f},$$

one learns that $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu _\mu F^{\beta \gamma }=0`$. Similarly, one can show that $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu _\mu F^{\gamma \beta }=0`$.

So it has been verified up to quadratic order in the fields of (4.1) that N=2 superconformal invariance of (4.1) implies the Type IIB supergravity equations of motion for the background. It would be useful to determine the complete backreaction of the background values in (4.1) and verify this to all orders in the fields of (4.1). It would also be interesting to consider more general actions than (4.1) and determine what is the most general Type IIB supergravity background that can be described as an N=2 sigma model using the U(4) hybrid formalism.

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Marcus Grisaru, Hirosi Ooguri, Cumrun Vafa, and especially Juan Maldacena for useful discussions and CNPq grant 300256/94-9, Pronex grant 66.2002/1998-9, and FAPESP grant 99/12763-0 for partial financial support. This research was partially conducted during the period that NB was employed by the Clay Mathematics Institute as a CMI Prize Fellow.

References

relax J.M. Maldacena, The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38 (1999) 1113, hep-th/9711200; S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov and A.M. Polyakov, Gauge Theory Correlators from Non-Critical String Theory, Phys. Lett. B428 (1998) 105, hep-th/9802109 ; E. Witten, Anti-deSitter Space and Holography, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 253, hep-th/9802150. relax R.R. Metsaev, Type II Green-Schwarz Superstring in Plane Wave Ramond-Ramond Background, Nucl. Phys. B625 (2002) 70, hep-th/0112044. relax D. Berenstein, J. Maldacena and H. Nastase, Strings in Flat Space and PP Waves from N=4 Super-Yang-Mills, JHEP 0204 (2002) 013, hep-th/0202021. relax A.A. Tseytlin, Semiclassical Quantization of Superstrings: $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ and Beyond, hep-th/0209116. relax N. Berkovits, Super-Poincaré Covariant Quantization of the Superstring, JHEP 0004 (2000) 018, hep-th/0001035. relax N. Berkovits and O. Chandía, Superstring Vertex Operators in an $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ Background, Nucl. Phys. B596 (2001) 185, hep-th/0009168. relax N. Berkovits, Conformal Field Theory for the Superstring in a Ramond-Ramond Plane Wave Background, JHEP 0204 (2002) 037, hep-th/0203248. relax N. Berkovits and J. Maldacena, N=2 Superconformal Description of Superstring in Ramond-Ramond Plane Wave Backgrounds, hep-th/0208092. relax N. Berkovits, The Heterotic Green-Schwarz Superstring on an N=(2,0) Worldsheet, Nucl. Phys. B379 (1992) 96, hep-th/9201004; N. Berkovits, Calculation of Green-Schwarz Superstring Amplitudes using the N=2 Twistor-String Formalism, Nucl. Phys. B395 (1993) 77, hep-th/9208035. relax N. Berkovits, The Ten-Dimensional Green-Schwarz Superstring is a Twisted Neveu-Schwarz-Ramond String, Nucl. Phys. B420 (1994) 332; N. Berkovits and C. Vafa, On the Uniqueness of String Theory, Mod. Phys. Lett. A9 (1994) 653, hep-th/9310170; N. Berkovits and C. Vafa, N=4 Topological Strings, Nucl. Phys. B433 (1995) 123, hep-th/9407190. relax J. Maldacena and L. Maoz, Strings on PP Waves and Massive Two-Dimensional Field Theories, hep-th/0207284. relax J.G. Russo and A.A. Tseytlin, A Class of Exact PP Wave String Models with Interacting Light Cone Gauge Actions, JHEP 0209 (2002) 035, hep-th/0208114. relax M. Grisaru, A. van de Ven and D. Zanon, Two-Dimensional Supersymmetric Sigma Models on Ricci Flat Kahler Manifolds are Not Finite, Nucl. Phys. B277 (1986) 388. relax L. Alvarez-Gaumé and D.Z. Freedman, Kahler Geometry and the Renormalization of Supersymmetric $`\sigma `$ Models, Phys. Rev. D22 (1980) 846. relax D. Friedan, E. Martinec and S. Shenker, Conformal Invariance, Supersymmetry and String Theory, Nucl. Phys. B271 (1986) 93. relax G. Bonelli, Matrix String Models for Exact (2,2) String Theories in R-R Backgrounds, hep-th/0209225. relax N. Berkovits, C. Vafa and E. Witten, Conformal Field Theory of AdS Background with Ramond-Ramond Flux, JHEP 9903 (1999) 018, hep-th/9902098. relax N. Berkovits, S. Gukov and B.C. Vallilo, Superstrings in 2D Backgrounds with RR Flux and New Extremal Black Holes, Nucl. Phys. B614 (2001) 195, hep-th/0107140. relax P.S. Howe and G. Papadopoulos, N=2 D=2 Supergeometry, Class. Quant. Grav. 4 (1987) 11; S.J. Gates Jr., L. Liu and N. Oerter, Simplified SU(2) Spinning String Superspace Supergravity, Phys. Lett. B214 (1988) 26; M. Grisaru and M.E. Wehlau, Prepotentials for (2,2) Supergravity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A10 (1995) 753, hep-th/9409043.