text:
# A characterization of certain irreducible symplectic 4-folds

## 1. Introduction

In the theory of the moduli problem of K3 surfaces, Kummer surfaces played a very important role. It is easy to characterize Kummer surfaces.

###### Proposition 1.1.

(See , Chap. VIII §6) Let $`S`$ be a K3 surface. If $`S`$ contains 16 disjoint $`^1`$’s $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_{16}`$ and $`D=C_i`$ is $`2`$-divisible in $`\mathrm{Pic}(S)`$ then $`S`$ is isomorphic to a Kummer surface.

The density of Kummer surfaces in the moduli space and this characterization enable us to derive the Global Torelli Theorem for arbitrary K3 surfaces from that for Kummer surfaces.

A higher dimensional analogue of a K3 surface is an irreducible symplectic manifold.

###### Definition 1.2.

A compact Kähler manifold $`X`$ of dimension $`2n`$ is said to be *irreducible symplectic* if the following conditions are satisfied.

1. $`X`$ admits a symplectic form, *i.e.* there exists a $`d`$-closed holomorphic 2-form $`\sigma `$ such that $`\sigma ^n`$ is nowhere vanishing.
2. $`h^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2)=1`$, *i.e.* any non-zero holomorphic 2-form is the symplectic form up to constant.
3. $`X`$ is simply connected.

An irreducible symplectic manifold is also called *hyper-Kähler* in the literature (see ).

It seems that the moduli behaviour of irreducible symplectic manifolds is similar to that of K3 surfaces. Although Namikawa recently found a counterexample to the Global Torelli Problem in higher dimensions , one still believes that some kind of Global Torelli Theorem should hold, but even a convincing conjectural version of it is missing for the time being.

With a view towards the Global Torelli Problem for irreducible symplectic manifolds, it is important to ask for some “typical” objects in the moduli spaces in question and to give their characterization. This question in general seems to be quite hard. It is natural to restrict ourselves to a special case as our first step.

The Hilbert scheme of points on a K3 surface is an example of irreducible symplectic manifold which is important and seems to be rather easy to handle, for it has a very explicit description, in particular in dimension four.

###### Example 1.3.

(cf. ) Let $`S`$ be a smooth surface, $`\mathrm{Hilb}^n(S)`$ the Hilbert scheme of 0-dimensional sub-schemes of length $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{Sym}^n(S)=S^n/𝔖_n`$ the $`n`$-th symmetric product of S. Beauville  showed that the natural morphism (*Hilbert-Chow morphism*)

$$F:\mathrm{Hilb}^n(S)\mathrm{Sym}^n(S)$$

is a crepant birational morphism and that if $`S`$ is a K3 surface, the Hilbert scheme $`\mathrm{Hilb}^n(S)`$ is an irreducible symplectic manifold of dimension $`2n`$. In the case $`n=2`$, the description of $`F`$ is quite easy. The singular locus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`\mathrm{Sym}^2(S)`$ is isomorphic to $`S`$ and $`\mathrm{Sym}^2(S)`$ is locally of the form $`^2\times (A_1\text{ surface singularity})`$ along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. It is easy to show that $`F`$ is simply the blowing-up of $`\mathrm{Sym}^2(S)`$ along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Considering the action of $`𝔖_2`$, we have the following diagram

(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the diagonal of $`S\times S`$.

We give the following result as an analogy of Proposition 1.1.

###### Theorem 1.4.

Let $`X`$ be a projective irreducible symplectic fourfold. Assume that there exists a birational morphism $`f:XY`$ which contracts an irreducible divisor $`E`$ to a surface $`SY`$ such that

1. The general fibre of $`f_{|E}:ES`$ is isomorphic to $`^1`$,
2. $`E`$ is $`2`$-divisible in $`\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$,
3. $`E^4=192`$.

Then, $`S`$ is a K3 surface and $`X`$ is isomorphic to the Hilbert scheme $`\mathrm{Hilb}^2(S)`$ of $`S`$.

###### Remark 1.4.1.

If $`X`$ is deformation equivalent to some $`\mathrm{Hilb}^2(T)`$ for a K3 surface $`T`$, the condition (iii) can be replaced by

* $`q_X(E)=8`$.

where $`q_X`$ is the Beauville-Bogomolov form on $`H^2(X,)`$ (see , see also Remark 2.7.1).

###### Remark 1.4.2.

It would be natural to pose the following question:  *If $`E`$ is an irreducible divisor on $`X`$ with $`q_X(E)<0`$, then there exist an irreducible symplectic fourfold $`X^{}`$ birational to $`X`$ and a birational morphism $`f:X^{}Y^{}`$ which contracts the strict transform of $`E`$ on $`X^{}`$ ?* Clearly, the answer will be affirmative if every flop of symplectic 4-fold is a Mukai flop as conjectured, for the termination of flops for terminal fourfolds is already known.

The next natural problem to consider is the density of the *birational (bimeromorphic) models* of Hilbert schemes made from Kummer surfaces in the connected component of the moduli space containing an irreducible symplectic fourfold which is birational to the Hilbert scheme of some K3 surface. But even this seems to be rather hard question.

The rough idea to prove the theorem is to trace backward Beauville’s proof of Example 1.3. It uses more or less elementary and standard techniques. It contains several ingredients. One is a numerical computation using Holomorphic Lefschetz theorem of Atiyah-Singer. Another is the decomposition theorem of Kähler manifolds with trivial first Chern class. The result of Wierzba  on divisorial contractions of symplectic manifolds is also used in an essential way. The remaining part consists of geometric arguments based on the geometry of K3 surfaces.

### Notation.

Through this paper we work with the following notation. Let $`X`$, $`Y`$, $`f`$, $`E`$ and $`S`$ be as in the theorem above. Theorems 1.4(ii) and 1.5 in  imply that $`E`$ is a $`^1`$ bundle and $`S`$, which is the singular locus of $`Y`$, is a smooth surface with $`K_S0`$. Furthermore they infer that $`Y`$ is analytically locally isomorphic to $`^2\times (A_1\text{ surface singularity})`$ at each point of $`S`$. Put $`D=\frac{1}{2}E`$ and take a double covering $`p:\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ defined by $`𝒪(D)`$. Then $`p`$ is ramified at $`\stackrel{~}{E}\stackrel{~}{X}`$ and $`p(\stackrel{~}{E})=E`$. $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is smooth since $`E`$ is smooth and we have the following diagram

(2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ and $`q`$ is the Stein factorization of $`fp`$. In fact $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ is a smooth fourfold, $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is the blowing-up of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ along a smooth centre $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ with the exceptional divisor $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$, and $`q_{|\stackrel{~}{S}}:\stackrel{~}{S}\stackrel{}{}S`$ is an isomorphism. Note that $`K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}0`$, for $`f`$ is crepant and $`q`$ has no ramification divisor.

###### Remark 1.4.3.

The projectivity assumption in Theorem 1.4 is made to apply Wierzba’s result in our argument. If Wierzba’s description on divisorial contraction of symplectic manifolds is valid for non-projective ones, the projectivity assumption would not be necessary.

## 2. Geometry of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$

In this section, we prove the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2.1.

Under the assumption of Theorem 1.4 and the notation above, $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ is isomorphic to a product of two K3 surfaces.

Our strategy is to apply the following famous decomposition theorem to $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$.

###### Theorem 2.2 (cf. ).

Let $`Z`$ be a compact Kähler manifold with $`K_Z0`$. Then there exists a finite étale covering $`\stackrel{~}{Z}Z`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ is isomorphic to a product of varieties of following types

1. complex torus,
2. Calabi-Yau manifold *i.e.* compact Kähler manifold $`W`$ for which $`K_W0`$, $`h^i(W,𝒪_W)=0`$ for $`0<i<dimW`$, and $`\pi _1(W)=\{e\}`$,
3. irreducible symplectic manifold.

Thanks to this powerful theorem, Proposition 2.1 is reduced to the following

###### Proposition 2.3.

(i) $`\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{Y})=\{e\}`$. (ii) $`h^0(\stackrel{~}{Y},\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}^2)=2`$.

###### Proof of Proposition 2.3 $``$ Theorem 2.1.

Applying Theorem 2.2 under the condition (i) of Proposition 2.3, $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ itself decomposes into a product of Calabi-Yau manifolds and irreducible symplectic manifolds. Since $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ is of dimension $`4`$, a product of two K3 surfaces, a Calabi-Yau fourfold or a compact irreducible symplectic fourfold is possible. But (ii) of Proposition 2.3 asserts that the last two cases do not happen. ∎

To compute these quantities from the condition (iii) of Theorem 1.4, we use Holomorphic Lefschetz formula of Atiyah-Singer .

###### Definition 2.4.

Let $`M`$ be a compact complex manifold, and $`g`$ an automorphism of finite order of $`M`$. The *holomorphic Lefschetz number* $`L_{hol}(g)`$ is defined by

$$L_{hol}(g)=(1)^p\mathrm{trace}(g^{}:H^p(M,𝒪_M)).$$

###### Theorem 2.5 (Holomorphic Lefschetz formula, ).

As in the notation of the definition above. Assume further that the fixed point set $`M^g=\{xMg(x)=x\}`$ is smooth. Then the formula

$$L_{hol}(g)=_{M^g}\frac{_\theta 𝒰^\theta (N_{M^g/M}(\theta ))\mathrm{td}(M^g)}{det(1(g_{N_{M^g/M}})^{})}$$

holds, where $`\mathrm{td}(M^g)`$ denotes the Todd class of $`M^g`$, $`N_{M^g/M}`$ the normal bundle, $`N_{M^g/M}(\theta )N_{M^g/M}`$ the eigen-sub-bundle of $`(g_{N_{M^g/M}})^{}`$ with the eigenvalue $`e^{i\theta }`$, and

$$𝒰^\theta (x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})=\left\{\underset{j}{}\left(\frac{1e^{x_ji\theta }}{1e^{i\theta }}\right)\right\}^1.$$

The general formula itself is very complicated, but in our case the formula becomes easy to handle.

###### Lemma 2.6.

Notation as in §1. Let $`g`$ be an involution of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ induced by $`q:\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$. Then $`L_{hol}(g)`$ and we have

$$L_{hol}(g)=\frac{1}{48}(c_2(T_{\stackrel{~}{S}})+3c_2(N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{Y}})).$$

In particular if $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is a K3 surface,

$$L_{hol}(g)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{16}c_2(N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{Y}})$$

and if $`S`$ is an abelian surface,

$$L_{hol}(g)=\frac{1}{16}c_2(N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{Y}}).$$

###### Proof.

Since $`g`$ is an involution, eigenvalues of $`g^{}`$ on each cohomology group must be $`\pm 1`$, therefore $`\mathrm{trace}g^{}`$, in particular $`L_{hol}(g)`$.

We apply Theorem 2.5 under $`M=\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ and $`M^g=\stackrel{~}{S}`$. Since $`g`$ produces the two dimensional locus of $`A_1`$ singularities $`S`$, we have

$$(g_{N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{Y}}})^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

Therefore, $`det(1(g_{N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{Y}}})^{})=4`$ and the only possible $`\theta `$ is $`\theta =\pi `$, *i.e.* $`N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{Y}}(\pi )=N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{Y}}`$. Since the rank of this bundle is 2, we have only to consider $`𝒰^\pi `$ in $`2`$ variables. By definition

$`𝒰^\pi (x_1,x_2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+e^{x_1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+e^{x_2}}}`$
$`=1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(x_1+x_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}x_1x_2+O(x_1,x_2)^3.`$
This implies

$$𝒰^\pi (N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{Y}}(\pi ))=1\frac{1}{2}c_1(N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{Y}})+\frac{1}{4}c_2(N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{Y}}).$$

Note that $`\mathrm{td}(\stackrel{~}{S})=1+\frac{1}{12}c_2(T_{\stackrel{~}{S}})`$ because $`K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}0`$. Combining these, we get the formula. For the last assertion, note that $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is either a K3 surface or a complex $`2`$-torus by the Enriques-Kodaira’s classification. ∎

For the computation of the second Chern class $`c_2(N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{Y}})`$, we prepare an easy lemma.

###### Lemma 2.7.

$`\stackrel{~}{E}^4=c_2(N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{Y}})`$.

###### Proof.

Note that $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is a blowing-up of the smooth variety $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ along the smooth centre $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$. Therefore, we can regard $`\stackrel{~}{h}=\stackrel{~}{f}_{|\stackrel{~}{E}}`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{h}:\stackrel{~}{E}=(N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{X}})S`$. We have a line bundle $`L`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ such that there is an exact sequence of bundle maps

$$0L\stackrel{~}{h}^{}N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{X}}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{E}}(1)0.$$

By naturality, we have $`c_2(\stackrel{~}{h}^{}N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{X}})=c_2(N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{X}})[F]H^4(\stackrel{~}{E},)`$, where $`F`$ is a fibre of $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$. This implies $`c_2(N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{X}})=c_2(\stackrel{~}{h}^{}N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{X}})𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{E}}(1)=L𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{E}}(1)^2`$. On the other hand, one has trivially $`\stackrel{~}{h}^{}c_1(N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{X}})=c_1(\stackrel{~}{h}^{}N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{X}})=c_1(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{E}}(1))+c_1(L)`$. Combining these we get $`c_2(N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{X}})=\stackrel{~}{h}^{}c_1(N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{X}})c_1(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{E}}(1))^2+\stackrel{~}{E}^4`$, for $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{E}}(1)=(\stackrel{~}{E})_{|\stackrel{~}{E}}`$. But we have $`c_1(N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{X}})=c_1(T_{\stackrel{~}{Y}|\stackrel{~}{S}})c_1(T_{\stackrel{~}{S}})=0`$ and therefore $`c_2(N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{X}})=\stackrel{~}{E}^4`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.7.1.

We show the converse of Theorem 1.4 using this lemma. Let $`X=\mathrm{Hilb}^2(S)`$ for some K3 surface $`S`$. Noting that (1) fits into the diagram (2), (i,ii) of the Theorem 1.4 are evident. In the notation of (1) we have $`N_{\mathrm{\Delta }/S\times S}T_S\mathrm{\Omega }_S^1`$, for $`S`$ is K3. Therefore, for the exceptional divisor $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ of $`F`$, we get $`\stackrel{~}{E}^4=c_2(N_{\mathrm{\Delta }/S\times S})=c_2(\mathrm{\Omega }_S^1)=24`$. By the projection formula and ramification, we have

(3)
$$\stackrel{~}{E}^4=\left(\frac{1}{2}p^{}E\right)^4=\frac{1}{16}(p^{}E)^4=\frac{1}{8}E^4,$$

so that $`E^4=824=192`$.

###### Corollary 2.8.

Under the assumption and notation as in §1, $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is a K3 surface.

###### Proof.

Assume the contrary, *i.e.* assume $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ be an abelian surface. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{E}^4=24`$ by (3). Lemmas 2.6 and 2.7 imply $`L_{hol}(g)={\displaystyle \frac{24}{16}}`$, which is a contradiction.

Now is the time to prove Proposition 2.3.

###### Proof of Proposition 2.3.

(i) Let $`\widehat{E}`$, $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{E}}`$ be tubular neighbourhoods of $`E`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ and set $`X^{}=X\backslash E`$, $`\stackrel{~}{X}^{}=\stackrel{~}{X}\backslash \stackrel{~}{E}`$. Then we have

$`X=X^{}\widehat{E},`$ $`X^{}\widehat{E}=\widehat{E}\backslash E,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{X}=\stackrel{~}{X}^{}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{E}},`$ $`\stackrel{~}{X}^{}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{E}}=\widehat{\stackrel{~}{E}}\backslash \stackrel{~}{E}.`$
Since the K3 surface $`S\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is simply connected and $`ES`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}\stackrel{~}{S}`$ are $`^1`$-bundles, the homotopy exact sequence infers

$$\pi _1(E)=\pi _1\left(\widehat{E}\right)=\{e\},\pi _1\left(\stackrel{~}{E}\right)=\pi _1\left(\widehat{\stackrel{~}{E}}\right)=\{e\}.$$

Note that $`\pi _1(X)=\{e\}`$ because $`X`$ is irreducible symplectic. By Van Kampen’s theorem

,
we know $`\phi `$ is surjective. Consider the following commutative diagram

.
Since $`\stackrel{~}{X}^{}X^{}`$ is étale of degree 2, $`\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{X}^{})\stackrel{p_{}}{}\pi _1(X^{})`$ is injective but not surjective. It follows that $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ is also surjective, because $`\pi _1\left(\widehat{\stackrel{~}{E}}\backslash \stackrel{~}{E}\right)\pi _1\left(\widehat{E}\backslash E\right)`$ is of index 2. Again using Van Kampen’s theorem, we get $`\pi _1\left(\stackrel{~}{X}\right)=\{e\}`$, therefore $`\pi _1\left(\stackrel{~}{Y}\right)=\{e\}`$, for a birational map $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ does not change the fundamental group.

(ii) The condition $`h^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2)=1`$ implies $`h^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^2)=1`$. Therefore,

$$L_{hol}(g)=1+\{1(h^0(\stackrel{~}{Y},\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}^2)1)\}+1=4h^0(\stackrel{~}{Y},\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}^2).$$

On the other hand, by Lemmas 2.6, 2.7, and Corollary 2.8, we see

$$L_{hol}(g)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{24}{16}=2.$$

Combining these, we get $`h^0(\stackrel{~}{Y},\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}^2)=2`$. ∎

## 3. Conclusion of the proof of Theorem 1.4

In this section, we complete the proof of Theorem 1.4.

In the last section, we have shown that $`\stackrel{~}{Y}T_1\times T_2`$, where, $`T_1`$, $`T_2`$ are K3 surfaces. To prove Theorem 1.4, we investigate the action of $`g`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$.

###### Proposition 3.1.

$`T_1T_2\stackrel{~}{S}`$. We may assume $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is the diagonal of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}\stackrel{~}{S}\times \stackrel{~}{S}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`p_i:\stackrel{~}{Y}T_i(i=1,2)`$ be the projections. To prove the proposition, it is enough to show

(4)
$$dimp_1(\stackrel{~}{S})=dimp_2(\stackrel{~}{S})=2,$$

for these imply $`p_{i|\stackrel{~}{S}}=:\phi _i:\stackrel{~}{S}T_i(i=1,2)`$ is generically finite, but $`K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}0`$ and $`K_{T_i}0`$ imply $`\phi _i`$ has neither exceptional divisor nor ramification divisor, *i.e.* $`\phi _i`$ is isomorphism. In the following, we show (4) via case by case consideration.

If $`dimp_1(\stackrel{~}{S})=0`$, *i.e.* $`p_1(\stackrel{~}{S})=\{t\}T_1`$, we get $`\stackrel{~}{S}=p_1^1(t)`$, therefore $`N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{Y}}=𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{S}}^2`$ so that $`c_2(N_{\stackrel{~}{S}/\stackrel{~}{Y}})=0`$. This contradicts to Lemma 2.7. By the same argument for $`p_2`$ we have $`dimp_i(\stackrel{~}{S})1(i=1,2)`$.

###### Claim.

If $`dimp_1(\stackrel{~}{S})=1`$, then $`dimp_2(\stackrel{~}{S})=2`$. Moreover for $`Z=p_1^1(p_1(\stackrel{~}{S}))`$, we have $`g(Z)=Z`$.

###### Proof of the claim.

Assume $`dimp_1(\stackrel{~}{S})=dimp_2(\stackrel{~}{S})=1`$. Let $`C_i=p_i(\stackrel{~}{S})(i=1,2)`$. Then we have

$$\stackrel{~}{S}p_1^1(C_1)p_2^1(C_2)=C_1\times C_2.$$

Since $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is irreducible, so are $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$. But this implies that $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is actually the product of these two curves, which is absurd. Therefore we may assume $`dimp_2(\stackrel{~}{S})=2`$ and $`\phi _2:\stackrel{~}{S}\stackrel{}{}T_2`$ is an isomorphism. The second assertion of the claim is equivalent to $`p_1(g(Z))=C_1`$. Assume the contrary, *i.e.* $`p_1(g(Z))=T_1`$. Then, we have the following diagram

.
Clearly $`\kappa (Z)=\mathrm{}`$, where $`\kappa (Z)`$ the Kodaira dimension of $`Z`$. The sub-additivity property of Kodaira dimension (cf. ) implies that irreducible components of any fibre of $`\psi _1`$ are rational curves. On the other hand, connected components of the general fibre of $`\phi _1:\stackrel{~}{S}C`$ are elliptic curves so that $`\psi _1`$ contains an elliptic curve as its fibre, a contradiction. (End of the proof of the claim) ∎

To prove the proposition, what we have to do is to get a contradiction assuming $`dimp_1(\stackrel{~}{S})=1`$ and $`g(Z)=Z`$, thanks to the claim. Consider the diagram

.
Let $`U_t=p_1^1(t)(tC_1)`$ and consider the normalizations

.
The involution $`g`$ on $`Z`$ ascends to $`\overline{Z}`$. Since $`\overline{p}_1`$ is the anti-canonical map of $`\overline{Z}`$, $`g`$ descends to $`^1`$. This implies $`dimp_1(g(U_t))=0`$ therefore $`p_1(g(U_t))=\{t\}`$, since $`U_t\stackrel{~}{S}=g(U_t)\stackrel{~}{S}\mathrm{}`$. Then we have a family of automorphisms $`\{\psi _t:U_tU_t\}`$. There is a commutative diagram of isomorphisms

.
Since a K3 surface has no infinitesimal automorphism, $`\rho _t`$ is independent of $`t`$. But $`\psi _t`$ fixes the points on $`D_t=U_t\stackrel{~}{S}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}=_{tC_1}D_t`$, $`\rho _t`$ induces the identity on $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ and also on $`U_t`$. This contradicts $`g\mathrm{id}`$. ∎

Finally the following proposition completes our proof of the Main Theorem, in view of Example 1.3.

###### Proposition 3.2.

Notation as above. The action of $`g`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{Y}=\stackrel{~}{S}\times \stackrel{~}{S}`$ is the permutation of two components.

###### Proof.

Consider the diagram

.
Let $`T_t=p_1^1(t)(t\stackrel{~}{S})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=\{t\stackrel{~}{S}dimp_ig(T_t)=1\}`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ is a locally closed set in Zariski topology.

###### Claim.

$`dim\mathrm{\Gamma }_i1(i=1,2)`$.

###### Proof of the claim.

Assume the contrary, *i.e.* assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\stackrel{~}{S}`$ contains an Zariski open set. For any $`t\stackrel{~}{S}`$,

$$g(T_t)\stackrel{p_1}{}C_t\stackrel{~}{S}$$

with $`C_t`$ is a rational curve containing $`t`$. Since $`t`$ sweeps over an open set of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$, $`\{C_t\}`$ is a covering family of rational curves on $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$. This is impossible because $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is a K3 surface. (End of the proof of the claim) ∎

Therefore, there exists a Zariski open set $`V\stackrel{~}{S}`$ such that

$$(dimp_1g(T_t),dimp_2(T_t))=(0,2)\text{}(2,2)\text{ or }(2,0)$$

for any $`tV`$.

In the first case, we have $`g(T_t)=T_t`$ and $`g`$ induces $`j_t\mathrm{Aut}(T_t)\mathrm{Aut}(\stackrel{~}{S})`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ has no infinitesimal automorphism, $`j_t`$ is constant with respect to $`t\stackrel{~}{S}`$. But $`j_t(t)=t`$ for any $`tV`$ implies $`j_t=\mathrm{id}`$, contradiction.

In the second case, $`g(T_t)`$ is the graph of an automorphism $`f_t\mathrm{Aut}(\stackrel{~}{S})`$. Since $`g(T_t)g(T_t^{})=\mathrm{}`$ for $`tt^{}`$, we have $`f_tf_t^{}`$. This contradicts the discreteness of $`\mathrm{Aut}(\stackrel{~}{S})`$.

Therefore only the last case can happen. This implies $`g(p_1^1(t))=p_2^1(t)`$, for $`T_t\stackrel{~}{S}\mathrm{}`$. Exchanging the roles of $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$, we also have $`g(p_2^1(t))=p_1^1(t)`$. Finally we get

for $`s,tV`$. This shows $`g`$ is a permutation of $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$. ∎

### Acknowledgement

The author would like to express his profound gratitude to Prof. Yujiro Kawamata, his supervisor, for comments and continuous encouragement. He also thanks Tetsushi Ito and Shunsuke Takagi for stimulating discussions, Prof. Keiji Oguiso for his comments and indicating an improvement of the proof of Proposition 3.1. He is also indebted to the referee for his careful reading of the manuscript and many valuable comments and suggestions.


format: text

text:
# Anomalous Hall effect as a probe of the chiral order in spin glasses

## Abstract

Anomalous Hall effect arising from the noncoplanar spin configuration (chirality) is discussed as a probe of the chiral order in spin glasses. It is shown that the Hall coefficient yields direct information about the linear and nonlinear chiral susceptibilities of the spin sector, which has been hard to obtain experimentally from the standard magnetic measurements. Based on the chirality scenario of spin-glass transition, predictions are given on the behavior of the Hall resistivity of canonical spin glasses.

For decades, spin glasses have been extensively studied as a prototype of “complex” systems characterized by both ‘frustration’ and ‘randomness’ . Among a wide variety of spin-glass (SG) materials, most familiar and well-studied is perhaps the so-called canonical SG, a dilute noble metal/3d transition metal alloys. In canonical SG, the interaction between localized moments is the RKKY interaction which is mediated by conduction electrons via the $`sd`$ exchange coupling $`J_{sd}`$. Oscillating nature of the RKKY interaction with distance, combined with spatially random arrangement of localized moments, gives rise to frustration and randomness. Since the RKKY interaction is isotropic in spin space, canonical SG like many other SGs is nearly isotropic in spin space, and is expected to be well modeled by the Heisenberg model. Weak magnetic anisotropy is mostly due to the Dzyaloshinski-Moriya (DM) interaction caused by the combined effect of the $`sd`$ coupling and the spin-orbit interaction. Nearly isotropic character of the magnetic interaction in canonical SG is in apparent contrast to most of theoretical approaches which have been based on the Ising model describing the extremely anisotropic limit.

Experimentally, it is now well established that typical SG magnets including canonical SG exhibit an equilibrium phase transition at a finite temperature and there exists a thermodynamic SG phase. True nature of the SG transition and of the SG ordered state, however, still remains elusive in spite of extensive studies.

Although standard theories of the SG order invoke the Ising model as a minimal model, a scenario very different from the standard picture was proposed by the present author, which may be called a chirality scenario. In this scenario, chirality, which is a multispin quantity representing the sense or the handedness of local noncoplanar structure of Heisenberg spins, plays an essential role. The local chirality may be defined for three neighboring Heisenberg spins by the scalar,

$$\chi _{ijk}=\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j\times \stackrel{}{S}_k.$$
(1)
The chirality defined above is often called a scalar chirality: It takes a nonzero value when the three spins span the noncoplanar configuration in spin space, whose sign representing the handedness of such noncoplanar spin configuration.

The chirality scenario of SG transition consists of the two parts : In a fully isotropic Heisenberg SG, it claims the occurrence of a novel chiral-glass ordered state in which only the chirality exhibits a glassy long-range order keeping the Heisenberg spin paramagnetic (spin-chirality decoupling). In a weakly anisotropic Heisenberg SG, the scenario claims that the weak random magnetic anisotropy “recouples” the spin to the chirality, and the chiral-glass order of the fully isotropic system shows up in the spin sector as the standard SG order via the magnetic anisotropy (spin-chirality recoupling). In other words, experimental SG transition and SG ordered state are the chiral-glass transition and chiral-glass ordered state of the fully isotropic system “revealed” by the weak random magnetic anisotropy inherent to real SG.

So far, experimental test of the chirality scenario remains indirect. This is mainly due to the experimental difficulty in directly measuring the chirality. A possible clue to overcome this difficulty was recently found via the study of electron transport properties of certain magnets in which conduction electrons interact with the core spins possessing chiral degrees of freedom. In particular, it has been realized that under appropriate conditions a chirality contribution shows up in the anomalous part of the Hall effect. This was first pointed out in the strong coupling case where the conduction electrons are strongly coupled with core spins via the Hund coupling, as in the cases of manganites and in frustrated kagomé , or pyrochlore ferromagnet (see also Ref.). In the weak coupling case which is more relevant to canonical SG, chirality contribution to the anomalous Hall effect was examined by Tatara and Kawamura. By applying the linear response theory and the perturbation expansion to the standard $`sd`$ Hamiltonian, these authors derived the chirality contribution to the Hall resistivity.

Under such circumstances, the purpose of the present letter is twofold. First, on the basis of the formula derived in Ref., I wish to explore in some detail the properties of the Hall resistivity at the SG transition with particular interest in the chirality contribution, and propose the way to extract information about the chiral order of the spin sector from the experimental data. Second, on the basis of the aforementioned chirality theory of SG transition, I present several predictions on the expected behavior of the anomalous part of the Hall resistivity, which might serve as an experimental test of the chirality theory. In the following, I will discuss these two issues successively.

Let us begin with summarizing the perturbative results for the Hall resistivity, which will form the basis of the following analysis. Conduction electrons on the lattice with $`N`$ sites are coupled with core spins (assumed to be classical and fixed) via the standard $`sd`$ exchange interaction $`J_{sd}`$, and are also scattered by normal impurities. Assuming the weak-coupling regime in which $`J_{sd}`$ is smaller than the Fermi energy $`ϵ_F`$, first nonzero contribution to the Hall conductivity comes from the third-order term in the perturbation, which can be recast into the Hall resistivity as

$$\rho _{xy}^{(\mathrm{chiral})}=54\pi ^2\chi _0\left(\frac{J_{sd}}{ϵ_F}\right)^2J_{sd}\tau \rho _0=CJ_{sd}^3\chi _0,$$
(2)
$`\chi _0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6Nk_F^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ijk}{}}\chi _{ijk}[{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{r}_{ij}\times \stackrel{}{r}_{jk})_z}{r_{ij}r_{jk}}}I^{}(r_{ij})I^{}(r_{jk})I(r_{ki})`$ (3)
$`+(\mathrm{two}\mathrm{permutations})],`$ (4)
where $`\rho _0`$ is the Boltzmann resistivity, $`\tau `$ the mean collision time, $`k_F`$ the Fermi wavenumber, and $`\chi _{ijk}`$ represents the local chirality defined by eq.(1), $`\stackrel{}{r}_{ij}=\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_j`$, etc, with $`r_{ij}|\stackrel{}{r}_{ij}|`$, etc. $`I(r)`$ represents a function decaying as $`I(r)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}k_Fr}{k_Fr}e^{r/2\mathrm{}}`$, with $`\mathrm{}`$ being the electron mean free path, and $`I^{}(r)=\frac{\mathrm{d}I(r)}{\mathrm{dr}}`$. One sees from eq.(3) that $`\chi _0`$ is a total (net) chirality, while the factor in the square bracket in eq.(3) specifies the coupling between the spin space and the real space. In canonical SG, $`J_{sd}`$ is positive. The coefficient $`C`$ is positive in the single-band approximation, but more generally, its sign would depend on the detailed band structure of the material.

By contrast, conventional theories of the anomalous Hall effect have attributed its origin to the spin-orbit interaction $`\lambda `$ and a finite magnetization $`M`$ , i.e., mechanisms known as the skew scattering or the side jump. Note that the chirality contribution is independent of these conventional ones. Taking account of the conventional terms within the perturbation scheme, the anomalous part of the Hall resistivity has been given by

$`\rho _{xy}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda M(A\rho +B\rho ^2)+CJ_{sd}^3\chi _0,`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`M(\stackrel{~}{A}\rho +\stackrel{~}{B}\rho ^2)+\stackrel{~}{C}\chi _0,`$ (6)
where $`\rho `$ is the longitudinal resistivity $`\rho =\rho _{xx}`$, $`A`$ and $`B`$ are constants both positive within the single-band approximation, and $`\stackrel{~}{A}=A\lambda `$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}=B\lambda `$, $`\stackrel{~}{C}=CJ^3`$.

Since Heisenberg spins are frozen in a spatially random manner in the SG ordered state, the sign of the local chirality appears randomly, which inevitably leads to the vanishing total chirality in the bulk, $`\chi _0=0`$. It thus appears that the chirality-driven anomalous Hall effect vanishes in bulk SG samples. In the strong coupling case, however, a mechanism out of this cancellation was proposed by Ye et al. These authors pointed out that the spin-orbit interaction $`\lambda `$ in the presence of a net magnetization $`M`$ contains a term of the form

$$_{so}\stackrel{~}{D}M\chi _0,$$
(7)
which, in the spin Hamiltonian, couples the total chirality to the total magnetization. In the weak coupling regime relevant to canonical SG, a term of the form (5) with $`\stackrel{~}{D}=D\lambda (J_{sd}/ϵ_F)^2(J\tau )^2`$ was also derived perturbatively by taking the electron trace of the spin-orbit interaction. The sign of the coefficient $`D`$ generally depends on the detailed band structure, while Ye et al argued that $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ should be positive. In any case, a crucial observation here is that the weak chiral symmetry-breaking term (5) guarantees a net total chirality to be induced if the sample is magnetized. Net magnetization may be generated spontaneously (ferromagnet or reentrant SG) or induced by applying external fields.

I now go on to analyze the behavior of the anomalous Hall resistivity of SG based on eqs.(4) and (5). I assume for the time being that the system does not possess a spontaneous magnetization, namely, the magnetization is the one induced by external magnetic field $`H`$.

The quantities playing a crucial role in the following analysis are the linear and nonlinear chiral susceptibilities, defined by,

$$X_\chi =\frac{\mathrm{d}\chi _0}{\mathrm{d}H_\chi }|_{H_\chi =0},X_\chi ^{nl}=\frac{1}{6}\frac{\mathrm{d}^3\chi _0}{\mathrm{d}H_\chi ^3}|_{H_\chi =0},$$
(8)
where $`H_\chi `$ is the “chiral field” conjugate to the net chirality $`\chi _0`$, i.e., $`H_\chi `$ couples to the net chirality as $`H_\chi \chi _0`$ in the spin Hamiltonian. Note that the chiral symmetry-breaking interaction discussed above, eq.(5), has exactly this form with $`H_\chi =\stackrel{~}{D}M`$.

With use of the linear and nonlinear chiral susceptibilities, the total chirality can be written as

$$\chi _0=X_\chi (\stackrel{~}{D}M)X_\chi ^{nl}(\stackrel{~}{D}M)^3+\mathrm{}.$$
(9)
If one substitutes this into eq.(4), one gets the chirality contribution to the anomalous part of the Hall resistivity as

$$\rho _{xy}^{(\mathrm{chiral})}=\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{D}M[X_\chi +X_\chi ^{nl}(\stackrel{~}{D}M)^2+\mathrm{}].$$
(10)
Including the contributions of the skew scattering and the side jump, the Hall coefficient $`R_s`$, defined as the anomalous Hall resistivity divided by the magnetization $`R_s=\rho _{xy}/M`$, is given by

$$R_s=\stackrel{~}{A}\rho \stackrel{~}{B}\rho ^2\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{D}[X_\chi +X_\chi ^{nl}(\stackrel{~}{D}M)^2+\mathrm{}].$$
(11)
The total Hall resistivity contains in addition the contribution from the normal part, which, we assume throughout this analysis, has properly been subtracted. One can immediately see from eq.(9) that the anomalous Hall coefficient $`R_s`$ carries information of the chiral susceptibilities. In particular, in the linear regime where the magnetization is sufficiently small and the Hall resistivity is proportional to $`M`$, the chirality contribution to $`R_s`$ is proportional to the linear chiral susceptibility $`X_\chi `$.

In the standard measurements of Hall resistivity, dc magnetic field is applied, either in field-cooling (FC) or zero-field-cooling (ZFC) conditions. As is well-known, at the SG transition temperature $`T=T_g`$, the linear magnetic susceptibility $`X_m=\frac{\mathrm{d}M}{\mathrm{d}H}|_{H=0}`$ (to be distinguished from the linear chiral susceptibility) exhibits a cusp accompanied by the onset of deviation between the FC and ZFC susceptibilities. Sharp cusp of the linear susceptibility at $`T=T_g`$ is known to be rounded off by applying weak external magnetic fields, which is also manifested in the well-known negative divergence of the nonlinear magnetic susceptibility $`X_m^{nl}=\frac{1}{6}\frac{\mathrm{d}^3M}{\mathrm{d}H^3}|_{H=0}`$ at $`T=T_g`$. By contrast, the resistivity $`\rho `$ of canonical SG exhibits no detectable anomaly at $`T=T_g`$.

The Hall resistivity is generally given by the combination of both the magnetic and chiral susceptibilities, as seen from eq.(8) with $`M=X_mH+X_m^{nl}H^3+\mathrm{}`$. By contrast, one can extract information solely about the chiral susceptibilities from the Hall coefficient $`R_s`$ which is obtained by dividing the Hall resistivity by the magnetization measured simultaneously or in the same condition. Here, note that the magnetization of SG exhibits a singular behavior at $`T=T_g`$. Furthermore, by examining the $`M`$-dependence of the Hall coefficient in the nonlinear regime, one can extract information about the nonlinear chiral susceptibility. Anyway, in contrast to the standard magnetic susceptibilities measurable by the conventional technique, information about the chiral susceptibilites have so far been hard to get experimentally, and if measurable as above, would be very valuable.

Next, I with to give predictions on the behavior of the anomalous Hall coefficient based on the chirality scenario of SG transition . Chirality scenario predicts that, in both isotropic and weakly anisotropic Heisenberg SGs, the chirality behaves as an order parameter of the transition (chiral-glass transition). The singular part of the free energy should satisfy the scaling form,

$$f_s|t|^{2\beta _\chi +\gamma _\chi }F_\pm \left(\frac{H_\chi ^2}{|t|^{\beta _\chi +\gamma _\chi }}\right),$$
(12)
where $`\beta _\chi `$ and $`\gamma _\chi `$ are the chiral-glass order parameter and chiral-glass susceptibility exponents, respectively, $`t(TT_g)/T_g`$ is a reduced temperature, and $`F_\pm (x)`$ is a scaling function either above ($`+`$) and below ($``$) $`T_g`$. Numerical estimates give $`\beta _\chi 1`$ and $`\gamma _\chi 2`$ . By differentiating eq.(10) with respect to $`H_\chi `$ and putting $`H_\chi =0`$, one sees that at $`T=T_g`$ the linear chiral susceptibility exhibits a cusp-like singularity while the nonlinear chiral susceptibility exhibits a negative divergence,

$$X_\chi c_0^{(\pm )}|t|^{\beta _\chi }+b_0(t),X_\chi ^{nl}c_2^{(\pm )}|t|^{\gamma _\chi }+b_2(t),$$
(13)
with $`\beta _\chi 1`$ and $`\gamma _\chi 2`$, where $`c_0^{(\pm )}<0`$ and $`c_2^{(\pm )}<0`$ are constants describing either above or below $`T_g`$, while $`b_0(t)>0`$ and $`b_2(t)`$ represent regular terms coming from the nonsingular part. Concerning the standard magnetic susceptibilities, the chirality scenario predicts that, in the realistic case of weakly anisotropic Heisenberg SG, $`X_m`$ and $`X_m^{nl}`$ exhibit the same singularities as $`X_\chi `$ and $`X_\chi ^{nl}`$, which are caused by the spin-chirality recoupling due to the random magnetic anisotropy. (In the hypothetical limit of zero anisotropy, because of the spin-chirality decoupling in the isotropic system, $`X_m`$ and $`X_m^{nl}`$ are predicted to exhibit less singular behaviors very different from those of $`X_\chi `$ and $`X_\chi ^{nl}`$ . But, after all, certain amount of anisotropy is inevitable in real SG, which eventually causes the spin-chirality recoupling.)

The anomalous Hall coefficient of SG should be dominated by the singular behaviors of the chiral susceptibilities, since the first and second terms of the r.h.s. of eq.(9) can be regarded as a regular background because of the nonsingular behavior of $`\rho `$. By combining the observations above, the following predictions follow. (i) The linear part of $`R_s`$, which is $`R_s`$ itself in the linear regime where $`R_s`$ is proportional to the magnetization $`M`$, exhibits a cusp-like anomaly at $`T=T_g`$, possibly accompanied by the onset of the deviation between the FC and ZFC results. This cusp-like singularity is rounded off in the presence of a finite magnetization. (ii) The nonlinear part of $`R_s`$, which can be extracted by examining the $`M`$-dependence of $`R_s`$ in the nonlinear regime, exhibits a divergence at $`T=T_g`$ characterized by the exponent $`\gamma _\chi 2`$ which is equal to the standard nonlinear susceptibility exponent $`\gamma `$. (iii) The chiral part of $`R_s`$, obtained by properly subtracting the background due to the possible contribution of the skew scattering and the side jump etc, is expected to obey the scaling form,

$$R_s^{(\mathrm{chiral})}|t|^{\beta _\chi }G_\pm (\frac{M^2}{|t|^{\beta _\chi +\gamma _\chi }}),$$
(14)
where $`G_\pm (x)`$ is a scaling function either above or below $`T_g`$. The subtraction of the background might be performed by analyzing the temperature dependence of $`R_s`$ based on eq.(9), using the data of the resistivity $`\rho `$. (iv) The sign of the Hall resistivity depends on the signs and the relative magnitudes of constants $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ ($`X_\chi `$ is positive by definition). Hence, the sign of $`\rho _{xy}`$ seems nonuniversal, depending on the band structure of the material. In cases where the single-band approximation and the naive argument of Ref. concerning the sign of $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ are valid, one has $`\stackrel{~}{C}>0`$ (with $`J_{sd}>0`$) and $`\stackrel{~}{D}>0`$, which means $`\rho _{xy}^{(\mathrm{chiral})}`$ is negative in canonical SG. This seems consistent with experiment. The cusp-like singularity was observed there at least in the Hall resistivity, consistent with the present result.

Note that even the conventional mechanism of the anomalous Hall effect (the skew-scattering or the side-jump mechanism) predicts that the Hall resistivity exhibits a cusp-like singularity at $`T=T_g`$, which is a reflection of the cusp-like singularity of the magnetic susceptibility. However, the conventional mechanism also predicts that the Hall coefficient $`R_s`$ behaves in a nonsingular manner at $`T=T_g`$ as $`\rho `$ and $`\rho ^2`$. A highly nontrivial issue is then whether the Hall coefficient, not just the Hall resistivity, exhibits an anomaly at $`T=T_g`$. If singular behavior is observed in $`R_s`$, it is likely to be of chirality origin.

One can give a rough order estimate of $`\rho _{xy}^{(\mathrm{chiral})}`$. In typical canonical SG like AuFe and CuMn, $`J_{sd}/ϵ_F`$ and $`J\tau `$ are of order $`10^1`$ and $`10^0`$, respectively. Then, from eq.(2), $`\rho _{xy}^{(\mathrm{chiral})}`$ is estimated to be of order $`M\chi _0`$ in units of $`\rho _0`$. Since the magnitude of the chiral symmetry-breaking interaction (5) is of order the DM interaction, the induced chirality $`\chi _0`$ is of order \[DM interaction\]/\[RKKY interaction\]. This ratio is a material dependent parameter, being small for CuMn, say, $`10^2`$, and relatively large for AuFe, say, $`10^1`$ or more. Thus, if the sample is magnetized 10% of the saturation value, one expects for AuFe $`\rho _{xy}^{(\mathrm{chiral})}`$ of order percents of $`\rho _0`$ or even more. For more isotropic materials like CuMn and AgMn, the chiral contribution would be reduced being proportional to the strength of the DM interaction.

Finally, I wish to discuss the reentrant SG with a spontaneous magnetization. With decreasing temperature, the reentrant SG exhibits successive transitions, first from para to ferro at $`T=T_c`$, then from ferro to reentrant SG at $`T=T_g`$. In the ferromagnetic phase at $`T_c>T>T_g`$, the system exhibits a spontaneous magnetization without the chiral order, whereas at $`T=T_g`$ the glassy chiral order sets in accompanied with the random spin canting in the transverse direction, which coexists with the spontaneous magnetization in the longitudinal direction. The present result for the Hall resistivity also applies to such reentrant SG around $`T=T_g`$, only if $`M`$ is treated as including the spontaneous magnetization. In the ferromagnetic state, the chiral susceptibility should remain small due to the absence of chiral order, and the anomalous Hall resistivity should be dominated by the conventional contributions from the skew scattering and/or side-jump. Below $`T=T_g`$, additional contribution from the chiral order sets in, giving rise to a cusp in the Hall resistivity at $`T=T_g`$. As often observed under FC conditions, magnetization of reentrant SG is saturated at temperatures far above $`T_g`$, with very little anomaly at $`T=T_g`$. In such a case, if anomaly is observed in the FC mode in the Hall resistivity at $`T=T_g`$, this can be identified as arising from the chirality. Indeed, a cusp-like anomaly at $`T=T_g`$ was recently observed in manganite reentrant SG La<sub>1.2</sub>Sr<sub>1.8</sub>Mn<sub>2</sub>O<sub>7</sub>  and in reentrant SG alloy Fe<sub>1-x</sub>Al<sub>x</sub>, suggesting that the observed anomaly is of chirality origin.

In summary, I examined the Hall resistivity of canonical SG, and have found that the Hall coefficient gives information about the linear and nonlinear chiral susceptibilities of SG. Based on the chirality scenario, predictions were given on the behavior of the Hall coefficient of canonical SG. I hope the present work will stimulate further experimental activities on the chiral order and the Hall resistivity of SG and related materials.

The author is thankful to Dr. M. Sato, Dr. S. Kawarazaki, Dr. T. Taniguchi, and Dr. G. Tatara for useful discussion. This work was supported by Priority Areas Grants from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.


text:
# 1 The Motivation

## 1 The Motivation

Six years ago Ho$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\text{r}}`$ava and Witten demonstrated  that when M-theory is compactified on a manifold with boundary, the anomalies caused by chiral gauginos and gravitinos on each boundary component precisely cancel the anomalies that flow in from bulk. This cancellation occurs only if each boundary component supports precisely 248 10-dimensional vectormultiplets, all transforming in the adjoint representation of $`E_8`$. Furthermore as explained in Refs. , the topological contribution to the M-theory partition function is in fact an invariant of the Dirac operator of a mysterious 11-dimensional $`E_8`$ gauge theory.

While the nature of this gauge theory is entirely unknown, the delicate anomaly-cancellation of Ho$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\text{r}}`$ava and Witten as well as the 10-dimensional $`N=1`$ supersymmetry on every boundary component place strong constraints on its construction. We feel that the analysis of these constraints is a necessary first step in an attempt to understand the gauge theory.

In this paper we will propose the simplest possible particle content of such a proposal and then apply the above constraints. In particular we will combine a constraint on the four-form, 10d SUSY covariance and 11d Lorentz covariance to construct the supergravity fields from the gauge fields. We will then try to understand how this construction can be consistent with 11d supersymmetry. Such proposals have been considered previously in Refs. . An apparently unrelated proposal which sacrifices the compactness of the $`E_8`$ but preserves supersymmetry has appeared in Refs. . While preserving the supersymmetry is an extraordinary advantage, it is not known whether the noncompactness of this $`E_8`$ would then lead to a noncompact gauge group for the heterotic string. While providing a fascinating alternative to the class of gauge theories considered in this note, further speculation along these lines will be deferred to a sequel.

For simplicity we will often restrict our attention to the case of flat, topologically trivial 11-dimensional space, although we generalize our results to curved space in Subsec. 3.3. We will also systematically neglect higher order Fermi field contributions.

It was shown in Ref.  that $`E_8`$ gauge invariance combined with local supersymmetry invariance requires the relation

$$\frac{G_4}{2\pi }=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\text{tr}(FF+\frac{1}{2}RR)$$
(1.1)
between the 11d 4-form field strength $`G_4`$ and the 10D $`N=1`$ vectormultiplet’s fieldstrength $`F`$ on every 10-dimensional boundary component. Following  we consider an $`E_8`$ gauge bundle such that Eq. (1.1) holds everywhere in the 11-dimensional bulk. The fact that such a bundle exists is a consequence of M-theory’s shifted flux quantization condition . The uniqueness of this bundle results from the uniquely simple low dimensional topology of the $`E_8`$ group manifold.

In addition to the above 248 gauge bosons, we consider 248 adjoint Majorana fermions also propagating in the 11d bulk111And for now we also include an 11d graviton, although it is possible that the graviton field is in fact a composite of the other gauge theory fields. . Using Eq. (1.1) we can construct the 11d SUGRA 4-form $`G_4`$ from the vectors. Ten dimensional $`N=1`$ SUSY covariance allows us to find the analogous construction of a chiral half of the 11-dimensional gravitino222Independent of conjectures about mysterious bulk gauge theories, we expect this relation of the gravitino to the gauge theory fields to hold on the boundary. up to a mysterious problem related to the fact that we do not understand the role of the graviton in this story. Eleven-dimensional Lorentz invariance allows us to construct the other half. Thus far, each gauge theory configuration is identified with a single SUGRA configuration, meaning that the construction cannot be covariant under 11d SUSY as the gauge fields are not part of any representation of 11d SUSY.

To remedy this we identify each gauge field configuration with not only the single SUGRA configuration given earlier, but with all of the SUGRA configurations which are related to that configuration by an 11d SUSY transformation. Thus SUGRA field configurations related by SUSY transformations will be identified with the same gauge field configuration and thus the same physical state. It is a critical check of the consistency of this construction that physically equivalent configurations on the gauge theory side are also equivalent on the SUGRA side, and in fact $`E_8`$ gauge transformations are realized as abelian gauge transformations of the M-theory 3-form.

In Sec. 2 we review the standard arguments for an $`E_8`$ gauge theory in the bulk. In Sec. 3 we present our construction for the bulk gravitino in terms of gauge theory fields and show that this construction is consistent with 10 and 11-dimensional supersymmetries. We conclude with some remarks on SUSY breaking, the graviton and also a relation to other $`E_8`$’s in the final section.

## 2 $`E_8`$ Gauge Theory

### 2.1 Why an $`E_8`$ Bundle?

The low energy effective description of M-theory is 11-dimensional supergravity . The fields of this theory live in a single supermultiplet which contains the graviton, the gravitino $`\psi `$ and a three-form $`C_3`$ whose exterior derivative (times 6) is the four-form fieldstrength $`G_4`$. If the dynamics of M-theory are to be formulated in terms of an $`E_8`$ gauge theory, it would be useful to have explicit relations between the fields of the 11d supermultiplet and the fields of the gauge theory: the 1-form connection $`A`$ with fieldstrength $`F`$ and an adjoint Majorana “gaugino” $`\chi `$.

The conjectured relations arise from the synthesis of several observations. First, in Ref.  it is shown that gauge and gravitational anomaly cancellation on any 10-dimensional boundary of M-theory enforces the relation (1.1) on the boundary, where $`R`$ is the curvature two-form (of the tangent bundle). In Ref.  Witten used locality to argue that such relations, at the level of cohomology, can be extended to the bulk, although it does not follow from this argument that there is an $`E_8`$ gauge fieldstrength in the bulk.

One reason333Another very different reason has appeared in . that one may believe that there is in fact an $`E_8`$ gauge fieldstrength in the bulk is as follows. The low energy effective action for M-theory on the 11-fold $`Y^{11}`$ contains the topological terms

$$I=2\pi _{Y^{11}}C_3(G_4G_4I_8)$$
(2.1)
where $`I_8`$ is a quartic in the curvature tensor. Using a result from Ref.  this can be related  to a sum of indices of an $`E_8`$ gauge theory on an auxilliary 12-dimensional manifold444More precisely, the ambiguity in $`I`$ is the integral of its exterior derivative over a closed 12-manifold. This integral may be nonvanishing because $`C_3`$ is not necessarily globally defined. The path integral measure is well defined if this integral, added to a contribution from the square root of the determinant of the Rarita-Schwinger operator, is an integer. It was shown in Ref.  that the integral is in fact a sum of indices from an $`E_8`$ gauge theory and so is guaranteed to be an integer..

In Ref.  a theorem of Atiyah, Patodi and Singer  was used to explicitly evaluate the contribution of this topological term and the Pfaffian determinant of the Rarita-Schwinger operator to the phase of the path integral measure:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=Pf(D_{RS})e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle I}}=|Pf(D_{RS})|\text{exp}(\frac{2\pi i}{4}((h_{E_8}+\eta _{E_8})+\frac{2\pi i}{8}(h_{RS}+\eta _{RS})).$$
(2.2)
Here $`\eta `$ is the $`\eta `$-invariant of the corresponding operator (the $`E_8`$ gauge theory Dirac operator and then the Rarita-Schwinger operator) while $`h`$ is its number of zeromodes. Thus a part of the path integral measure of 11-dimensional supergravity can be reexpressed in terms of a mysterious bulk $`E_8`$ gauge theory. Furthermore it was shown that the partition function consists of a sum over $`E_8`$ gauge field configurations.

The fact that one factor in the M-theory partition function is the index of fermions charged under an $`E_8`$ gauge symmetry does not prove that there actually are fermions charged under an $`E_8`$, but the goal of the present paper is to understand how the existence of such fermions, and such a gauge symmetry, could be consistent with what we know of SUSY in 11 dimensions.

If there is such an $`E_8`$ gauge symmetry in the 11-dimensional bulk, a natural guess for its relation to the four-form fieldstrength is simply Eq. (1.1). The rest of this paper will be an investigation of the consequences of this guess. The corresponding relation between the gravitino and gauginos will appear in Sec. 3.

### 2.2 $`E_8`$ Bundles and Solitons

If there is such a gauge theoretic description of low energy M-theory, it must be shown that $`E_8`$ gauge theory correctly reproduces the M-theory soliton spectrum . To compute the gauge theory’s soliton spectrum we will need to review the topology of the group manifold $`E_8`$.

The low dimensional topology of $`E_8`$ is in one way the simplest among nonabelian Lie groups. $`E_8`$ has only one nontrivial homotopy group of dimension less than 15, which is $`\pi _3(E_8)=`$. This means that on a manifold of dimension less than 16, $`E_8`$ bundles are topologically characterized by a single characteristic class, the first Pontrjagin class

$$p_1=\frac{Tr(FF)}{8\pi ^2}.$$
(2.3)
The only restriction on this class is that its integral over any 4-cycle be an even integer. All other semisimple Lie groups have additional nontrivial low dimensional homotopy groups and therefore their principal bundles cannot be completely characterized by a single characteristic class.

This agrees beautifully with what we know of M-theory, which at low energies is also described by a 4-form. In fact substituting (2.3) into (1.1) we learn that the 4-form flux of M-theory is a combination of this characteristic class and the first Pontrjagin class of the tangent bundle

$$\frac{G_4}{2\pi }=\frac{p_1(E_8)}{2}+\frac{p_1(TM)}{4}.$$
(2.4)
Notice that the shifted flux quantization condition  of $`G_4`$ is automatic in this construction. The first term on the right hand side is an integral cohomology class, while the second may be an integral cohomology class or may be half555By half of an integral cohomology class $`\omega `$ we mean consider the image of $`\omega `$ in the cohomology map induced by multiplication of the coefficient ring by 2 and then divide the answer by two. If there is $`Z_{2k}`$ torsion, then division by 2 is not well defined and so one needs a prescription for which quotient to take. It was conjectured in  that the correct prescription is to force the answer to agree with the 4th Stieffel-Whitney class. of an integral cohomology class. Therefore the failure of the left hand side to be integral is precisely equal to the failure of the second term on the right hand side, that is, the $`mod`$ 2 part of $`p_1(TM)/2`$.

As a result of the fact that an $`E_8`$ bundle is described by a single closed form, an $`E_8`$ bundle on a manifold of of dimension less than 16 has only one kind of topological defect, the M5-brane666If the soliton spectrum contains the M5-brane then it automatically contains the M2-brane. For example, an M2-brane is created when two M5-branes cross via the Hanany-Witten mechanism , the M5-branes can usually be moved off to infinity. Alternately, an M2-brane may be constructed as a limit of M5-branes that wrap a trivial 3-cycle supporting $`C`$ flux as integrated on a coordinate patch that contains the entire trivial cycle. Such M5-branes are dielectric M2-branes  and as the three-cycle shrinks to zero size become ordinary M2-branes.. This is the codimension 5 defect where the form fails to be closed. String theory on backgrounds in which such a defect is linked by either a 4-sphere or $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4`$ have been studied extensively and in particular their soliton spectra are known. We will now recover the 5-brane spectrum as the spectrum of $`E_8`$ defects.

We will classify these defects by the restriction of their $`E_8`$ bundles to the 4-manifolds that link them. If this link is an $`S^4`$ then the bundle can be trivialized on the northern and southern hemispheres and the transition function on the 3-sphere equator must be an element $`n\pi _3(E_8)=`$. Likewise the bundle can be trivialized on the only hemisphere of an $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4`$ and the transition maps its equatorial $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^3`$ to $`E_8`$. These maps can be constructed by considering maps from $`S^3`$ to $`E_8`$, which are classified by $`\pi _3(E_8)=`$, and then filtering them through $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^3`$. Only the maps corresponding to even integers can be filtered through $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^3`$ and so the maps from $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^3`$ to $`E_8`$ are classified by even elements $`2n2\pi _3(E_8)=2`$. Integrating first Pontrjagin classes over these two spaces one finds

$$_{S^4}\frac{G_4}{2\pi }=_{S^4}\frac{p_1(\text{E}_8)}{2}+_{S^4}\frac{p_1(\text{TM})}{4}=\frac{2n}{2}+\frac{0}{4}=n$$
(2.5a)
$$_{\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4}\frac{G_4}{2\pi }=_{\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4}\frac{p_1(\text{E}_8)}{2}+_{\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4}\frac{p_1(\text{TM})}{4}=\frac{4n/2}{2}+\frac{2}{4}=n+1/2.$$
(2.5b)
By Gauss’ Law these integrals are equal to the total M5-brane charge linked by the 4-cycle over which the integral is performed. Thus the first configuration describes $`n`$ M5-branes, while the second describes an OM5 plane which carries $`n+1/2`$ units of M5-brane charge. Recalling  that OM5 planes always carry half integer charge we see that the spectrum of M5-brane charges is correctly reproduced by $`E_8`$ gauge theory.

### 2.3 Analogy: The ’tHooft-Polyakov Monopole

To gain some intuition for the construction (1.1) of the four-form and for the role of the M5-brane defect we will, as suggested by Ref. , make a brief digression to consider a simpler system which shares many common features. Consider an SU(2) gauge theory in at least 3 dimensions with a scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ that transforms in the adjoint of SU(2) and is subject to the potential

$$V(\mathrm{\Phi })=(1\mathrm{\Phi }^a\mathrm{\Phi }_a)^2.$$
(2.6)
The group SU(2), like $`E_8`$, is a simple Lie group and so $`\pi _3(SU(2))=`$. Therefore the gauge bundle admits a codimension 5 defect constructed as the M5-brane is constructed above. However, because a configuration of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a map from spacetime to SU(2), the presence of an adjoint Higgs field in this model allows a defect of codimension 3. If we impose a finite energy condition on 3-dimensional slices of spacetime then on each of these slices $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a map from $`S^3`$ times an irrelevant space to SU(2)$`S^3`$. Such a map is classified up to homotopy by an element $`n\pi _3(\text{SU(2)})=`$. $`n`$ is the ’tHooft-Polyakov magnetic monopole charge of the 3-dimensional slice.

The fieldstrength $`F`$ of a U(1) gauge theory can be constructed from the fieldstrength $`G^a`$ of the original SU(2) and the scalar Higgs via

$$F=Tr(\mathrm{\Phi }G)+G\text{-indep}.$$
(2.7)
In the U(1) gauge theoretic description the ’tHooft-Polyakov monopole appears to be a Dirac monopole in the following sense:

$$_{S^2}F=1$$
(2.8)
for any 2-sphere that links the monopole once. However at microscopic distances from the core this abelian effective description breaks down and the physics (like asymptotic freedom) cannot be understood without knowledge of the full nonabelian model.

This construction777Although in the $`E_8`$ case not all of the nonabelian DOFs can be encoded in the abelian fieldstrength. could be repeated with an $`E_8`$ gauge theory that has a scalar Higgs transforming in the adjoint of the $`E_8`$. In this case the configuration of the Higgs field in a 3-plane transverse to the monopole, after a 1-point compactification of this 3-plane, will again be an element $`n\pi _3(E_8)=`$ where $`n`$ is the monopole charge.

### 2.4 Can an Abelian Four-form Describe a Nonabelian Theory?

The existence of the adjoint scalar was crucial to the construction of the ’tHooft-Polyakov monopole above. Such a scalar does not exist in the $`E_8`$ gauge theoretic model of M-theory, and so there is neither a ’tHooft-Polyakov monopole nor an abelian two-form fieldstrength constructed as in (2.7).

In trying to construct an $`E_8`$ scalar from the $`E_8`$ fieldstrength analogously to (2.7), we observe that although there is no adjoint scalar with which to contract its $`E_8`$ indices, there is the $`E_8`$ fieldstrength itself. More precisely, we can construct an abelian four-form $`\stackrel{~}{G}_4`$ from the $`E_8`$ fieldstrength via

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_4=\frac{1}{8\pi }\text{tr}(FF)$$
(2.9)
so that $`F`$ also plays the role played by the Higgs field in the case of the monopole. As in the case of the ’tHooft-Polyakov monopole, this description breaks down in the core of a topological defect, where the nontriviality of $`\pi _3(E_8)`$ and thus the true nonabelian nature of the original high-energy theory become impossible to ignore.

This breakdown of the abelian description near an M5-brane may have at least one consequence that has been observed in the literature. In the M5-brane gravitational anomaly cancellation arguments of  there is a Dirac delta function in the modified Bianchi identity for $`G_4`$ which is very difficult to interpret when cubed in the 11-dimensional Chern-Simons action. The attempt to interpret it in  has led to the introduction of an auxilliary bumpform, which may be explained by the behavior of fermion zeromodes near the core of the M5 . The interpretation in  again requires a “bumpform”, the Chern kernel, whose exterior derivative is the distribution necessary to modify the SUGRA Bianchi identity while maintaining consistent couplings with M2-branes in the core of an M5. However this argument relies on the existence of M2-branes as microscopic excitations of the theory. In the $`E_8`$ gauge theory description the necessity of adding bumpforms is a symptom of using an abelian 4-form to describe a nonabelian theory in a region where the abelian description breaks down. It may be interesting to compare the Chern kernel or the value of the bump calculated using the methods described in  with the result one would get starting in the nonabelian $`E_8`$ gauge theory and trying to “approximate” it by an abelian theory.

## 3 The Construction

### 3.1 Constructing the Supergravity Fields

Before relating the SUGRA and gauge theory fields, we will take a moment to review 10 and 11-dimensional SUGRA and to establish our conventions. The 11-dimensional supermultiplet consists of an elfbein $`e`$, a gravitino $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and a 3-form gauge potential $`C`$. The transformations of these fields under 11-dimensional supersymmetry transformations are as follows

$$\delta e_A{}_{}{}^{m}=\frac{1}{2}\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^m\mathrm{\Psi }_A$$
(3.1a)
$$\delta C_{ABC}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{8}\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_{C]}$$
(3.1b)
$$\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_A=D_A\eta +\frac{\sqrt{2}}{288}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_A{}_{}{}^{BCDE}8\delta _A^B\mathrm{\Gamma }^{CDE}\right)\eta G_{BCDE}$$
(3.1c)
where $`\eta `$ is the 32-component Majorana spinor that parameterizes the variation.

The 10-dimensional vector supermultiplets  , which propagate on the boundary $`M^{10}`$, consist of the $`E_8`$ gauge field $`A`$ (with field strength $`F_{CD}=_CA_D_DA_C+[A_C,A_D]`$) and spin $`1/2`$ Majorana-Weyl fermions (gluinos) $`\chi `$ in the adjoint representation, obeying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\chi =\chi `$. Their supersymmetry transformation laws are

$$\delta A_A^i=\frac{1}{2}\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_A\chi ^i$$
(3.2a)
$$\delta \chi ^i=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{AB}F_{AB}^i\eta $$
(3.2b)
with spacetime indices $`A,B=0,\mathrm{},9`$ in an orthonormal frame, and $`E_8`$ gauge group indices $`i=1,\mathrm{},248`$, and where $`\eta `$ is the 16-component Majorana-Weyl spinor that parameterizes the transformation.

With these conventions established we may finally construct the gravitino from the gauge fields. It follows from the construction (1.1) for the 4-form $`G_4`$ that for some $`E_8`$ gauge choice or equivalently a gauge choice for $`C_3`$:

$$C_{ABC}=\frac{1}{24\pi }\left(A_{[A}^i_BA_{C]}^i+i\frac{2}{3}f^{ijk}A_{[A}^iA_B^jA_{C]}^k\right).$$
(3.3)
Consider this relation restricted to a 10-dimensional boundary. Although there is no bulk supersymmetry, the boundary theory is that of Ref.  and so enjoys 10-dimensional $`N=1`$ supersymmetry. Performing a rigid $`N=1`$ SUSY transformation on both sides we arrive at an expression for the gravitino

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_{C]}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{12\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[A}F_{BC]}^i\chi ^i.$$
(3.4)
where we have dropped pure gauge terms of the form $`_B(A_A\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_C\chi )`$. Contracting with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ABC}`$ gives

$$\mathrm{\Psi }/=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{12\pi }\frac{1}{d1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{AB}F_{AB}^i\chi ^i$$
(3.5)
On the other hand, contracting with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{AB}`$, and using (3.5), we get the fomula for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_C=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{12\pi }\frac{1}{(d1)}[a\mathrm{\Gamma }^{AB}F_{AB}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_C+b\mathrm{\Gamma }^BF_{BC}^i]\chi ^i.$$
(3.6)
where $`a=\frac{1}{(d2)}`$ and $`b=\frac{2(d3)}{(d2)}`$.

This is a disturbing result, as a 10-dimensional supersymmetry transformation on the right hand side does not yield (3.1c). First, it misses the derivative of $`\eta `$. This is not a problem as we have only used rigid supersymmetry transformations and so this term vanishes. However the variation of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ produces an unwanted term, proportional to the kinetic term $`F_{AB}F^{AB}`$, that cannot so easily be dismissed. The origin of the term is as follows. The expression for $`C_{ABC}`$ is a wedge product of forms, but when we take the SUSY transformation on $`A`$ the one form changes to a zero form, $`\chi `$. The SUSY variation of this $`\chi `$ yields an $`F^2`$ term that has two new dummy indices. Due to the structure of the spinor spinor indices, these necessarily right-multiply the gamma matrices and so are not antisymmetrized with the indices of the other gamma matrix. Thus $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }`$ contains a term with two $`F`$’s that are contracted, in stark contrast with the 11d SUSY transformation which yields a totally antisymmetrized four-form.

This may suggest that (3.3) is not in fact SUSY covariant. One might think this could be remedied by the addition of a closed form to the right hand side, however were such an addition required it would break the abelian gauge invariance of 11d SUGRA. Instead one is therefore led to the conclusion that the original constraint, (1.1), is not SUSY covariant, even on a 10d boundary. Thus it appears as though another term would need to be added to the constraint to impose SUSY covariance. The constraint on any such term is that it play the same role as the constraint in cancelling Eq. (2.9) of Ref. . Such an additional term, if we impose that it be $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$-independent, appears not to exist.

One possible pessimistic conclusion is that the constraint is simply not at all SUSY covariant and so cannot be used to glean information about the gravitino via SUSY transformations. However the problematic terms involve the graviton, whose role in this story and in particular whose relation to the gauge theory is as yet entirely mysterious. Therefore one may interpret this apparent failure of covariance as a puzzle whose resolution places a very strong, if not lethal, constraint on the role that the graviton must play. Another possibility is that the covariance has been destroyed by our truncations, and that were we to consider the curvature corrections and the higher order Fermi terms the covariance would be restored. Below we will see that indeed the inclusion of curvature terms dramatically alters the form of this construction.

We are finally ready to extend our results to 11 dimensions. We choose the gauge fields in the bulk so that these same relations hold. However the 11-dimensional Lorentz group has no Majorana-Weyl representation, and so Lorentz invariance forces us to reinterpret the fermions in this construction as Majorana fermions. More generally there may be additional terms which vanish when the Weyl condition is imposed, to determine such terms one must impose SUGRA covariance. To recover the above construction on the boundary, we impose the boundary conditions

$$A_{11}=0,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\chi =\chi $$
(3.7)
where the $`11`$ direction is taken to be perpendicular to the boundary.

### 3.2 SUSY Transformations

So far we have a configuration of SUGRA fields $`(C,\mathrm{\Psi })`$ for every configuration of gauge fields $`(A,\chi )`$. However our constructions (3.3) and (3.6) are not covariant under 11d SUSY transformations because the LHS transforms while the RHS is not in any 11d SUSY representation. To attain covariance we will identify the entire gauge and SUSY orbit $`(C^{},\mathrm{\Psi }^{})(C,\mathrm{\Psi })`$ with each gauge orbit of $`(A,\chi )`$. We will now use the 11-dimensional SUSY transformations of the SUGRA fields to find constructions for all $`(C^{},\mathrm{\Psi }^{})`$ related to the unprimed fields by a single SUSY transformation with a small Majorana spinor parameter $`\eta `$.

For the three-form we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\pi }}\left(A_{[A}^i_BA_{C]}^i+i{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}f^{ijk}A_{[A}^iA_B^jA_{C]}^k\right)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{ABC}=C_{ABC}^{}\delta _\eta C_{ABC}`$ (3.8)
$`=`$ $`C_{ABC}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{8}}\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_{C]}`$
$`=`$ $`C_{ABC}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48\pi }}\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[A}F_{BC]}^i\chi ^i`$
and similarly for the gravitino

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{12\pi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[A}F_{BC]}^i\chi ^i`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_{C]}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_{C]}^{}\delta _\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{[AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_{C]}`$ (3.9)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_{C]}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[AB}D_{C]}\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{288}}\gamma _{ABC}^{DEFG}\eta G_{DEFG}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_{C]}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[AB}D_{C]}\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{288}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\gamma _{ABC}^{DEFG}\eta F_{DE}F_{FG}^i`$
where we have defined

$$\gamma _{ABC}^{DEFG}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ABC}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{DEFG}8\delta _{[C}^D\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB]}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{EFG}.$$
(3.10)
Assembling these results the solution for $`(C^{},\mathrm{\Psi }^{})`$ is then

$$C_{ABC}^{}=\frac{1}{24\pi }\left(A_{[A}^i_BA_{C]}^i+i\frac{2}{3}f^{ijk}A_{[A}^iA_B^jA_{C]}^k\right)+\frac{1}{48\pi }\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[A}F_{BC]}^i\chi ^i$$
(3.11a)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_{C]}^{}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{12\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[A}F_{BC]}^i\chi ^i+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[AB}D_{C]}\eta +\frac{\sqrt{2}}{288}\frac{1}{8\pi }\gamma _{ABC}^{DEFG}\eta F_{DE}^iF_{FG}^i.$$
(3.11b)
One can check that restricted to a 10-dimensional slice with $`\eta `$ Majorana-Weyl this transformation has the same effect on the right hand sides of the equations as a 10d SUSY transform on $`A`$ and $`\chi `$, and so reduces correctly to the Ho$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\text{r}}`$ava-Witten case.

By construction, the 11d supersymmetry algebra is still satisfied in this proposal. For example, applying the above transformations twice on the 3-form $`C`$ one finds

$`C_{ABC}^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`C_{ABC}^{}+\delta _\eta ^{}C_{ABC}^{}=C_{ABC}^{}+\delta _\eta ^{}C_{ABC}+\delta _\eta ^{}\delta _\eta C_{ABC}`$ (3.12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\pi }}\left(A_{[A}^i_BA_{C]}^i+i{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}f^{ijk}A_{[A}^iA_B^jA_{C]}^k\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48\pi }}(\overline{\eta }+\overline{\eta }^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[A}F_{BC]}^i\chi ^i`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{8}}\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[AB}D_{C]}\eta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1152}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\overline{\eta }\gamma _{ABC}^{DEFG}\eta ^{}F_{DE}^iF_{FG}^i`$
and the second variation of $`C`$ is

$$\delta _\eta ^{}\delta _\eta C_{ABC}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{8}\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[AB}D_{C]}\eta ^{}\frac{1}{1152}\frac{1}{8\pi }\overline{\eta }\gamma _{ABC}^{DEFG}\eta ^{}F_{DE}^iF_{FG}^i.$$
(3.13)
The commutator of two such variations is 888A useful property here is the Majorana flip in 11 dimensions
$$(\overline{\lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_n}\eta )=(1)^n(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_n}\lambda ).$$

$$[\delta _\eta ^{},\delta _\eta ]C_{ABC}=\frac{1}{3}\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^D\eta ^{}G_{ABCD}$$
(3.14)
reproducing the Poincaré supersymmetry algebra in flat space , up to pure gauge terms of the form $`_{[A}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{BC]}`$, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{BC}=C_{BCD}\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^D\eta ^{}`$.

### 3.3 Curvature Corrections

We now describe the full construction, including the term $`Tr(RR)/2`$ in $`G_4`$ although not including higher order fermion corrections. We begin with the variation of the Riemann tensor with respect to the metric using the Palatini formula 999We denote the Christoffel symbols by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ to avoid confusion with the Gamma matrices.

$$\delta R^A{}_{BCD}{}^{}=_C(\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^A{}_{BD}{}^{})_D(\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^A{}_{BC}{}^{}).$$
(3.15)
The variation of the Christoffel symbols with respect to the metric is

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^A{}_{BC}{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}g^{AE}[_C(\delta g_{BE})+_B(\delta g_{CE})_E(\delta g_{BC})].$$
(3.16)
Using the supersymmetry variation of the metric, one obtains

$$\delta R^A{}_{BCD}{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}g^{AE}[_C[_D(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(B}\mathrm{\Psi }_{E)})+_B(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(D}\mathrm{\Psi }_{E)})_E(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(B}\mathrm{\Psi }_{D)})][CD]]$$
(3.17)
Finally we contract with another $`R`$ to find the desired

$`\delta Tr(RR)=[_C[_D(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(B}\mathrm{\Psi }_{A)})+_B(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(D}\mathrm{\Psi }_{A)})_A(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(B}\mathrm{\Psi }_{D)})][CD]]R^{ABCD}`$ (3.18)
where it is understood that the indices of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are symmetrized with those of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The full construction of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is then simply the old construction plus an inverse exterior derivative of the right hand side of (3.18).

More explicitly, the M-theory 3-form is

$$C_3=C.S.^{(gauge)}+C.S.^{(grav.)}$$
(3.19)
where

$$C.S.^{(grav.)}=\frac{1}{48\pi }ϵ^{ABC}[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{AE}^D_B\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{CD}^E+\frac{2}{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{AD}^F\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{BG}^D\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{CF}^G].$$
(3.20)
The curvature-corrected construction of the gravitino is then

$$\frac{\sqrt{2}}{8}\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_{C]}=\frac{1}{48\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_AF_{BC}^i\chi ^i+\delta C.S.^{(grav.)}$$
(3.21)
where the variation of the $`C.S.^{(grav.)}`$ is

$`\delta C.S.^{(grav.)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{48\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ^{ABC}[g^{DH}[_E(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(A}\mathrm{\Psi }_{H)})+_A(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(E}\mathrm{\Psi }_{H)})_H(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(A}\mathrm{\Psi }_{E)})]_B\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{CD}^E`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{AE}^D_B[g^{EH}[_C(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(D}\mathrm{\Psi }_{H)})+_D(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(C}\mathrm{\Psi }_{H)})_H(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(C}\mathrm{\Psi }_{D)})]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}g^{FH}[_A(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(D}\mathrm{\Psi }_{H)})+_D(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(A}\mathrm{\Psi }_{H)})_H(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(A}\mathrm{\Psi }_{D)})]\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{BG}^D\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{CF}^G`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{AD}^Fg^{DH}[_B(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(G}\mathrm{\Psi }_{H)})+_G(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(B}\mathrm{\Psi }_{H)})_H(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(B}\mathrm{\Psi }_{G)})]\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{CF}^G`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{AD}^F\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{BG}^Dg^{GH}[_C(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(F}\mathrm{\Psi }_{H)})+_F(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(C}\mathrm{\Psi }_{H)})_H(\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(C}\mathrm{\Psi }_{F)})]].`$ (3.22)
This is a first order linear differential equation for the construction of the gravitino $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Notice that even on a 10-dimensional boundary, when curvature terms are not omitted, the 10-dimensional SUSY variation of (1.1) yields only a differential equation for the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to the boundary because derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ appear in the SUSY variation of the curvature.

The above analysis could have equivalently been done using vielbeins and spin connections. Given an expression of the metric in terms of the gauge fields, an explicit one for the Christoffel symbols and the Riemann tensor could be constructed. This will be left to future work.

## 4 Conclusion

The M-Theory partition function was originally proved to be well defined  using a mysterious $`E_8`$ bundle which restricts from 12 dimensions to the 11-dimensional bulk. We have tried to understand how the existence of such a bundle can be compatible with 11-dimensional supersymmetry. We have considered a class of gauge theories that is not in fact supersymmetric, but rather SUSY appears as a low energy accidental symmetry. At slightly higher energy scales one would therefore observe SUSY to be slightly broken. It may be interesting to compare this pattern of supersymmetry breaking with phenomenology.

A natural goal is to explain how, via integrating out loops, the 11d SUGRA fields become the correct low energy DOFs of some $`E_8`$ gauge theory and in particular to reproduce the 11d SUSY action as a low energy effective action. It was implicit throughout this paper that the 11d SUGRA action was produced correctly and in particular that the SUGRA fields enjoy an 11d SUSY invariance. Of course, figuring out what this gauge theory is will be the ultimate goal, and its hoped that the fact that it reduces in the IR to 11d SUGRA will be a crucial constraint, hopefully not so powerful of a constraint that the gauge theory cannot exist. Such a gauge theory is likely to require a UV completion and so will be at best only a low energy approximation to M-theory.

An analogous construction may exist for the elfbein or the graviton, that is the graviton may itself be a condensate of fields in the gauge theory. This possibility is currently under investigation. Another tantalizing venue of future investigation is to investigate the link between this $`E_8`$ and that of the 11d $`E_{8(8)}`$ SUGRA of Nicolai and de Wit .

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Allan Adams, Kurt Lechner, James Liu, Pieralberto Marchetti, Darius Sadri, Eric Sharpe, Uday Varadarajan and Jay Wacker for many useful questions and comments. In particular we would like to thank Jim and Uday for finding an apocolyptic errors. This work was made possible by the good people of the INFN and by DOE grants DE-FG02-95ER40899 and DE-FG02-95ER40899.