format: text

text:
# Application of Weak Turbulence Theory to FPU Model

## 1. Introduction

Weak turbulence (WT) theory was developed in the 1960s to provide equations which quantitatively describe the transfer of energy among turbulent, weakly nonlinear, dispersive waves in fluids . The basic “kinetic equations” produced by WT theory have been applied to analyze energy transfer include internal and surface waves with small aspect ratios in the atmosphere and ocean , semiconductor lasers , and plasma turbulence . The domain of validity of the governing equations, however, remains to be fully explored.

Zakharov  and Kadomtsev  obtained the kinetic equations through arguments (such as random phase approximation) motivated by physical intuition, whereas various authors in the USA and Western Europe  derived the same kinetic equaitons through a multiple scales expansion. While the latter approach is systematic, it has not been rigorously formulated, and several breakdowns of its validity have been noted in recent years. Newell and coworkers  have noted that the basic asymptotic expansion parameter is usually not uniformly small over the full range of scales in a weakly turbulent system, so that “intermittent” effects not directly predictable by WT theory will manifest themselves at either sufficiently large or small scales. Cai, Majda, McLaughlin, and Tabak  have scrutinized the validity of the kinetic equations of WT theory and their underlying assumptions through their application on a simple one-dimensional model amenable to comparison with direct numerical simulation. One key finding of their work is that under certain circumstances, a nonlocal coupling between the large-scale forcing and much smaller “inertial range” scales can arise which invalidates the tacit assumption that the energy transfer in this inertial range of scales is unaffected by the presence of forcing and/or damping.

To further these efforts at understanding the domain of validity of WT theory, we study its application to a simple Hamiltonian model without driving or damping. The Fermi-Pasta-Ulam (FPU) model of a one-dimensional collection of particles coupled by weakly anharmonic springs serves as a natural test example which ostensibly should be amenable to the WT approach, provided the number $`N`$ of particles in the chain is large enough. Indeed, the FPU model has dispersive waves which are coupled through a weak nonlinearity, and it can be initialized with a disordered wave profile. Moreover, its Hamiltonian nature excludes the problem related to the nonlocal force coupling. We consider here the $`\alpha `$ version of the FPU model (defined in Section 2) which has a cubic nonlinearity in the Hamiltonian and therefore direct three-wave coupling (which is usually simpler to analyze than four-wave couplings as studied in ). Nonetheless, we still find the standard kinetic equations of weak turbulence insufficient to predict the dynamics of the energy spectrum in the FPU model when it is initialized with a large-scale excitation.

As we discuss in Section 4 after some notational preparation in Section 3, there are no nontrivial exact triad (three-wave) resonances. A literal application of the standard WT theory would suggest then that the energy transfer between waves must be governed by four-wave interactions. A scrutiny of the numerical simulations of the $`\alpha `$-FPU dynamics , however, indicates the presence of at least two distinct time scales on which significant energy transfer occurs. The first phase only involves energy transfer and equilibration among modes of sufficiently small wavenumber. In the final phase, occurring on a much longer time scale, energy is redistributed among all modes. These observations can be reconciled with the resonance properties of the dispersion relations by recognizing that the low wavenumber modes are in *near resonance* because the waves become approximately acoustic at low wavenumber. Consequently, we can interpret the first phase of energy transfer among low wavenumber modes as being mediated by triad interactions and the later phase of relaxation to global energy equipartition as requiring quartet interactions.

We attempt here to adapt weak turbulence theory to describe the energy transfer among nearly resonant triads during the earlier phase of evolution of the energy spectrum in the $`\alpha `$-FPU model. Revisiting the multiple scales derivation of the three-wave kinetic equation  in Section 5, we identify a step in which a large but finite time is replaced by an infinite time limit. It is this simplification which enforces the exact resonance condition present in the standard kinetic equations. In reality, the resonance should be broadened simply because the three-wave kinetic equation seeks to describe the statistical dynamics of a turbulent system on at a large but finite time. Over a long but finite time $`T`$, frequency mismatches of order $`o(T^1)`$ cannot be detected. By properly retaining the effects of this “finite-time resonance broadening” and employing a systematic renormalization group technique, we can compute the range of wavenumbers which will exchange significant energy through triad interactions and the time scale on which this energy exchange should occur. These scaling predictions are well confirmed by the numerical results, and agree with earlier partial predictions .

Our calculations also produce a modified kinetic equation (17) with finite-time resonance broadening. Unfortunately, the details of this kinetic equation are not in good agreement with the numerically observed energy spectrum evolution. Moreover, the modified kinetic equation generates negative energies. The problem seems to be the omission of higher order secular terms in the multiple scales expansion which play an important role when the waves are weakly dispersive , but does not appear to fall neatly into an established situation where the WT theory is known to fail. In future work, we will attempt to clarify the nature of the breakdown and assess whether a further modified WT approach might succeed.

## 2. Fermi-Pasta-Ulam Model

The Fermi-Pasta-Ulam (FPU) model is a model for a one-dimensional collection of particles with massless, weakly anharmonic (nonlinear) springs connecting them to each other. Letting $`\{q_j\}_{j=1}^N`$ and $`\{p_j\}_{j=1}^N`$ denote the position and momentum coordinates of an $`N`$-particle chain, we can define the ($`\alpha `$ version) FPU model Hamiltonian, which we write immediately in nondimensional form:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(p_j^2+(q_jq_{j+1})^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(q_jq_{j+1})^3`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}q_j}{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $`=`$ $`p_j`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}p_j}{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(q_{j1}2q_j+q_{j+1}\right)\left(1+ϵ(q_{j1}q_{j+1})\right)`$
The coordinates are normalized so that the total Hamiltonian energy $`=N`$, implying a typical $`O(1)`$ value of each $`q_j`$ and $`p_j`$. The small parameter $`\epsilon 1`$ then measures the weakness of the nonlinearity.

We now make a conformal transformation to action-angle variables to facilitate the application of WT theory. We describe the transformation by the following two steps:

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}Q_k\\ P_k\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}q_j\\ p_j\end{array}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ikj}{N}}\right)`$ (6)
$`a_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega _k}}}\left(P_ki\omega _kQ_k\right),`$ (7)
where $`\omega _k2\left|\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi k}{N}\right)\right|`$ is the dispersion relation describing the frequency of a discrete Fourier mode $`k`$. The virtue of the new (complex-valued) canonical variables $`a_k`$ is that, in the absence of nonlinearity, they rotate with a single frequency ( $`a_k\mathrm{e}^{i\omega _kt}`$). To connect with the standard notation of WT theory and keep subsequent expressions as compact as possible, we define the variables $`A_k^{}a_k`$, and $`A_k^+a_k^{}`$. The superscript refers to the branch of the dispersion relation: $`A_k^s\mathrm{e}^{is\omega _kt}`$.

In these new variables, the Hamiltonian reads

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2=\frac{N}{2}+1}{\overset{\frac{N}{2}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s_1,s_2=\pm }{}}_{k_1,k_2}^{s_1,s_2}A_{k_1}^{s_1}A_{k_2}^{s_2}\delta _{k_1+k_2,0}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2,k_3=\frac{N}{2}+1}{\overset{\frac{N}{2}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s_1,s_2,s_3=\pm }{}}_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{s_1,s_2,s_3}A_{k_1}^{s_1}A_{k_2}^{s_2}A_{k_3}^{s_3}\delta _{k_1+k_2+k_3,0},`$
$`_{k_1,k_2}^{s_1,s_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\omega _{k_1}\omega _{k_2}}\delta _{s_1,s_2},`$ (9)
$`_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{s_1,s_2,s_3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_1s_2s_3\mathrm{sgn}(k_1k_2k_3)\sqrt{\omega _{k_1}\omega _{k_2}\omega _{k_3}}}{6\sqrt{2}}}.`$ (10)
The symbol $`\delta _{i,j}`$ denotes the Kronecker delta function. The equations of motion can then be written

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}A_k^s}{\mathrm{d}t}}is\omega _kA_k^s`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{s_1,s_2=\pm }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2=\frac{N}{2}+1}{\overset{\frac{N}{2}}{}}}L_{kk_1k_2}^{ss_1s_2}A_{k_1}^{s_1}A_{k_2}^{s_2}\delta _{k,k_1+k_2},`$ (11)
$`L_{kk_1k_2}^{ss_1s_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{is_1s_2\mathrm{sgn}(kk_1k_2)\sqrt{\omega _k\omega _{k_1}\omega _{k_2}}}{2\sqrt{2}}}.`$ (12)
To keep focus, we will restrict the initial data to have statistical symmetry under parity inversion and to have Gaussian statistics. Then it suffices to describe the energy transfer among different scales through the statistical quantities :

$`n_k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}|a_k|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}A_k^+A_k^{},`$ (13)
$`E_k\omega _kn_k+\omega _kn(k)`$ $`=`$ $`2\omega _kn_k.`$
The main object of our interest will be $`E_k`$, the harmonic energy associated to the wavenumber $`\pm k`$, or in other words the mean contribution to the quadratic part of the Hamiltonian in (10) from wavenumbers $`\pm k`$. The mean-square amplitude $`n_k`$ of the action variables is sometimes referred to as the “occupation number” of the mode $`k`$.

## 3. Notational Convention

The weak turbulence theory which we will apply to analyze the FPU model is usually formulated in terms of spatially homogenous systems of infinite extent, so that the Fourier wavenumbers are continuously distributed. This would be appropriate for a particular well-defined $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit of the FPU model, in which the physical lattice spacing remains order unity and the system becomes infinitely extended in both directions in physical space. We will always consider $`N`$ to be finite but large, and introduce notation which makes contact with that usually used in the weak turbulence literature .

We define the normalized wavenumber $`\xi =k/N`$ which takes values in the unit circle $`S_1`$ (or equivalently, the space of real numbers $``$ with all numbers differing by an integer declared equivalent) . To distinguish between Fourier coefficients defined with respect to the integer wavenumbers $`k`$ and the new wavenumber variable $`\xi `$, we write $`a_k`$ for the former and $`a(\xi )`$ for the latter. The associated frequency is defined through the continuous dispersion relation $`\omega (\xi )2\left|\mathrm{sin}\pi \xi \right|`$.

For large but finite $`N`$, the correlation functions of the Fourier coefficients are proportional to a discretized delta-function, in the sense that

$`a(\xi )a^{}(\xi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`n(\xi )\stackrel{~}{\delta }^{\mathrm{}(N)}(\xi \xi ^{})`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\delta }^{\mathrm{}(N)}(\xi )`$ $``$ $`N\delta _{N\xi ,0}.`$
where $`n(\xi )`$ has a finite, nontrivial $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit.

To further emphasize the connection between the finite but large $`N`$ and infinitely long systems, we introduce the discretized integral notation:

$$_D^{\mathrm{}(M)}f(\xi )d\xi \frac{1}{M}\underset{\xi :\xi D/M}{}f(\xi ),$$

which should just be thought of as a Riemann integral approximation to the integral defined with respect to a mesh situated at integer multiples of $`1/M`$.

## 4. Modified Kinetic Equation

The standard weak turbulence theory  would predict that three-wave interactions would be incapable of significant energy transfer. The reason is that the only triads of waves which satisfy the exact resonance conditions

$$\xi =\xi _1+\xi _2,\omega (\xi )=\pm \omega (\xi _1)\pm \omega (\xi _2)$$

are those involving the zero mode ($`\xi =0`$ or $`\xi _1=0`$ or $`\xi _2=0`$), which is uncoupled to the other degrees of freedom due to the translational symmetry of the system ($`L_{\xi \xi _1\xi _2}=0`$ if $`\xi \xi _1\xi _2=0`$). The absence of three-wave resonances is here not due to the finite size of the system  but simply due to the concavity of the dispersion relation .

The reason the standard kinetic equations of weak turbulence theory fail to describe any energy transfer through three-wave interactions is that these interactions are effective only over a thin band of wavenumbers $`\xi `$ with width vanishing with the nonlinearity parameter $`\epsilon `$. The derivation of the standard weak turbulence kinetic equations assumes that all quantities, including the wavenumbers $`\xi `$ of interest and the energy density $`E(\xi )`$ in each mode, are order unity in magnitude (asymptotically independent of $`\epsilon `$). The fact that the wavenumbers of interest during the three-wave dynamics are small, and the energy density residing in these wavenumbers large, requires a reworking of the asymptotic derivation of the kinetic equation.

To this end, a simple renormalization group approach is useful . We rescale the wavenumber and amplitude of the energy spectrum by some gauge functions $`\beta (\epsilon )`$ and $`\gamma (\epsilon )`$ depending on $`\epsilon `$:

$$\overline{\xi }=\xi /\beta (\epsilon ),\overline{t}=t/\gamma (\epsilon ).$$
(14)
The rescaling factors $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are chosen so that $`\overline{\xi }`$ and $`\overline{t}`$ are order unity for the three-wave dynamics of interest. We shall leave them unspecified for now, other than insisting that $`\beta 0`$ and $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$ as $`\epsilon 0`$, and show how their scaling with $`\epsilon `$ can be determined by self-consistency. More specifically, we define a rescaled energy spectrum $`E^{(\epsilon )}(\overline{\xi },\overline{t})`$, obtained by by applying the transformation (14) to the original energy spectrum:

$$E(\xi ,t)=\beta (\epsilon )^1E^{(\epsilon )}(\xi /\beta (\epsilon ),t/\gamma (\epsilon ))$$
(15)
The rescaling of the amplitude results from the normalization condition that the total quadratic energy is $`N`$, which implies that if $`E(\xi ,t)`$ is concentrated over a thin band of wavenumbers $`|\xi |\beta (\epsilon )`$, then the average amplitude of the energy spectrum over these modes must be $`\mathrm{ord}(\beta (\epsilon )^1)`$. The rescaled energy spectrum $`E^{(\epsilon )}(\overline{\xi },\overline{t})`$ is supposed to be a truly order unity function, with order unity amplitude and order unity variations with respect to $`\overline{\xi }`$ and $`\overline{t}`$ during the three-wave dynamical phase for all sufficiently small $`\epsilon `$. Mathematically, we demand that the *renormalized energy spectrum*

$$\overline{E}(\overline{\xi },\overline{t})=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}E^{(\epsilon )}(\overline{\xi },\overline{t})$$

be a nontrivial function with order unity amplitude and derivatives. In renormalization group terminology, we want $`\overline{E}(\overline{\xi },\overline{t})`$ to be a nontrivial fixed point under the transformation induced by (15). The gauge functions $`\beta (\epsilon )`$ and $`\gamma (\epsilon )`$ are determined by this property. Indeed, as we shall show in Section 5,

$$\beta =\epsilon ^{1/2},\gamma =\epsilon ^{3/2}.$$
(16)
and the renormalized energy spectrum satisifes the following modified kinetic equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{E}(\overline{\xi },\overline{t})}{\overline{t}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{}^{\mathrm{}(\epsilon ^{1/2}N)}}{\displaystyle _{}^{\mathrm{}(\epsilon ^{1/2}N)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi ^3\overline{\xi }\overline{\xi }_1\overline{\xi }_2\overline{t})}{\overline{\xi }_1\overline{\xi }_2}}\stackrel{~}{\delta }^{\mathrm{}(\epsilon ^{1/2}N)}(\overline{\xi }\overline{\xi }_1\overline{\xi }_2)`$ (17)
$`\times \left[\overline{\xi }\overline{E}(\overline{\xi }_1,\overline{t})\overline{E}(\overline{\xi }_2,\overline{t})\overline{\xi }_1\overline{E}(\overline{\xi },\overline{t})\overline{E}(\overline{\xi }_2,\overline{t})\overline{\xi }_2\overline{E}(\overline{\xi },\overline{t})\overline{E}(\overline{\xi }_1,\overline{t})\right]\mathrm{d}\overline{\xi }_1\mathrm{d}\overline{\xi }_2`$
We comment now on these predictions.

### 4.1. Scaling Predictions

The self-consistency calculation based on the weak turbulence expansion predicts that the band of wavenumbers participating in the earliest (three-mode) phase of energy transfer has thickness $`\mathrm{\Delta }k\beta =\epsilon ^{1/2}`$ and associated dynamical time scale $`t\gamma =\epsilon ^{3/2}`$, provided the initial data is distributed over a band of low wavenumbers which is comparably ($`\epsilon ^{1/2}`$) thick. In , these scaling predictions are confirmed through direct numerical simulations. Analytical explanations for the $`\epsilon ^{1/2}`$ width for the band of wavenumbers which equilibrate first have been previously offered on the basis of resonance overlap calculations  and related considerations . One can also construct an argument for the $`\epsilon ^{3/2}`$ dynamical time scale from cruder arguments. Our intent, however, was to provide a more systematic argument, since resonance overlap arguments can sometimes give misleading results . As we discuss below, however, we cannot yet claim to have fulfilled this goal.

### 4.2. Properties of Modified Kinetic Equation

The modified kinetic equation (17) has the following good properties:

* The modified three-wave kinetic equation (17) conserves the harmonic energy over the three-wave time scale:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\overline{t}}_{S_1}^{\mathrm{}(N)}E(\xi ,t)d\xi =0,$$

More precisely, direct calculations on the modified kinetic equation (17) show that the three-wave interactions conserve the harmonic energy locally (triad by triad) for the band of wavenumbers $`\xi \epsilon ^{1/2}`$, while the energy in wavenumbers $`\xi \epsilon ^{1/2}`$ is predicted not to change significantly on the time scale $`t\epsilon ^{3/2}`$.
* The modified kinetic equation accounts for a finite time resonance broadening in that the usual Dirac delta function $`\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }\omega )`$ involving the frequency difference (21) is instead replaced in (17) by a renormalized form of the function $`\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega t)}{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega }`$. While the latter does indeed converge to the Dirac delta function in the $`t\mathrm{}`$ limit, its distinction from this strict limit is important for predicting nontrivial dynamics for large but finite $`t`$. Some previous work  offered *ad hoc* modifications to the weak turbulence theory to take into account such broadening of the resonances, but we have endeavored to derive the quantitative form of the finite-time resonance broadening through systematic means.

### 4.3. Deficiency in Modified Kinetic Equation

The modified kinetic equation, however, has a serious deficiency in that it does not preserve nonnegativity of the energy spectrum, because the broadened resonance kernel $`\mathrm{sin}(\pi ^3\overline{\xi }\overline{\xi }_1\overline{\xi }_2\overline{t})/(\overline{\xi }\overline{\xi }_1\overline{\xi }_2)`$ is not sign-definite. This indicates that, unlike standard weak turbulence theory, the removal of the leading order secular term (along with frequency renormalization) does not simultaneously remove all higher order secularities active at the first nonlinear time scale, $`t\gamma =\epsilon ^{3/2}`$, in the $`\alpha `$-FPU model. A similar issue arose in the problem of acoustic turbulence .

Newell and coworkers  have recently pointed out that the assumptions underlying the WT theory will often fail at either large or small scales, because the nonlinear time scale $`t_{\mathrm{NL}}`$ associated with such scales may fail to be long compared with the corresponding linear time scale $`t_\mathrm{L}`$. Because the development of partial equipartition is concentrated on small wavenumbers $`k\beta \epsilon ^{1/2}`$, one might think that the deficiencies noted for the kinetic equation derived above arise from this kind of breakdown in the asymptotic expansion. We now show, however, that the simplest such explanation is insufficient.

The linear time scale $`t_\mathrm{L}`$ associated with a wavenumber $`\xi `$ is just the inverse frequency $`(\omega (\xi ))^1`$, while the associated nonlinear time scale $`t_{\mathrm{NL}}\frac{E(\xi ,t)/t}{E(\xi ,t)}`$. From studying either the primitive second order WT expansion (19) or the renormalized kinetic equation, we see that for the band of active wavenumbers $`\xi \epsilon ^{1/2}`$, the nonlinear time scale depends on $`\xi `$ and $`\epsilon `$ as $`t_{\mathrm{NL}}(\epsilon \omega (\xi ))^1`$. Therefore, for $`\xi \epsilon ^{1/2}`$, the ratio $`t_{\mathrm{NL}}/t_\mathrm{L}\epsilon ^1`$ is uniformly large, so the defects in the kinetic equation cannot be attributed to this criterion elaborated in .

Another situation in which weak turbulence theory will fail is in finite systems where the wavenumber spacing $`1/N`$ is not small compared with the width of the frequency resonance, which is here proportional to $`\beta \epsilon ^{1/2}`$ . Therefore, WT theory cannot be expected to apply to the $`\alpha `$-FPU model when $`N\epsilon ^{1/2}1`$, but this can be avoided, at least in principle, by choosing the size of the system $`N`$ to be large enough.

At this time, we are endeavoring to specify concretely the source of the deficiency of the modified kinetic equation.

## 5. Derivation of Modified Kinetic Equation

Our starting point will be the following equation, which results from a multiple-scales expansion for the moments of the mode amplitudes $`a`$ :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n(\xi ,t)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\epsilon ^2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{s_1,s_2=\pm }{}}{\displaystyle _{S_1}^{\mathrm{}(N)}}{\displaystyle _{S_1}^{\mathrm{}(N)}}𝒦^{(t)}(\omega (\xi )s_1\omega (\xi _1)s_2\omega (\xi _2))`$ (19)
$`\times L_{\xi \xi _1\xi _2}^{+s_1s_2}[L_{\xi ,\xi _1,\xi _2}^{+,s_1,s_2}n(\xi _1,t)n(\xi _2,t)+L_{\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi }^{s_1,s_2,}n(\xi _2,t)n(\xi ,t)`$
$`+L_{\xi _2,\xi ,\xi _1}^{s_2,,s_1}n(\xi ,t)n(\xi _1,t)]`$
$`\times \stackrel{~}{\delta }^{\mathrm{}(N)}(\xi \xi _1\xi _2)\mathrm{e}^{i(\omega (\xi )+s_1\omega (\xi _1)+s_2\omega (\xi _2))t}\mathrm{d}\xi _1\mathrm{d}\xi _2`$
$`+\mathrm{}`$
Here we have used the symbol $`\mathrm{}`$ to denote the real part of the ensuing expression, and defined the function

$$𝒦^{(t)}(\varpi )=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{i\varpi t}1}{i\varpi }.$$

The ellipses denote terms which are omitted because they are formally of higher order in $`\epsilon `$. We will revisit the effects of these neglected terms in future work, because terms which are insignificant in standard weak turbulence theory must be carefully examined to see if they remain insignificant in our modified derivation.

We convert Eq. (19) into an equation for the energy spectrum through the relation $`E(\xi )=2\omega (\xi )n(\xi )`$ and the explicit formula (12) for the coupling coefficient. Then upon substituting the rescaling (15) into (19), we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E^{(\epsilon )}(\overline{\xi },\overline{t})}{\overline{t}}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\epsilon ^2\gamma \mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{s_1,s_2=\pm }{}}{\displaystyle _{\beta ^1S_1}^{\mathrm{}(\beta N)}}{\displaystyle _{\beta ^1S_1}^{\mathrm{}(\beta N)}}\gamma ^1𝒦^{(\overline{t})}(\gamma ^1\mathrm{\Delta }\omega )`$ (20)
$`\times \stackrel{~}{L}_{\beta \overline{\xi },\beta \overline{\xi }_1,\beta \overline{\xi }_2}^{+s_1s_2}[\stackrel{~}{L}_{\beta \overline{\xi },\beta \overline{\xi }_1,\beta \overline{\xi }_2}^{+,s_1,s_2}E^{(\epsilon )}(\overline{\xi }_1,\overline{t})E^{(\epsilon )}(\overline{\xi }_2,\overline{t})`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{L}_{\beta \overline{\xi }_1,\beta \overline{\xi }_2,\beta \overline{\xi }}^{s_1,s_2,}E^{(\epsilon )}(\overline{\xi }_2,\overline{t})E^{(\epsilon )}(\overline{\xi },\overline{t})`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{L}_{\overline{\xi }_2,\overline{\xi },\overline{\xi }_1}^{s_2,,s_1}E^{(\epsilon )}(\overline{\xi },\overline{t})E^{(\epsilon )}(\overline{\xi }_1,\overline{t})]`$
$`\times \stackrel{~}{\delta }^{\mathrm{}(\beta N)}(\overline{\xi }\overline{\xi }_1+\overline{\xi }_2)\mathrm{e}^{i\gamma ^1\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \overline{t}}\mathrm{d}\overline{\xi }_1\mathrm{d}\overline{\xi }_2`$
$`+\mathrm{}`$
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \omega (\beta \overline{\xi })s_1\omega (\beta \overline{\xi }_1)s_2\omega (\beta \overline{\xi }_2)$$
(21)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{L}_{\xi \xi _1\xi _2}^{ss_1s_2}=\sqrt{\frac{\omega (\xi )}{\omega (\xi _1)\omega (\xi _2)}}L_{\xi \xi _1\xi _2}^{ss_1s_2}=\frac{is_1s_2\mathrm{sgn}(kk_1k_2)\omega (\xi )}{2\sqrt{2}}.$$

We now seek particular relations between $`\gamma `$, $`\beta `$, and $`\epsilon `$ so that the right hand side of (20) is consistent with the assumed order unity magnitude and scale of variation of the left hand side in the limit $`\epsilon 0`$. To this end, we recall that $`\beta (\epsilon )0`$, $`\gamma (\epsilon )\mathrm{}`$, and observe that

$`\omega (\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`\omega (\beta \overline{\xi })2\pi \beta |\overline{\xi }|+O(\beta ^3),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \beta (|\overline{\xi }|s_1|\overline{\xi }_1|s_2|\overline{\xi }_2|){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3\beta ^3}{3}}(|\overline{\xi }|^3s_1|\overline{\xi }_1|^3s_2|\overline{\xi }_2|^3)+O(\beta ^5)`$
$`=`$ $`\pi \beta (|\overline{\xi }|s_1|\overline{\xi }_1|s_2|\overline{\xi }_2|)`$
$`\times \left[2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2\beta ^2}{3}}\left(|\overline{\xi }|^2+|\overline{\xi }|(s_1|\overline{\xi }_1|+s_2|\overline{\xi }_2|)+\overline{\xi }_1^2+\overline{\xi }_2^2s_1s_2|\overline{\xi }_1||\overline{\xi }_2|\right)\right]`$
$`\pi ^3\beta ^3s_1s_2|\overline{\xi }||\overline{\xi }_1||\overline{\xi }_2|+O(\beta ^5).`$
Noting that $`\overline{\xi }=\overline{\xi }_1+\overline{\xi }_2`$ from the Kronecker delta function in (20), the appropriate asymptotics for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ can be decided based on the $`s_1`$, $`s_2`$, and the signs of $`\overline{\xi }`$, $`\overline{\xi }_1`$, and $`\overline{\xi }_2`$. If the signs align so that $`|\overline{\xi }_1+\overline{\xi }_2|s_1|\overline{\xi }_1|+s_2|\overline{\xi }_2|`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \mathrm{ord}(\beta ^3)`$; otherwise $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \mathrm{ord}(\beta )`$. Moreover,

$`\mathrm{e}^{i\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\omega \overline{t}}𝒦^{(\overline{t})}(\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\omega )`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\gamma ^1\beta ^3\left[\frac{\mathrm{e}^{i\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\omega \overline{t}}1}{i\pi ^3s_1s_2|\overline{\xi }||\overline{\xi }_1||\overline{\xi }_2|}+O(\beta ^2)\right]\hfill & \text{ if }|\overline{\xi }_1+\overline{\xi }_2|=s_1|\overline{\xi }_1|+s_2|\overline{\xi }_2|,\hfill \\ \gamma ^1\beta ^1\left[\frac{1\mathrm{e}^{i\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\omega \overline{t}}}{2\pi i(|\overline{\xi }|s_1|\overline{\xi }_1|s_2|\overline{\xi }_2|)}+O(\beta ^2)\right]\hfill & \text{ otherwise }.\hfill \end{array}`$
Therefore, the dominant contribution will come from the wavenumbers in the domain such that $`|\overline{\xi }|=|\overline{\xi }_1+\overline{\xi }_2|=s_1|\overline{\xi }_1|+s_2|\overline{\xi }_2|`$. We will choose the scaling functions so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \gamma ^1`$ for order unity values of $`\overline{\xi }`$, $`\overline{\xi }_1`$, and $`\overline{\xi }_2`$ in this dominant region, so we can simplify further:

$`\mathrm{e}^{i\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\omega \overline{t}}𝒦^{(\overline{t})}(\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^1\beta ^3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{i\pi ^3\gamma \beta ^3s_1s_2|\overline{\xi }||\overline{\xi }_1||\overline{\xi }_2|\overline{t}}1}{i\pi ^3s_1s_2|\overline{\xi }||\overline{\xi }_1||\overline{\xi }_2|}}+O(\beta ^2+\beta ^5\gamma )\right]`$
$`\text{when }|\overline{\xi }_1+\overline{\xi }_2|=s_1|\overline{\xi }_1|+s_2|\overline{\xi }_2|.`$
Discarding subdominant contributions based on the above considerations, we achieve after some analytical manipulations:

$`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{E^{(\epsilon )}(\overline{\xi },\overline{t})}{\overline{t}}}=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2\gamma }{\pi \beta (\epsilon )}}{\displaystyle _{}^{\mathrm{}(\beta N)}}{\displaystyle _{}^{\mathrm{}(\beta N)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\beta ^3\gamma \pi ^3\overline{\xi }\overline{\xi }_1\overline{\xi }_2\overline{t})}{\overline{\xi }_1\overline{\xi }_2}}`$
$`\times \left[\overline{\xi }\overline{E}(\overline{\xi }_1,\overline{t})\overline{E}(\overline{\xi }_2,\overline{t})\overline{\xi }_1\overline{E}(\overline{\xi },\overline{t})\overline{E}(\overline{\xi }_2,\overline{t})\overline{\xi }_2\overline{E}(\overline{\xi },\overline{t})\overline{E}(\overline{\xi }_1,\overline{t})\right]`$
$`\times \stackrel{~}{\delta }^{\mathrm{}(\beta N)}(\overline{\xi }\overline{\xi }_1\overline{\xi }_2)\mathrm{d}\overline{\xi }_1\mathrm{d}\overline{\xi }_2`$
The equating of the limit of the integral on the right hand side by the integral of the limiting integrand can be justified through uniform bounds on finite intervals and the relative negligibility of the contribution from large $`\overline{\xi }_1`$ and $`\overline{\xi }_2`$. The latter fact can be checked by direct analysis or more intuitively understood from the observation that the wavenumbers with $`\mathrm{ord}(1)`$ magnitude $`\xi `$ (and therefore large values of $`\overline{\xi }=\xi \beta ^1`$) exhibited no activity on the three-mode interaction time scale.

The gauge functions $`\beta (\epsilon )`$ and $`\gamma (\epsilon )`$ were introduced so that $`E^{(\epsilon )}(\overline{\xi },\overline{t})`$ would have a nontrivial dynamics with order unity magnitude in the $`\epsilon 0`$ limit. We see then that a nontrivial, finite dynamics results precisely if $`\beta ^3\gamma `$ and $`\epsilon ^2\gamma \beta ^1`$ have finite, nonzero limits. We thereby arrive at the unique (up to irrelevant multiplicative constants) choice of gauge functions (16) and modified kinetic equation (17) for the renormalized energy spectrum.

## 6. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank David Cai and Gregor Kovačič for helpful discussions. PRK is supported by an NSF grant DMS-A11271, JAB is supported by an NSF VIGRE postdoctoral research fellowship DMS-9983646, and YVL is supported by NSF CAREER grant DMS-0134955 and ONR YIP grant N00014210528.


text:
# References

$`N_T=8`$, $`D=2`$ Hodge–type cohomological gauge theory
with global $`SU(4)`$ symmetry111Talk given at 3. Int. Andrei Sakharov Conference on Physics, Moscow, June 24 - 29, 2002

B. Geyera 222Email: geyer@itp.uni-leipzig.de and  D. Mülschb 333Email: muelsch@informatik.uni-leipzig.de

a Universität Leipzig, Naturwissenschaftlich-Theoretisches Zentrum
and Institut für Theoretische Physik, D–04109 Leipzig, Germany
$`^b`$ Wissenschaftszentrum Leipzig e.V., D–04103 Leipzig, Germany

Abstract

> We show that the partially topological twisted $`N=16`$, $`D=2`$ super Yang–Mills theory gives rise to a $`N_T=8`$ Hodge–type cohomological gauge theory with global $`SU(4)`$ symmetry.

1. Introduction

Some very enlightening, but preliminary attempts have been made to incorporate into the gauge–fixing procedure of general gauge theories besides the basic ingredience of BRST cohomology $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ also a co–BRST cohomology $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which, together with the BRST Laplacian $`W`$, form the same kind of superalgebra as the de Rham cohomology operators in differential geometry (for a review, see, e.g., Ref. ). This would allow, according to the Hodge–type decomposition $`\psi =\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }\chi +^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi `$ of a general quantum state, by imposing both the BRST condition $`\mathrm{\Omega }\psi =0`$ and the co–BRST condition $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\psi =0`$ upon $`\psi `$, to select the uniquely determined harmonic state $`\omega `$ thereby projecting onto the subspace of physical states.

It has been a long–standing problem to present a non–abelian field theoretical model obeying such a Hodge–type cohomological structure. Recently, the authors have shown  that the dimensional reduced Blau–Thompson model  — the novel $`N_T=2`$ topological twist of the $`N=4`$, $`D=3`$ super Yang–Mills theory (SYM) — gives a prototype example of a $`N_T=4`$, $`D=2`$ Hodge–type cohomological gauge theory. The conjecture, that topological gauge theories could be possible candidates for Hodge–type cohomological theories was already asserted by van Holten . In fact, $`D=2`$ topological gauge theories  are of particular interest because of their relation to $`N=2`$ superconformal theories  and Calabi–Yau moduli spaces .

Here we present another example of a Hodge–type cohomological gauge theory. It is obtained by a $`N_T=8`$ topological twist of the Euclidean $`N=16`$, $`D=2`$ SYM, and its action localizes onto the moduli space of complexified flat connections. The $`N_T=8`$ scalar supercharges $`Q^\alpha `$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}Q_{}^{\alpha }`$ of that theory form a topological superalgebra which is completely analogous to the de Rham cohomology. Both supercharges are interrelated by a discrete Hodge–type $``$ operation and generate the topological shift and co–shift symmetries. In accordance with the group theoretical description of some classes of topologically twisted low–dimensional supersymmetric world–volume theories , it is shown that this $`N_T=8`$ cohomological theory has actually the global symmetry group $`SU(4)`$. Such effective low–energy world–volume theories appear quite naturally in the study of curved D–branes and D–brane instantons wrapping around supersymmetric cocycles for special Lagrangian submanifolds of Calabi–Yau $`n`$–folds (see, e.g., ).

The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. 2 we briefly describe the BRST complex of general gauge theories based on harmonic gauges. In Sec. 3 we obtain the Euclidean $`N=16`$, $`D=2`$ SYM theory with R–symmetry group $`SO(8)`$ from the $`N=4`$, $`D=4`$ SYM via dimensional reduction to $`D=2`$. In Sec. 4 we perform the partiall $`N_T=8`$ topological twist of this SYM theory thereby getting the looked for $`N_T=8`$ Hodge–type cohomological theory with global symmetry group $`SU(4)`$. A more detailed version will be presented elsewhere .

2. BRST complex and Hodge decomposition

In order to select uniquely the physical states from the ghost–extended quantum state space some attempts  have been made to incorporate into the gauge–fixing procedure of general gauge theories besides the BRST cohomology $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ also a co–BRST cohomology $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which, together with the BRST Laplacian $`W`$, obeys the following BRST–complex:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^2=0,^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2=0,[\mathrm{\Omega },W]=0,[^{}\mathrm{\Omega },W]=0,W=\{\mathrm{\Omega },^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\}0,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ have ghost number $`+1`$ and $`1`$, respectively. Obviously, $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can not be identified with the anti–BRST operator $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ which anticommutes with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Representations of this algebra for the first time have been considered by Nishijima . However, since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are nilpotent hermitian operators they cannot be realized in a Hilbert space. Instead, the BRST complex has to be represented in a Krein space $`𝒦`$ . $`𝒦`$ is obtained from a Hilbert space $``$ with non–degenerate positive inner product $`(\chi ,\psi )`$ if $``$ will be endowed also with a self–adjoint metric operator $`J1`$, $`J^2=1`$, allowing for the introduction of another non–degenerate, but indefinite scalar product $`\chi |\psi :=(\chi ,J\psi )`$. With respect to the inner product $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }=\pm J\mathrm{\Omega }J`$ are adjoint to each other, $`(\chi ,^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\psi )=(\mathrm{\Omega }\chi ,\psi )`$, however they are self–adjoint with respect to the indefinite scalar product of $`𝒦`$. Notice, that different inner products $`(\chi ,\psi )`$ lead to different co–BRST operators!

From these definitions one obtains a remarkable correspondence between the BRST cohomology and the de Rham cohomology:

BRST operator $`\mathrm{\Omega },`$ differential $`d,`$
co–BRST operator $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }=\pm J\mathrm{\Omega }J,`$ co–differential $`\delta =\pm d,`$
duality operation $`J,`$ Hodge star $`,`$
BRST Laplacian $`W=\{\mathrm{\Omega },^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\},`$ Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\{d,\delta \}.`$
Because of this correspondence one denotes a state $`\psi `$ to be BRST (co–)closed iff $`\mathrm{\Omega }\psi =0`$ ($`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\psi =0`$), BRST (co–)exact iff $`\psi =\mathrm{\Omega }\chi `$ ($`\psi =^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi `$) and BRST harmonic iff $`W\psi =0`$. Completely analogous to the Hodge decomposition theorem in differential geometry there exists a corresponding decomposition of any state $`\psi `$ into a harmonic, an exact and a co–exact state, $`\psi =\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }\chi +^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi `$. The physical properties of $`\psi `$ lie entirely within the BRST harmonic part $`\omega `$ which is given by the zero modes of the operator $`W`$; thereby $`W\omega =0`$ implies $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega =0=^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\omega `$, and vice versa. The cohomologies of the (co–)BRST operator are given by equivalence classes:

$`\mathrm{H}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Ker}\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Omega }}},`$ $`\psi \psi ^{}`$ $`=\psi +\mathrm{\Omega }\chi (\text{equivalence class}),`$
$`\mathrm{H}(^{}\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Ker}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{Im}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }}},`$ $`\psi \psi ^{}`$ $`=\psi +^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi (\text{equivalence class}).`$
By imposing only the BRST gauge condition, $`\mathrm{\Omega }\psi =0`$, within the equivalence class of BRST–closed states $`\psi =\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }\chi `$ besides the harmonic state $`\omega `$ there occur also spurious BRST–exact states, $`\mathrm{\Omega }\chi `$, which have zero physical norm. On the other hand, by imposing also the co–BRST gauge condition, $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\psi =0`$, one gets for each BRST cohomology class the uniquely determined harmonic state, $`\psi =\omega `$.

3. Dimensional reduction of the $`N=4`$, $`D=4`$ super Yang–Mills theory

Our final aim is to show that by a partial topological twist of $`N=16`$, $`D=2`$ SYM one gets a $`N_T=8`$ Hodge–type cohomological theory with global symmetry group $`SU(4)`$. However, since the relationship between the twisted and untwisted fields is rather complex, let us first introduce the $`N=16,D=2`$ SYM. This theory can be obtained by dimensional reduction to $`D=2`$ from either $`N=1`$, $`D=10`$ SYM or $`N=4`$, $`D=4`$ SYM. Because the latter theory is well known, we choose the last possibility.

The field content of $`N=4`$, $`D=4`$ SYM consists of an anti–hermitean gauge field $`A_\mu `$, two Majorana spinors $`\lambda _{A\alpha }`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }_{\dot{A}}^\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =1,2,3,4`$) which transform as the fundamental and its complex conjugate representation of $`SU(4)`$, respectively, and a set of complex scalar fields $`G_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }G^{\gamma \delta }`$, which transform as the second–rank complex selfdual representation of $`SU(4)`$. All the fields take their values in the Lie algebra $`Lie(𝒢)`$ of some compact gauge group $`𝒢`$.

In Euclidean space this theory has the following invariant action :

$`S^{(N=4)}={\displaystyle _E}d^4x\mathrm{tr}\{`$ $`\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }i\overline{\lambda }_{\dot{A}}^\alpha (\sigma _\mu )^{\dot{A}B}D^\mu \lambda _{B\alpha }+\frac{1}{64}[G_{\alpha \beta },G_{\gamma \delta }][G^{\alpha \beta },G^{\gamma \delta }]`$
$`\frac{1}{2}i\lambda _{A\alpha }[G^{\alpha \beta },\lambda _\beta ^A]\frac{1}{2}i\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{A}\alpha }[G_{\alpha \beta },\overline{\lambda }_{\dot{A}}^\beta ]+\frac{1}{8}D_\mu G_{\alpha \beta }D^\mu G^{\alpha \beta }\},`$ (1)
where the numerically invariant tensors $`(\sigma _\mu )^{A\dot{B}}`$ and $`(\sigma _\mu )_{\dot{A}B}`$ are the Clebsch–Cordon coefficients relating the representation $`(1/2,1/2`$ of $`SL(2,C)`$ to the the vector representation of $`SO(4)`$,,

$`(\sigma _\mu )^{\dot{A}B}=(i\sigma _1,i\sigma _2,i\sigma _3,I_2),`$ $`(\sigma _\mu )_{\dot{A}B}(\sigma _\mu )^{\dot{C}D}ϵ_{\dot{C}\dot{A}}ϵ_{DB}=(\sigma _\mu ^{})^{\dot{A}B},`$
$`(\sigma _\mu )_{A\dot{B}}=(i\sigma _1,i\sigma _2,i\sigma _3,I_2),`$ $`(\sigma _\mu )^{A\dot{B}}ϵ^{AC}ϵ^{\dot{B}\dot{D}}(\sigma _\mu )_{C\dot{D}}=(\sigma _\mu ^{})_{A\dot{B}},`$ (2)
$`(\sigma _\mu )_{\dot{A}B}`$ and $`(\sigma _\mu )^{A\dot{B}}`$ being the corresponding complex conjugate coefficients, respectively. Here, $`\sigma _a`$ ($`a=1,2,3`$) are the Pauli matrices. The selfdual and anti–selfdual generators of the $`SO(4)`$ rotations, $`(\sigma _{\mu \nu })_{AB}`$ and $`(\sigma _{\mu \nu })_{\dot{A}\dot{B}}`$, obey the relations

$`(\sigma _\mu )^{A\dot{C}}(\sigma _\nu )_{\dot{C}}^B=(\sigma _{\mu \nu })^{AB}\delta _{\mu \nu }ϵ^{AB},`$
$`(\sigma _\rho )^{A\dot{C}}(\sigma _{\mu \nu })_{\dot{C}}^{\dot{B}}=\delta _{\rho \mu }(\sigma _\nu )^{A\dot{B}}\delta _{\rho \nu }(\sigma _\mu )^{A\dot{B}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(\sigma ^\sigma )^{A\dot{B}},`$ (3)
$`(\sigma _\mu )_{\dot{A}C}(\sigma _\nu )_{\dot{B}}^C=(\sigma _{\mu \nu })_{\dot{A}\dot{B}}+\delta _{\mu \nu }ϵ_{\dot{A}\dot{B}},`$
$`(\sigma _\rho )_{\dot{A}C}(\sigma _{\mu \nu })_B^C=\delta _{\rho \mu }(\sigma _\nu )_{\dot{A}B}\delta _{\rho \nu }(\sigma _\mu )_{\dot{A}B}+ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(\sigma ^\sigma )_{\dot{A}B}.`$ (4)
The spinor index $`A`$ (and analogously $`\dot{A}`$) is raised and lowered as follows: $`ϵ^{AC}\phi _C^B=\phi ^{AB}`$ and $`\phi _A^Cϵ_{CB}=\phi _{AB}`$, where $`ϵ_{AB}`$ (and analogous $`ϵ_{\dot{A}\dot{B}}`$) is the invariant tensor of the group $`SU(2)`$, $`ϵ_{12}=ϵ^{12}=ϵ_{\dot{1}\dot{2}}=ϵ^{\dot{1}\dot{2}}=1`$.

The action (S0.Ex8) is manifestly invariant under hermitean conjugation:

$$(A_\mu ,\lambda _{A\alpha },\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{A}\alpha },G^{\alpha \beta })(A_\mu ,\overline{\lambda }_{\dot{A}}^\alpha ,\lambda _\alpha ^A,G_{\alpha \beta }).$$

Furthermore, making use of (S0.Ex10) and (S0.Ex11), one verifies that (S0.Ex8) is invariant also under the following on–shell supersymmetry transformations,

$`Q_A^\alpha A_\mu =i(\sigma _\mu )_{A\dot{B}}\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{B}\alpha },`$
$`Q_A^\alpha \overline{\lambda }_{\dot{B}}^\beta =(\sigma ^\mu )_{A\dot{B}}D_\mu G^{\alpha \beta },`$
$`Q_A^\alpha G_{\beta \gamma }=2i(\delta _\beta ^\alpha \lambda _{A\gamma }\delta _\gamma ^\alpha \lambda _{A\beta }),`$
$`Q_A^\alpha \lambda _{B\beta }=\frac{1}{2}\delta _\beta ^\alpha (\sigma ^{\mu \nu })_{AB}F_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{AB}[G^{\alpha \gamma },G_{\gamma \beta }]`$
and

$`\overline{Q}_{\dot{A}\alpha }A_\mu =i(\sigma _\mu )_{\dot{A}B}\lambda _\alpha ^B,`$
$`\overline{Q}_{\dot{A}\alpha }\lambda _{B\beta }=(\sigma ^\mu )_{\dot{A}B}D_\mu G_{\alpha \beta },`$
$`\overline{Q}_{\dot{A}\alpha }G^{\beta \gamma }=2i(\delta _\alpha ^\beta \overline{\lambda }_{\dot{A}}^\gamma \delta _\alpha ^\gamma \overline{\lambda }_{\dot{A}}^\beta ),`$
$`\overline{Q}_{\dot{A}\alpha }\overline{\lambda }_{\dot{B}}^\beta =\frac{1}{2}\delta _\alpha ^\beta (\sigma ^{\mu \nu })_{\dot{A}\dot{B}}F_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\dot{A}\dot{B}}[G_{\alpha \gamma },G^{\gamma \beta }].`$
Let us recall that it is not possible to complete this superalgebra off–shell with a finite number of auxiliary fields .

In order to perform in (S0.Ex8) the dimensional reduction to $`D=2`$ we re–name the third and fourth component of $`A_\mu `$ according to

$$A_3=\frac{1}{2}(\varphi +\overline{\varphi }),A_4=\frac{1}{2}i(\varphi \overline{\varphi }),$$
(5)
reserving the notation $`A_\mu `$ ($`\mu =1,2`$) for the gauge field in $`D=2`$. Moreover, we decompose the components of $`(\sigma _\mu )_{\dot{A}}^B`$, $`(\sigma _{\mu \nu })_{\dot{A}}^{\dot{B}}`$ and $`(\sigma _\mu )_A^{\dot{B}}`$, $`(\sigma _{\mu \nu })_A^B`$ in the following manner,

$`(\sigma _\mu )_{\dot{A}}^Bi(\sigma _\mu )_A^B,`$ $`(\sigma _\mu )_A^{\dot{B}}i(\sigma _\mu )_A^B,`$
$`(\sigma _3)_{\dot{A}}^Bi(\sigma _3)_A^B,`$ $`(\sigma _3)_A^{\dot{B}}i(\sigma _3)_A^B,`$
$`(\sigma _4)_{\dot{A}}^B\delta _A^B,`$ $`(\sigma _4)_A^{\dot{B}}\delta _A^B,`$
$`(\sigma _{\mu \nu })_{\dot{A}}^{\dot{B}}iϵ_{\mu \nu }(\sigma _3)_A^B,`$ $`(\sigma _{\mu \nu })_A^Biϵ_{\mu \nu }(\sigma _3)_A^B,`$
$`(\sigma _{\mu 3})_{\dot{A}}^{\dot{B}}iϵ_{\mu \nu }(\sigma ^\nu )_A^B,`$ $`(\sigma _{\mu 3})_A^Biϵ_{\mu \nu }(\sigma ^\nu )_A^B,`$
$`(\sigma _{\mu 4})_{\dot{A}}^{\dot{B}}i(\sigma _\mu )_A^B,`$ $`(\sigma _{\mu 4})_A^Bi(\sigma _\mu )_A^B,`$
$`(\sigma _{34})_{\dot{A}}^{\dot{B}}i(\sigma _3)_A^B,`$ $`(\sigma _{34})_A^Bi(\sigma _3)_A^B,`$ (6)
such that both the relations (S0.Ex10) and (S0.Ex11) become the algebra of the Pauli matrices,

$`(\sigma _\mu )_A^C(\sigma _\nu )_{CB}=\delta _{\mu \nu }ϵ_{AB}+iϵ_{\mu \nu }(\sigma _3)_{AB},(\sigma _\mu ,\sigma _3)_A^B=(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3),`$
$`(\sigma _\mu )_A^C(\sigma _3)_{CB}=iϵ_{\mu \nu }(\sigma ^\nu )_{AB},`$
$`(\sigma _3)_A^C(\sigma _3)_{CB}=ϵ_{AB}.`$
Then, from (S0.Ex8) we obtain the Euclidean action of the $`N=16`$, $`D=2`$ SYM

$`S^{(N=16)}={\displaystyle _E}d^2x\mathrm{tr}`$ $`\{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}D_\mu \overline{\varphi }D^\mu \varphi \frac{1}{8}[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ]^2`$
$`\frac{1}{2}\overline{\lambda }_A^\alpha (\sigma _3)^{AB}[\varphi +\overline{\varphi },\lambda _{B\alpha }]+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\lambda }^{A\alpha }[\varphi \overline{\varphi },\lambda _{A\alpha }]`$
$`+\overline{\lambda }_A^\alpha (\sigma _\mu )^{AB}D^\mu \lambda _{B\alpha }\frac{1}{2}i\lambda _{A\alpha }[G^{\alpha \beta },\lambda _\beta ^A]\frac{1}{2}i\overline{\lambda }^{A\alpha }[G_{\alpha \beta },\overline{\lambda }_A^\beta ]`$
$`+\frac{1}{8}D_\mu G_{\alpha \beta }D^\mu G^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{1}{8}[\overline{\varphi },G_{\alpha \beta }][\varphi ,G^{\alpha \beta }]+\frac{1}{64}[G_{\alpha \beta },G_{\gamma \delta }][G^{\alpha \beta },G^{\gamma \delta }]\}.`$ (7)
Since the decompositions (S0.Ex21) explicitly include various factors of $`i`$, the action (S0.Ex30) is no longer manifestly invariant under hermitean conjugation. Rather, it is invariant under the following $`Z_2`$ symmetry,

$$Z_2:(A_\mu ,\varphi ,\overline{\varphi },\lambda _{A\alpha },\overline{\lambda }^{A\alpha },G^{\alpha \beta })(A_\mu ,\overline{\varphi },\varphi ,\overline{\lambda }_A^\alpha ,\lambda _\alpha ^A,G_{\alpha \beta }).$$
(8)
Denoting the $`N=16`$ spinorial supercharges in $`D=2`$ by $`Q_A^\alpha `$ and $`\overline{Q}_{A\alpha }`$, which are interchanged by the $`Z_2`$ symmetry (8), the transformation rules of the re–named fields are:

$`Q_A^\alpha A_\mu =(\sigma _\mu )_{AB}\overline{\lambda }^{B\alpha },`$
$`Q_A^\alpha \varphi =(\sigma _3)_{AB}\overline{\lambda }^{B\alpha }\overline{\lambda }_A^\alpha ,`$
$`Q_A^\alpha \overline{\varphi }=(\sigma _3)_{AB}\overline{\lambda }^{B\alpha }+\overline{\lambda }_A^\alpha ,`$
$`Q_A^\alpha \overline{\lambda }_B^\beta =\frac{1}{2}i(\sigma ^\mu )_{AB}D_\mu G^{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}i(\sigma _3)_{AB}[\varphi +\overline{\varphi },G^{\alpha \beta }]\frac{1}{2}iϵ_{AB}[\varphi \overline{\varphi },G^{\alpha \beta }],`$
$`Q_A^\alpha G_{\beta \gamma }=2i(\delta _\beta ^\alpha \lambda _{A\gamma }\delta _\gamma ^\alpha \lambda _{A\beta }),`$
$`Q_A^\alpha \lambda _{B\beta }=\frac{1}{2}i\delta _\beta ^\alpha ϵ^{\mu \nu }(\sigma _\nu )_{AB}D_\mu (\varphi +\overline{\varphi })+\frac{1}{2}\delta _\beta ^\alpha (\sigma ^\mu )_{AB}D_\mu (\varphi \overline{\varphi })`$
$`+\frac{1}{2}\delta _\beta ^\alpha (\sigma ^3)_{AB}[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }]\frac{1}{2}i\delta _\beta ^\alpha ϵ^{\mu \nu }(\sigma _3)_{AB}F_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{AB}[G^{\alpha \gamma },G_{\gamma \beta }].`$ (9)
4. $`N_T=8`$ topological twist of the $`N=16`$, $`D=2`$ super Yang–Mills theory

Let us now perform the $`N_T=8`$ topological twist of the $`N=16`$, $`D=2`$ SYM (for the group theoretical description of that topological twist we refer to ). For that purpose we introduce the following set of twisted fields: A $`SU(4)`$–quartet of Grassmann–odd vector fields $`\psi _\mu ^\alpha `$, two $`SU(4)`$–quartets of Grassmann–odd scalar fields, $`\overline{\eta }_\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\zeta }_\alpha `$ which transform as the fundamental and its complex conjugate representation of $`SU(4)`$, respectively, and a $`SU(4)`$–sextet of Grassmann–even complex scalar fields $`M_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }M^{\gamma \delta }`$, which transform as the second–rank complex selfdual representation of $`SU(4)`$.

Explicitly, the relationships between the original and the twisted fields are chosen as follows:

$`\lambda _{A\alpha }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}i(\sigma ^\mu )_{AB}(\psi _\mu ^1ϵ_{\mu \nu }\psi ^{\nu 3})+(\sigma _3)_{AB}(\overline{\eta }_4+\overline{\zeta }_2)+iϵ_{AB}(\overline{\zeta }_4\overline{\eta }_2)\\ i(\sigma ^\mu )_{AB}(\psi _\mu ^2+ϵ_{\mu \nu }\psi ^{\nu 4})+(\sigma _3)_{AB}(\overline{\eta }_3\overline{\zeta }_1)+iϵ_{AB}(\overline{\zeta }_3+\overline{\eta }_1)\end{array}\right),`$
$`\overline{\lambda }^{A\alpha }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}i(\sigma ^\mu )^{AB}(ϵ_{\mu \nu }\psi ^{\nu 4}\psi _\mu ^2)+(\sigma _3)^{AB}(\overline{\zeta }_1+\overline{\eta }_3)iϵ^{AB}(\overline{\eta }_1\overline{\zeta }_3)\\ i(\sigma ^\mu )^{AB}(ϵ_{\mu \nu }\psi ^{\nu 3}+\psi _\mu ^1)+(\sigma _3)^{AB}(\overline{\zeta }_2\overline{\eta }_4)iϵ^{AB}(\overline{\eta }_2+\overline{\zeta }_4)\end{array}\right),`$ (10)
between $`\lambda _{A\alpha }`$, $`\overline{\lambda }^{A\alpha }`$ and the twisted vector and scalar fields $`\psi _\mu ^\alpha `$, $`\overline{\eta }_\alpha `$, $`\overline{\zeta }_\alpha `$, as well as
$`\varphi =M_1iM_2,`$
$`\overline{\varphi }=M_1+iM_2,`$ (11)
$`G_{\alpha \beta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ_{AB}M_6& (\sigma ^\mu )_{AB}V_\mu +(\sigma _3)_{AB}M_3iϵ_{AB}M_4\\ (\sigma ^\mu )_{AB}V_\mu (\sigma _3)_{AB}M_3iϵ_{AB}M_4& ϵ_{AB}M_5\end{array}\right),`$
$`G^{\alpha \beta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ^{AB}M_5& (\sigma ^\mu )^{AB}V_\mu (\sigma _3)^{AB}M_3+iϵ^{AB}M_4\\ (\sigma ^\mu )^{AB}V_\mu +(\sigma _3)^{AB}M_3+iϵ^{AB}M_4& ϵ^{AB}M_6\end{array}\right),`$ (12)
where
$`M_1=\frac{1}{2}(M^{12}+M^{34}),M_3=\frac{1}{2}i(M^{12}M^{34}),M_5=M^{24},`$
$`M_2=\frac{1}{2}(M^{14}+M^{23}),M_4=\frac{1}{2}i(M^{14}M^{23}),M_6=M^{31},`$
between $`\varphi `$, $`\overline{\varphi }`$, $`G_{\alpha \beta }`$ and the twisted vector and scalar fields $`V_\mu `$ and $`M_{\alpha \beta }`$, respectively.

Thereby, the assignment between the index $`\alpha `$ of the internal group and the spinor index $`A`$ is the following: In (S0.Ex39) the spinor indices $`B=1,2`$ at the top and at the bottom of both columns correspond to the values $`\alpha =1,2`$ and $`\alpha =3,4`$ of both spinors $`\lambda _{A\alpha }`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }^{A\alpha }`$, respectively. Similary, in (S0.Ex41) the spinor indices $`A=1,2`$ (resp. $`B=1,2`$) at the upper and at the lower raw (resp. at the left and at the right column) of the both matrices correspond to the values $`\alpha =1,2`$ and $`\alpha =3,4`$ (resp. $`\beta =1,2`$ and $`\beta =3,4`$) of the scalar fields $`G_{\alpha \beta }`$, respectiely. By using the explicit form (S0.Ex9) of the Clebsch–Gordon coefficients one establishes that $`G_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`G^{\alpha \beta }`$ in (S0.Ex41) are actually dual to each other, $`G_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }G^{\gamma \delta }`$.

The relationship between the spinorial supercharges $`Q^{A\alpha }`$ and $`\overline{Q}_{A\alpha }`$, being interrelated by the $`Z_2`$ symmetry (8), and the twisted scalar and vector supercharges $`Q^\alpha `$, $`{}_{}{}^{}Q_{}^{\alpha }`$ and $`\overline{Q}_{\mu \alpha }`$, being interchanged by a discrete Hodge–type $``$ operation (see Eq. (15) below), is quite similar to the ones of the spinor fields, Eq. (S0.Ex39), namely

$`Q^{A\alpha }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}i(\sigma ^\mu )^{AB}(\overline{Q}_{\mu 1}ϵ_{\mu \nu }\overline{Q}_3^\nu )(\sigma _3)^{AB}(Q^4i^{}Q^2)ϵ^{AB}(^{}Q^4iQ^2)\\ i(\sigma ^\mu )^{AB}(\overline{Q}_{\mu 2}+ϵ_{\mu \nu }\overline{Q}_4^\nu )(\sigma _3)^{AB}(Q^3+i^{}Q^1)ϵ^{AB}(^{}Q^3+iQ^1)\end{array}\right),`$
$`\overline{Q}_{A\alpha }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}i(\sigma ^\mu )_{AB}(ϵ_{\mu \nu }\overline{Q}_4^\nu \overline{Q}_{\mu 2})+(\sigma _3)_{AB}(i^{}Q^1Q^3)+ϵ_{AB}(iQ^1^{}Q^3)\\ i(\sigma ^\mu )_{AB}(ϵ_{\mu \nu }\overline{Q}_3^\nu +\overline{Q}_{\mu 1})+(\sigma _3)_{AB}(i^{}Q^2+Q^4)+ϵ_{AB}(iQ^2+^{}Q^4)\end{array}\right).`$ (13)
After performing in (S0.Ex30) the topological twist (S0.Ex39) – (S0.Ex41) and introducing the Grassmann–even auxiliary fields $`B`$, $`\overline{B}`$, $`Y`$ and $`E_{\mu \alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }E_\mu ^{\gamma \delta }`$ one gets the following $`N_T=8`$ Hodge–type cohomological gauge theory with global symmetry group $`SU(4)`$:

$`S^{(N_T=8)}={\displaystyle _E}d^2x\mathrm{tr}`$ $`\{\frac{1}{4}iϵ^{\mu \nu }BF_{\mu \nu }(A+iV)\frac{1}{4}iϵ^{\mu \nu }\overline{B}F_{\mu \nu }(AiV)\frac{1}{2}\overline{B}B`$
$`ϵ^{\mu \nu }\overline{\zeta }_\alpha D_\mu (A+iV)\psi _\nu ^\alpha \overline{\eta }_\alpha D^\mu (AiV)\psi _\mu ^\alpha \frac{1}{4}E_{\alpha \beta }^\mu E_\mu ^{\alpha \beta }`$
$`+\frac{1}{2}iϵ^{\mu \nu }M_{\alpha \beta }\{\psi _\mu ^\alpha ,\psi _\nu ^\beta \}+iM^{\alpha \beta }\{\overline{\eta }_\alpha ,\overline{\zeta }_\beta \}YD^\mu (A)V_\mu \frac{1}{2}Y^2`$
$`+\frac{1}{8}D^\mu (A+iV)M_{\alpha \beta }D_\mu (AiV)M^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{1}{64}[M_{\alpha \beta },M_{\gamma \delta }][M^{\alpha \beta },M^{\gamma \delta }]\}.`$ (14)
In this $`SU(4)`$ symmetric form the action (S0.Ex45) is manifestly inariant under the following Hodge–type $``$ symmetry, defined by the replacements

$$\phi \left[\begin{array}{cccc}_\mu & A_\mu & V_\mu & \\ \psi _\mu ^\alpha & \overline{\eta }_\alpha & \overline{\zeta }_\alpha & M^{\alpha \beta }\\ B& \overline{B}& Y& E_\mu ^{\alpha \beta }\end{array}\right]\phi =\left[\begin{array}{cccc}ϵ_{\mu \nu }^\nu & ϵ_{\mu \nu }A^\nu & ϵ_{\mu \nu }V^\nu & \\ i\psi _\mu ^\alpha & i\overline{\zeta }_\alpha & i\overline{\eta }_\alpha & M^{\alpha \beta }\\ \overline{B}& B& Y& ϵ_{\mu \nu }E^{\nu \alpha \beta }\end{array}\right].$$
(15)
with the property $`(\phi )=P\phi `$. Here, $`P`$ is the operator of Grassmann–parity whose eigenalues are defined by

$$P\phi =\{\begin{array}{cc}+\phi \hfill & \text{if }\phi \text{ is Grassmann-odd},\hfill \\ \phi \hfill & \text{if }\phi \text{ is Grassmann-even}\hfill \end{array}.$$

Hence, after twisting the $`Z_2`$ symmetry (8) changes into the Hodge–type $``$ symmetry (15).

The transformations rules for the topological shift symmetry, generated by $`Q^\alpha `$, are

$`Q^\alpha A_\mu =\psi _\mu ^\alpha ,`$
$`Q^\alpha V_\mu =i\psi _\mu ^\alpha ,`$
$`Q^\alpha M_{\beta \gamma }=2i(\delta _\beta ^\alpha \overline{\zeta }_\gamma \delta _\gamma ^\alpha \overline{\zeta }_\beta ),`$
$`Q^\alpha \psi _\mu ^\beta =E_\mu ^{\alpha \beta }iϵ_{\mu \nu }D^\nu (AiV)M^{\alpha \beta },`$
$`Q^\alpha \overline{\zeta }_\beta =i\delta _\beta ^\alpha B,`$
$`Q^\alpha B=0,`$
$`Q^\alpha \overline{\eta }_\beta =i\delta _\beta ^\alpha Y+\frac{1}{2}[M^{\alpha \gamma },M_{\gamma \beta }],`$
$`Q^\alpha Y=[M^{\alpha \beta },\overline{\zeta }_\beta ],`$
$`Q^\alpha \overline{B}=2[M^{\alpha \beta },\overline{\eta }_\beta ],`$
$`Q^\alpha E_{\beta \gamma }^\mu =\delta _{[\beta }^\alpha (ϵ^{\mu \nu }D_\nu (A+iV)\overline{\zeta }_{\gamma ]}D^\mu (AiV)\overline{\eta }_{\gamma ]}iϵ^{\mu \nu }[M_{\gamma ]\delta },\psi _\nu ^\delta ]).`$ (16)
From combining $`Q^\alpha `$ with the above displayed Hodge–type $``$ symmetry one gets the corresponding transformations rules for the topological co–shift symmetry: $`{}_{}{}^{}Q_{}^{\alpha }=PQ^\alpha `$.

By a straightforward calculation one verifies that both the supercharges $`Q^\alpha `$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}Q_{}^{\alpha }`$ provide an off–shell realization of the following topological superalgebra,

$`\{Q^\alpha ,Q^\beta \}=0,\{Q^\alpha ,^{}Q^\beta \}=2\delta _G(M^{\alpha \beta }),\{^{}Q^\alpha ,^{}Q^\beta \}=0,`$ (17)
where the field–dependent gauge transformations are defined by $`\delta _G(M^{\alpha \beta })A_\alpha =D_\alpha M^{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\delta _G(M^{\alpha \beta })X=[M^{\alpha \beta },X]`$ for all the other fields.

Obviously, the structure of this superalgebra is directly analogous to the de Rham cohomology in differential geometry: The exterior and the co–exterior derivatives $`d`$ and $`\delta =\pm d`$, being interrelated by the duality $``$ operation, correspond to the nilpotent topological shift and co–shift operators $`Q^\alpha `$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}Q_{}^{\alpha }=PQ^\alpha `$, respectively. Moreover, the Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\{d,\delta \}`$ corresponds to the field–dependent gauge generator $`\delta _G(M^{\alpha \beta })`$, so that we have indeed a perfect example of a Hodge–type cohomological gauge theory.

Furthermore, by an explicit calculation one can verify that the action (S0.Ex45) is also invariant under the following on–shell vector supersymmetries,

$`\overline{Q}_{\mu \alpha }A_\nu =\delta _{\mu \nu }\overline{\eta }_\alpha ϵ_{\mu \nu }\overline{\zeta }_\alpha ,`$
$`\overline{Q}_{\mu \alpha }V_\nu =i\delta _{\mu \nu }\overline{\eta }_\alpha iϵ_{\mu \nu }\overline{\zeta }_\alpha ,`$
$`\overline{Q}_{\mu \alpha }M^{\beta \gamma }=2iϵ_{\mu \nu }(\delta _\alpha ^\beta \psi ^{\nu \gamma }\delta _\alpha ^\gamma \psi ^{\nu \beta }),`$
$`\overline{Q}_{\mu \alpha }\overline{\zeta }_\beta =ϵ_{\mu \nu }E_{\alpha \beta }^\nu +iD_\mu (AiV)M_{\alpha \beta },`$
$`\overline{Q}_{\mu \alpha }\overline{\eta }_\beta =E_{\mu \alpha \beta }+iϵ_{\mu \nu }D^\nu (A+iV)M_{\alpha \beta },`$
$`\overline{Q}_{\mu \alpha }\psi _\nu ^\beta =2\delta _\alpha ^\beta F_{\mu \nu }(A)2i\delta _\alpha ^\beta D_\mu (A)V_\nu i\delta _\alpha ^\beta \delta _{\mu \nu }Yi\delta _\alpha ^\beta ϵ_{\mu \nu }\overline{B}+\frac{1}{2}\delta _{\mu \nu }[M_{\alpha \gamma },M^{\gamma \beta }],`$
$`\overline{Q}_{\mu \alpha }\overline{B}=2iϵ_{\mu \nu }D^\nu (A+iV)\overline{\eta }_\alpha ,`$
$`\overline{Q}_{\mu \alpha }Y=2iD_\mu (AiV)\overline{\eta }_\alpha ϵ_{\mu \nu }[M_{\alpha \beta },\psi ^{\nu \beta }],`$
$`\overline{Q}_{\mu \alpha }B=2iϵ_{\mu \nu }D^\nu (AiV)\overline{\eta }_\alpha +4iD_\mu (A)\overline{\zeta }_\alpha +2[M_{\alpha \beta },\psi _\mu ^\beta ],`$
$`\overline{Q}_{\mu \alpha }E_\nu ^{\beta \gamma }=\delta _\alpha ^{[\beta }D_{[\mu }(A+iV)\psi _{\nu ]}^{\gamma ]}\delta _\alpha ^{[\beta }\delta _{\mu \nu }D^\rho (AiV)\psi _\rho ^{\gamma ]}+i\delta _\alpha ^{[\beta }[M^{\gamma ]\delta },ϵ_{\mu \nu }\overline{\eta }_\delta \delta _{\mu \nu }\overline{\zeta }_\delta ].`$ (18)
In addition, this action is also invariant under the co–vector supersymmetries

$${}_{}{}^{}\overline{Q}_{\mu \alpha }^{}=P\overline{Q}_{\mu \alpha }i\overline{Q}_{\mu \alpha },$$

which on–shell, i.e., by using only the equations of motion of the auxiliarly fields, become $`i`$ times the vector supersymmetries! Hence, it holds

$$(Q^\alpha ,^{}Q^\alpha ,\overline{Q}_{\mu \alpha })S^{(N_T=8)}=0,$$

and the total number of (real) supercharges is actually $`N=16`$.

Finally, let us mention that there is also a $`N_T=4`$ topological twist of $`N=16`$, $`D=2`$ SYM with global symmetry group $`SO(4)SU(2)`$. This topological theory can be regarded as the $`N_T=4`$ super–BF theory coupled to a spinorial hypermultiplet. Another way of obtaining the action of this theory is to dimensionally reduce either the higher dimensional analogue of the Donaldson–Witten theory in $`D=8`$  to $`D=2`$ or to dimensionally reduce the $`N_T=1`$ half–twisted theory  in $`D=4`$ to $`D=2`$. However, that topological twist does not lead to another Hodge–type cohomological theory, since the underlying cohomology is only equivariantly nilpotent and not strictly nilpotent as in Eqs. (17).


text:
# Why there is no impossibility theorem on Secure Quantum Bit Commitment

## 1 Introduction

There is a nearly universal acceptance of the general impossibility- of secure quantum bit commitment (QBC), taken to be a consequence of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) type entanglement cheating which rules out QBC and other quantum protocols that have been proposed for various cryptographic objectives. Since there is no characterization of all possible QBC protocols, logically there can be no general impossibility proof as maintained to this date. In this article, which is based on Ref. \[?\], we explain the nature of various gaps and incompleteness in the impossibility proof, in addition to this a priori logical point. They should make clear the fact that there is no impossibility theorem even in the absence of a specific protocol that has been proved unconditionally secure. But we also describe an unconditionally secure protocol QBC1 and other possible approaches for obtaining secure protocols.

## 2 The impossibility proof

The essential ideas that constitute the impossibility proof are generally agreed upon.- Adam and Babe have available to them two-way quantum communications that terminate in a finite number of exchanges, during which either party can perform any operation allowed by the laws of quantum physics. During these exchanges, Adam would have committed a bit with associated evidence to Babe. It is argued that, at the end of the commitment phase, there is an entangled pure state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_𝖻`$, $`𝖻\{0,1\}`$, shared between Adam who possesses state space $`^A`$, and Babe who possesses $`^B`$. For example, if Adam sends Babe one of $`M`$ possible states $`\{|\varphi _{𝖻i}\}`$ for bit b with probability $`p_{𝖻i}`$, then $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_𝖻=_i\sqrt{p_{𝖻i}}|e_i|\varphi _{𝖻i}`$ with orthonormal $`|e_i^A`$ and given $`|\varphi _{𝖻i}^B`$. Adam would open by making a measurement on $`^A`$, say $`\{|e_i\}`$, communicating to Babe his result $`i_0`$ and $`𝖻`$; then Babe would verify by measuring $`|\varphi _{𝖻i_0}\varphi _{𝖻i_0}|`$ on $`^B`$, accepting as correct only the result 1.

Generally, Babe can try to identify the bit from $`\rho _𝖻^B`$, the marginal state of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_𝖻`$ on $`^B`$, by performing an optimal quantum measurement that yields the optimal cheating probability $`\overline{P}_c^B`$ for her. Adam cheats by committing $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ and making a measurement on $`^A`$ to open $`i_0`$ and $`𝖻=1`$. His probability of successful cheating is computed through $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_𝖻`$, his particular measurement, and Babe’s verifying measurement; the one optimized over all of his possible actions will be denoted $`\overline{P}_c^A`$. For a fixed measurement basis, Adam’s cheating can be described by a unitary operator $`U^A`$ on $`^A`$. When $`\rho _0^B=\rho _1^B`$, i.e., $`\overline{P}_c^B=1/2`$, $`U^A`$ is obtained via the Schmidt decomposition of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_𝖻`$. For unconditional, rather than perfect, security, one demands that both cheating probabilities $`\overline{P}_c^B1/2`$ and $`\overline{P}_c^A`$ can be made arbitarily small when a security parameter $`n`$ is increased. Thus, unconditional security is quantitatively expressed as

$$(\mathrm{US})\underset{n}{lim}\overline{P}_c^B=\frac{1}{2},\underset{n}{lim}\overline{P}_c^A=0.$$
(1)
This condition (1) says that, for any $`ϵ>0`$, there exists an $`n_0`$ such that for all $`n>n_0`$, $`\overline{P}_c^B1/2ϵ`$ and $`\overline{P}_c^Aϵ`$, to which we refer as $`ϵ`$-concealing and $`ϵ`$-binding. These cheating probabilities are to be computed purely on the basis of physical laws, and thus would survive any change in technology, including any increase in computational power. One can write down explicitly $`\overline{P}_c^B=\frac{1}{4}\left(2+\rho _0^B\rho _1^B_1\right)`$. The corresponding $`\overline{P}_c^A`$ satisfies:

$$4(1\overline{P}_c^B)^2\overline{P}_c^A2\sqrt{\overline{P}_c^B(1\overline{P}_c^B)}.$$
(2)
The lower bound in (2) yields the impossibility proof

$$(\mathrm{IP})\underset{n}{lim}\overline{P}_c^B=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n}{lim}\overline{P}_c^A=1$$
(3)
When random numbers known only to one party are used in the commitment, they are to be replaced by corresponding entanglement purification. For a random $`k`$, it is argued from the doctrine of the “Church of the Larger Hilbert Space” that it is to be replaced by the purification $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in $`^{B_1}^{B_2}`$,

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{k}{}\sqrt{\lambda _k}|\psi _k|f_k,$$
(4)
where the $`|f_k`$’s are complete orthonormal in $`^{B_2}`$ kept by Babe while $`^{B_1}`$ would be sent to Adam. Similar purification is to be used for performing any operation during commitment that might otherwise require an actual measurement. As a consequence, it is claimed that a shared state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_𝖻`$ at the end of commitment is known to both parties.

It appears that there are many incompleteness in the impossibility proof. For example, one may observe that the cheating probability $`\overline{P}_c^A`$ depends on Babe’s verifying measurement. For an arbitrary protocol, the impossibility proof formulation does not, and in fact, cannot specify what the possible verifying measurements could be. There is no proof given that there cannot be more than one verifying measurement for which different cheating transformations are needed. When such a situation occurs, Adam may not know which one to use for a successful cheating. Even though this gap can be closed, in a proof that is not totally obvious, it is indicative of the incompleteness of the impossibility proof. The followin situations show that the impossibility proof formulation is actually widely incomplete. A protocol may involve cheating detection during commitment with corresponding possibility of aborting the protocol, a situation different from cheat-sensitive protocols. It has to be decided what would happen when cheating is detected, say in a game-theoretic formulation. It makes no sense to keep trying until one party’s cheating is not detected; some limit on the number of detected cheats must be imposed. Assuming both parties are honest not trying to cheat, which is what the impossibility proof formulation does except for Adam to form entanglement instead of sending one $`|\varphi _{\text{b}i}`$, also makes no sense because there would then be no need for a protocol. (Actually, the $`|\varphi _{\text{b}i}`$ entanglement step is often mistakenly described as an honest one.) These possibilities have not been accounted for. In the discussions of a proper framework for QBC protocols in Ref. \[?\], we have codified some intuitively valid rules for protocol formation under the names Intent Principle and Libertarian Principle. In the following, we will discuss several of the many gaps in the impossibility proof.

## 3 No impossibility theorem without QBC definition

A plausible first reaction to the impossibility proof is: why are all possible QBC protocols covered by its formulation? More precisely, how may one define the necessary feature of an unconditionally secure QBC protocol that is required for any proof of a mathematical theorem that says such protocol is impossible? No such definition is available. The situation is similar to the lack of a definition of an “effectively computable” function in the context of the Church-Turing thesis. Nobody calls the Church-Turing thesis the Church-Turing theorem. This is because there is no mathematical definition of an effectively computable function. The logical possibility is open that someday a procedure may be found that is intuitively or even physically effective, but which can compute a nonrecursive arithmetical function.

Thus in the absence of a precise definition of a QBC protocol, one would have at best an “impossibility thesis”, not an impossibility theorem. (This view was emphasized to the author by Masanao Ozawa.) Just as there appear to be many different forms of effective procedures, there are many different QBC protocol types that appear not to be captured by the impossibility proof formulation. To uphold just an “impossibility thesis”, one would need to prove that unconditionally secure QBC is impossible in each of these types.

## 4 Unknown versus random parameter

The impossibility proof regards any unknown number to one party as a random variable with a known probability distribution, from which the purification (4) may be formed. However, as it is well-known in classical statistics, not every unknown parameter is a random variable. In the present situation, there is an infinite number of open possibilities, such as the number of states and operations available, that admits no uniform probability distribution or actual entanglement for the purpose of EPR cheats. Furthermore, there is simply no ensemble here for the unknown parameter to be averaged over. In an analogous situation in the quantum information literature, this error has been recently called the “Partition Ensemble Fallacy Fallacy”. More significantly, there is no need for Adam to know the probability $`\{\lambda _k\}`$ under concealing for every $`\{\lambda _k\}`$. The proper approach is to regard the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of (4) as an unknown “parameter” in an infinite space. The other party does not need to know it, or to know its probability distribution even if it has one, because of the following Secrecy Principle which is a corollary of the Intent Principle and Libertarian Principle.

* Secrecy Principle: A party does not need to reveal a secret parameter chosen by her in whatever manner if it does not affect the security of the other party, who cannot reject the protocol on such a basis.

Thus, generation of the secret parameter can be automatized by one party, and it can be kept secret just as Adam can keep his bit $`𝖻`$ secret or a secret key can be kept secret in standard cryptography.

Indeed, with the use of (4) by Babe, it is not sufficient for concealing to assume that one fixed $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is used by her as done in the impossibility proof. Two examples are given in Ref. \[?\], which show that Babe can cheat by using another $`\{\lambda _k\}`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ than the one prescribed, and nothing in the impossibility proof formulation prevents her from doing that. If one imposes the condition that the protocol is $`ϵ`$-concealing for every possible choice of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, then there is no impossibility proof until one shows that there is a cheating transformation for Adam which will work for every possible $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. In the case of perfect concealing, this has been proved for a single use of (4) by Babe. The corresponding $`ϵ`$-concealing case is yet to be resolved. See the article by G. M. D’Ariano in this volume for a quantitative discussion.

Note that the Secrecy Principle directly contradicts the claim that a pure $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_𝖻`$ is openly known at the end of commitment. One consequence is that because Babe does not know $`\{p_{𝖻i}\}`$, the usual specification of the concealing condition is a sufficient but not necessary one needed for a general impossibility proof. Furthermore, one has to show that whatever information Adam lacks on $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_𝖻`$, such as the $`|f_k`$ of (4), is not needed for his cheating. Observe also that (4) is not equivalent to the mere generation of $`|\psi _k`$ with probability $`\lambda _k`$, due to the presence of off-diagonal terms $`|f_kf_k^{}|`$. Such purification has to be considered because of possible entanglement cheating, not because of the Church of the Larger Hilbert Space. Indeed, entanglement may help determine the bit through such terms, as the example in the next section shows. Even with the Church, the two cases are not equivalent.

## 5 Shifting of the evidence state space

Even when a pure $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_𝖻`$ is openly known, the impossibility proof does not cover the situations in which opening and verification are more elaborate, involving component parts of $`^A`$ and $`^B`$. In particular, consider a protocol in which Babe forms (4) and sends Adam $`^{B_1}`$, with $`|\psi _k=|\psi _{k1}|\psi _{k2}`$ in $`^{B_1}=^{B_{11}}^{B_{12}}`$. Adam randomly switches the state in $`^{B_{11}}`$ to be that of $`|\psi _{k1}`$ or $`|\psi _{k2}`$ by the unitary perumation $`P_m`$, $`m\{1,2\}`$, modulates the resulting state in $`^{B_{11}}`$ by a single $`U_𝖻`$ for each $`𝖻`$, and sends it to Babe. He opens by revealing $`𝖻`$, his random permuation $`P_m`$, and returning $`^{B_{12}}`$. Babe verifies by testing the apropriate states in $`^{B_{11}}`$ for checking $`𝖻`$, and $`^{B_{12}}`$ for checking that there is no change. It is possible that the protocol is both concealing and binding for the following reason. For the final committed state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_𝖻`$ with Adam entangling the $`P_m`$ with $`|e_i^{A_1}`$, we have $`^A=^{A_1}^{B_{12}}`$ and $`^B=^{B_{11}}^{B_2}`$. Thus, $`\rho _0^B`$ can be close to $`\rho _1^B`$ because $`^{B_{12}}`$ is not available to Babe for her cheating. However, only $`^{A_1}`$, and not $`^A`$, is avaiable to Adam’s cheating, so he cannot apply the required cheating $`U^A`$ without being found cheating with a nonvanishing probability. Using the upper bound in (2) the security condition can be expressed as $`\rho _0^B(^{B_{12}}^{B_2})\rho _1^B(^{B_{12}}^{B_2})`$ and $`\rho _0^B(^{B_1}^{B_2})\sim ̸\rho _1^B(^{B_1}^{B_2})`$. To preserve the impossibility proof one would need to show that, in addition to (3), $`lim_n\overline{P}_c^B(^{B_{12}}^{B_2})=\frac{1}{2}lim_n\overline{P}_c^B(^{B_1}^{B_2})=\frac{1}{2}.`$ Clearly, this has not been proved.

As an example, consider the case $`^{B_1}=^{B_{11}}^{B_{12}}^{B_{13}}^{B_{14}}`$ of four qubits, with $`\{|\psi _k\}=\{|1|2|3|4,|4|1|2|3,|3|4|1|2,|2|3|4|1\}`$, where $`\{|1,|2,|3,|4\}`$ are, e.g., a fixed set $`S_0`$ of four possible BB84 states on a given great circle of a qubit. Adam permutes each $`|\psi _k`$ by one of four possible $`P_m`$, and returns the first qubit to Babe unchanged for $`𝖻=0`$, while shifted by $`\pi `$ in the great circie for $`𝖻=1`$. Assume first that Babe either did not entangle, or cannot use her entanglement in $`^{B_2}`$. Then $`\rho _0^{B_{11}}(\psi _k)=\rho _1^{B_{11}}(\psi _k)`$ for all $`k`$, and no entanglement of permutations would produce a rotation on the first qubit while not disturbing the others. Thus, Adam cannot cheat perfectly and has a fixed $`\overline{P}_c^A`$ for this protocol which is not arbitrarily close to one, even though it is perfectly concealing. If one can find a case in which the protocol remains perfectly concealing with entanglement by Babe, which is not the case in this example, (IP) of (3) would be contradicted, and the case can be extended to become an unconditionally secure protocol by repeating it in a sequence. Such a case can indeed be found in this kind of protocols which we call Type 2.

## 6 Protocol QBC1

If carried out honestly, this protocol is conceptually simple and works as follows. Adam sends Babe $`n`$ qubits with states selected randomly and independently from $`S_0`$. Babe then picks randomly one of these qubits and sends it back to Adam, who would leave it unchanged or shift it by $`\pi `$, depending on whether $`𝖻=0`$ or 1, and commit it as evidence. He opens by revealing $`𝖻`$ and all the qubit states, and Babe verifies by corresponding measurements.

We assume that no cheating by either party, other than entanglement, occurs during commitment as in the impossibility proof formulation, say, under heavy penalty in a game-theoretic formulation where state checking is done by both parties. Thus the protocol is perfectly concealing. There are many ways for Babe to randomly pick one of the $`n`$ qubits, say by permutation into a fixed qubit among the $`n`$ ones, or into a separate fixed qubit, each with its own purification. If Adam knows which particular way Babe chooses, it can be shown that he can cheat successfully. However, his success depends crucially on this knowledge, and no further entanglement purification by Babe is possible over these different ways that would allow her to send back a single qubit to Adam for bit modulation. While the situation here has some similarity to our Type 3 protocols,, it is one that cannot be completely purified even with a known probability distribution, and the impossibility proof does not apply. Thus, the protocol becomes $`ϵ`$-binding for large $`n`$. A full security proof of this protocol and detailed treatment of Type 2 protocols will be presented elsewhere.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank G.M. D’Ariano, M. Ozawa, and I.L. Chuang for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Army Research Office.