text:
# References

Cyclotomy and Ramanujan Sums in Quantum Phase Locking

Michel Planat111e-mail: planat@lpmo.edu; Fax: 33(0)381853998 and Haret C. Rosu222e-mail: hcr@ipicyt.edu.mx; Fax: 524448335412

Laboratoire de Physique et Métrologie des Oscillateurs du CNRS, 25044 Besançon Cedex, France

Applied Mathematics, IPICyT, Apdo. Postal 3-74 Tangamanga, San Luis Potosí, México

Abstract. Phase-locking governs the phase noise in classical clocks through effects described in precise mathematical terms. We seek here a quantum counterpart of these effects by working in a finite Hilbert space. We use a coprimality condition to define phase-locked quantum states and the corresponding Pegg-Barnett type phase operator. Cyclotomic symmetries in matrix elements are revealed and related to Ramanujan sums in the theory of prime numbers. The employed mathematical procedures also emphasize the isomorphism between algebraic number theory and the theory of quantum entanglement.

Time and phase are amongst the most federal concepts of science. Hersh mentions Kant as putting time before number and making the intuition of time the origin of arithmetics .

The present work can be considered as an extension of a longstanding effort to model phase noise and phase-locking effects that are found in highly stable classical oscillators. It was unambiguously demonstrated that the observed variability (i.e., the 1/f frequency noise of such oscillators) is related to the finite dynamics of states during the measurement process and to the precise filtering rules that involve continued fraction expansions, prime number decomposition, and hyperbolic geometry -. We are interested here in possible quantum counterparts of these effects. The problem of defining quantum phase operators was initiated by Dirac in 1927 . After more than three quarters of a century, it is still an interesting and essentially open problem. For an excellent review, see . Our starting point is the Pegg and Barnett (PB) quantum phase formalism - where the calculations are performed in a Hilbert space $`H_q`$ of finite dimension $`q`$ . In the PB framework the phase states are the so-called discrete quantum Fourier transforms (QFT) of the number states, i.e., the following superpositions

$$|\theta _p=q^{1/2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2i\pi pn}{q}\right)|n.$$
(1)
The states $`|\theta _p`$ form an orthonormal set and in addition the projector over the subspace of phase states is $`_{p=0}^{q1}|\theta _p\theta _p|=1_q`$ where $`1_q`$ is the identity operator in $`H_q`$. The inverse QFT implies $`|n=q^{1/2}_{p=0}^{q1}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{2i\pi pn}{q})|\theta _p`$. As the set of number states $`|n`$, the set of phase states $`|\theta _p`$ is a complete set spanning $`H_q`$. In addition, the QFT operator is a $`q\times q`$ unitary matrix of entries $`\kappa _{pn}^{(q)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}}\mathrm{exp}(2i\pi \frac{pn}{q})`$.

From now on, we restrict ourselves to the class of phase states $`|\theta _p^{}`$ for which $`p`$ and $`q`$ satisfy the coprimality condition $`(p,q)=1`$, where $`(p,q)`$ is the greatest common divisor of $`p`$ and $`q`$. Differently from the phase states (1), $`|\theta _p^{}`$ form an orthonormal base of a Hilbert space whose dimension is given by the number of irreducible fractions $`p/q`$. This number is known in Mathematics as the Euler totient function $`\varphi (q)`$.

Guided by the analogy with the classical situation  we call the irreducible states the phase-locked quantum states. In the space of quantum states, they generate a cyclotomic lattice $`L`$ - with a generator matrix $`M`$ of matrix elements $`\kappa _{pn}^{{}_{}{}^{}(q)}`$ and $`(p,q)=1`$ and size $`\varphi (q)\times \varphi (q)`$. We notice that the corresponding Gram matrix of $`L`$, namely $`H=M^{}M`$, has matrix elements $`h_{n,l}^{(q)}=c_q(nl)`$, which are Ramanujan sums

$$c_q(n)=\underset{\stackrel{p=1}{(p,q)=1}}{\overset{q}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(2i\pi \frac{p}{q}n\right)=\frac{\mu (r)\varphi (q)}{\varphi (r)},$$
(2)
where $`r=q/(q,n)`$. Ramanujan sums are thus defined as sums over the primitive characters $`\mathrm{exp}(2i\pi \frac{pn}{q})`$, $`(p,q)=1`$, of the group $`Z_q=Z/qZ`$. In the equation above, $`\mu (r)`$ is the Möbius function which is $`0`$ if the prime number decomposition of $`r`$ contains a square, $`1`$ if $`r=1`$, and $`(1)^k`$ if $`r`$ is the product of $`k`$ distinct primes . Ramanujan sums are relative integers that are quasiperiodic in $`n`$ with quasi period $`\varphi (q)`$ and aperiodic in $`q`$ with a type of variability imposed by the Möbius function (introduced by Ramanujan in the context of the Goldbach conjecture). Recently, we demonstrated that Ramanujan’s sums are also useful in the context of signal processing as an arithmetical alternative to the discrete classical Fourier transform 333In the discrete Fourier transform the signal processing is performed by using all roots of unity of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(2i\pi p/q)`$ with $`p`$ from $`1`$ to $`q`$ and taking their $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ power $`e_p(n)`$ as basis function. We generalized the classical Fourier analysis by using Ramanujan sums $`c_q(n)`$ as in (2) instead of $`e_p(n)`$. This type of signal processing is more appropriate for arithmetical functions than is the ordinary discrete Fourier transform, while still preserving the metric and orthogonal properties of the latter. Notable results relating arithmetical functions to each other can be obtained using Ramanujan sums expansions while the discrete Fourier transform would lead instead to low frequency tails in the power spectrum..

The projection operator over the subset of phase-locked quantum states $`|\theta _p^{}`$ is calculated as the coprimality-constrained sum of one-state projectors, i.e.,

$$P_q^{\mathrm{lock}}=\underset{\stackrel{p=0}{(p,q)=1}}{\overset{q1}{}}P_p^{}=\underset{\stackrel{p=0}{(p,q)=1}}{\overset{q1}{}}|\theta _p^{}\theta _p^{}|=\frac{1}{q}\underset{n,l=0}{\overset{q1}{}}c_q(nl)|nl|,$$
(3)
so that the matrix element of the projection is such that $`qn|P_q|l=c_q(nl)`$. This is similar to the elements of the cyclotomic Gram matrix and sheds light on the equivalence between cyclotomic lattices of algebraic number theory and the quantum theory of phase-locked states. The quantum phase-locking operator is defined

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_q^{\mathrm{lock}}=\underset{\stackrel{p=0}{(p,q)=1}}{\overset{q1}{}}\theta _p|\theta _p^{}\theta _p^{}|=\pi P_q,\mathrm{where}\theta _p=2\pi \frac{p}{q}.$$
(4)
The Pegg and Barnett phase operator $`\mathrm{\Theta }_q`$ - results from the removal of the coprimality condition $`(p,q)=1`$. Using the number operator $`N_q=_{n=0}^{q1}n|nn|`$ a generalization of Dirac’s commutator $`[\mathrm{\Theta }_q,N_q]=i`$ is obtained.

In contrast, the phase number commutator for phase-locked states as calculated from (4) is

$$C_q^{\mathrm{lock}}=[\mathrm{\Theta }_q^{\mathrm{lock}},N_q]=\frac{\pi }{q}\underset{n,l=0}{\overset{q1}{}}(ln)c_q(nl)|nl|,$$
(5)
and has antisymmetric matrix elements $`l|C_q^{\mathrm{lock}}|n=\frac{\pi }{q}(ln)c_q(nl)`$.

The finite and cyclotomic quantum mechanical rules are mostly encoded in the expectation values of the phase operator and phase variance (see Figures 1-3).

Fig. 1
The phase expectation value versus the dimension $`q`$ of the Hilbert space. Plain lines: $`\beta =0`$. Dotted lines: $`\beta =1`$

Fig. 2
The phase expectation value versus the phase parameter $`\beta `$. Plain lines: $`q=15`$. Dotted lines: $`q=13`$.

Fig. 3
The phase variance versus the dimension q of the Hilbert space. Plain lines: $`\beta =1`$. Dotted lines: $`\beta =\pi `$. The horizontal line at $`\pi ^2/3`$ is the variance of the classical phase.

Rephrasing Pegg and Barnett, we consider a pure phase state $`|f=_{n=0}^{q1}u_n|n`$ having $`u_n`$ of the form

$$u_n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}}\mathrm{exp}(in\beta ),$$
(6)
where $`\beta `$ is a real phase parameter. Defining the phase probability distribution as $`\theta _p^{}|f^2`$; the phase expectation value as $`\mathrm{\Theta }_q^{\mathrm{lock}}=_p\theta _p\theta _p^{}|f^2`$; and the phase variance as ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }_q^2)^{\mathrm{lock}}=_p(\theta _p\mathrm{\Theta }_q^{\mathrm{lock}})^2\theta _p^{}|f^2`$, where the summations are taken from $`p=0`$ to $`q1`$ and $`(p,q)=1`$; the following result is obtained

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_q^{\mathrm{lock}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{q^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,l=0}{\overset{q1}{}}}c_q(ln)\mathrm{exp}[i\beta (nl)],`$ (7)
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }_q^2)^{\mathrm{lock}}=4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_q^{\mathrm{lock}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_q^{\mathrm{lock}}}{\pi }}(\mathrm{\Theta }_q^{\mathrm{lock}}2\pi ),`$ (8)
with the modified expectation value

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_q^{\mathrm{lock}}=\frac{\pi }{q^2}\underset{n,l=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\stackrel{~}{c}_q(ln)\mathrm{exp}[i\beta (nl)],$$
(9)
and the modified Ramanujan sums

$$\stackrel{~}{c}_q(m)=\underset{\stackrel{p=1}{(p,q)=1}}{\overset{q}{}}(p/q)^2\mathrm{exp}\left(2i\pi m\frac{p}{q}\right).$$
(10)
Fig. 1 illustrates the phase expectation value versus the dimension $`q`$ for two different values of the phase parameter $`\beta `$. For $`\beta =1`$, there are peaks at dimensions $`q=p^r`$, which are powers of a prime number $`p`$. For $`\beta =0`$, the peaks are smoothed out due to the averaging over the Ramanujan sums. Fig. 2 shows the phase expectation value versus the phase parameter $`\beta `$ for two dimensions of the Hilbert space, $`q=15`$ and $`q=13`$, respectively. For the case of the prime number $`q=13`$, the phase expectation value is of considerable higher level than for $`q=15`$, with absorption-like lines at isolated values of $`\beta `$. For $`q=15`$, which is not a prime power, the phase expectation value is at a much lower level and more random than for the case of the neighbour prime number.

Fig. 3 illustrates the phase variance versus the dimension $`q`$. The case of $`\beta =1`$ also leads to peaks at prime powers. Similar to the expectation value in Fig. 1, this case is thus reminiscent of the Mangoldt function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$ defined as $`\mathrm{ln}p`$ if $`n`$ is the power of a prime number $`p`$ and $`0`$ otherwise. This function arises in the frame of prime number theory  in the formula for the logarithmic derivative of the Riemann zeta function $`\frac{\zeta ^{}(s)}{\zeta (s)}=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)}{n^s}`$. Its mean value oscillates around $`1`$ with an error term which is explicitely related to the positions of Riemann zeros of $`\zeta (s)`$ on the critical line $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$. The error term shows a power spectral density close to that of $`1/f`$ noise . Finally, the phase variance is considerably smoothed out for $`\beta =\pi `$ and is much lower than the classical limit $`\pi ^2/3`$. Thus, the parameter $`\beta `$ is useful in defining quantum phase-locked states with small phase variances for a whole range of dimensions.

In conclusion, several interesting properties are pinpointed here as a result of introducing cyclotomic discreteness in the Pegg-Barnett quantum phase formalism. The interplay between results associated to prime number theory and quantum phase-locking phenomena looks quite stimulating. We recall that the idea of quantum teleportation was initially formulated by Bennett et al. in finite-dimensional Hilbert space . Yet independently of this, one can conjecture that cyclotomic locking could play an important role in many fundamental tests of quantum mechanics related to quantum entanglement. As a matter of fact, Munro and Milburn  have already conjectured that the best way to see the quantum nature of correlations in entangled states is through the measurement of the observable, canonically conjugate of the photon number, i.e., the quantum phase. Moreover, in their paper dealing with the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger quantum correlations, Munro and Milburn presented a homodyne scheme requiring discrete phase measurement, yet to be experimentally realized in the ultrahigh detector efficiency limit. Nevertheless, a homodyne scheme automatically implies phase locking measurements with cyclotomy playing a role. We also recall that a universal algorithm for the optimal quantum state estimation of an arbitrary finite dimensional system in terms of a sequence of projectors has been introduced by Derka et al . In one of their two examples, the sequence of projectors is very similar to the Pegg-Barnett projectors (in fact they noticed the analogy with the PB phase operator). Therefore, the quality of the cyclotomic phase estimation through a direct generalization of the maximal mean fidelity introduced in their paper could be utilized as well. It may be possible that the type of quantum phase-locking described in this paper may have some applications to the synchronization of remote oscillators by quantum entanglement as already proposed in .


format: text

text:
# References

Euclidean super Yang–Mills theory
on a hyper–Kähler eightfold

D. Mülscha 111Email: muelsch@informatik.uni-leipzig.de and B. Geyerb 222Email: geyer@itp.uni-leipzig.de

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

Abstract

> The construction of a $`N_T=3`$ cohomological gauge theory on the hyper–Kähler eight–fold, whose group theoretical description was given previously by Blau and Thompson , is performed explicitly.

1. Introduction

In recent years the study of cohomological gauge theories on manifolds of special holonomy in various dimensions have attracted a lot of interest . In the context of string theory and M–theory special holonomy plays a prominent role especially because the simplest vacua preserving part of the supersymmetry are compactifications on manifolds of special holonomy. So far, Calabi–Yau three–folds with $`SU(3)`$ holonomy have received the most intensive study in connection with heterotic string compactifications and also due to the miraculous mirror symmetry of type II strings on such manifolds. Recently, the $`G_2`$– and $`Spin(7)`$–holonomy Joyce seven– and eight–folds, respectively, have received considerable attention as well, since they may provide the simplest way to compactify M–theory to four dimensions and to understand the dynamics of $`N=1`$ supersymmetric field theories.

Moreover, it has been shown  that the ideas underlying topological theories can be extended to dimensions higher than four. These cohomological theories, which do not require for a topological twist, acquire many of the characteristics of a topological theory. Nevertheless, such theories, which have a rather intriguing structure, are not fully topological, since they are only invariant under those metric variations which do not change the reduced holonomy structure. At present, the physical status of such theories in $`D>4`$ has not been entirely understood. But, since it is widely believed that the effective world volume theory of the D–brane is the dimensional reduction of $`N=1`$, $`D=10`$ super Yang–Mills theory (SYM) , such cohomological gauge theories could arise naturally in the study of wrapped Euclidean D–branes in string theory (see, e.g., ).

Examples of such theories in $`D=8`$ are the SYM on $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy Joyce eight–folds  — a $`N_T=1`$ theory which is the eight–dimensional analogue of Donaldson–Witten theory — and the SYM on a Calabi–Yau four–folds with $`Spin(6)SU(4)`$ holonomy  — a $`N_T=2`$ theory which is a holomorphic analogue of Donaldson–Witten theory. The only other possible Ricci–flat manifolds admitting covariant constant (parallel) spinors are hyper–Kähler eight–folds with $`Spin(5)Sp(4)`$ holonomy which could be interesting as well . In , making use of a previous work by Ward , Blau and Thompson gave a group theoretical description of the SYM on that manifolds. The aim of the present paper is to construct this theory explicitly. In view of possible generalizations, it might be instructive to start with the somewhat more involved case of a quaternionic Kähler manifold with $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$ holonomy and to consider the particular case of a hyper–Kähler eight–fold only in the final analysis.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we first derive, in accordance with , the generalized $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$ instanton equations. Then, we give the action and the whole set of transformation rules of the Euclidean $`N=2`$, $`D=8`$ SYM in flat space with the original full $`SO(8)`$ rotation invariance reduced to $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$. In Sect. 3, we formulate this theory on the hyper–Kähler eight–fold, i.e, for the particular case when the curvature of the $`Sp(2)`$ spin connections vanishes. Otherwise, i.e., for the general case of a quaternionic Kähler manifold, which is a Einstein space and not Ricci–flat, there are no parallel spinors. In the Appendix we describe in some detail the derivation of the cohomological $`N_T=3`$, $`D=8`$ SYM.

2. The $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$–invariant, $`N_T=3`$ Euclidean super Yang–Mills theory in eight dimensions

Let us first consider the eight–dimensional Euclidean space $`^8`$ when the full symmetry group $`SO(8)`$ is reduced to its subgroup $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$. Then, the Euclidean coordinates $`x^M`$ ($`M=1,\mathrm{},8`$) can be expressed through complex coordinates $`z_{Aa}`$, where $`A=1,2,3,4`$ and $`a=1,2`$ are $`Sp(4)`$ and $`Sp(2)`$ indices, respectively, thereby preserving the Euclidean metric,

$$ds^2=dx^Mdx_M=ϵ^{AB}ϵ^{ab}dz_{Aa}dz_{Bb},x_M=e_M^{Aa}z_{Aa}.$$

Here, $`e_M^{Aa}`$ defines a (non–singular) map from the $`8`$–dimensional Euclidean space to the $`4`$–dimensional complex space $`^4`$,

$$e_M^{Aa}e_{NAa}=\delta _{MN},e_M^{Aa}e^{MBb}=ϵ^{AB}ϵ^{ab}.$$

The indices $`A`$ and $`a`$ are raised and lowered as follows, $`z^{Aa}=ϵ^{AB}ϵ^{ab}z_{Bb}`$ and $`z_{Bb}=z^{Aa}ϵ_{AB}ϵ_{ab}`$, with $`ϵ_{AC}ϵ^{BC}=\delta _A^B`$ and $`ϵ_{ac}ϵ^{bc}=\delta _a^b`$, where $`ϵ_{AB}`$ and $`ϵ_{ab}`$ are the invariant symplectic tensors of the group $`Sp(4)`$ and $`Sp(2)`$, respectively, $`ϵ_{12}=ϵ_{21}=ϵ_{34}=ϵ_{43}=1`$. Explicitly, for the components of $`z_{Aa}=e_{Aa}^Mx_M`$ we choose

$`z_{11}=x_1+ix_2,`$ $`z_{21}=x_3+ix_4,`$ $`z_{31}=x_5+ix_6,`$ $`z_{41}=x_7+ix_8,`$
$`z_{12}=x_3+ix_4,`$ $`z_{22}=x_1ix_2,`$ $`z_{32}=x_7+ix_8,`$ $`z_{42}=x_5ix_6,`$
which will be grouped into the complex conjugated coordinates $`z_A(z_{11},z_{12},z_{31},z_{32})`$ and $`\overline{z}_A(z_{22},z_{21},z_{42},z_{41})`$.

Then, on $`^4`$ an irreducible, $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$–invariant action of the gauge field $`A_A^a`$, being in the adjoint representation of some compact gauge group $`G`$, is given by

$$S_{\mathrm{YM}}=d^4zd^4\overline{z}\mathrm{tr}\{\frac{1}{4}F_{ab}^{AB}F_{AB}^{ab}\},$$
(1)
where $`F_{AB}^{ab}=_{[A}^aA_{B]}^b+[A_A^a,A_B^b]`$ is the corresponding field strength.

Besides of (1), one can construct also a first–stage reducible, $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$–invariant action, namely

$$S_\mathrm{T}=d^4zd^4\overline{z}\mathrm{tr}\{\frac{1}{12}(ϵ^{ab}F_{ab}^{AB}ϵ^{cd}F_{ABcd}ϵ_{AB}F_{ab}^{AB}ϵ_{CD}F^{CDab}F_{ab}^{AB}F_{AB}^{ba})\},$$
(2)
which can be recast into the form

$$S_\mathrm{T}=d^4zd^4\overline{z}\mathrm{tr}\{\frac{1}{24}ϵ_{ABCD}^{abcd}F_{ab}^{AB}F_{cd}^{CD}\},$$

where the (fourth rank) tensor $`ϵ_{ABCD}^{abcd}`$ is totally skew–symmetric in the index pairs $`(Aa)`$, $`(Bb)`$, $`(Cc)`$ and $`(Dd)`$,

$$ϵ_{ABCD}^{abcd}=ϵ_{AB}ϵ_{CD}\mathrm{\Omega }^{cbad}+ϵ_{BC}ϵ_{AD}\mathrm{\Omega }^{acbd}+ϵ_{CA}ϵ_{BD}\mathrm{\Omega }^{bacd},$$
(3)
thereby, for later use, we have introduced the following projection operator,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{abcd}=ϵ_{ac}ϵ_{bd}+ϵ_{ad}ϵ_{bc},\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{abef}\mathrm{\Omega }_{cd}^{ef}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{abcd}.$$
(4)
The tensor (3) defines a linear map of the space of field strengths, $`F_{AB}^{ab}`$, onto itself, namely $`\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ABCD}^{abcd}F_{cd}^{CD}=\lambda F_{AB}^{ab}`$. Thus, one can look for its eigenvalues $`\lambda `$. In accordance with the $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$ decomposition of the adjoint representation of $`SO(8)`$, $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟐})(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟐})=(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ , it is straightforward to prove that the 3 irreducible subspaces of $`\left\{F_{AB}^{ab}\right\}`$ are characterized by the eigenvalues $`\lambda =5`$, $`1`$ and $`3`$. Accordingly, under the branching $`SO(8)Sp(4)Sp(2)`$ the field strength decomposes into

$$F_{MN}F_{AB}^{ab}=\frac{1}{4}ϵ_{AB}ϵ_{CD}F^{CDab}+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}F^{CDab}+\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ab}ϵ^{cd}F_{cd}^{AB},$$
(5)
where, besides (4), we still have introduced another projection operator,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}=2(ϵ_{AC}ϵ_{BD}ϵ_{AD}ϵ_{BC})ϵ_{AB}ϵ_{CD},\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABEF}\mathrm{\Omega }_{CD}^{EF}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}.$$
(6)
Thereby, $`ϵ_{CD}F^{CDab}`$ and $`ϵ^{cd}F_{cd}^{AB}`$ in the first and third term on the r.h.s. of (5), by virtue of $`F_{AB}^{ab}=F_{BA}^{ba}`$, are symmetric in $`(ab)`$ and $`(AB)`$, respectively, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}F_{cd}^{CD}`$ in the second term is symmetric in $`(ab)`$ and skew–symmetric and trace free in $`(AB)`$.

On the other hand, the action (1) can be rewritten as

$$S_{\mathrm{YM}}=S_\mathrm{T}+d^4zd^4\overline{z}\mathrm{tr}\{\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}F_{ab}^{AB}F^{CDab}+\frac{1}{6}ϵ_{AB}F_{ab}^{AB}ϵ_{CD}F^{CDab}\}.$$
(7)
Hence, if we, formally, just as in case of the $`Spin(3)`$ instantons in $`D=4`$, impose $`S_{\mathrm{YM}}=S_\mathrm{T}`$, by virtue of (5), it follows that the $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$ instanton equations are characterized by the eigenvalue $`\lambda =3`$,

$$\frac{1}{6}ϵ_{ABCD}^{abcd}F_{cd}^{CD}=F_{AB}^{ab}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}F_{ab}^{CD}=0,ϵ_{AB}F_{ab}^{AB}=0.$$
(8)
This result is in accordance with , where the $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$–invariant integrable equations for the gauge field $`A_A^a`$ are discussed, and where the 18 equations (8) are obtained as the integrability conditions $`\pi _a\pi _bF_{AB}^{ab}=0`$ of the linear equations $`\pi _a(_A^a+A_A^a)\psi =0`$; here, $`\pi _a`$ are the homogeneous coordinates on the complex projective space, $``$.

Now, we like to construct a cohomological theory, whose action localizes onto the moduli space of the generalized self–duality equations (8), in flat space. This theory can be obtained from the Euclidean $`N=2`$, $`D=8`$ SYM by reducing the group $`SO(8)`$ to $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$.

The gauge multiplet of the Euclidean $`N=2`$, $`D=8`$ SYM consists of the vector field $`A_M`$, a chiral and anti–chiral Weyl spinor, $`\lambda `$ and $`\overline{\lambda }`$, and the scalar fields $`\varphi `$ and $`\overline{\varphi }`$. The vector, the chiral spinor and the anti–chiral spinor representation, which are all eight–dimensional, will be denoted by $`\mathrm{𝟖}_𝐯`$, $`\mathrm{𝟖}_𝐬`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟖}_𝐜`$, respectively. Under the branching $`SO(8)Sp(4)Sp(2)`$ these representations decompose as follows ,

$`\mathrm{𝟖}_𝐯(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟐}),`$ $`A_MA_A^a,`$
$`\mathrm{𝟖}_𝐬(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑}),`$ $`\lambda \chi _{AB},\eta ^{ab},`$
$`\mathrm{𝟖}_𝐜(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟐}),`$ $`\overline{\lambda }\psi _A^a,`$ (9)
i.e., the vector and the anti–chiral representation remain irreducible whereas the the spinor representation decomposes into $`\chi _{AB}`$ which is skew–symmetric and traceless, $`ϵ^{AB}\chi _{AB}=0`$, and $`\eta ^{ab}`$ which is symmetric.

After reducing $`SO(8)`$ to $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$ one ends up with the following $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$–invariant action with an extended, $`N_T=3`$, on–shell equivariantly nilpotent topological supersymmetry (for details, see, Appendix),

$`S_{|Sp(4)Sp(2)SO(8)}^{(N_T=3)}={\displaystyle }d^4zd^4\overline{z}\mathrm{tr}\{`$ $`\frac{1}{4}F_{ab}^{AB}F_{AB}^{ab}2D^{Aa}\overline{\varphi }D_{Aa}\varphi `$
$`2\chi _{AB}D^{Aa}\psi _a^B+2\eta ^{ab}D_a^A\psi _{Ab}2[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ]^2`$
$`2\overline{\varphi }\{\psi ^{Aa},\psi _{Aa}\}\frac{1}{2}\varphi \{\chi ^{AB},\chi _{AB}\}\varphi \{\eta ^{ab},\eta _{ab}\}\},`$ (10)
where $`D_A^a=_A^a+[A_A^a,]`$. All the fields are in the adjoint representation and take their values in the Lie algebra $`Lie(G)`$ of the gauge group $`G`$.

Furthermore, denoting the 16 (real) supercharges by $`Q^{ab}`$, $`Q_{AB}`$ and $`\overline{Q}_A^a`$, where $`Q^{ab}`$ is symmetric, $`Q^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }^{abcd}Q_{cd}`$, and $`Q_{AB}`$ is skew–symmetric and traceless, $`Q_{AB}=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}Q^{CD}`$, for the on–shell $`Sp(4)`$ scalar, tensor and vector supersymmetry transformations one gets

$`Q^{ab}A_A^c=\mathrm{\Omega }^{abcd}\psi _{Ad},`$
$`Q^{ab}\psi _A^c=\mathrm{\Omega }^{abcd}D_{Ad}\varphi ,`$
$`Q^{ab}\varphi =0,`$
$`Q^{ab}\overline{\varphi }=\eta ^{ab},`$
$`Q^{ab}\eta ^{cd}=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_g^{abe}\mathrm{\Omega }^{cdfg}ϵ_{AB}F_{ef}^{AB}+\mathrm{\Omega }^{abcd}[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }],`$
$`Q^{ab}\chi _{AB}=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }^{abcd}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}F_{cd}^{CD},`$ (11)
$`Q_{AB}A_C^a=\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}\psi ^{Da},`$
$`Q_{AB}\psi _C^a=\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}D^{Da}\varphi ,`$
$`Q_{AB}\varphi =0,`$
$`Q_{AB}\overline{\varphi }=\chi _{AB},`$
$`Q_{AB}\eta ^{ab}=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}\mathrm{\Omega }^{abcd}F_{cd}^{CD},`$
$`Q_{AB}\chi _{CD}=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABEG}\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDF}^Gϵ^{ab}F_{ab}^{EF}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }],`$ (12)
and
$`\overline{Q}_A^aA_B^b=ϵ_{AB}\eta ^{ab}+ϵ^{ab}\chi _{AB},`$
$`\overline{Q}_A^a\psi _B^b=F_{AB}^{ab}\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}\mathrm{\Omega }^{abcd}F_{cd}^{CD}+ϵ_{AB}ϵ^{ab}[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }],`$
$`\overline{Q}_A^a\varphi =\psi _A^a,`$
$`\overline{Q}_A^a\overline{\varphi }=0,`$
$`\overline{Q}_A^a\eta ^{cd}=\mathrm{\Omega }^{abcd}D_{Ab}\overline{\varphi },`$
$`\overline{Q}_A^a\chi _{CD}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}D^{Ba}\overline{\varphi },`$ (13)
respectively, where the projection operators $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{abcd}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}`$ have been introduced in (4) and (6).

The on–shell algebraic relations among the supercharges $`Q^{ab}`$, $`Q_{AB}`$ and $`\overline{Q}_A^a`$ are

$$\{Q^{ab},Q^{cd}\}2\mathrm{\Omega }^{abcd}\delta _G(\varphi ),\{Q_{AB},Q_{CD}\}2\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}\delta _G(\varphi ),$$

$$\{Q^{ab},Q_{AB}\}0,$$

$$\{Q^{ab},\overline{Q}_A^c\}\mathrm{\Omega }^{abcd}(_{Ad}+\delta _G(A_{Ad})),\{Q_{AB},\overline{Q}_C^a\}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}(^{Da}+\delta _G(A^{Da})),$$

$$\{\overline{Q}_A^a,\overline{Q}_B^b\}2ϵ_{AB}ϵ^{ab}\delta _G(\overline{\varphi }),$$

where $``$ indicates that the corresponding equations hold on–shell, and $`\delta _G(\phi )`$ denotes a gauge transformation depending on the fields $`\phi =(A_A^a,\varphi ,\overline{\varphi })`$, being defined by $`\delta _G(\phi )A_A^a=D_A^a(A)\phi `$ and $`\delta _G(\phi )X=[\phi ,X]`$ for all the other fields.

In order to verify that the the action (S0.Ex8) is invariant under the transformations (S0.Ex10)–(S0.Ex23) one has to use the following basic relations for the projection operators,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{abeg}\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdf}^g+\mathrm{\Omega }_{abfg}\mathrm{\Omega }_{cde}^g`$ $`=\mathrm{\Omega }_{abce}ϵ_{df}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{abde}ϵ_{cf}\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdae}ϵ_{bf}\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdbe}ϵ_{af},`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{abeg}\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdf}^g\mathrm{\Omega }_{abfg}\mathrm{\Omega }_{cde}^g`$ $`=2\mathrm{\Omega }_{abcd}ϵ_{ef},`$
and
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABEG}\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDF}^G+\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABFG}\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDE}^G`$ $`=\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCE}ϵ_{DF}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABDE}ϵ_{CF}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCF}ϵ_{DE}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABDF}ϵ_{CE}`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDAE}ϵ_{BF}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDBE}ϵ_{AF}\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDAF}ϵ_{BE}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDBF}ϵ_{AE},`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABEG}\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDF}^G\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABFG}\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDE}^G`$ $`=2\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}ϵ_{EF},`$
thereby we used the following equalities,

$$ϵ_{ac}ϵ_{bd}+\text{cyclic}(a,b,c)=0,$$

$$ϵ_{AC}ϵ_{BD}ϵ_{EF}ϵ_{AC}(ϵ_{BE}ϵ_{DF}ϵ_{BF}ϵ_{DE})ϵ_{BD}(ϵ_{AE}ϵ_{CF}ϵ_{AF}ϵ_{CE})+\text{cyclic}(A,B,C)=0.$$

Finally, in order to obtain a cohomological action we still have to split off from (S0.Ex8) the first–stage reducible action (2),

$$S^{(N_T=3)}=S_{|Sp(4)Sp(2)SO(8)}^{(N_T=3)}S_\mathrm{T},$$

which, by virtue of (7), yields

$`S^{(N_T=3)}={\displaystyle }d^4zd^4\overline{z}\mathrm{tr}\{`$ $`\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}F_{ab}^{AB}F^{CDab}+\frac{1}{6}ϵ_{AB}F_{ab}^{AB}ϵ_{CD}F^{CDab}`$
$`2\chi _{AB}D^{Aa}\psi _a^B+2\eta ^{ab}D_a^A\psi _{Ab}2\overline{\varphi }\{\psi ^{Aa},\psi _{Aa}\}`$
$`\frac{1}{2}\varphi \{\chi ^{AB},\chi _{AB}\}\varphi \{\eta ^{ab},\eta _{ab}\}2D^{Aa}\overline{\varphi }D_{Aa}\varphi 2[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ]^2\}.`$ (14)
Then, on–shell, upon using the equations of motion of $`\chi _{AB}`$ and $`\eta ^{ab}`$, the action (S0.Ex40) can be cast into the $`Q^{ab}`$–exact form

$$S^{(N_T=3)}Q^{ab}\mathrm{\Psi }_{ab},$$

with the gauge fermion

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{ab}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{abcd}d^4zd^4\overline{z}\mathrm{tr}\{\frac{1}{12}\chi _{AB}F^{ABcd}+\frac{1}{12}\eta _e^cϵ_{AB}F^{ABde}+\frac{1}{6}\eta ^{cd}[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }]\frac{1}{3}\overline{\varphi }D^{Ac}\psi _A^d\}.$$

3. Euclidean super Yang–Mills theory on the hyper–Kähler eightfold

So far we have assumed that the space is flat, but we shall now formulate the cohomological theory on a hyper–Kähler eight–fold. In view of possible generalizations it may be convenient to study the more involved case of a quaternionic Kähler manifold. For that purpose, we shall begin by considering an eight–dimensional Riemannian manifold with $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$ holonomy, endowed with hermitean metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`Sp(4)`$ and $`Sp(2)`$ spin connections $`\omega _\mu ^{AB}`$ and $`\omega _\mu ^{ab}`$, respectively. The curved coordinates will be indicated as $`x^\mu `$ ($`\mu =1,\mathrm{},8`$) and the complex coordinates will again be denoted by $`z_{Aa}`$,

$$ds^2=g^{\mu \nu }dx_\mu dx_\nu ,x_\mu =e_\mu ^{Aa}z_{Aa},$$

where, locally, $`e_\mu ^{Aa}`$ is the invertible $`8`$–bein on the quaternionic Kähler manifold,

$$e_\mu ^{Aa}e_{\nu Aa}=g_{\mu \nu },e_\mu ^{Aa}e^{\mu Bb}=ϵ^{AB}ϵ^{ab}.$$

In order to break down the structure group $`GL(4,)GL(2,)`$ to $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$, we have to require covariant constancy of the symplectic tensors $`ϵ^{AB}`$ and $`ϵ^{ab}`$,

$`_\mu ϵ^{AB}_\mu ϵ^{AB}+\omega _{\mu C}^Aϵ^{CB}+\omega _{\mu C}^Bϵ^{AC}=0,`$
$`_\mu ϵ^{ab}_\mu ϵ^{ab}+\omega _{\mu c}^aϵ^{cb}+\omega _{\mu c}^bϵ^{ac}=0,`$
where $`_\mu `$ denotes the metric covariant derivative. In addition, the integrability conditions $`[_\mu ,_\nu ](ϵ^{AB},ϵ^{ab})=0`$ imply that $`ϵ^{AB}`$ and $`ϵ^{ab}`$ are constant and that the antisymmetric part of the spin connections can be chosen equal to zero.

Furthermore, in order to ensure covariant constancy of the metric, we impose

$$_\mu e_\nu ^{Aa}_\mu e_\nu ^{Aa}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda e_\lambda ^{Aa}+\omega _{\mu B}^Ae_\nu ^{Ba}+\omega _{\mu b}^ae_\nu ^{Ab}=0,$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda `$ is the affine connection.

The crucial ingredient of a quaternionic Kähler manifold is a triplet of complex structures,

$$(J^\alpha )_\mu ^\nu =ie_\mu ^{Aa}(\sigma ^\alpha )_a^be_{Ab}^\nu ,\alpha =1,2,3,$$
(16)
where $`(\sigma ^\alpha )_a^b`$ are the $`Sp(2)`$ generators, $`(\sigma ^\alpha )_a^c(\sigma ^\beta )_c^b=iϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }(\sigma _\gamma )_a^b+\delta ^{\alpha \beta }\delta _a^b`$, which obey the algebra of the quaternions,

$$(J^\alpha )_\mu ^\rho (J^\beta )_\rho ^\nu =ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }(J_\gamma )_\mu ^\nu \delta _\mu ^\nu \delta ^{\alpha \beta }.$$

Since the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is preserved and hermitean, it holds

$$(J^\alpha )_\mu ^\rho g_{\rho \nu }+(J^\alpha )_\nu ^\rho g_{\rho \mu }=0.$$

Now, for any choice of $`(J_\alpha )_\mu ^\nu `$, we can associate a triplet of Kähler two–forms $`\rho _\alpha `$ via

$$\rho _\alpha \frac{1}{2}i(J_\alpha )_\mu ^\rho g_{\rho \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{AB}(\sigma _\alpha )^{ab}dz_a^Adz_b^B.$$

Then, by making use of the completeness relation, $`(\sigma _\alpha )_a^c(\sigma ^\alpha )_b^d=ϵ_{ab}ϵ^{cd}\delta _a^d\delta _b^c`$, we can define the four–form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{1}{2}\rho _\alpha \rho ^\alpha =\frac{1}{24}ϵ_{ABCD}^{abcd}dz_a^Adz_b^Bdz_c^Cdz_d^D,$$

which reveals the geometrical origin of the fourth rank tensor $`ϵ_{ABCD}^{abcd}`$ introduced in (3).

Furthermore, on a quaternionic Kähler manifold the complex structures (16) are required to be covariant constant as well,

$$_\mu (J^\alpha )_\nu ^\lambda _\mu (J^\alpha )_\nu ^\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\rho (J^\alpha )_\rho ^\lambda +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \rho }^\lambda (J^\alpha )_\nu ^\rho +2ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\omega _{\mu \beta }(J_\gamma )_\nu ^\lambda =0,$$
(17)
where in place of $`\omega _\mu ^{ab}`$ we have used the triplet representation $`\omega _\mu ^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}i(\sigma ^\alpha )_{ab}\omega _\mu ^{ab}`$. Since a quaternionic Kähler manifold — in contrast to a hyper–Kähler eight–fold — does not have a vanishing Nijenhuis tensor, the affine connection and the $`Sp(2)`$ spin connection can not be uniquely defined without additional requirements. 333The covariant constancy condition (17) is left invariant when one performs simultaneously the replacements $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda +(\delta _{(\mu }^\rho \delta _{\nu )}^\lambda (J^\alpha )_{(\mu }^\rho (J_\alpha )_{\nu )}^\lambda )\xi _\rho `$ and $`\omega _\mu ^\alpha \omega _\mu ^\alpha +(J^\alpha )_\mu ^\rho \xi _\rho `$, where $`\xi _\rho `$ is an arbitrary vector (see, Appendix B of ). Notice, that in our convention (anti)symmetrization are defined by $`(X,Y)=XY+XY`$ resp. $`[X,Y]=XYXY`$, whereas in  the corresponding definitions include an additional factor $`1/2`$.

In order to define in (17) the $`Sp(2)`$ spin connection $`\omega _\mu ^\alpha `$ we adopt the two requirements proposed in ,

$$(J^\alpha )_\mu ^\nu \omega _{\nu \alpha }=0,N_{\mu \nu }^\lambda =\frac{1}{2}(J^\alpha )_{[\mu }^\lambda \omega _{\nu ]\alpha },$$
(18)
where $`N_{\mu \nu }^\lambda `$ is the Nijenhuis tensor (in the normalization of )

$$N_{\mu \nu }^\lambda \frac{1}{12}(J^\alpha )_\mu ^\rho _{[\rho }(J_\alpha )_{\nu ]}^\lambda \frac{1}{12}(J^\alpha )_\nu ^\rho _{[\rho }(J_\alpha )_{\mu ]}^\lambda =N_{\nu \mu }^\lambda .$$

The second condition in (18), which ensures that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda `$ is actually the (torsionless) Levi–Civita connection, can be easily solved for $`\omega _\mu ^\alpha `$. One finds

$$\omega _\mu ^\alpha =\frac{1}{3}N_{\mu \nu }^\lambda (J^\alpha )_\lambda ^\nu .$$

Then, one can show that the Levi–Civita connection in (17) is equal to the Oproiu connection ,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda =\frac{1}{6}_{(\mu }(J^\alpha )_{\nu )}^\rho (J_\alpha )_\rho ^\lambda \frac{1}{12}ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }(J_\beta )_{(\mu }^\rho _{|\rho |}(J_\gamma )_{\nu )}^\sigma (J_\alpha )_\sigma ^\lambda \frac{1}{2}(J^\alpha )_{(\mu }^\lambda \omega _{\nu )\alpha }.$$
(19)
It differs from the Obata connection  — the Levi–Civita connection in the case of a hyper–Kähler eight–fold — by the $`\omega _\mu ^\alpha `$–dependent term. With that choice for $`\omega _\mu ^{ab}=i(\sigma _\alpha )^{ab}\omega _\mu ^\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda `$ the $`Sp(4)`$ spin connection $`\omega _\mu ^{AB}`$ can be immediately obtained from the condition (15).

¿From the integrability condition $`[_\mu ,_\nu ]e_\rho ^{Aa}=0`$ of (15) it follows that the Riemannian curvature $`R_{\mu \nu \rho }^\sigma =_{[\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu ]\rho }^\sigma +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda [\mu }^\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu ]\rho }^\lambda `$ decomposes into

$$R_{\mu \nu \rho }^\sigma =(J_\alpha )_\rho ^\sigma R_{\mu \nu }^\alpha e_{Aa}^\sigma e_{\rho B}^aR_{\mu \nu }^{AB},$$

where $`R_{\mu \nu }^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}i(\sigma ^\alpha )_{ab}R_{\mu \nu }^{ab}`$ and $`R_{\mu \nu }^{AB}`$ are the $`Sp(2)`$ and $`Sp(4)`$ curvatures, respectively,

$`R_{\mu \nu }^\alpha =_{[\mu }\omega _{\nu ]}^\alpha +2ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\omega _{\mu \beta }\omega _{\nu \gamma },`$
$`R_{\mu \nu }^{AB}=_{[\mu }\omega _{\nu ]}^{AB}+\omega _{[\mu C}^A\omega _{\nu ]}^{BC}.`$
Furthermore, from the integrability condition $`[_\mu ,_\nu ](J^\alpha )_\rho ^\sigma =0`$ of (17), namely

$$R_{\mu \nu \rho }^\sigma (J^\alpha )_\lambda ^\rho R_{\mu \nu \lambda }^\rho (J^\alpha )_\rho ^\sigma +2ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }R_{\mu \nu \beta }(J_\gamma )_\lambda ^\sigma =0,$$
(20)
together with the relation $`\frac{1}{8}R_{\mu \nu \rho }^\sigma (J^\alpha )_\sigma ^\rho =R_{\mu \nu }^\alpha `$, it can be shown that the Ricci tensor $`R_{\mu \nu }=R_{\lambda \mu \nu }^\lambda `$ is proportional to the curvature scalar, $`R_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{8}g_{\mu \nu }R`$, and that the $`Sp(2)`$ curvature is proportional to the complex structures, $`R_{\mu \nu }^\alpha =\frac{1}{64}R(J^\alpha )_{\mu \nu }`$ , i.e., the quaternionic Kähler manifold is Einstein in contrast to the hyper–Kähler eight–fold which is Ricci–flat.

After having specified the data of a Riemannian manifold with $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$ holonomy let us now discuss whether or not the cohomological $`N_T=3`$, $`D=8`$ SYM can be coupled to such a background. In the case of a hyper–Kähler eight–fold, i.e., for a Ricci–flat manifold with vanishing $`Sp(2)`$ curvature, $`R_{\mu \nu }=\frac{8}{3}(J_\alpha )_\mu ^\rho R_{\rho \nu }^\alpha =0`$, there is no problem. As usual, in order to put a flat space gauge invariant theory on a curved space one has to covariantize the action(S0.Ex40) via $`\delta _{MN}g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`d^4zd^4\overline{z}d^4zd^4\overline{z}\sqrt{g}`$ and $`D_{Aa}D_{Aa}^{\mathrm{cov}}=e_{Aa}^\mu _\mu +[A_{Aa},]`$, where $`D_{Aa}^{\mathrm{cov}}`$ denotes the gauge and metric covariant derivative. Furthermore, it that case there is a triplet of parallel spinors $`\zeta _\alpha `$ obeying

$$_\mu \zeta _\alpha =0,_\mu _\mu +\frac{1}{4}\omega _\mu ^{ABab}\gamma _{ABab}.$$
(21)
Thereby, $`\gamma _{ABab}=\frac{1}{2}[\gamma _{Aa},\gamma _{Bb}]`$ are the generators of the holonomy group (with $`\gamma _{Aa}`$ being the $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$ Dirac matrices) and

$$\omega _\mu ^{ABab}=e^{\nu Aa}(_\mu e_\nu ^{Bb}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda e_\lambda ^{Bb})$$
(22)
is the affine spin connection (with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda `$ being the Obata connection). The spinors $`\zeta _\alpha `$ can be identified with the parameters $`\zeta ^{ab}`$, via $`\zeta ^{ab}=i(\sigma ^\alpha )^{ab}\zeta _\alpha `$, of the scalar supersymmetries (S0.Ex10), which are already in a covariantized form.

Obviously, in the case of a quaternionic Kähler manifold, i.e., if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda `$ in (22) agrees with the Oproiu connection (19), the integrability condition $`[_\mu ,_\nu ]\zeta _\alpha =0`$ allows only for the trivial solution $`\zeta _\alpha =0`$, since this manifold is Einstein, $`R0`$. But, in the particular case when the curvature scalar $`R=\frac{7}{2}\lambda _0^2`$ is constant (the pre-factor is dimension dependent), the integrability condition does not forbid the existence of a triplet of (conformal) Killing spinors $`\zeta _\alpha `$ satisfying

$$_\mu \zeta _\alpha =\frac{1}{8}\lambda _0\gamma _\mu \zeta _\alpha ,\gamma _\mu =e_\mu ^{Aa}\gamma _{Aa}.$$
(23)
Indeed, acting on (23) with $`_\nu `$ and antisymmetrising, by virtue of (22), one obtains

$$e^{\rho Aa}e_\sigma ^{Bb}R_{\mu \nu \rho }^\sigma \gamma _{ABab}\zeta _\alpha =\frac{1}{8}\lambda _0^2\gamma _{\mu \nu }\zeta _\alpha ,\gamma _{\mu \nu }=e_\mu ^{Aa}e_\nu ^{Bb}\gamma _{ABab},$$
(24)
where $`R_{\mu \nu \rho }^\sigma `$ is the Riemannian curvature tensor being introduced above. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda `$ is torsionless and since $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is preserved, this curvature obeys the cyclicity property $`R_{\mu \nu \rho }^\sigma +R_{\nu \rho \mu }^\sigma +R_{\rho \mu \nu }^\sigma =0`$ and the exchange property $`R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=R_{\rho \sigma \mu \nu }`$. Then, multiplying (24) by $`\gamma ^\nu `$ and taking into account these properties one arrives at

$$R_{\rho \mu \nu }^\rho \gamma ^\nu \zeta _\alpha =R_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\nu \zeta _\alpha =\frac{7}{16}\lambda _0^2\gamma _\mu \zeta _\alpha ,$$
(25)
where $`R_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{8}g_{\mu \nu }R`$. This condition admits a non–trivial solution for $`R=\frac{7}{2}\lambda _0^2`$. Obviously, $`\lambda _00`$ brings us back to (21).

Hence, it is interesting to enquire whether the existence of parallel spinors on a hyper–Kähler eight–fold, which is irreducible and Ricci–flat, implies self–duality of the spin connection (and conversely), whereas the existence of Killing spinors on a quaternionic Kähler manifold, which is a Einstein space, is equivalent to certain generalized self–duality conditions for the spin connections. With another words, it is possible — in the case of a quaternionic Kähler manifold with constant $`R=\frac{7}{2}\lambda _0^2`$ — to add certain $`R`$–dependent terms to the covariantized action (S0.Ex40) in such a way that the Killing spinors $`\zeta _\alpha `$ may be identified with the parameters $`\zeta ^{ab}`$, via $`\zeta ^{ab}=i(\sigma ^\alpha )^{ab}\zeta _\alpha `$, of the supersymmetries (S0.Ex10). Unfortunately, we have not so far been successful in finding such $`R`$–dependent terms. Nevertheless, we believe that this problem is worthy of further investigations.

Appendix

In order to derive from the Euclidean $`N=2`$, $`D=8`$ SYM a cohomological theory where the $`SO(8)`$ invariance is broken down to $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$ we proceed as follows: First we choose the standard embedding of $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$ into $`SO(8)`$, which is defined as the stability subgroup $`Sp(4)Sp(2)SO(8)`$ of the vector representation according to which we have the decomposition

$`\mathrm{𝟖}_𝐯(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑}),`$ $`A_MG_i,V_\alpha ,`$
$`\mathrm{𝟖}_𝐬(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟐}),`$ $`\lambda \lambda _{Aa},`$
$`\mathrm{𝟖}_𝐜(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟐}),`$ $`\overline{\lambda }\overline{\lambda }_{Aa}.`$
Usually, one discards this representation since it does not allow for the existence of a $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$–invariant, totally skew–symmetric (fourth rank) tensor. But, in the present case, after having established the $`N=2`$, $`D=8`$ SYM in that representation one can simply deduce the structure of the cohomological $`N_T=3`$, $`D=8`$ SYM according to the decomposition (S0.Ex6).

To begin with, let us first consider the full $`SO(8)`$–invariant action of the Euclidean $`N=2`$, $`D=8`$ SYM, which is obtained from the Minkowskian $`N=1`$, $`D=10`$ SYM  by ordinary dimensional reduction and performing a Wick rotation into the Euclidean space. It is built up from an anti–hermitean vector field $`A_M`$, 16–component chiral and anti–chiral Weyl spinors, $`\lambda `$ and $`\overline{\lambda }`$, respectively, and the scalar fields $`\varphi `$ and $`\overline{\varphi }`$. All the fields take their values in the Lie algebra $`Lie(G)`$ of some compact gauge group $`G`$. As a result, for the dimensionally reduced Euclidean action one obtains

$`S^{(N=2)}={\displaystyle _E}d^8x\mathrm{tr}\{`$ $`\frac{1}{4}F^{MN}F_{MN}+2\overline{\lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }^MD_M\lambda 2D^M\overline{\varphi }D_M\varphi `$
$`+2\lambda ^TC_8^1[\varphi ,\lambda ]2\overline{\lambda }C_8[\overline{\varphi },\overline{\lambda }^T]2[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ]^2\},`$ (A.1)
where $`F_{MN}=_{[M}A_{N]}+[A_M,A_N]`$ and $`D_M=_M+[A_M,]`$. $`C_8`$ is the charge conjugation matrix, $`C_8^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_MC_8=\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^T`$, which can be chosen to be symmetric. The Dirac matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M`$ for the $`SO(8)`$ spinor representation will be specified below, $`\frac{1}{2}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_M,\mathrm{\Gamma }_N\}=\delta _{MN}I_{16}`$.

The action (A.1) is invariant under the following supersymmetry transformations

$`\delta A_M=\overline{\zeta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\lambda \overline{\lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\zeta ,`$
$`\delta \varphi =\overline{\zeta }C_8\overline{\lambda }^T,`$
$`\delta \lambda =\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\zeta F_{MN}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^MC_8\overline{\zeta }^TD_M\overline{\varphi }\zeta [\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }],`$
$`\delta \overline{\varphi }=\lambda ^TC_8^1\zeta ,`$
$`\delta \overline{\lambda }=\frac{1}{4}\overline{\zeta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}F_{MN}\zeta ^TC_8^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^MD_M\varphi \overline{\zeta }[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ],`$ (A.2)
with $`\zeta `$ and $`\overline{\zeta }`$ being constant chiral and anti–chiral Weyl spinors, respectively ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_9\zeta =\zeta `$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_9=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_8`$), and where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MN}=\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_M,\mathrm{\Gamma }_N]`$ are the $`SO(8)`$ generators.

In order to reduce in the action (A.1) the $`SO(8)`$ invariance to $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$, we replace the $`SO(8)`$ matrices by the standard embedding $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{5+\alpha })`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$, $`\alpha =1,2,3`$) of $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$ into $`SO(8)`$. In this representation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{5+\alpha }`$ and the chirality matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_9`$ are given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& (\gamma _i)_A^B\delta _a^b\\ (\gamma _i)_A^B\delta _a^b& 0\end{array}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{5+\alpha }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\delta _A^B(\sigma _\alpha )_a^b\\ i\delta _A^B(\sigma _\alpha )_a^b& 0\end{array}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_9=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_8=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta _A^B\delta _a^b& 0\\ 0& \delta _A^B\delta _a^b\end{array}\right),`$ (A.3)
$`(\gamma _i)_A^B`$ ($`A=1,2,3,4`$) and $`(\sigma _\alpha )_a^b`$ ($`a=1,2`$) being the $`Sp(4)`$ and $`Sp(2)`$ generators, respectively.

The $`Sp(2)`$ matrices obey

$$(\sigma _\alpha )_a^c(\sigma _\beta )_c^b=iϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(\sigma ^\gamma )_a^b+\delta ^{\alpha \beta }\delta _a^b,$$
(A.4)
and are symmetric $`(\sigma _\alpha )_{ab}=(\sigma _\alpha )_{ba}`$. For the $`Sp(4)`$ matrices we take the particular representation

$$(\gamma _\alpha )_A^B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i(\sigma _\alpha )_a^b\\ i(\sigma _\alpha )_a^b& 0\end{array}\right),(\gamma _4)_A^B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \delta _a^b\\ \delta _a^b& 0\end{array}\right),(\gamma _5)_A^B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta _a^b& 0\\ 0& \delta _a^b\end{array}\right),$$

where $`\alpha `$ runs over $`1,2,3`$ (recalling that $`Sp(4)Spin(5)`$ is the covering group of $`SO(5)`$). They satisfy the relations

$`(\gamma _i)_A^C(\gamma _j)_C^B=(\gamma _{ij})_A^B+\delta _{ij}\delta _A^B,`$
$`(\gamma _i)_A^C(\gamma _{mn})_C^B=\delta _{i[m}(\gamma _{n]})_A^B\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijkmn}(\gamma ^{jk})_A^B,`$
$`(\gamma _{ij})_A^C(\gamma _{mn})_C^B=\delta _{[i[m}(\gamma _{n]j]})_A^B+ϵ_{ijkmn}(\gamma ^k)_A^B\delta _{i[m}\delta _{n]j}\delta _A^B,`$ (A.5)
where $`ϵ_{ijkmn}`$ is a totally antisymmetric unit tensor. Here, the 5 matrices $`(\gamma _i)_{AB}`$ are skew–symmetric and traceless, $`(\gamma _i)_{AB}=(\gamma _i)_{BA}`$ and $`ϵ^{AB}(\gamma _i)_{AB}=0`$, whereas the 10 generators $`(\gamma _{ij})_{AB}`$ of the $`Sp(4)`$ rotations are symmetric, $`(\gamma _{ij})_{AB}=(\gamma _{ij})_{BA}`$.

Then, for the 64 (antisymmetric) generators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MN}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,5+\alpha },\mathrm{\Gamma }_{5+\alpha ,5+\beta })`$ from (A.3) one obtains

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(\gamma _{ij})_A^B\delta _a^b& 0\\ 0& (\gamma _{ij})_A^B\delta _a^b\end{array}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,5+\alpha }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i(\gamma _i)_A^B(\sigma _\alpha )_a^b& 0\\ 0& i(\gamma _i)_A^B(\sigma _\alpha )_a^b\end{array}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{5+\alpha ,5+\beta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\delta _A^Bϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(\sigma ^\gamma )_a^b& 0\\ 0& i\delta _A^Bϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(\sigma ^\gamma )_a^b\end{array}\right).`$ (A.6)
A particular and crucial feature of the action (A.1) is that the charge conjugation matrix $`C_8`$ can be chosen to be symmetric,

$$C_8=\left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ_{ab}ϵ_{AB}& 0\\ 0& ϵ_{ab}ϵ_{AB}\end{array}\right),C_8^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_MC_8=\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^T.$$

After having specified the representation of the matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M`$ let us now determine the action (A.1) and the transformation rules (A.2) of the $`N=2`$, $`D=8`$ SYM with the $`SO(8)`$ rotation invariance reduced to $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$. To begin with, we write the Weyl spinors $`\lambda `$ and $`\overline{\lambda }`$ as

$$\lambda =\mathrm{\Gamma }_9\lambda =\left(\begin{array}{c}\lambda _{Aa}\\ 0\end{array}\right),\overline{\lambda }=\overline{\lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }_9=(0,\overline{\lambda }^{Aa}),$$
(A.7)
which, just as in the Minkowski space, are related by hermitean conjugation, $`\overline{\lambda }=\lambda ^{}E_8`$, with

$$E_8=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& ϵ^{ab}ϵ^{AB}\\ ϵ^{ab}ϵ^{AB}& 0\end{array}\right),E_8\mathrm{\Gamma }_ME_8^1=\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{},$$

where we have renamed $`\lambda _{Aa}^{}=\overline{\lambda }_{Aa}`$.

Then, substituting into (A.1) for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M`$ the matrices (A.3) and splitting the gauge field into $`A_M=(G_i,V_\alpha )`$, one ends up with the following $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$–invariant action with an underlying $`N=2`$ supersymmetry,

$`S_{|Sp(4)Sp(2)SO(8)}^{(N=2)}={\displaystyle }d^4zd^4\overline{z}\mathrm{tr}\{`$ $`\frac{1}{4}F^{ij}F_{ij}+\frac{1}{2}F^{i\alpha }F_{i\alpha }+\frac{1}{4}F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }`$
$`+2\overline{\lambda }^{Aa}(\gamma ^i)_A^BD_i\lambda _{Ba}2D^i\overline{\varphi }D_i\varphi `$
$`+2i\overline{\lambda }^{Aa}(\sigma ^\alpha )_a^bD_\alpha \lambda _{Ab}2D^\alpha \overline{\varphi }D_\alpha \varphi `$
$`2\varphi \{\lambda _{Aa},\lambda ^{Aa}\}2\overline{\varphi }\{\overline{\lambda }^{Aa},\overline{\lambda }_{Aa}\}2[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ]^2\}.`$ (A.8)
For the sake of simplicity, the various field strength tensors and covariant derivatives are denoted by $`F_{ij}=_{[i}G_{j]}+[G_i,G_j]`$, $`F_{i\alpha }=_iV_\alpha _\alpha G_i+[G_i,V_\alpha ]`$, $`F_{\alpha \beta }=_{[\alpha }V_{\beta ]}+[V_\alpha ,V_\beta ]`$ and$`D_i=_i+[G_i,]`$, $`D_\alpha =_\alpha +[V_\alpha ,]`$, respectively.

Denoting the 16 (real) supercharges with $`\overline{Q}_{Aa}`$ and $`Q^{Aa}`$, and decomposing the supersymmetry transformations according to $`\delta =\overline{\zeta }^{Aa}\overline{Q}_{Aa}\zeta _{Aa}Q^{Aa}`$, from (A.2) one obtains

$`Q^{Aa}G_i=(\gamma _i)_B^A\overline{\lambda }^{Ba},`$
$`Q^{Aa}V_\alpha =i(\sigma _\alpha )_b^a\overline{\lambda }^{Ab},`$
$`Q^{Aa}\varphi =0,`$
$`Q^{Aa}\lambda _{Bb}=\frac{1}{4}(\gamma _{ij})_B^A\delta _b^aF^{ij}\frac{1}{2}i(\gamma _i)_B^A(\sigma _\alpha )_b^aF^{i\alpha }+\frac{1}{4}i\delta _B^Aϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(\sigma ^\gamma )_b^aF^{\alpha \beta }+\delta _B^A\delta _b^a[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }],`$
$`Q^{Aa}\overline{\varphi }=\lambda ^{Aa},`$
$`Q^{Aa}\overline{\lambda }^{Bb}=(\gamma _i)^{AB}ϵ^{ab}D^i\varphi iϵ^{AB}(\sigma _\alpha )^{ab}D^\alpha \varphi ,`$ (A.9)
and
$`\overline{Q}_{Aa}G_i=(\gamma _i)_A^B\lambda _{Ba},`$
$`\overline{Q}_{Aa}V_\alpha =i(\sigma _\alpha )_a^b\lambda _{Ab},`$
$`\overline{Q}_{Aa}\overline{\varphi }=0,`$
$`\overline{Q}_{Aa}\overline{\lambda }^{Bb}=\frac{1}{4}(\gamma _{ij})_A^B\delta _a^bF^{ij}\frac{1}{2}i(\gamma _i)_A^B(\sigma _\alpha )_a^bF^{i\alpha }+\frac{1}{4}i\delta _A^Bϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(\sigma ^\gamma )_a^bF^{\alpha \beta }\delta _A^B\delta _a^b[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ],`$
$`\overline{Q}_{Aa}\varphi =\overline{\lambda }_{Aa},`$
$`\overline{Q}_{Aa}\lambda _{Bb}=(\gamma _i)_{AB}ϵ_{ab}D^i\overline{\varphi }iϵ_{AB}(\sigma _\alpha )_{ab}D^\alpha \overline{\varphi }.`$ (A.10)
In order to infer from (A.8)–(A.10) the structure of the cohomological $`N_T=3`$, $`D=8`$ SYM according to the decomposition (S0.Ex6) we have to replace ($`G_i,V_\alpha `$) and $`\lambda _{Aa}`$ through $`A_{Aa}`$ and ($`\chi _i,\eta _\alpha `$), respectively, in an appropriate manner. To this end, we view $`\lambda _{Aa}`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }_{Aa}`$ in the Euclidean space as two independent $`8`$–component spinors, so that they are no longer related by hermitean conjugation. Hence, hermiticity is abandoned — which is not a problem here since hermiticity is primarily necessary for the unitarity of the theory, and unitarity only makes sense for theories in Minkowski space.

Next, we express $`F_{ij}`$, $`F_{i\alpha }`$ and $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ in terms of the field strength tensor $`F_{ABab}`$ according to

$`F_{ij}=\frac{1}{4}(\gamma _{ij})_{AB}ϵ_{ab}F^{ABab},`$
$`F_{i\alpha }=\frac{1}{4}(\gamma _i)_{AB}(i\sigma _\alpha )_{ab}F^{ABab},`$
$`F_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{4}ϵ_{AB}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(i\sigma ^\gamma )_{ab}F^{ABab},`$ (A.11)
so that, by making use of the completeness relations

$$(i\sigma _\alpha )_{ab}(i\sigma ^\alpha )_{cd}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{abcd},(\gamma _i)_{AB}(\gamma ^i)_{CD}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD},$$
(A.12)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{abcd}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ABCD}`$ have been introduced in (4) and (6), respectively, we can split $`F_{ABab}`$ into

$$F_{ABab}=\frac{1}{4}(\gamma _{ij})_{AB}ϵ_{ab}F^{ij}+\frac{1}{4}(\gamma _i)_{AB}(i\sigma _\alpha )_{ab}(F^{i\alpha }F^{\alpha i})+\frac{1}{4}ϵ_{AB}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(i\sigma ^\gamma )_{ab}F^{\alpha \beta },$$
(A.13)
which corresponds to the $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$ decomposition $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}=(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ of the adjoint representation of $`SO(8)`$. Notice that the relative factors in (A.11) and (A.13) are the same. The relationships (A.11) and (A.13) immediately suggests how one has to carry out the above mentioned replacements.

Namely, from (A.8) we deduce that the cohomological action, with an underlying $`N_T=3`$ equivariant shift symmetry, should be of the form

$`S_{|Sp(4)Sp(2)SO(8)}^{(N_T=3)}={\displaystyle }d^4zd^4\overline{z}\mathrm{tr}\{`$ $`\frac{1}{4}F^{ABab}F_{ABab}+2D^{Aa}\overline{\varphi }D_{Aa}\varphi 2[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ]^2`$
$`+2\overline{\lambda }^{Aa}(\gamma ^i)_A^BD_{Ba}\chi _i+2i\overline{\lambda }^{Aa}(\sigma ^\alpha )_a^bD_{Ab}\eta _\alpha `$
$`2\varphi \{\chi ^i,\chi _i\}2\varphi \{\eta ^\alpha ,\eta _\alpha \}2\overline{\varphi }\{\overline{\lambda }^{Aa},\overline{\lambda }_{Aa}\}\}.`$ (A.14)
Moreover, splitting $`Q_{Aa}`$ into $`(Q_i,Q_\alpha )`$ from (A.9) and (A.10) we deduce that the supersymmetry transformations generated by $`Q_i`$, $`Q_\alpha `$ and $`\overline{Q}_{Aa}`$ should be taken as

$`Q_\alpha A_{Aa}=i(\sigma _\alpha )_a^b\overline{\lambda }_{Ab},`$
$`Q_\alpha \overline{\lambda }_{Aa}=i(\sigma _\alpha )_a^bD_{Ab}\varphi ,`$
$`Q_\alpha \varphi =0,`$
$`Q_\alpha \overline{\varphi }=\eta _\alpha ,`$
$`Q_\alpha \eta _\beta =\frac{1}{4}iϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(\sigma ^\gamma )^{ab}ϵ_{AB}F_{ab}^{AB}+\delta _{\alpha \beta }[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }],`$
$`Q_\alpha \chi _i=\frac{1}{4}i(\sigma _\alpha )^{ab}(\gamma _i)_{AB}F_{ab}^{AB},`$ (A.15)
$`Q_iA_{Aa}=(\gamma _i)_A^B\overline{\lambda }_{Ba},`$
$`Q_i\overline{\lambda }_{Aa}=(\gamma _i)_A^BD_{Ba}\varphi ,`$
$`Q_i\varphi =0,`$
$`Q_i\overline{\varphi }=\chi _i,`$
$`Q_i\chi _j=\frac{1}{4}(\gamma _{ij})_{AB}ϵ^{ab}F_{ab}^{AB}+\delta _{ij}[\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }],`$
$`Q_i\eta _\alpha =\frac{1}{4}i(\gamma _i)_{AB}(\sigma _\alpha )^{ab}F_{ab}^{AB},`$ (A.16)
and
$`\overline{Q}_{Aa}A_{Bb}=iϵ_{AB}(\sigma _\alpha )_{ab}\eta ^\alpha +(\gamma ^i)_{AB}ϵ_{ab}\chi _i,`$
$`\overline{Q}_{Aa}\overline{\lambda }_{Bb}=F_{ABab}+\frac{1}{4}(\gamma _i)_{AB}(\sigma _\alpha )_{ab}(\gamma ^i)_{CD}(\sigma ^\alpha )_{cd}F^{CDcd}ϵ_{AB}ϵ_{ab}[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ],`$
$`\overline{Q}_{Aa}\varphi =\overline{\lambda }_{Aa},`$
$`\overline{Q}_{Aa}\overline{\varphi }=0,`$
$`\overline{Q}_{Aa}\eta _\alpha =i(\sigma _\alpha )_a^bD_{Ab}\overline{\varphi },`$
$`\overline{Q}_{Aa}\chi _i=(\gamma _i)_A^BD_{Ba}\overline{\varphi },`$ (A.17)
respectively. After a straightforward, but tedious calculation one proves that, in fact, the above transformations leave the action (A.14) invariant.

Finally, we rename $`\overline{\lambda }_{Aa}=\psi _{Aa}`$ and introduce the fields $`\chi _{AB}`$ and $`\eta _{ab}`$ via $`\chi _{AB}=(\gamma _i)_{AB}\chi ^i`$ and $`\eta _{ab}=i(\sigma _\alpha )_{ab}\eta ^\alpha `$, respectively. Similarly, instead of $`Q_i`$ and $`Q_\alpha `$, we introduce the supercharges $`Q_{AB}`$ and $`Q_{ab}`$ via $`Q_{AB}=(\gamma _i)_{AB}Q^i`$ and $`Q_{ab}=i(\sigma _\alpha )_{ab}Q^\alpha `$, respectively.

In this manner, by virtue of (A.12), from (A.14) and (A.15)–(A.17) we arrive exactly at the action (S0.Ex8) together with the supersymmetry transformations (S0.Ex10)–(S0.Ex23).

Acknowledgement We are grateful to M. Blau for an interesting and useful discussion.


text:
# Semiclassical description of D-branes in SL(2)/U(1) gauged WZW model

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that WZW models are some of the few known exact string theory backgrounds. They are important elements of the near-horizon geometry of various string theory configurations. For example the background of $`Q_5`$ NS5 branes and $`Q_1`$ fundamental strings has a near horizon geometry given by the $`SL(2,)\times SU(2)`$ WZW model. On the other hand the near-horizon geometry of a circular distribution of NS5 branes is T-dual to an orbifold of the $`SL(2,)/U(1)\times SU(2)/U(1)`$ gauged WZW model. In addition WZW models and their gauged variations have become increasingly important in studies of the AdS/CFT correspondence and branes-world scenarios.

D-branes are an essential ingredient of string theory since they play crucial role in various dualities and holography. One way to study the properties of D-branes in a given background is to construct the boundary state of the D-branes which describe the couplings of closed string modes on their world-volume. This is in general a difficult question for a general background. Although D-branes in WZW models on compact group manifolds like SU(2) have been studied extensively, little progress has been achieved towards non-compact cases like $`SL(2,)`$. In fact even the spectrum of these theories is not fully understood. Nevertheless we can get useful information for such D-branes by studying just the semiclassical limit of their boundary states, in other words their low energy effective action. This has been a fruitful approach for the $`SL(2,)`$ case  as well as for the cases of compact group manifolds . In this note we will study the semiclassical features of D-branes in the gauged $`SL(2,)/U(1)`$ WZW model along the lines of a similar study for $`SU(2)/U(1)`$ . Since we are not in position to give the full boundary state for all D-branes in $`SL(2,)/U(1)`$, we will restrict ourselves to their geometrical features. Finally, for one set of branes, we use a small fluctuation analysis of the low energy effective action to get the semiclassical limit of the open string spectra. Consequently we compare our results with expectations from a CFT analysis .

## 2 The geometry and the spectrum

The $`SL(2,)`$ WZW model is described by a world-sheet sigma model with target space:

$`ds^2=k((\mathrm{cosh}\rho )^2d\psi ^2+(d\rho )^2+(\mathrm{sinh}\rho )^2d\tau ^2)`$ (1)
and a Kalb-Ramond field strength given by the volume element of the spacetime. The constant k is the level of the affine lie algebra that can take real values with $`k2`$, and we used units $`\alpha ^{}=1`$.

One can construct the $`SL(2,)/U(1)`$ coset from the $`SL(2,)`$ WZW model by gauging a U(1) subgroup of $`SL(2,)`$ . If this subgroup is non compact one ends with a manifold with Lorentzian signature, the 2D black hole. On the contrary if we choose a compact U(1) then we get an Euclidean manifold. There are two possible anomaly free U(1) gauge symmetries: the axial, $`ghgh`$ and the vector, $`ghgh^1`$, where $`g(z,\overline{z})`$ group elements of $`SL(2,)`$ and $`hU(1)`$. For a compact U(1) the manifold we get by gauging the axial symmetry has the geometry of a cigar:

$`ds^2=(d\rho )^2+(\mathrm{tanh}\rho )^2d\tau ^2e^\mathrm{\Phi }=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\mathrm{cosh}\rho (cigar)`$ (2)
The axial gauging amounts intuitively into gauging the symmetry which corresponds to time translations in $`SL(2,)`$. This will be important later in understanding the geometry of branes in the cigar geometry. Notice that unlike $`AdS_3`$, in $`SL(2,)`$ we have closed time-like curves. Therefore the U(1) associated with time translations is a compact subgroup of $`SL(2,)`$.

By gauging the vector compact U(1) symmetry we get the geometry of a trumpet:

$`ds^2=(d\rho )^2+(\mathrm{coth}\rho )^2d\psi ^2e^\mathrm{\Phi }=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\mathrm{sinh}\rho (trumpet)`$ (3)
This coset amounts to gauging the U(1) symmetry of shifting $`\tau `$. Notice that unlike the cigar manifold, that of the trumpet is singular due to the fact that the vector gauging action has fixed points. The two backgrounds are actually T-dual to each other. To be exact the cigar is T-dual to the trumpet where $`\psi \psi +2\pi /k`$.

Finally we would like to summarize the operator spectrum of the theory  since it will become useful in our small fluctuation analysis. The operators in the axially gauged theory belong to discrete series with $`(k1)/2j1/2`$ and continuous series with $`j=1/2+iP`$, $`PR^+`$. The operators are charged under the $`SL(2,)`$ currents $`J_3,\overline{J}_3`$ with charges: $`\omega _L=1/2(m+nk)`$ and $`\omega _R=1/2(mnk)`$. The classical angular momentum of an operator is $`m`$ and the winding $`n`$. The conformal weights of the operators are :

$`h_{mn}^j={\displaystyle \frac{j(j+1)}{k2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(m+nk)^2}{k2}}\overline{h}_{mn}^j={\displaystyle \frac{j(j+1)}{k2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(mnk)^2}{k2}}`$ (4)
In addition from the harmonic analysis in $`SL(2,)`$ we conclude that discrete representations should satisfy: $`|nk|>|m|`$. We see that we cannot have discrete representations with vanishing winding. For the T-dual vector gauging we need to take $`\omega _R\omega _R`$ which results in $`mn`$ in (4). The discrete representations constrain in this case is $`|nk|<|m|`$, where $`m`$ is the angular momentum in the trumpet and $`n`$ the winding. In this case discrete series states with non-zero momentum and zero winding exist. The continuous representations correspond semiclassically to wave like solutions while the discrete ones to bound states. So, in the semiclassical limit $`k\mathrm{}`$, where the winding states decouple, we expect bound states for the trumpet and not for the cigar. These expectations from CFT are nicely confirmed by the computation of the low energy spectrum of the two geometries . The open string spectra of the D-branes satisfy analogous constrains.

## 3 D-brane descendants from branes of SL(2) and DBI analysis

The geometry of D-branes in $`SL(2,)`$ has been studied in  (see also i.e.  for related work) where it was found that solutions of the DBI action correspond to regular and twined conjugacy classes of $`SL(2,)`$. It was found that D1 branes have $`AdS_2`$ world volumes and D2 branes come in two types with $`H_2`$ and $`dS_2`$ world volumes . The first type of D2 branes has a D-instanton density in its world-volume while the second one was found to be unphysical due to a supercritical electric field. As explained in  the D-branes in coset models $`G/H`$ have world-volumes localized on the projection to the coset, of the product of a conjugacy class of $`G`$ with a conjugacy class of $`H`$. In geometric words we expect the D-branes we will find on the cigar to be projections on a constant $`\psi `$ plane of the D-branes in $`SL(2,)`$ and those of the trumpet projections on a constant $`\tau `$ plane. We will verify these expectations by solving the DBI for the cigar and trumpet.

We will assume from now on that the level $`k`$ is an integer. This needs not to be the general case but in most of the interesting (supersymmetric) backgrounds the $`SL(2,)_k/U(1)`$ CFT appears with a corresponding $`SU(2)_k^{}/U(1)`$ with the levels $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$ differing by an integer . Since $`k^{}`$ must be an integer then $`k`$ should be one too.

For the D1 branes in the cigar and with an embedding $`\rho (\tau )`$ we need to minimize the ”energy” of the system $`E=\frac{_{DBI}}{\dot{\rho }}_{DBI}`$, where $`\dot{\rho }`$ is derivative with respect to $`\tau `$. The same method is employed for the D1 branes in the trumpet. For the D2 branes one has to solve the equations of motion for the gauge field $`F_{\rho \tau }`$. The analysis is straight forward as shown in tables 1 and 2.

In tables 1 and 2 we give the embedding equations for the various branes in trumpet and cigar respectively, as well as the $`SL(2,)`$ branes from which they descent. The dimensionality of each brane is evident by its name i.e. $`DS1_{tr}`$ is an 1-dimensional brane in the trumpet, descending from the $`dS_2`$ brane in $`SL(2,)`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐓𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝟏}.`$
$`\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ SL(2,)& \mathrm{Trumpet}& \mathrm{Embedding}\mathrm{equations}& \mathrm{Moduli}\\ & & & \\ H_2& D1_{tr}& \mathrm{cosh}\rho \mathrm{sin}(\psi \psi _0)=C& C=\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi }{N}k\\ & & & \\ dS_2& DS1_{tr}& \mathrm{cosh}\rho \mathrm{sin}(\psi \psi _0)=C& C1,\psi _0\\ & & & \\ AdS_2& D2_{tr}& 2\pi F_{\rho \psi }=\frac{N\mathrm{coth}\rho \mathrm{sinh}\rho _{min}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho \mathrm{sinh}^2\rho _{min}}}& \rho _{min},A_\psi \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{?}& D1_{tr}^{}& \rho =0& none\end{array}`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{𝐓𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝟐}.`$
$`\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ SL(2,)& \mathrm{Cigar}& \mathrm{Embedding}\mathrm{equations}& \mathrm{Moduli}\\ & & & \\ H_2& D2_{cig}& 2\pi F_{\rho \tau }=N\frac{C\mathrm{tanh}\rho }{\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho C^2}}& C=\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi }{N}N_{D0}\\ & & & \\ dS_2& DS2_{cig}& 2\pi F_{\rho \tau }=N\frac{C\mathrm{tanh}\rho }{\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho C^2}}& C=\mathrm{cosh}\rho _{min}1,A_\tau \\ & & & \\ AdS_2& D1_{cig}& \mathrm{sin}(\tau \tau _0)=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\rho _{min}}{\mathrm{sinh}\rho }& \rho _{min},\tau _0\\ & & & \\ \mathrm{?}& D0_{cig}& \rho =0& none\end{array}`$ (16)
At this point a few comments are in order. First looking at the table of the cigar and the trumpet we notice that the branes which descent from the $`AdS_2`$ and $`dS_2`$ branes have two classical moduli. Unlike these branes, the DBI analysis analogous to  for D2 branes in the cigar, implies that they carry a D0 brane charge which leads to the quantization of the modulus $`C`$. Also since they have trivial topology they do not admit a Wilson line. By T-duality these branes are related to D1 branes in the trumpet which hit the infinite radius circle at $`\rho =0`$. In principal one expects no quantization of their incidence angle given by the modulus $`C`$ and in addition that they carry an extra modulus, the angle $`\psi _0`$ where they hit the circle $`\rho =0`$. T-duality with the cigar suggests that these D1 branes can hit only special points on the $`\rho =0`$ circle of the trumpet and it is suggested also (see ) that they correspond to bound states of D1 branes orthogonal to the circle with a number of $`D1_{tr}^{}`$ branes.

We should also emphasize that the trumpet has a strong coupling singularity at $`\rho =0`$ and therefore it is plausible that our analysis might be valid only for branes which extend far enough from the singularity. Nevertheless the considerable success of our semiclassical analysis and the similar results of  for the spectrum of the theory suggest that there should be a grain of truth in our results.

Notice that we have not been able to identify the brane of $`SL(2,)`$, if any, where the $`D0_{cig}`$ branes on the cigar and their T-dual $`D1_{tr}^{}`$ descent from. One might think that the D0 brane of the cigar comes from the point brane of $`SL(2,)`$ but there seems to be a contradiction when one tries to construct the $`D1_{tr}^{}`$ by descending from this brane to the trumpet. The point in $`SL(2,)`$ will still be a point in cigar or trumpet. These shortcomings of our semiclassical analysis should be eliminated once we are able to have the complete boundary state for these branes.

Finally notice that since the cigar is actually T-dual to an orbifold of the trumpet, one needs to rescale the string coupling by $`1/\sqrt{N}`$ when comparing quantities under T-duality.

## 4 Small fluctuation analysis for $`AdS_2`$ descendants and the open string spectrum

The boundary states for branes in $`SL(2,)`$ has been a long and rather subtle problem. The non-compactness of the group results in infinities for most physically relevant quantities which must be dealt with caution. On top of that only recently  was a significant aspect of the spectrum, that of spectral flow, understood. Nevertheless one can work in the Euclidean analog of $`AdS_3`$ and try to construct branes in the $`H_3^+`$ hyperbolic space. This method was employed in  111See  for a different approach to the problem and some objections to the construction employed in . and the boundary state of a brane with $`AdS_2`$ world-volume was constructed among other branes of the background. It was claimed that due to the time independence of this particular set of branes on can descent trivially to the corresponding branes in the coset $`H_3^+/_\psi `$ which describes the cigar geometry. These branes couple only to closed string momentum modes as expected by their geometry. This in turn implies, due to the discrete representation constrains, that only closed strings in the continuous representations couple to the brane.

We will work along the lines of  to study the semiclassical approximation to the open string spectrum of the branes. It is easy to understand by the shape of the $`D1_{cig}`$ branes (see also ) that open string winding states should appear in the spectrum and not momentum ones 222This is also a consequence of closed/open string duality in the annulus string amplitude. Momentum in the closed string channel becomes winding in the open string channel.. Since open string states satisfy the same constrains for the allowed quantum numbers as closed ones, continuous states as well as discrete ones with winding $`w>0`$ are allowed. In the semiclassical limit only the winding zero state survives since all other ones become heavy and decouple. Then computing the open string spectrum of these branes using the DBI in the cigar geometry we expect to see only continuous representations since the discrete ones are forbidden for $`w=0`$. The purpose of the following analysis is to compute the small fluctuation spectra on these branes and confirm the expected spectrum. In addition we will compute the semiclassical reflection coefficient and determine the density of open string states.

We use the DBI lagrangian for D1 strings with embedding $`\tau =\mathrm{cos}^1\frac{C}{r}+\delta \tau (r,t)`$ where $`r=\mathrm{sinh}\rho ,C=\mathrm{sinh}\rho _{min}`$ and we assume a fluctuation $`\delta \tau (r,t)`$ around the classical background. The time is $`t`$ not to be confused with $`\tau `$. Expanding the DBI action we get:

$`_{DBI}T_1e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1\frac{C^2}{r^2}}}}+C(_r\delta \tau )`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k{\displaystyle \frac{r^2\sqrt{1\frac{C^2}{r^2}}}{1+r^2}}(_t\delta \tau )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r^2(\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{C^2}{r^2}}})^{3/2}(_r\delta \tau )^2]`$
The first term is the energy density of our D-brane. The first order variation vanishes when we integrate it on the world-volume of the brane since to have a small fluctuation $`\delta \tau \tau _0`$ for $`x\pm \mathrm{}`$ in cartesian coordinates.

The equations of motion for the quadratic fluctuations give a hypergeometric equation. The solution shows no poles which would signify bound states and it turns out that for the wave like solutions with the correct asymptotic behavior the solutions is:

$`u={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(iP)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1iP/2)^2}}r^{iP}(1+C^2)^{iP/2}(1)^{i|j|/2}`$ (18)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(iP)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+iP/2)^2}}r^{iP}(1+C^2)^{iP/2}(1)^{+i|j|/2}`$
where we have assumed (semiclassical approximation) $`|j|>>1`$, for $`j=1/2+iP`$. The term $`r^{iP}`$ describes an outgoing wave and $`r^{iP}`$ an incoming one. The ratio of the coefficients of these two terms is the semiclassical approximation to the reflection coefficient of a state coming from infinity. Now, we can compute the semiclassical limit of the relative density of states between a brane with modulus $`\rho _{min}`$ and a reference brane $`\rho _{min}^{}`$:

$`N_{rel}(P|\rho _{min},\rho _{min}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{P}}log{\displaystyle \frac{R_c(\rho _{min};P)}{R_c(\rho _{min}^{};P)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}log{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}\rho _{min}}{\mathrm{cosh}\rho _{min}^{}}}`$ (19)
where the function $`R_c(\rho _{min};P)`$ is the semiclassical limit of the reflection coefficient for an open string state. We compute a relative density of states since the density of states for a single brane is infinite due to the non-compactness of its world-volume. Our results agree with .

## 5 Conclusions

In this note we have determined solutions of the DBI for D0, D1 and D2 branes in the cigar and trumpet geometries. Some aspects of those branes in realistic string backgrounds will be further discussed in .We have also computed the small fluctuations spectrum for one kind of them (the $`D1_{cig}`$) and found agreement with geometrical and CFT expectations.

One might wonder if we can get useful information for the winding states on D1cig, by studying the spectrum of momentum modes in its T-dual, the $`D2_{tr}`$. We have calculated the small fluctuation spectra of $`D2_{tr}`$ and found both discrete series states as well as continuous representations. The discrete series states appear with degeneracy one. For the continuous part of the spectrum the density of states turns out to be the same as (19).

As a final remark, in  the spectral flow of semiclassical solution gives strings which wind half a time around the center of $`AdS_3`$. These in the cigar should descent to half-winding open string states which is intuitively obvious from the shape of the $`D1_{cig}`$. This implies that on the trumpet the $`D2_{tr}`$ should allow states which have half-angular momentum and are periodic only under a $`4\pi `$ rotation. This deserves further investigation and we hope to return to this point in the future.

I wish to thank the organizers of the workshop on the ”Quantum Structure of Spacetime and the Geometric Nature of Fundamental Interactions” held in Leuven from 13-19 September 2002, for giving me the opportunity to present this work in a very stimulating environment. I am grateful to Costas Bachas, Marios Petropoulos and Sylvain Ribault for many discussions and collaboration in this and related subjects as well as to the authors of  for communicating their results. I acknowledge discussions with A. Giveon, V. Schomerus, A. Schwimmer and J. Teschner. Finally I wish to thank J. Troost for bringing to my attention a mistake in a formula of the first version. This work was supported in part by the European Commission under contracts HRPN-CT-2000-00131 and HRPN-CT-2000-00148.