format: text

text:
# The Holographic Supercurrent Anomaly

## I Introduction

The AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture  states that the type IIB string theory compactified on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ theory with $`N`$ units of $`RR`$ flux on $`S^5`$ describes the same physics as $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. Further, the explicit definition was given in Refs.  and  as the following. Given the type IIB superstring theory in the background $`AdS_{d+1}\times X^{9d}`$, with $`X^{9d}`$ being a compact Einstein manifold, the boundary effect of the type IIB superstring theory must be considered since $`AdS_{d+1}`$ has a boundary at spatial infinity, which is actually a copy of Minkowski space $`M_d`$ (or its compactified version $`S_d`$). The partition function of such a string theory with certain boundary value of a bulk field takes the following form,

$`Z_{\mathrm{String}}\left[\varphi \right]|_{\varphi \varphi _0}={\displaystyle _{\varphi (x,0)=\varphi _0(x)}}𝒟\varphi (x,r)\mathrm{exp}\left(S[\varphi (x,r)]\right),`$ (1)
where $`\varphi ^{(0)}(x)`$ is the boundary value of the $`AdS_{d+1}`$ bulk quantity $`\varphi (x,r)`$ such as the graviton, gravitino, $`NSNS`$ and $`RR`$ antisymmetric tensor fields etc.. Since the isometry group $`SO(2,d)`$ of $`AdS_{d+1}`$ acts as the conformal group on $`M_d`$, and hence a quantum field theory defined on the boundary should be conformal invariant. The $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence conjecture means that the type IIB superstring partition function (1) should be identical to the generating functional for the correlation functions of the composite operators of certain conformal field theory

$`Z_{\mathrm{CFT}}\left[\varphi _0\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle _{M^d}}d^dx𝒪(x)\varphi _0(x)`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d^dx_i𝒪_1(x_1)\mathrm{}𝒪_n(x_n)\varphi _0(x_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _0(x_n)}`$ (3)
$``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{CFT}}[\varphi _0]\right),`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi _0]`$ being the quantum effective action describing the composite operators interacting with $`\varphi _0`$ background field. That is,

$`Z_{\mathrm{String}}\left[\varphi \right]|_{\varphi \varphi _0}=Z_{\mathrm{CFT}}\left[\varphi _0\right].`$ (5)
In the large-$`N`$ case, the type IIB string correction to supergravity is proportional to $`1/\sqrt{g_sN}`$, $`g_s`$ being the string coupling, thus one can neglect the string effect and just consider its low-energy effective theory, the type IIB supergravity. In this case, the partition function of the type IIB superstring can be evaluated as the exponential of the supergravity action in a field configuration $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{cl}}[\varphi ^0]`$ which satisfies the classical equation of motion of the supergravity with the boundary condition given by $`\varphi _0`$, i.e.,

$`Z_{\mathrm{String}}\left[\varphi \right]|_{\varphi \varphi _0}=\mathrm{exp}\left(S_{\mathrm{SUGRA}}[\varphi ^{\mathrm{cl}}[\varphi _0]]\right).`$ (6)
Comparing (6) with (4) and (5), we immediately conclude that the background effective action of the large-$`N`$ limit of the $`d`$-dimensional conformal field theory can be approximately equal to the on-shell classical action of $`AdS_{d+1}`$ supergravity with non-empty boundary,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{CFT}}[\varphi _0]=S_{\mathrm{SUGRA}}[\varphi ^{\mathrm{cl}}[\varphi _0]]={\displaystyle d^dx\underset{n}{}\varphi _0^{(n)}(x)𝒪^{(n)}}.`$ (7)
In the above equation, $`𝒪^{(r)}`$ are the various composite operators in the superconformal field theory such as the energy-momentum tensor and chiral $`R`$-symmetry current etc. and $`\varphi _0^{(r)}`$ are the corresponding background fields such as the gravitational and gauge fields etc., which are boundary values of the corresponding bulk fields.

Let us emphasize the role of the five-dimensional gauged supergravities  in AdS/CFT correspondence . The $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background arises from the near horizon limit of $`D3`$-brane solution of type IIB supergravity . In the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background, the spontaneous compactification on $`S^5`$ of the type IIB supergravity actually occurs . With the assumption that there exists a consistent nonlinear truncation of the massless modes from the whole Kluza-Klein spectrum of the type IIB supergravity compactified on $`S^5`$ , the resultant theory should be the $`SO(6)(SU(4))`$ gauged $`𝒩=8`$ $`AdS_5`$ supergravity since the isometry group $`SO(6)`$ of the internal space $`S^5`$ becomes the gauge group of the compactified theory and the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background preserves all of the supersymmetries of type IIB supergravity . Furthermore, if the background for the type IIB supergravity is $`AdS_5\times X^5`$ with $`X^5`$ being an Einstein manifold rather than $`S^5`$ such as $`T^{1,1}=(SU(2)\times SU(2))/U(1)`$ or certain orbifold, then due to the singularities in the internal manifold, the number of preserved supersymmetries in the compactified $`AdS_5`$ supergravity is reduced and the isometry group of the theory also changes . One can thus obtain the gauged $`𝒩=2,4`$ $`AdS_5`$ supergravities in five dimensions, and their dual field theories are believed to be $`N=1,2`$ supersymmetric gauge theories . In a strict sense, a supersymmetric gauge theory with lower supersymmetries is not a conformal invariant theory since its beta function does not vanish. However, it was shown that renormalization group flow of this type of supersymmetric gauge theory has the fixed point, at which the conformal invariance can arise . The $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence between the $`𝒩=2,4`$ gauged supergravities in five dimensions and $`𝒩=1,2`$ supersymmertric gauge theories can thus be established .

With the truncation from the Kaluza-Klein tower, Eq. (7) can be considered as a quantum effective action describing a superconformal gauge theory in an external supergravity background , only where the external fields are provided by the boundary values of those in a one-dimension-higher bulk space-time. It is well known that the superconformal anomaly will arise from a classical superconformal gauge theory in an external supergravity background. The reproduction of the superconformal anomaly from the bulk gauged supergravity will provide an important support to the above $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence conjecture at low-energy level.

In the next section, we shall briefly introduce the superconformal anomaly for the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theory in an external $`𝒩=1`$ conformal supergravity background. Section 3 is devoted to a review of the $`𝒩=2`$ gauged supergravity in five dimensions and its $`AdS_5`$ classical solution. We also emphasize the behaviour of the fields of gauged supergravity near the $`AdS_5`$ boundary and the reduction of bulk supersymmetry transformation into an $`𝒩=1`$ superconformal transformation on the $`AdS_5`$ boundary. It is well known that the $`𝒩=1`$ superconformal transformation consists of the $`𝒩=1`$ four-dimensional supersymmetry transformation and the special conformal supersymmetry transformation (or super-Weyl in curved space-time background). In section 4, we calculate the supersymmetry variation of the five-dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ gauged supergravity and extract out the surface term. Furthermore, considering the fact that the four-dimensional supersymmetry and the super-Weyl symmetry cannot be preserved simultaneously, we find the external gauge field part of the holographic super-Weyl anomaly of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theory from the boundary term the five-dimensional gauged supergravity. In Section 5 we summarize the main results and present some further discussions. Our results suggest that the contributions to the superconformal anomaly from the external vector field and gravitational field may have different holographic origin.

## II Superconformal Anomaly Multiplet in External Conformal Supergravity Background

A general four-dimensional $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory consists of the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory coupled with $`𝒩=1`$ massless matter fields in various possible representations of the gauge group. The classical Lagrangian density is

$`=\text{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W_{\mu \nu }W^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\overline{\lambda }\gamma ^\mu _\mu \lambda \right)+_{\mathrm{matter}},`$ (8)
where $`W_{\mu \nu }`$ is the field strength for the $`SU(N)`$ gauge field and the $`\lambda `$ is a Majorana spinor in the adjoint representation of $`SU(N)`$. Due to the supersymmetry, its energy-momentum tensor $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, the supersymmetry current $`s^\mu `$ and the axial vector (or equivalently chiral) R-current $`j^{(5)\mu }`$ lie in a supermultiplet . These currents at classical level are not only conserved,

$`_\mu \theta ^{\mu \nu }=_\mu s^\mu =_\mu j^{(5)\mu }=0,`$ (9)
but also satisfy further algebraic constraints

$`\theta _\mu ^\mu =\gamma _\mu s^\mu =0.`$ (10)
This will promote the Poincaré supersymmetry to a superconformal symmetry since one can construct three more conserved currents,

$`d^\mu x_\nu \theta ^{\nu \mu },k_{\mu \nu }2x_\nu x^\rho \theta _{\rho \mu }x^2\theta _{\mu \nu },l_\mu ix^\nu \gamma _\nu s_\mu .`$ (11)
These three new conserved currents give the generators for dilatation, conformal boost and special supersymmetry transformation. However, the superconformal symmetry may become anomalous at quantum level. In the case that all of them, the trace of energy-momentum tensor, $`\theta _\mu ^\mu `$, the $`\gamma `$-trace of supersymmetry current, $`\gamma ^\mu s_\mu `$ and the divergence of the chiral $`R`$-current, $`_\mu j^{(5)\mu }`$, get contribution from quantum effects,

$`(_\mu j^{(5)\mu },\gamma ^\mu s_\mu ,\theta _\mu ^\mu )`$ (12)
will form a (on-shell) chiral supermultiplet with the $`_\mu j^{(5)\mu }`$ playing the role of the lowest component of the corresponding composite chiral superfield .

In general, there are two possible sources for above chiral supermultiplet anomaly . One is due to the non-vanishing beta function of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory; The other one comes from the coupling of above supercurrent multiplet with the external supergravity fields. In this paper, we shall concentrate on the superconformal anomaly arising from the latter one. In this case, the $`\gamma `$-trace anomaly consists only of the super-Weyl anomaly since the corresponding special conformal supersymmetry transformation is just the supersymmetric analog of the Weyl (or local scale) transformation. Note that in a supersymmetric gauge theory, the Poincaré symmetry corresponding to the energy-momentum tensor $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$, the supersymmetry corresponding to the supersymmetry current $`s_\mu `$, and the chiral $`R`$-symmetry to the axial vector current $`j_\mu ^{(5)}`$ are all global symmetries and there no gauge fields within the supersymmetric gauge theory itself to couple with them. If there are some external supergravity fields $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, axial vector fields $`A_\mu `$ and vector-spinor (Rarita-Schwinger) fields $`\psi _\mu `$ couple to $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, $`j_\mu ^{(5)}`$ and $`s_\mu `$, respectively,

$`_{\mathrm{ext}}={\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}\left(g_{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\mu \nu }+A_\mu j^{(5)\mu }+\overline{\psi }_\mu s^\mu \right)},`$ (13)
there will arise external superconformal anomaly chiral supermultiplet. The action (13) describing the coupling of the external supergravity fields with the currents of supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory shows that the covariant conservations of the currents, $`_\mu \theta ^{\mu \nu }=_\mu s^\mu =0`$, are equivalent to the local gauge transformation invariance of the external supergravity system,

$`\delta g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \xi _\nu +_\nu \xi _\mu ,`$ (14)
$`\delta \psi _\mu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \chi (x).`$ (15)
Furthermore, the covariant conservation of the axial vector current $`j_\mu ^{(5)}`$ and the vanishing of both the $`\gamma `$-trace of supersymmetry current and the trace of energy-momentum tensor at classical level,

$`_\mu j^{(5)\mu }=\gamma ^\mu s_\mu =\theta _\mu ^\mu =0,`$ (16)
mean the Weyl transformation invariance of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, the super-Weyl symmetry and the $`U(1)`$ chiral gauge symmetry of the corresponding external supergravity system,

$`\delta g_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }\sigma (x),`$ (17)
$`\delta \psi _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _\mu \eta (x),`$ (18)
$`\delta A_\mu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }(x).`$ (19)
The transformations (15) and (19) imply that the external fields

$`(g_{\mu \nu },\psi _\mu ,A_\mu )`$ (20)
constitute an off-shell $`𝒩=1`$ conformal supergravity multiplet . Therefore, in the context of the $`AdS/CFT`$ (or more generally gravity/gauge) correspondence the superconformal anomaly in $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theory due to the supergravity external sources will be reflected in the explicit violations of the bulk symmetries of $`𝒩=2`$ gauged $`AdS_5`$ supergravity on the boundary .

With no consideration on the quantum correction from the dynamics of the supersymmetric gauge theory, the external superconformal anomaly is exhausted at one-loop level. The external superconformal anomaly multiplet for $`𝒩=1`$ pure supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory is listed as the following :

$`_\mu j^{(5)\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{16\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}R_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\stackrel{~}{R}^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }+F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\right),`$ (21)
$`\gamma _\mu s^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{16\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}R^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\gamma _{\lambda \rho }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}F_{\mu \nu }\right)\left(D_\mu \psi _\nu D_\nu \psi _\mu \right),`$ (22)
$`\theta _\mu ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{16\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}C_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }C^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}\stackrel{~}{R}_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\stackrel{~}{R}^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right).`$ (23)
In above equations, $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }=i/2[\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu ]`$; $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$ is the field strength corresponding to the external $`U_R(1)`$ vector field $`A_\mu `$; $`R_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }`$ and $`C_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }`$ are the Riemannian and Weyl tensors corresponding to the gravitational background field $`g_{\mu \nu }`$; $`D_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative with respect to both the external gravitational and gauge fields. The factor $`N^21`$ comes from the fact that the gauginoes are in the adjoint representation of $`SU(N)`$ gauge group and hence there are $`N^21`$ copies. Note that Eq. (23) contains only the contribution to the superconformal anomaly coming from the vector multiplet of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory. Naturally, there will also arise the contribution from the $`𝒩=1`$ chiral supermutiplets if they are present in the theory. Their contributions to the anomaly coefficient will be proportional to $`N`$ or $`N^21`$. This depends on the chiral multiplets belonging to the fundamental or adjoint representations of $`SU(N)`$ group.

In the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence, the holographical arising of the chiral $`U_R(1)`$ anomaly was pointed out by Witten that it should come directly from the Chern-Simons term in the five-dimensional gauged supergravity . Further, the holographic Weyl anomaly was shown in Ref.  through a procedure called holographic renormalization and in Ref.  by the holomorphic dimensional regularization and a special bulk diffeomorphism preserving the Fefferman-Graham metric  of an arbitrary $`d+1`$-dimensional manifold with boundary topologically isomorphic to $`S^d`$, respectively. Actually, there have arisen quite a number of papers to discuss various aspects of the holographic Weyl anomaly including the modified models , the asymptotically $`AdS`$ space-time , the subleading order of $`1/N`$ correction  and new calculation framework such as the Hamilton-Jacobi equation  etc. The aim of this paper is to tackle the holographic origin of the supersymmetry current anomaly $`\gamma _\mu s^\mu `$.

## III  $`𝒩=2`$ Gauged Supergravity in Five Dimensions and Its $`AdS_5`$ Boundary Reduction

To show clearly how the holographic supersymmetry current anomaly arises, we shall review some typical features of the $`𝒩=2`$ gauged supergravity in five dimensions.

The ungauged $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity in five dimensions has the same structure as $`𝒩=1`$ eleven-dimensional supergravity . It has a global $`USp(2)SU(2)`$ R-symmetry, and it contains a graviton $`E_M^A`$, two gravitini $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M^i`$ and a vector field $`𝒜_M`$ , $`M,A=0,\mathrm{},5`$ are the Riemannian and local Lorentz indices, respectively, and $`i=1,2`$ the $`SU(2)`$ doublet indices. The gravitini are the $`USp(2)SU(2)`$ doublets and the symplectic Majorana spinors. The classical Lagrangian density takes a simple form ,

$`E^1\stackrel{~}{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{\Omega }(E)]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}_N\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}a_{00}_{MN}^{MN}`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}}ih_0\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQ}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}_{PQ}+2\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{Mi}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^NF_{MN}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{6\sqrt{6}}}E^1ϵ^{MNPQR}_{MN}_{PQ}𝒜_R+\text{four-fermi terms},`$
where the covariant derivative on the spinor field is defined with the spinor connection $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{AB}`$,

$`_M\mathrm{\Psi }_N^i=\left(_M+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{AB}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_N^i.`$ (27)
The gauging of above supergravity is just turning the $`U(1)`$ subgroup of the global $`SU(2)`$ R-symmetry group into a local gauge group and straightforwardly considering the vector field as the $`U(1)`$ gauge field . The space-time covariant derivative on the gravitini will be enlarged to include the $`U(1)`$ gauge covariant derivative,

$`D_M\mathrm{\Psi }_N^i=_M\mathrm{\Psi }_N^i+g𝒜_M\delta ^{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Nj}.`$ (28)
The gauged $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity action is

$`E^1=E^1\stackrel{~}{}+g^2P_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{6}}{8}}g\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\mathrm{\Psi }_N^j\delta _{ij}P_0.`$ (29)
The gauged $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity has $`AdS_5`$ classical solution that preserves $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry with the cosmological constant proportional to $`P_0`$ . To make the $`AdS_5`$ classical solution take the standard form,

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{r^2}}\left[g_{\mu \nu }(x,r)dx^\mu dx^\nu \left(dr\right)^2\right],`$ (30)
$`𝒜_M`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M=0,`$ (31)
and the full $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry preserved in this background, one must choose the parameters in the Lagrangian (29) as the following ones :

$`g={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}},h_0={\displaystyle \frac{l}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}},h^0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{h_0}},V_0=1,P_0=2h^0V_0={\displaystyle \frac{4}{l}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}},a_{00}=\left(h_0\right)^2={\displaystyle \frac{3l^2}{8}}.`$ (32)
Consequently, the Lagrangian density (29) up to the quadratic terms in spinor fields becomes

$`E^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}D_N\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}{\displaystyle \frac{3l^2}{32}}_{MN}^{MN}+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{6\sqrt{6}}}E^1ϵ^{MNPQR}_{MN}_{PQ}𝒜_R`$ (34)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{4l}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\mathrm{\Psi }^{Nj}\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{3il}{32}}\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQ}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}_{PQ}+2\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{Mi}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^N_{MN}\right){\displaystyle \frac{6}{l^2}}.`$
The supersymmetry transformations at the leading order in spinor fields read

$`\delta E_M^A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^A\mathrm{\Psi }_{Mi},`$ (35)
$`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_M^i`$ $`=`$ $`D_M^i+{\displaystyle \frac{il}{16}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{NP}4\delta _M^N\mathrm{\Gamma }^P\right)_{NP}^i+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2l}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\delta ^{ij}_j,`$ (36)
$`\delta 𝒜_M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{l}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i_i.`$ (37)
To calculate the holographic superconformal anomaly, we need to expand the fields around the $`AdS_5`$ vacuum solution (31). Geometrically, this is actually a process of revealing the asymptotic behaviour of the bulk fields near the boundary of $`AdS_5`$ space-time. Correspondingly, the various bulk symmetries will be reduced to those on the boundary. For examples, the bulk diffeormorphism invariance of the bulk decomposes into the diffeomorphism symmetry on the boundary and the Weyl symmetry , and the the bulk supersymmetry converts into a superconformal symmetry for an off-shell conformal supergravity on the boundary .

The procedure of reducing the bulk gauged supergravity to the off-shell conformal supergravity on the boundary is displayed in a series of works on $`AdS_3/CFT_2`$, $`AdS_6/CFT_5`$ and $`AdS_7/CFT_6`$ by Nishimura et al . The key point is using the equations of motion of the bulk fields to find their radial coordinate dependence near the boundary of $`AdS_5`$ space. For the spinor field such as the gravitino, one should also show how a symplectic Majorana spinor in five dimensions reduces to the chiral spinor on the four-dimensional boundary. The reduction from the on-shell five-dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ gauged supergravity to $`𝒩=1`$ off-shell conformal supergravity in four dimensions was performed by Balasubramanian et al. , so we briefly review their result and then use it to derive the holographic super-Weyl anomaly of the supersymmetry current in $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theory.

As the first step, one should partially fix the local symmetries of bulk supergravity in the radial direction. According to the $`AdS_5`$ solution (31), one can choose

$`E_\mu ^a(x,r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l}{r}}e_\mu ^a(x)+𝒪(r),E_r^a=E_\mu ^{\overline{r}}=0,E_r^{\overline{r}}={\displaystyle \frac{l}{r}},`$ (38)
and

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_r^i(x,r)=0,𝒜_r(x,r)=0,`$ (39)
to fix the Lorentz symmetry, the supersymmetry and the gauge symmetry in the $`r`$-direction, respectively. The gauge-fixing choice and the torsion-free condition $`dE^a+\mathrm{\Omega }_b^aE^b=0`$, further determine the $`r`$-dependence of the spin connections,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\overline{r}}^a(x,r)`$ $`=`$ $`E^a(x,r)={\displaystyle \frac{l}{r}}e^a(x),`$ (40)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_b^a(x,r)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _b^a(x).`$ (41)
In above equations, $`\mu ,a=0,\mathrm{},3`$ are the Riemannian and local Lorentz indices on the boundary, respectively, and $`\overline{r}`$ is the Lorentz index in the radial direction. We use the lower case quantities to denote the boundary values of bulk fields, i.e., they are independent of the radial coordinate $`r`$.

The linearized equation of motion for the gauge field $`𝒜_\mu `$ near the boundary,

$`E^1_M\left[G^{MN}_N𝒜_\mu (x,r)\right]=0,`$ (42)
implies that at the leading order in $`r`$ one can choose $`𝒜_\mu (x,r)`$ to be independent of $`r`$,

$`𝒜_\mu (x,r)=A_\mu (x).`$ (43)
Furthermore, the linearized equation of motion for the gravitino is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}D_N\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}+{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\mathrm{\Psi }_N^j\delta _{ij}=0.`$ (44)
The reduced spin connection (41) and gauge field (43) as well as the gauge choices (38) and (39) lead to the boundary reduction of the bulk covariant derivative,

$`D_r`$ $`=`$ $`_r,D_\mu =\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu (x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5,`$ (45)
$`\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu (x)`$ $``$ $`_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\omega _\mu ^{ab}\gamma _{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}A_\mu ,`$ (46)
where the four-dimensional convention is defined as the following,

$`\gamma _a=\mathrm{\Gamma }_a,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =E_\mu ^a\mathrm{\Gamma }_a={\displaystyle \frac{l}{r}}\gamma _\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =\overline{E}_a^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^a={\displaystyle \frac{r}{l}}\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma _5=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\overline{r}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{r}},\gamma _5^2=1.`$ (47)
The linearized gravitino equation reduces to

$`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\left(_r\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2r}}\gamma _5ϵ_{ij}\right)\psi _\nu ^j(x,r)\gamma ^{\mu \nu \rho }\stackrel{~}{D}_\nu (x)\gamma _5\psi _{\rho i}(x,r)=0,`$ (48)
Diagonalizing the above equation by combining the two components of the symplectic Majorana spinor, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu 1}+i\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu 2}`$, and making the chiral decomposition $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^R\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma _5)\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu `$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^L\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma _5)\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu `$, one can see that near the boundary $`r0`$, the equation for the right-handed component reads

$`\left(_r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^R=0`$ (49)
and hence the radial dependence of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^R`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^R=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2l}{r}}\right)^{1/2}\psi _\mu ^R(x).`$ (50)
The left-handed component is not independent, and its radial coordinate dependent behaviour turns out to be

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^L`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2l\tau \right)^{1/2}\chi _\mu ^L(x),`$ (51)
$`\chi _\mu ^L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\gamma ^\nu \left(\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu \psi _\nu ^R\stackrel{~}{D}_\nu \psi _\mu ^R\right){\displaystyle \frac{i}{12}}ϵ_{\mu \nu }^{\lambda \rho }\gamma _5\gamma ^\nu \left(\stackrel{~}{D}_\lambda \psi _\rho ^R\stackrel{~}{D}_\rho \psi _\lambda ^R\right).`$ (52)
Therefore, the $`𝒩=2`$ bulk supergravity multiplet ($`E_M^A,\mathrm{\Psi }_M^i,𝒜_M`$) reduces to the boundary field ($`e_\mu ^a`$, $`\psi _\mu ^R`$, $`A_\mu `$). It is actually the 8+8 off-shell multiplet of $`𝒩=1`$ conformal supergravity since the bulk supersymmetry transformation (37) reduces to the one for $`𝒩=1`$ conformal supergravity .

The boundary reduction of the bulk supersymmetric transformation to that for the conformal supergravity is the following. First, as done for the bulk gravitino, one must redefine the bulk supersymmetric transformation parameter, $`(x,r)=_1(x,r)+i_2(x,r)`$ and decompose it as the chiral components. The radial coordinate dependence of $`^{L,R}`$ should be the same as as the bulk gravitino,

$`^R(x,r)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2l}{r}}\right)^{1/2}ϵ^R(x),^L(x,r)=\left(2lr\right)^{1/2}\eta ^L(x).`$ (53)
At the leading order in $`r`$, the bulk supersymmetric transformations reduces to

$`\delta e_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }_\mu \gamma ^aϵ,`$ (54)
$`\delta \psi _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu ϵ\gamma _\mu \eta =_\mu ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{4}}A_\mu \gamma _5ϵ\gamma _\mu \eta ,`$ (55)
$`\delta A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`i\left(\overline{\psi }_\mu \gamma _5\eta \overline{\chi }_\mu \gamma _5ϵ\right),`$ (56)
where all the spinorial quantities, $`\psi _\mu (x)`$, $`\chi _\mu (x)`$ $`ϵ(x)`$ and $`\eta (x)`$ are Majorana spinors constructed from their chiral components $`\psi _\mu ^R(x)`$, $`\chi _\mu ^L(x)`$, $`ϵ^R(x)`$ and $`\eta ^L(x)`$. Eq. (56) shows that the reduced bulk supersymmetric transformation is indeed the supersymmetric transformation for $`𝒩=1`$ conformal supergravity with $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$ playing the roles of parameters for supersymmetry and special supersymmetry transformations, respectively .

## IV Holographic Super-Weyl anomaly of supersymmetry current

The arising of the super-Weyl anomaly in $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory from the $`𝒩=2`$ gauged $`AdS_5`$ supergravity lies in two aspects. On one hand, as a supersymmetric field theory, the supersymmetric variation of the Lagrangian (34) of the gauged supergravity is a total derivative. These total derivative terms cannot be naively ignored due to the existence of the boundary $`AdS_5`$. On the other hand, near the $`AdS_5`$ boundary, the bulk supersymmetric transformation decomposes into the supersymmetry transformation and the super-Weyl transformation on the boundary. If we require supersymmetry on the boundary to be preserved, the total derivative terms should yield the super-Weyl anomaly of the supersymmetry current via the AdS/CFT correspondence given by Eq. (7).

In the following, we shall calculate the supersymmetric variation of the gauged $`𝒩=2`$ five-dimensional supergravity (34) and extract out the total derivative terms. Then we shall reduce it to the $`AdS_5`$ boundary and give the holographic supersymmetry current anomaly. However, it should be emphasized that this surface term only yields the gauge field background part of the super-Weyl anomaly. One must employ a holographic renormalization procedure to reveal the gravitational part, just as how the holographic Weyl anomaly was found in Ref. .

First, the supersymmetric variation of the pure gravitational term and the cosmological term gives

$`\delta S_{\mathrm{GR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta {\displaystyle d^5xE\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{6}{l^2}\right)}=\delta {\displaystyle d^5xE\left(\frac{1}{2}\overline{E}_A^M\overline{E}_B^N_{MN}^{AB}\frac{6}{l^2}\right)}`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^5xE\left[\frac{1}{2}\overline{}^i\gamma _A\mathrm{\Psi }_i^M\left(_M^A\frac{1}{2}E_M^A\frac{6}{l^2}E_M^A\right)_M\left(\overline{E}_A^M\overline{E}_B^N\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_N^{AB}\right)\right]},`$ (58)
where $`\overline{E}_A^M`$ is the inverse of $`E_M^A`$.

The supersymmetry variation of the pure gauge field terms (including Chern-Simons term) yields

$`\delta S_{\mathrm{GA}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^5x\delta \left[E\left(\frac{3l^2}{32}\right)_{MN}^{MN}+\frac{C}{6\sqrt{6}}ϵ^{MNPQR}F_{MN}_{PQ}𝒜_R\right]}`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^5x[{\displaystyle \frac{3l^2}{32}}(\delta E_{MN}^{MN}+4^{MN}_M\delta 𝒜_N)`$ (61)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{6\sqrt{6}}}ϵ^{MNPQR}(4_M\delta 𝒜_N_{PQ}𝒜_R+_{MN}_{PQ}\delta 𝒜_R)]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^5x\{E[{\displaystyle \frac{3l^2}{64}}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^M\mathrm{\Psi }_{Mi}_{NP}^{NP}`$ (64)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3il}{8}}_M\left(F^{MN}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}\right){\displaystyle \frac{3il}{8}}\left(_M^{MN}\right)\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{iC}{\sqrt{6}l}}ϵ^{MNPQR}[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}_M\left(𝒜_R_{PQ}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_{MN}_{PQ}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ri}]\}.`$
As for the supersymmtric variations of the terms concerning the gravitino, we start from the kinetic terms of the gravitino,

$`\delta S_{\mathrm{KT}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta {\displaystyle d^5x\left[\frac{1}{2}E\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\overline{E}_A^M\overline{E}_B^N\overline{E}_C^P\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ABC}\left(_N\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}\frac{3}{4}𝒜_N\delta _{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }_P^j\right)\right]}`$ (65)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^5x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})[\left(\delta E\right)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}D_N\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}+E\left(\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}D_N\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}`$ (68)
$`+3E\left(\delta \overline{E}_A^M\right)\overline{E}_B^N\overline{E}_C^P\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ABC}D_N\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}`$
$`+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}(_N\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\delta _{ij}(\delta 𝒜_N\mathrm{\Psi }_P^j+𝒜_N\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_P^j))].`$
Considering only the terms at most quadratic in the spinor quantities, we have

$`\delta S_{\mathrm{KT}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^5x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})E\{[_M\overline{}^i+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}𝒜_\mu \delta ^{ij}\overline{}_j{\displaystyle \frac{il}{16}}\overline{}^i(\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{RS}+4\delta _M^R\mathrm{\Gamma }^S)F_{RS}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2l}}\delta ^{ij}\overline{}_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_M]`$ (72)
$`\times \mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\left(_N\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}𝒜_N\delta _{ik}\mathrm{\Psi }_P^k\right)`$
$`+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}_N\left[_P_i{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}𝒜_P\delta _{ij}^j+{\displaystyle \frac{il}{16}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_P^{RS}4\delta _P^R\mathrm{\Gamma }^S\right)_i_{RS}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2l}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_P\delta _{ik}^k\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\delta _{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}𝒜_N[_P^j+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}𝒜_P\delta ^{jk}_k+{\displaystyle \frac{il}{16}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_P^{RS}4\delta _P^R\mathrm{\Gamma }^S)^j_{RS}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2l}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_P\delta ^{jk}_k]\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^5x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})E\{[(_M\overline{}^i)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}_N\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}_N_P_i]1`$ (79)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}[\delta _{ij}𝒜_N(_M\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\mathrm{\Psi }_P^j+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}_P^j)`$
$`𝒜_M\delta ^{ij}\overline{}_j\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}_M\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}+\delta _{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}_N(𝒜_P^j)]2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{il}{16}}[_{RS}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{RS}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}_N\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}_N(\mathrm{\Gamma }_P^{RS}_{RS}_i)]3`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{il}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}𝒜_N_{RS}\delta _{ij}(\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{RS}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\mathrm{\Psi }_P^j\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\mathrm{\Gamma }_P^{RS}^j)4`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{il}{4}}[_{MR}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^R\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}_N\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}_N\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^RF_{PR}_i\right)]5`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{il}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\delta _{ij}𝒜_N(_{MR}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^R\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\mathrm{\Psi }_P^j+_{PR}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\mathrm{\Gamma }^R^j)6`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2l}}[\delta ^{ij}\overline{}_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}_N\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}\delta _{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}_N\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_P^j\right)]7`$ (81)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2l}}𝒜_N\delta _j^i(\overline{}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\mathrm{\Psi }_P^j+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^j\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\mathrm{\Gamma }_P_i)\}8.`$
We list the calculation results in the following:

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`_M\left(\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}_N\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}\right)\overline{}^i[_M,\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}]_N\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}`$ (83)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}R_{MNAB}\overline{}^i\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{AB}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{AB}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}`$
$`=`$ $`_M\left(\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}_N\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}\right)+\left(R_M^N{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R\delta _M^N\right)\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^M\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni};`$ (84)
$`2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}_M\left(\delta ^{ij}𝒜_N\overline{}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pj}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\mathrm{\Psi }_M^j\delta _{ij}_{NP};`$ (85)
$`3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{il}{16}}_M\left(_{RS}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_P^{RS}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}\right){\displaystyle \frac{il}{8}}_{RS}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{NPRS}\left(_N\mathrm{\Psi }_P\right)_i+{\displaystyle \frac{3il}{4}}^{MN}\overline{}^i\left(_M\mathrm{\Psi }_N\right)_i;`$ (86)
$`4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3il}{32}}_{RS}𝒜_M\delta _{ij}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNRS}\mathrm{\Psi }_N^j{\displaystyle \frac{9il}{16}}\delta _{ij}^{MN}𝒜_M\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Psi }_N^j;`$ (87)
$`5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{il}{4}}_M\left(\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^S\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\mathrm{\Psi }_N^i_{PS}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{il}{2}}_{MR}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPR}\left(_N\mathrm{\Psi }_P\right)_i;`$ (88)
$`6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3il}{8}}_{MR}𝒜_N\delta _{ij}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPR}\mathrm{\Psi }_P^j;`$ (89)
$`7`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2l}}\delta _{ij}\left[3\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}_M\mathrm{\Psi }_N^j+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP},_N]\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_P^j\right)+3\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i_N\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}^j\right)\right]`$ (90)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{2l}}_M\left(\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\mathrm{\Psi }_N^j\right){\displaystyle \frac{3i}{l}}\delta ^{ij}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}_M\mathrm{\Psi }_N^j;`$ (91)
$`8`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9i}{4l}}𝒜_M\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}.`$ (92)
The supersymmetric variation of the gravitino mass term is

$`\delta S_{\mathrm{GM}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \left[{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{4l}}{\displaystyle E\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\mathrm{\Psi }_N^j\delta _{ij}}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{3i}{4l}}{\displaystyle d^5xE\left[\left(\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\mathrm{\Psi }_N^j+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_N^j\right]\delta _{ij}}`$ (93)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{4l}}{\displaystyle }d^5xe\{[_M\overline{}^a+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}𝒜_M\delta ^{ik}\overline{}_k{\displaystyle \frac{il}{16}}\overline{}^i(\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{PQ}+4\delta _M^P\mathrm{\Gamma }^Q)F_{PQ}`$ (96)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2l}}\delta ^{ac}\overline{}_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_M]\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\mathrm{\Psi }_N^b`$
$`+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}[_N^j+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}𝒜_N\delta ^{jk}_k+{\displaystyle \frac{il}{16}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_N^{}4\delta _N^P\mathrm{\Gamma }^Q)^j_{PQ}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2l}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_N\delta ^{jk}_k]\}\delta _{ij}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{4l}}{\displaystyle }d^5xE\{\delta _{ij}[(_M\overline{}^i)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\mathrm{\Psi }_N^j+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}_N^j]`$ (101)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\delta _j^i\left(𝒜_M\overline{}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\mathrm{\Psi }_N^j+𝒜_N\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^j\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}_i\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{il}{16}}\delta _{ij}_{RP}\left(\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{RP}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\mathrm{\Psi }_N^j\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\mathrm{\Gamma }_N^{RP}^j\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{il}{4}}\delta _{ij}\left(\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^P\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\mathrm{\Psi }_N^j_{MP}+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\mathrm{\Gamma }^P_{NP}^j\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{l}}\delta _j^i\left(\overline{}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }^M\mathrm{\Psi }_M^j+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^j\mathrm{\Gamma }^M_i\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^5xE[{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{2l}}\left(_M\overline{}^i\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\mathrm{\Psi }_N^j\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{9i}{8}}𝒜_M\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}`$ (103)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}\delta _{ij}^{MN}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\mathrm{\Psi }_N^j{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}\delta _{ij}_{MN}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\mathrm{\Psi }_P^j{\displaystyle \frac{3}{l^2}}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^M\mathrm{\Psi }_{Mi}].`$
Finally, the supersymmetric variation of the interaction terms between the gravitino $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M`$ and the graviphoton $`A_M`$ gives

$`\delta {\displaystyle d^5xE\left(\frac{3il}{32}\right)\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQ}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}_{PQ}+2\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Psi }_i^N_{MN}\right)}`$ (104)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3il}{32}}{\displaystyle }d^5xE\{_{PQ}([_M\overline{}^i+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}𝒜_M\delta ^{ik}\overline{}_k{\displaystyle \frac{il}{16}}\overline{}^i(\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{RS}+4\delta _M^R\mathrm{\Gamma }^S)_{RS}`$ (110)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2l}}\delta ^{ik}\overline{}_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_M]\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQ}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}`$
$`+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQ}[_Q_i{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}𝒜_Q\delta _{ij}^j+{\displaystyle \frac{il}{16}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q^{RS}4\delta _Q^R\mathrm{\Gamma }^S)_i_{RS}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2l}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q\delta _{ik}^k])`$
$`+2^{MN}([_M\overline{}^i+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}𝒜_M\delta ^{ik}\overline{}_k{\displaystyle \frac{il}{16}}\overline{}^i(\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{RS}+4\delta _M^R\mathrm{\Gamma }^S)F_{RS}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2l}}\delta ^{ik}\overline{}_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_M]\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}`$
$`+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i[_N_i{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}𝒜_N\delta _{ij}^j+{\displaystyle \frac{il}{16}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_N^{RS}4\delta _N^R\mathrm{\Gamma }^S)_i_{RS}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2l}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_N\delta _{ik}^k])`$
$`+\mathrm{}\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3il}{32}}{\displaystyle }d^5xE\{2[F^{MN}(_M\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i_N_i)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\delta ^{ij}𝒜_M^{MN}(\overline{}_i\mathrm{\Psi }_{Nj}+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{Ni}_j)`$ (118)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{il}{16}}^{MN}^{PQ}\left(\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MPQ}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{NPQ}_i\right){\displaystyle \frac{il}{4}}^{MN}\left(\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^P\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}_{MP}+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^P_i_{NP}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2l}}^{MN}(\delta ^{ij}\overline{}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\mathrm{\Psi }_{Nj}\delta _{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_N^j)]`$
$`+_{PQ}[(_M\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQ}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQ}_N_i)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\left(𝒜_M\delta ^{ij}\overline{}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQ}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Nj}𝒜_N\delta _{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQ}^j\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{il}{16}}_{RS}\left(\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{RS}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQ}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQ}\mathrm{\Gamma }_N^{RS}_i\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{il}{4}}\left(\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^R\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQ}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}_{MR}+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQ}\mathrm{\Gamma }^R_i_{NR}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2l}}(\delta ^{ij}\overline{}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQ}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{Nj}\delta _{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQ}\mathrm{\Gamma }_N^j)]\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^5xE[{\displaystyle \frac{3il}{8}}\left(_M\overline{}\right)^i\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}^{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{9il}{32}}\delta ^{ij}𝒜_M^{MN}\overline{}_i\mathrm{\Psi }_{Nj}`$ (123)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3il}{16}}\left(_M\overline{}\right)^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQ}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}_{PQ}{\displaystyle \frac{9il}{64}}𝒜_M_{PQ}\delta ^{ij}\overline{}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQ}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Nj}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3l^2}{64}}^{MN}_{MN}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^P\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}+{\displaystyle \frac{3l^2}{64}}E^1ϵ^{MNPQR}_{MN}_{PQ}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ri}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3l^2}{32}}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^Q\mathrm{\Psi }_{Na}^{NP}_{PQ}{\displaystyle \frac{3l^2}{32}}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_P\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}^{MP}_{MN}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}\delta ^{ij}\overline{}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\mathrm{\Psi }_{Nj}^{MN}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}\delta ^{ij}\overline{}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Mj}_{NP}].`$
Putting the above supersymmetric variations (58) — (123) together, we get

$`\delta S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^5xE_M({\displaystyle \frac{9il}{16}}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}^{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}_N\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\mathrm{\Psi }_P^j\delta _{ij}𝒜_N`$ (126)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3il}{32}}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQ}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}_{PQ}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\mathrm{\Psi }_N^j\delta _{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{2iC}{3\sqrt{6}l}}E^1ϵ^{MNPQR}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Psi }_R𝒜_N_{PQ})`$
$`+{\displaystyle d^5x\left(\frac{iC}{2\sqrt{6}l}+\frac{3l^2}{64}\right)ϵ^{MNPQR}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Psi }_R_{MN}_{PQ}}.`$
In above calculation, we have made use of the following relations,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }^i`$ $`=`$ $`C^1\mathrm{\Omega }^{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j^T=C^1\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{iT},\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^i=\mathrm{\Psi }^{iT}C,`$ (128)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M_1\mathrm{}M_n}\mathrm{\Phi }_i=\mathrm{\Psi }^{iT}C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M_1\mathrm{}M_n}C^1\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i^T`$
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }^{iT}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M_1\mathrm{}M_n}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i^T=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M_1\mathrm{}M_n}\mathrm{\Psi }^i=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M_1\mathrm{}M_n}\mathrm{\Psi }_i,n=0,1,4,5,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Psi }^{iT}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M_1\mathrm{}M_n}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i^T=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M_1\mathrm{}M_n}\mathrm{\Psi }^i=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M_1\mathrm{}M_n}\mathrm{\Psi }_i,n=2,3,\hfill \end{array},`$ (131)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MN}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_M,\mathrm{\Gamma }_N],\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}E^1ϵ^{MNPQR}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{QR},`$ (132)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQ}`$ $`=`$ $`E^1ϵ^{MNPQR}\mathrm{\Gamma }_R,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MNPQR}=Eϵ_{MNPQR}.`$ (133)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MN}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{PQ}`$ $`=`$ $`Eϵ_{MNPQR}\mathrm{\Gamma }^R\left(G_{MP}G_{NQ}G_{MQ}G_{NP}\right),`$ (134)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\mathrm{\Gamma }_{NP}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MNP}+G_{MN}\mathrm{\Gamma }_PG_{MP}\mathrm{\Gamma }_N,`$ (135)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}_N_P\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}[_N,_P]\mathrm{\Psi }_i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}_{NPAB}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_i.`$ (136)
Due to the nocommutativity between $`_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M_1\mathrm{}M_n}`$, we reiteratively use the following operations,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M_1\mathrm{}M_n}_M(\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M_1\mathrm{}M_n},_M](\mathrm{})+_M\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M_1\mathrm{}M_n}(\mathrm{})\right].`$ (137)
It is convenient to choose the inertial coordinate system, i.e. the Christoffel symbol $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{NP}^M=0`$. Consequently, the metricity condition leads to

$`_ME_N^A=0,`$ (138)
and hence the modified spin connection,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{MAB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{E}_A^N\left(_ME_{NB}_NE_{MB}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{E}_B^N\left(_ME_{NA}_NE_{MA}\right)`$ (140)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{E}_A^P\overline{E}_B^Q\left(_PE_{Qc}_QE_{PC}\right)E_M^C+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M\mathrm{\Gamma }_A\mathrm{\Psi }_B+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\mathrm{\Psi }_B\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M\mathrm{\Gamma }_B\mathrm{\Psi }_A\right),`$
keeps only the quadratic fermionic terms. We have also considered the Ricci and Bianchi identities for the Riemannian curvature tensor and the Abelian gauge field

$`ϵ^{MNPQR}_{SPQR}=0,ϵ^{MNPQR}_N_{STPQ}=0,ϵ^{MNPQR}_N_{QR}=0.`$ (141)
If we choose the indefinite Chern-Simons coefficient in Eq. (126) as

$`C={\displaystyle \frac{3i\sqrt{6}l^3}{32}},`$ (142)
the above supersymmetric variation of $`𝒩=2`$ gauged supergravity action in five dimensions is a total derivative,

$`\delta S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x{\displaystyle _{r=ϵ}}dr_M[E({\displaystyle \frac{9il}{16}}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}^{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}_N\mathrm{\Psi }_{Pi}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\mathrm{\Psi }_P^j\delta _{ij}𝒜_N`$ (143)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3il}{32}}E^1ϵ^{MNPQR}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_R\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}_{PQ}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}\mathrm{\Psi }_N^i\delta _{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{16}}E^1ϵ^{MNPQR}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Psi }_R𝒜_N_{PQ})],`$ (144)
which is the typical feature of a supersymmetric field theory.

Now we can extract out the holographic super-Weyl anomaly from above total derivative terms as Witten  did in finding out the chiral $`R`$-symmetry anomaly. Considering the $`r`$-dependence of bulk fields and of the supersymmetry transformation parameter $`^i`$ given in (38), (39), (41), (43), (47), (50), (52) and (53), and taking the boundary limit $`ϵ0`$ after we integrate over the radial coordinate to the near boundary cut-off $`r=ϵ`$, one can see that the non-vanishing contribution comes only from the term of the form $`E^1ϵ^{MNPQR}\overline{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_R\mathrm{\Psi }_{Ni}_{PQ}`$. Thus we obtain

$`\delta S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3il^3}{32}}{\displaystyle d^4xϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }F_{\nu \lambda }\overline{\eta }\gamma _\rho \chi _\mu }.`$ (145)
In deriving Eq. (145) we have used the fact that the metric on the boundary should be the induced metric

$`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }(x,r)={\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{r^2}}g_{\mu \nu }(x,r)`$ (146)
rather than $`g_{\mu \nu }(x,r)`$ . Eq. (145) will lead to the super-Weyl anomaly in terms of the AdS/CFT correspondence since it is proportional to the special supersymmetry transformation parameter $`\eta `$. Considering Eq. (52), we have

$`\delta S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\overline{\eta }\gamma ^\mu s_\mu }`$ (147)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3il^3}{32}}{\displaystyle d^4xϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }F_{\nu \lambda }\overline{\eta }\gamma _5\gamma _\rho \gamma ^\alpha \left[\frac{1}{3}\left(D_\mu \psi _\alpha D_\mu \psi _\alpha \right)\frac{i}{6}ϵ_{\mu \alpha \sigma \delta }\gamma _5D^\sigma \psi _\delta \right]}`$ (148)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^3}{16}}{\displaystyle d^4x\left[F^{\mu \nu }D_\mu \psi _\nu +ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\gamma _5F_{\mu \nu }D_\lambda \psi _\rho +\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }F_{\nu \lambda }\left(D_\mu \psi ^\lambda D^\lambda \psi _\mu \right)\right]},`$ (149)
where we have used the $`\gamma `$-matrix algebraic relations,

$`\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu =g^{\mu \nu }i\gamma ^{\mu \nu },\gamma _5\gamma ^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\gamma _{\lambda \rho }.`$ (150)
If we switch on the overall gravitational constant factor $`1/(8\pi G^{(5)})`$ on the classical Lagrangian (34), and consider the following relations among the $`AdS_5`$ radius $`l`$, string coupling $`g_s`$, the number $`N`$ of the $`D3`$-branes, the five- and ten-dimensional gravitational constants connected by the compactification on $`S^5`$ of radius $`l`$,

$`G^{(5)}={\displaystyle \frac{G^{(10)}}{\text{Volume}(S^5)}}={\displaystyle \frac{G^{(10)}}{l^5\pi ^3}},G^{(10)}=8\pi ^6g_s^2,l=\left(4\pi Ng_s\right)^{1/4},`$ (151)
Eq. (145) yields the gauge field part of the holographic super-Weyl anomaly,

$`\gamma _\mu s^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G^{(5)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{l^3}{16}}\left[F^{\mu \nu }D_\mu \psi _\nu +ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\gamma _5F_{\mu \nu }D_\lambda \psi _\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }F_{\nu \lambda }\left(D_\mu \psi ^\lambda D^\lambda \psi _\mu \right)\right]`$ (152)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{64\pi ^2}}\left[F^{\mu \nu }D_\mu \psi _\nu +ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\gamma _5F_{\mu \nu }D_\lambda \psi _\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }F_{\nu \lambda }\left(D_\mu \psi ^\lambda D^\lambda \psi _\mu \right)\right].`$ (153)
This is the super-Weyl anomaly of supersymmetry current contributed from the external gauge field background at the leading order of large-$`N`$ expansion of $`𝒩=1`$ $`SU(N)`$ supersymmetric gauge theory.

## V Summary and Discussion

We have investigated the super-Weyl anomaly of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory in the external $`𝒩=1`$ conformal supergravity background via the AdS/CFT correspondence. With the speculation that at low-energy the type IIB supergravity in $`AdS_5\times X^5`$ background should reduce to the gauged supergravity in five dimensions since such a background provides a spontaneous compactification on $`X^5`$, there should exists a holographic correspondence between $`𝒩=2`$ conformal supergravity in five dimensions and $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory at the fixed point of its renormalization group flow. The five-dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ gauged supergravity has an $`AdS_5`$ classical solution which preserves the full supersymmetry. Around this $`AdS_5`$ vacuum configuration, the five-dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ on-shell gauged supergravity multiplet reduces to the $`𝒩=1`$ off-shell conformal supergravity mutiplet on the boundary of $`AdS_5`$ space. Correspondingly, the bulk $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry transformation converts into the $`𝒩=1`$ superconformal transformation in four dimensions, which consists of the supersymmetry transformation for $`𝒩=1`$ Poincaré supergravity and super-Weyl transformation. With these facts in mind, we calculate the supersymmetry variation of the $`𝒩=2`$ gauged supergravity in five dimensions and obtain the total derivative terms. Further, we reduce the total derivative terms to the boundary of $`AdS_5`$ space using the boundary reduction of the bulk fields. Considering the incompatibility of the $`𝒩=1`$ Poincaré supersymmetry and the super-Weyl symmetry, we extract out the super-Weyl anomaly of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theory.

However, as shown in Eq. (153), we only reveal the contribution from the external gauged field when $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theory couples to $`𝒩=1`$ conformal supergravity background. As shown in Ref., there usually should also has a contribution relevant to the external gravitational background,

$`\gamma _\mu s^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{128\pi ^2}}R^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\gamma _{\mu \nu }D_\lambda \psi _\rho .`$ (154)
The reason for not having revealed the contribution of the gravitational background field is not yet fully clear. However, since the super-Weyl anomaly shares a supermultiplet with the Weyl anomaly and the chiral R-symmetry anomaly, we have the following two speculations based on the process of deriving the gravitational background parts in both the holographic Weyl and chiral anomalies .

First, it is possible that this term cannot be revealed within the five-dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ gauged supergravity itself, and one must consider the supersymmetric action consisting of higher-order gravitational terms such as the Gauss-Bonnet term. As given in Ref. , for a general $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theory with $`N_v`$ vector and $`N_\chi `$ chiral multiplets in an external supergravity background, the chiral R-symmetry anomaly and the Weyl anomaly take the forms,

$`_\mu j^{(5)\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ca}{24\pi ^2}}R_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\stackrel{~}{R}^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }+{\displaystyle \frac{5a3c}{9\pi ^2}}F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu },`$ (155)
$`\theta _\mu ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{16\pi ^2}}C_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }C^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }{\displaystyle \frac{a}{16\pi ^2}}\stackrel{~}{R}_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\stackrel{~}{R}^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{6\pi ^2}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }.`$ (156)
The coefficients are purely determined by the field contents. For a supersymmetric theory in the weak coupling limit, they are

$`c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\left(3N_v+N_\chi \right),a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}\left(9N_v+N_\chi \right).`$ (157)
In the pioneering work by Witten , the chiral $`R`$-symmetry anomaly of $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ SYM in the large-$`N`$ limit is perfectly reproduced from the Chern-Simons (CS) term in $`𝒩=8`$ five-dimensional $`SO(6)`$ gauged supergravity. The reason is that the field contents of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM can be considered as one $`𝒩=1`$ vector multiplet plus three chiral multiplets in the adjoint representation of $`SU(N)`$, and this leads to $`c=a=1/4`$ . Thus there is no anomalous term relevant to the gravitational background field in the chiral anomaly and the CS term is fully responsible for the holographic origin of the chiral R-symmetry anomaly. This also explains the absence of the $`R_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }R^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }`$ term in the holographic Weyl anomaly of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM found in Ref. . For the $`𝒩=1,2`$ supersymmetric gauge theories, Eq. (157) shows that in general $`ac`$. Thus the terms relevant to gravitational background in the superconformal anomaly should arise from the supergravity side. In Ref. , it was shown that for the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric $`USp(2N)`$ gauge theory coupled to two hypermultiplets in the fundamental and antisymmetric tensor representations of the gauge group, respectively, the gravitational background part in the holographic chiral anomaly does originate from a mixed CS term. However, this CS terms is obtained from the compactification on $`S^3`$ of the Wess-Zumino term describing the interaction of the R-R 4-form field with eight $`D7`$-branes and one orientifold 7-plane system. Specifically, this gravitational background term is at the subleading $`N`$ order rather than the leading $`N^2`$ order in the large-$`N`$ expansion of $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric $`USp(2N)`$ gauge theory. Due to the supersymmetry, there should also arise the $`N`$-order part containing the $`R_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }R^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }`$ term in the holographic Weyl anomaly. This fact was explicitly shown in Ref. . The authors first performed $`T`$-duality and realized that the above mixed CS term originates from Green-Schwarz couplings in the heterotic or type I supergravity. Further, they considered the higher-order gravitational terms required by the supersymmetry in the low-energy effective action of one-loop heterotic or type $`I`$ string theory  and then performed the heterotic-type $`I`$-type $`I^{}`$ T-duality to extract the desired gravitational term in the $`AdS_5`$ supergravity. Finally, the holographic Weyl anomaly containing the square of the Riemannian tensor was found along the line of Ref. . These two cases imply that we should consider the full supersymmetric action consisting of the higher-order gravitational terms and its supersymmetric variation in the $`AdS_5`$ background will most probably lead to the term (154) in the holographic super-Weyl anomaly. However, the brane configuration for the $`𝒩=1`$ $`U(N)`$ gauge theory is quite complicated, being a $`D4D6NS5NS5^{}`$ system . It is not straightforward to write down the mixed CS term from the corresponding Wess-Zumino term and to extract the explicit form of the supersymmetric action containing the higher-order gravitational terms. We hope to make a complete investigation along the line similar to the one adopted in Refs. .

The other possible reason for the failure of getting the gravitational background contribution is that in Eqs.(38), (43), (50) and (52) we consider only the leading order of $`r`$-dependence of the bulk fields near the $`AdS_5`$ boundary. This argument is inspired by the process of deriving the holographic Weyl anomaly. It was shown in Ref.  that if one makes a complete near-boundary analysis and considers the asymptotic expansion beyond the leading order up to logarithmic term , i.e.,

$`(x,r)=r^m\left[f_{(0)}(x)+f_{(2)}(x)r+\mathrm{}r^n\left(f_{(2n)}(x)+\stackrel{~}{f}_{(2n)}(x)\mathrm{ln}r+\mathrm{}\right)+\mathrm{}\right],`$ (158)
the higher-order gravitational terms can arise in the on-shell action , and they lead to the holographic Weyl anomaly composed of the $`R_{\mu \nu }R^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`R^2`$ terms. Therefore, it is also possible that the gravitational background field part in the super-Weyl anomaly can arise as the holographic Weyl anomaly does  if one takes into account the logarithmic terms in above expansion. Of course, in this case the on-shell gauged five-dimensional supergravity action has the infrared divergence near the $`AdS_5`$ boundary due to its infinite boundary. One must perform a holographic renormalization procedure to make it well defined . However, although we do not exclude that this is a possible source, it seems that the first reasoning is a more convincing one.

We are not aware whether there exist any physical reasons for the difference between these two holographic contributions to the superconformal anomaly. Since the essence of the holographic anomaly is the anomaly inflow from the bulk theory ,<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>* We thank A. Kobakhidze for discussion on this point. this is the reason why one can extract out the anomaly from a higher-dimensional bulk theory, Thus it might be relevant to the difference between the anomaly inflows contributed by the gravitational and gauge field backgrounds.

Finally, it is worth to emphasize another way of calculating the holographic Weyl anomaly proposed in Ref. . This approach is independent of the concrete form of the classical bulk gravitational action, and depends purely on a special bulk diffeomorphism (called the “ PBH ” transformation ), which keeps the form of the Fefferman-Graham metric  of an arbitrary $`d+1`$-dimensional manifold with the boundary topologically isomorphic to $`S^d`$ invariant and reduces to a Weyl transformation on the boundary. With a choice on the holomorphic dimensional regularization, there emerges no logarithmic function of the radial coordinate in the near-boundary asymptotic expansion. Further, the invariance of a general bulk gravitational action, which admits an $`AdS_{d+1}`$ classical solution, under this particular diffeomorphism yields a Wess-Zumino-like consistency condition satisfied by the generating functional for the Weyl anomaly on the boundary ($`d`$ being an even integer). Hence the hologrpahic Weyl anomaly can be extracted out and no holographic renormalization procedure is necessary . The advantage of this approach is that one can avoid the complicated near-boundary analysis and the subsequent holographic renormalization procedure. One may consider to use this approach to calculate the super-Weyl anomaly of a supersymmetry current. However, there is one crucial obstacle to overcome. That is, one needs to find a supersymmetric generalization of above special bulk diffeomorphism, which should keep both the supersymmetry in the bulk and on the boundary. In such an approach, one must employ the holographic dimensional regularization to prevent the logarithmic dependence from emerging in the near-boundary asymptotic expansion. However, the dimensional regularization in general does not preserve the supersymmetry. This fact has cast a shadow on the application of the above approach to the evaluation of the holographic supercurrent anomaly.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are indebted to M. Grisaru, A. Kobakhidze, M. Nishimura and A. Schwimmer for discussions. We also would like to thank G. Kunstatter, R.G. Leigh, C. Montonen and M. Sheikh-Jabbari for useful remarks. This work is supported by the Academy of Finland under the Project No. 163394.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The recent results from the KamLAND experiment  have asserted that the large mixing angle solution (LMA) is the dominant one for the 34 year old solar neutrino problem SNP . Although neutrinos were known, before KamLAND data, to oscillate , it was not clear if neutrino oscillations were the major effect underlying the solar neutrino deficit or whether they played any role at all. It had been clear however that this deficit had to rely on ’non-standard’ neutrino properties. To this end, the spin flavor precession (SFP) , based on the interaction of the neutrino magnetic moment with the solar magnetic field was, second to oscillations, the most attractive scenario .

SFP, although certainly not playing the major role in the solar neutrino deficit, may still be present as a subdominant process, provided neutrinos have a sizeable transition magnetic moment. Its signature will be the appearance of solar antineutrinos  which result from the combined effect of the vacuum mixing angle $`\theta `$ and the transition magnetic moment $`\mu _\nu `$ converting neutrinos into antineutrinos of a different flavor. This can be schematically shown as

$$\nu _{e}^{}{}_{L}{}^{}\nu _{\mu _L}\overline{\nu }_{e_R},$$
(1)
$$\nu _{e}^{}{}_{L}{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mu _R}\overline{\nu }_{e_R}$$
(2)
with oscillations acting first and SFP second in sequence (1) and in reverse order in sequence (2). Oscillations and SFP can either take place in the same spatial region, or be spatially separated. Independently of their origin, antineutrinos with energies above 1.8 MeV can be detected in KamLAND via the observation of positrons from the inverse $`\beta `$-decay reaction $`\overline{\nu }_e+pn+e^+`$ and must all be originated from $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ neutrinos.

The purpose of this work is to relate the solar magnetic field profile to the solar antineutrino event rate in KamLAND which is a component of the total positron event rate in the reaction above. In a previous paper  the question of what can be learned about the strength and coordinate dependence of the solar magnetic field in relation to the current upper limits on the solar $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ flux was addressed. The system of equations describing neutrino evolution in the sun was solved analytically in perturbation theory for small $`\mu _\nu B`$, the product of the neutrino magnetic moment by the solar field. The three oscillation scenarios with the best fits were considered, namely LMA, LOW and vacuum solutions. In particular for LMA it was found that the antineutrino probability depends only on the magnitude of the magnetic field in the neutrino production zone. Neutrinos were, in the approximation used, considered to be all produced at the same point ($`x=0.05R_S`$), where $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ neutrino production is peaked. In this work we will consider the more realistic case of a convolution of the production distribution spectrum with the field profile in that region. It will be seen that this convolution leads to an insensitiveness of the antineutrino probability with respect to the solar magnetic field profile, in the sense that different profiles can correspond to the same probability function, provided the peak field values are conveniently scaled. As a consequence, an upper bound on the solar antineutrino flux can be derived which is independent of the field profile and the energy spectrum of this flux will also be seen to be profile independent.

Up to now, in their published data from a 145 day run, the KamLAND  experiment has observed a total antineutrino flux compatible with the expectations coming from the nearby nuclear reactors. Given this fact, and evaluating the positron event rate for the above reaction for different solar field profiles, we will derive upper bounds for the peak field value in each profile. In our study we will assume the astrophysical upper bounds on the neutrino magnetic moment $`\mu _\nu <(13)\times 10^{12}\mu _B`$  to be all satisfied and take $`\mu _\nu =10^{12}\mu _B`$.

Upper limits on the solar antineutrino flux, the intrinsic magnetic moment and the magnetic field at the bottom of the convective zone were recently obtained  from the published KamLAND data. Here we address however a different antineutrino production model where the magnetic field at the solar core is the relevant one.

## 2 The solar antineutrino probability

We start with the probability that a $`\nu _{e}^{}{}_{L}{}^{}`$ produced inside the sun will reach the earth as a $`\overline{\nu }_{e_R}`$

$$P(\nu _{e_L}\overline{\nu }_{e_R})=P(\nu _{e_L}\overline{\nu }_{\mu _R};R_S)\times P(\overline{\nu }_{\mu _R}\overline{\nu }_{e_R};R_{es})$$
(3)
in which the first term is the SFP probability, $`R_S`$ is the solar radius and the second term is given by the well known formula for vacuum oscillations

$$P(\overline{\nu }_{\mu _R}\overline{\nu }_{e_R};R_{es})=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{4E}R_{es}\right)=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(4)
Here $`R_{es}`$ is the distance between the sun and the earth and the rest of the notation is standard. Since $`1.8MeV<E<15MeV`$ and, for LMA, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=6.9\times 10^5eV^2`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta =1`$ , we take the $`\overline{\nu }_{\mu _R}\overline{\nu }_{e_R}`$ vacuum oscillations to be in the averaging regime.

The SFP amplitude in perturbation theory for small $`\mu B`$ is  111For notation we refer the reader to ref. .

$$A(\nu _{e_L}\overline{\nu }_{\mu _R})=\frac{\mu B(r_i)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (r_i)}{g_2^{^{}}(r_i)}.$$
(5)
A key observation is that the antineutrino appearance probability is dependent on the production point of its parent neutrino so that the overall antineutrino probability is

$$P(\nu _{e_L}\overline{\nu }_{e_R})=\frac{1}{2}|A(\nu _{e_L}\overline{\nu }_{\mu _R})|^2f_B(r_i)𝑑r_i$$
(6)
where $`f_B`$ represents the neutrino production distribution function for Boron neutrinos  and the integral extends over the whole production region. As shall be seen, owing to this integration, the energy shape of probability (6) is largely insensitive to the magnetic field profile.

The positron event rate in the KamLAND experiment originated from solar antineutrinos is then

$$S=Q_0_{E_e^0}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E_e_{E_m}^{E_M}ϵ(E_e^{^{}})R(E_e,E_e^{^{}})\varphi _{\overline{\nu }}(E)\sigma (E)𝑑E.$$
(7)
In this expression $`Q_0`$ is a normalization factor which takes into account the number of atoms of the detector and its live time exposure  and $`E`$ is the antineutrino energy, related to the physical positron energy by $`E_e^{^{}}=E(m_Nm_P)`$ to zero order in $`1/M`$, the nucleon mass. We thus have $`E_m=1.804MeV`$, while the KamLAND energy cut is $`E_e^0=2.6MeV`$. The functions $`ϵ`$ and $`R`$ denote the detector efficiency and the Gaussian energy resolution function of the detector

$$R(E_e,E_e^{^{}})=\frac{1}{s\sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(E_eE_e^{^{}})^2}{2s^2}\right].$$
(8)
In our analysis we use for the energy resolution in the prompt positron detection the expression $`s(E_e)=0.0062+0.065\sqrt{E_e}`$ with all energy units in MeV. This is obtained from the raw calibration data presented in Ref.. Moreover, we assume a 408 ton fiducial mass and the detection efficiency is taken independent of the energy , $`ϵ80\%`$, which amounts to 162 ton. yr of antineutrino data. The antineutrino cross section $`\sigma (E)`$ was taken from ref. and we considered energy bins of size $`E_e=0.425MeV`$ in the KamLAND observation range $`(2.68.125)MeV`$ . The antineutrino spectral flux $`\varphi _{\overline{\nu }}(E)`$ in eq. 7 can be written as $`\varphi _{\overline{\nu }}(E)=\varphi _{\overline{\nu }}^0\times f(E)`$ where $`\varphi _{\overline{\nu }}^0`$ is the total antineutrino flux and $`f(E)`$ is some function of the energy normalized to one. The function $`\varphi _{\overline{\nu }}(E)`$ is on the other hand a simple product of the Boron neutrino spectral flux $`\varphi _B(E)`$ which can be found in Bahcall’s homepage  and the antineutrino appearance probability we obtained above: $`\varphi _{\overline{\nu }}(E)=\varphi _B(E)\times P(E)`$. The almost insensitivity of the shape of $`P(E)`$ to the shape of the magnetic field profile is thus necessarily reflected in $`\varphi _{\overline{\nu }}(E)`$. The only significant dependence appears on the normalization constant $`\varphi _{\overline{\nu }}^0`$ which is essentially proportional to the square of the magnetic field at the solar core. We make use of this behavior to obtain, for each given profile, upper limits on the core magnetic field, the total antineutrino flux and the intrinsic neutrino magnetic moment.

As mentioned above, for the LMA solution only the solar field profile in the neutrino production region  can affect the antineutrino flux. Hence we will discuss three profiles which span a whole spectrum of possibilities at this region. We study from a vanishing field (profile 1) to a maximum field at the solar center, with, in this second case, either a fast decreasing field intensity (profile 2) or a nearly flat one (profile 3) in the solar core (see fig. 1, lower panel). Thus, we consider respectively the following three profiles

Profile 1

$$B(r)=B_0[\mathrm{cosh}(9r)1],|r|r_c$$
(9)
$$B(r)=B_0/\mathrm{cosh}[25(rr_R)],|r|>r_c,$$
(10)
with $`r_c=0.08`$, $`r_R=0.16`$,

Profile 2

$$B(r)=B_0/\mathrm{cosh}(15r),|r|0,$$
(11)
Profile 3

$$B(r)=B_0[1(r/r_c)^2],|r|r_c,$$
(12)
with $`r_c=0.713`$.

We also show in fig. 1 (upper panel) the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ production distribution spectrum, so that a comparison between the strength of the field and the production intensity can be directly made.

The antineutrino production probabilities as a function of energy for each of these profiles are given in fig. 2. In the first panel, the values of the peak field are chosen so as to produce a fixed number of events. In this case the probability curves differ only slightly in their shapes while their normalizations are the same. The curves are in any case similar to the SFP survival probability ones  in the same energy range. In the second panel of fig. 2 the antineutrino probabilities for a common value of the peak field and these three different profiles are shown. It is hence apparent from these two graphs how the distribution of the magnetic field intensity is determinant for the magnitude of the antineutrino probability, but not for its shape. One important reason for this behavior is that we have integrated the antineutrino probability over the Boron production region.

## 3 Results and discussion

The antineutrino signal for any magnetic field profile $`B(r)`$ can be written, taking into account the previous formulas and the near invariance of the probability shape (see fig. 2), as

$`S_{\overline{\nu }}[B(r)]`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha S_{\overline{\nu }}^0`$ (13)
where $`S_{\overline{\nu }}^0`$ is the antineutrino signal taken at some nominal reference value $`B_0^0`$ for the field at the solar core for a certain reference profile $`B^0`$. This profile dependent parameter $`\alpha `$, being a ratio of two event rates given by eq.(7) for different profiles, can thus be simplified to

$$\alpha =\frac{\left(\frac{B(r_i)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (r_i)}{g_2^{^{}}(r_i)}\right)^2f_B(r_i)𝑑r_i}{\left(\frac{B^0(r_i)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (r_i)}{g_2^{^{}}(r_i)}\right)^2f_B(r_i)𝑑r_i}$$
(14)
where the integrals extend over the production region. As we mentioned before, for concreteness we have fixed along this discussion the neutrino magnetic moment $`\mu _\nu =10^{12}\mu _B`$.

We will now obtain bounds on parameter $`\alpha `$ and the peak field $`B_0`$ for each profile derived from KamLAND data, applying Gaussian probabilistic considerations to the global rate in the whole energy range, $`E_\nu =(2.68.125)MeV`$, and Poissonian considerations to the event content in the highest energy bins ($`E_e>6`$ MeV) where KamLAND observes zero events. We denote by $`S_{\overline{\nu }}^0`$ the event rate with $`B_0=10^7G`$ for each given profile ($`S_{\overline{\nu }}^0=S_{\overline{\nu }}(10^7G)`$). Taking the number of observed events and subtracting the number of events expected from the best-fit oscillation solution \[($`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta )_{LMA}=(6.9\times 10^5eV^2,1)`$\] and interpreting this difference as a hypothetical signal coming from solar antineutrinos, we have

$`S_{\overline{\nu }}^{sun}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{obs}S_{react}(LMA).`$ (15)
Inserting  $`S_{obs}=54.3\pm 7.5`$ and $`S_{react}(LMA)=49\pm 1.3`$, we obtain $`S_{obs}S_{react}=\alpha S_{\overline{\nu }}^0<17.8(20.2)`$ at 90 (95)% CL. Within each specific profile it is seen from (14) that the quantity $`\alpha `$ is simplified to $`\alpha =(B_0/10^7G)^2`$, so that the previous inequality becomes

$$B_0^2<\frac{S_{\overline{\nu }}^{sun}}{S_{\overline{\nu }}^0}(10^7G)^2.$$
(16)
In this way we can derive for each given profile an upper bound on $`B_0`$. The quantity $`S_{\overline{\nu }}^0`$ for profiles 1, 2 and 3 and the respective upper bounds on $`B_0`$ are shown in table 1. These upper limits can be cast in a more general way if do not fix the neutrino magnetic moment. To this end we will consider an arbitrary reference value $`\mu _\nu ^0=10^{12}\mu _B`$. Then within each profile, $`\alpha =(\mu _\nu B_0/\mu _\nu ^010^7G)^2`$, where in the numerator and denominator we have respectively the peak field value and some reference peak field value of the same profile. In the same manner as before we can derive the upper bounds on $`\mu _\nu B_0`$ which are also shown in table 1.

From the definition of $`\alpha `$ (14) it follows that the upper bounds on the antineutrino flux are independent of the field profile. These turn out to be $`\varphi _{\overline{\nu }}<0.0034\varphi (^8B)`$ and $`\varphi _{\overline{\nu }}<0.0038\varphi (^8B)`$ for 90 and 95% CL respectively.

We can similarly and independently apply Poisson statistics to the five highest energy bins of the KamLAND experiment. No events are observed in this region and the expected signal from oscillating neutrinos with LMA parameters is negligibly small. We use the fact that the sum of Poisson variables of mean $`\mu _i`$ is itself a Poisson variable of mean $`\mu _i`$. The background (here the reactor antineutrinos) and the signal (the solar antineutrinos) are assumed to be independent Poisson random variables with known means. If no events are observed and in particular no background is observed, the unified intervals  $`[0,ϵ_{CL}]`$ are $`[0,2.44]`$ at 90% CL and $`[0,3.09]`$ at 95% CL.

From here, we obtain $`\alpha S_{\overline{\nu }}^0<ϵ_{CL}`$ or $`\alpha <ϵ_{CL}/S_{\overline{\nu }}^0`$. Hence, as in the previous case, we have

$$B_0^2<\frac{ϵ_{CL}}{S_{\overline{\nu }}^0}(10^7G)^2.$$
(17)
Using the expected number of events in the first 145 days of data taking and in this energy range $`(68.125)MeV`$, we have derived upper bounds on $`B_0`$ (90 and 95% CL) for all three profiles. They are shown in table 2 along with the upper bounds on $`\mu _\nu B_0`$ taking $`\mu _\nu `$ as a free parameter. The antineutrino flux upper bounds are now $`\varphi _{\overline{\nu }}<0.0049\varphi (^8B)`$ $`\varphi _{\overline{\nu }}<0.0055\varphi (^8B)`$ at 90 and 95% CL respectively. The KamLAND expected signal for an arbitrary field profile corresponding to 95% CL is shown in fig. 3.

The differences in magnitude among the bounds on $`B_0`$ and $`\mu _\nu B_0`$ presented in tables 1 and 2 for the different profiles are easy to understand. In fact, recalling that the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ production zone peaks at 5% of the solar radius and becomes negligible at approximately 15% (fig. 1), then in order to generate a sizeable antineutrino flux, the magnetic field intensity should lie relatively close to its maximum in the range where the neutrino production is peaked. Thus for profile 1 the value of $`B_0`$ required to produce the same signal is considerably larger than for the other two, while profile 3 is the most efficient one for antineutrino production.

As referred to above, for different field profiles the probability curves will differ only slightly in their shape if they lead to the same number of events. In other words, for a given number of events the probability curves are essentially the same, regardless of the field profile, a fact illustrated in fig. 2. As a consequence, the energy spectrum of the expected solar antineutrino flux will be nearly the same for any profile. In fig. 4 we plot this profile independent spectrum together with the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ one , so that a comparison can be made showing the shift in the peak and the distortion introduced.

## 4 Conclusions

To conclude, now that SFP is ruled out as a dominant effect for the solar neutrino deficit, it is important to investigate its still remaining possible signature in the solar neutrino signal, namely an observable $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ flux. Our main conclusion is that, from the antineutrino production model expound here, an upper bound on the solar antineutrino flux can be derived, namely $`\varphi _{\overline{\nu }}<3.8\times 10^3\varphi (^8B)`$ and $`\varphi _{\overline{\nu }}<5.5\times 10^3\varphi (^8B)`$ at 95% CL, assuming respectively Gaussian or Poissonian statistics. For 90% CL we found $`\varphi _{\overline{\nu }}<3.4\times 10^3\varphi (^8B)`$ and $`\varphi _{\overline{\nu }}<4.9\times 10^3\varphi (^8B)`$ which shows an improvement relative to previously existing bounds from LSD  by a factor of 3-5. These are independent of the detailed magnetic field profile in the core and radiative zone and the energy spectrum of this flux is also found to be profile independent. We also derive upper bounds on the peak field value which are uniquely determined for a fixed solar field profile. In the most efficient antineutrino producing case (profile 3), we get (95% CL) an upper limit on the product of the neutrino magnetic moment by the solar field $`\mu _\nu B2.8\times 10^{19}`$ MeV or $`B_04.9\times 10^7G`$ for $`\mu _\nu =10^{12}\mu _B`$. A recent study of the magnetic field in the radiative zone of the sun has provided upper bounds of (3-7) MG  in that region in the vicinity of $`0.2R_S`$ which are independent of any neutrino magnetic moment. Therefore we can use them in conjunction with our results to obtain a limit on $`\mu _\nu `$. Using $`B_037MG`$, we get from the results for profiles 1-3: $`\mu 0.79.6\times 10^{12}\mu _B`$. Moreover, from the limits obtained in this work, if the ’true’ solar profile resembles either a profile like 1 or 3, this criterion implies that SFP cannot be experimentally traced in the next few years, since the peak field value must be substantially reduced in order to comply with this upper bound, thus leading to a much too small antineutrino probability to provide an observable event rate 222Recall that the antineutrino probability is proportional to $`(\mu _\nu B)^2`$.. On the other hand, for a profile like 2 or in general any one resembling a dipole field, SFP could possibly be visible.

Acknowledgements. The work of BCC was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia through the grant SFRH/BPD/5719/2001. E.T-L acknowledges many useful conversations with P. Aliani, M. Picariello and V. Antonelli, the hospitality of the CFIF (Lisboa) and the financial support of the Spanish CYCIT funding agency.