text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Starting from the largest exceptional classical Lie algebra $`E_8`$ one obtains the affine $`E_9`$, the hyperbolic $`E_{10}`$ and the Lorentzian $`E_{11}`$ Kac-Moody (KM) algebras111We use the notation $`E_k`$ rather than $`𝔢_k`$ in concordance with most of the literature on the subject. by extending the Dynkin diagram . The finite-dimensional $`E_8`$ is rather well understood and plays an important rôle in the construction of heterotic string theories. Affine $`E_9`$ is also under control and appears in supergravity or Wess-Zumino-Witten models, but $`E_{10}`$ and $`E_{11}`$ are far less well understood. $`E_8,E_9`$ and $`E_{10}`$ have been suggested as symmetries of supergravity when dimensionally reduced to $`3,2`$ and $`1`$ dimension . $`E_{10}`$ has also appeared recently in cosmological billiards for describing gravitational systems coupled to $`p`$-form and scalar matter near a spacelike singularity . On the other hand, $`E_{11}`$ has been proposed as a (hidden) symmetry of the full eleven-dimensional theory and also of M theory  and belongs to the class of very extended algebras which have been considered in .

There have been a number of attempts at understanding hyperbolic KM algebras (see for instance ) but to date not a single example has been understood in full detail. In this paper we also only present partial results, partly obtained with the help of a computer. These results are mainly for the physically interesting cases of $`E_{10}`$ and $`E_{11}`$ but also offer some general observations for arbitrary (indefinite) Kac-Moody algebras and results for the rank $`2`$ case.

As $`E_{10}`$ is naturally a subalgebra of $`E_{11}`$ we consider the problem of decomposing $`E_{11}`$ with respect to this subalgebra. This is a somewhat different approach from  where both algebras were decomposed at low levels with respect to their $`A_9`$ and $`A_{10}`$ subalgebras and from  where a decomposition of $`E_{10}`$ with respect to its affine $`E_9`$ algebra was considered. Our approach is to consider hyperbolic sections of the $`E_{11}`$ root lattice rather than the elliptic or affine slicings considered so far. This will give us information about the algebra deep inside the light-cone, at least if we know which representations occur. It can be shown that the representation on level $`1`$ is the highest weight representation of $`E_{10}`$ with highest weight $`\lambda _1`$ by generalising results from . For other levels, we find representations of $`E_{10}`$ with various outer multiplicities. Our methods enable us to calculate the complete structure of $`E_{11}`$ as seen by $`E_{10}`$ up to height 120 which corresponds to some of the low-lying representations up to level $`5`$. Compared to the elliptic approach this calculation does not make direct contact with fields from supergravity but aims primarily at revealing some of the structure of $`E_{10}`$ and $`E_{11}`$. Even though neither $`E_{10}`$ nor $`E_{11}`$ are understood fully, we might still learn something about them by studying their interrelation or combining different decompositions of the same structure. The calculation done in this paper is the first explicit calculation of large parts of $`E_{10}`$ representations and can be used for instance to obtain lower bounds for $`E_{11}`$ multiplicities. We also present raw data for both algebras separately in two appendices. There it is noted that the multiplicity of a root compared to its light-cone degrees of freedom behaves rather differently for $`E_{10}`$ and $`E_{11}`$, supporting an observation in . It would be good to have a conceptual understanding of this behaviour.

Whereas the hyperbolic slicing of $`E_{11}`$ is rather unproblematic, it is not clear how to obtain the relevant representations of $`E_{10}`$ with respect to one of its hyperbolic (or even Borcherds) subalgebras. The reason is that the representations are not of highest weight type and it would be interesting to understand their structure better.

The structure of this note is as follows. Section 2 contains some of the background we are using on Kac-Moody algebras and on their decompositions, illustrated by a rank 2 example. In section 3 we outline the method used to obtain the decomposition of $`E_{11}`$ with respect to $`E_{10}`$ and list the appearing representations. In appendices we give complete tables for the multiplicities of the imaginary roots in the fundamental domains of $`E_{10}`$ and $`E_{11}`$, most of which have not appeared in the literature before.

## 2 Notation

Our notation is mostly borrowed from Kac’ book . Given a symmetric, non-degenerate222We restrict to the case of non-degenerate Cartan matrices all the way through the article as this is the only case we will be concerned with. We also assume the matrix to be indecomposable. The symmetry of $`A`$ implies $`a_{ii}=\alpha _i^2=2`$ for all $`i`$ and the invariant bilinear form is just given by $`A`$. Cartan matrix $`A=(a_{ij})_{i,jI}`$, the collection of simple roots $`\alpha _i`$ of a Kac-Moody algebra $`𝔤`$ is denoted $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, where $`i`$ belongs to some (finite) index set $`I`$, and the simple roots generate the root lattice $`Q`$ freely. The number of simple roots is called the rank of the KM algebra. The simple co-roots $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}=\left\{\alpha _i^{}\right\}`$ are a basis for the Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$ and satisfy $`\alpha _i(\alpha _j^{})=a_{ji}`$. The Kac-Moody algebra $`𝔤`$ is then defined by the following relations on the (Chevalley) generators $`\alpha _i^{},e_i,f_i`$ as follows

$`[e_i,f_j]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}\alpha _i^{},`$
$`[\alpha _i^{},e_j]`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _j(\alpha _i^{})e_j,`$
$`[\alpha _i^{},f_j]`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _j(\alpha _i^{})f_j,`$
$`(\text{ad}e_i)^{(1a_{ij})}e_j`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`(\text{ad}f_i)^{(1a_{ij})}f_j`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
Then it is one of the basic properties of $`𝔤`$ that it has a triangular decomposition of the form

$`𝔤=𝔫_+𝔥𝔫_{}`$ (1)
where the Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$ is the space spanned by the simple co-roots because we are dealing with non-degenerate Cartan matrices. The dimension of $`𝔥`$ is equal to the rank of $`𝔤`$. The positive part $`𝔫_+`$ and the negative part $`𝔫_{}`$ are exchanged by the Chevalley involution. So it is sufficient to study either $`𝔫_+`$ or $`𝔫_{}`$ when trying to understand the structure of $`𝔤`$. Central objects in the study of $`𝔤`$ are those non-zero elements $`\alpha 𝔥^{}`$ for which there exist elements $`x𝔤`$ such that $`[h,x]=\alpha (h)x`$ for all $`h𝔥`$. Such elements $`\alpha `$ are called roots and the corresponding space of all $`x𝔤`$ satisfying this condition is called the root space $`𝔤_\alpha `$. The number of independent elements in the root space is called the multiplicity of the root and denoted by $`\text{mult}(\alpha )=\text{dim}𝔤_\alpha `$. The set of all roots is called $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$. From the triangular decomposition (1) we deduce that every root is either positive or negative and so $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$.

The reflections in the simple co-roots $`\alpha _i^{}`$ generate the Weyl group $`𝒲`$ which is a Coxeter group with relations given by the Cartan matrix (or the corresponding Dynkin diagram). Define the fundamental domain $`𝒞𝔥^{}`$ as the intersection of all half spaces which take non-positive values on a simple co-root, viz.

$`𝒞=\{\alpha 𝔥^{}:\alpha (\alpha _i^{})0,\text{for all simple co-roots}\alpha _i^{}\}.`$
(In the case of finite-dimensional $`𝔤`$, $`𝒞`$ is a fundamental domain for the action of $`𝒲`$ on $`𝔥^{}`$. Our conventions are adapted to the hyperbolic case defined below.) We define the Weyl vector $`\rho 𝔥^{}`$ by $`\rho (\alpha _i^{})=1`$ for all simple co-roots and so $`\rho `$ lies in the fundamental domain. Then the set of (positive roots) and their multiplicities can be deduced in principle from the orbit of $`\rho `$ under $`𝒲`$ by the denominator formula

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_+}{}}(1e^\alpha )^{\text{mult}(\alpha )}={\displaystyle \underset{wW}{}}ϵ(w)e^{w(\rho )\rho }.`$ (2)
The set of roots $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has two distinct parts, namely it splits into real and imaginary roots

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }^{real}\mathrm{\Delta }^{imag},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{real}=𝒲(\mathrm{\Pi })`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{imag}=𝒲(𝒦)𝒲(𝒦)`$. Here $`𝒦=\{\alpha 𝒞:`$ supp$`(\alpha )`$ is connected $`\}`$. We have $`\alpha ^2=(\alpha |\alpha )=2`$ for real roots and $`\alpha ^20`$ for imaginary roots. The set of roots (together with their multiplicities) is Weyl invariant. The denominator formula (2) can be used to determine the roots and their multiplicities by just expanding both sides of (2) or using recursion identities derived from (2) like the Peterson formula. We define the fundamental weights $`\lambda _i𝔥^{}`$ ($`iI`$) as minus the dual basis to the simple roots with respect to $`A`$, i.e. they satisfy $`(\alpha _i|\lambda _j)=\delta _{ij}`$. We sometimes write a root $`\alpha =n_i\alpha _i=l_i\lambda _i`$ as $`(n_1,\mathrm{},n_{\text{rk}(𝔤)})`$ in the simple root basis or $`[l_1,\mathrm{},l_{\text{rk}(𝔤)}]`$ in the fundamental weight basis. The $`l_i`$ are called Dynkin labels of $`\alpha `$. From the definitions of $`𝒞`$ and the fundamental weights we see that their positive linear combinations generate $`𝒞`$.

If $`A`$ is a positive definite matrix the corresponding KM algebra will be one of the classical series and in particular finite-dimensional. If $`A`$ is positive semi-definite and has exactly one zero eigenvector the corresponding algebra is affine. We call a KM algebra hyperbolic if its Cartan matrix is indefinite and if any matrix obtained from its Cartan matrix by deleting one row and column is the Cartan matrix of a finite-dimensional or affine KM algebra. It is known that the rank of the algebra cannot exceed $`10`$ for a hyperbolic KM algebra . Among the hyperbolic KM algebras of maximal rank $`E_{10}`$ is distinguished by being the only overextended one and having as its root lattice the unique even and self-dual ten-dimensional Lorentzian lattice $`\mathrm{II}_{9,1}`$. The signature of the Cartan matrix of any hyperbolic algebra of rank $`n`$ is $`n2`$. For hyperbolic Kac-Moody algebras we also have $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\{\alpha Q:\alpha ^22\}\backslash \left\{0\right\}`$ (see ) and since $`A^1`$ has only negative entries all $`\lambda _i`$ are non-negative linear combinations of the simple roots and so $`𝒞Q_+`$. It has also been established that every hyperbolic KM algebra has a principal $`SO(1,2)`$ subalgebra . We call a KM algebra Lorentzian if the Cartan matrix has signature $`n2`$. So any hyperbolic KM algebra is Lorentzian but the converse is not necessarily true. There is a well-known procedure for obtaining non-twisted affine or hyperbolic algebras by extending the Dynkin diagrams of the finite cases . Extending the diagram again gives a Lorentzian KM algebra . Highest weight representations with highest weight $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒞`$ are denoted by $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and are subject to the Weyl-Kac character formula.333Strictly speaking, we are considering lowest weight representations due to our conventions.

### 2.1 Subalgebra decompositions

Suppose we have a subalgebra $`𝔨𝔤`$ then $`𝔤`$ is a representation of $`𝔨`$ under the adjoint action and we can try to decompose $`𝔤`$ as a sum of representations of $`𝔨`$. The simplest cases occur when we consider subalgebras that are obtained by deleting a number of roots from the Dynkin diagram of $`𝔤`$ but these are by far not all. The modules with respect to such an algebra at a given level444The level is an element of the quotient of the root lattices. are integrable and belong to the category $`𝒪`$ . Thus, they can be decomposed into a sum of irreducible highest weight representations. The simplest example is removing all but one point and we are left with a decomposition with respect to one of the standard $`𝔰𝔩_2`$ subalgebras.

Hyperbolic KM algebras obtained by overextension of an affine algebra can be decomposed with respect to the affine subalgebra given by deleting the overextended root and for low levels this yields explicit formulae for the multiplicities of the roots at this level .

In general, removal of a single node from the Dynkin diagram is governed by the following proposition which is an application of results from .

###### Proposition 1

Let $`𝔤`$ be a Kac-Moody algebra of rank $`n`$ given by Cartan matrix $`A`$ with associated Dynkin diagram. If we remove a single node, $`\alpha _1`$ say, from the Dynkin diagram and define the level $`l`$ of a root $`\alpha `$ of $`𝔤`$ to be the number of $`\alpha _1`$ summands of $`\alpha `$. Denote the index set for the simple roots connected to $`\alpha _1`$ by $`J=\{j\{2,..,n\}:a_{1j}0\}`$. Then we have the following decomposition of $`𝔤`$ with respect to the Kac-Moody subalgebra associated with the Cartan matrix obtained by deleting the first row and column

$`𝔤={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}𝔤_l`$
where for $`l0`$

$`𝔤_l{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_l}{}}}L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{(l)})^{\mu (\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{(l)})}.`$
The $`N_l`$ can be infinite. The $`𝔤_l`$ are given in more detail by:

$`𝐥=\mathrm{𝟎}`$: The direct sum of the adjoint of the smaller algebra with a trivial representation. If the smaller algebra is affine then the trivial representation is absent.

$`𝐥=\mathrm{𝟏}`$: The highest weight representation of the smaller algebra with highest weight given by the sum of the fundamental weights corresponding to the simple roots connected to $`\alpha _1`$, i.e. $`g_1L(_{jJ}\lambda _j)`$.

$`𝐥>\mathrm{𝟏}`$: Now consider the free algebra on the roots at $`l=1`$ and call it $`𝔣`$ which is also graded by $`l`$. Within it there are the elements $`ad^{1+a_{1j}}e_1e_j`$ which are non-zero in the free algebra but vanish in the Kac-Moody algebra. At the same time they are highest weight vectors for the smaller algebra and generate an irreducible representation $`U_j`$ at $`l=1+a_{1j}`$. Consider the ideal $`𝔦_j`$ generated within the free algebra by $`U_j`$ and define $`𝔦=_j𝔦_j`$. Then the quotient $`𝔣/𝔦`$ describes the positive part of the $`𝔤`$ for $`l>1`$.

$`𝐥<\mathrm{𝟎}`$: These cases are obtained by the Chevalley involtuion from the cases above.

The proof of this statement is a simple adaptation of arguments in . The proposition implies that we might as well recursively use the above decomposition to obtain information about the Kac-Moody algebra of interest. The problem of understanding the KM algebra $`𝔤`$ is then reduced to describing the ideal because the structure of $`𝔣`$ is well-known (for finite-dimensional first level at least): The free algebra on $`m`$ generators $`\beta _k`$ ($`k=1,..,m`$) is governed by the equation

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta >0}{}}(1e^\beta )^{\text{mult}(\beta )}=1{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}}e^{\beta _k}`$ (3)
from which one can deduce the Witt formula for the dimension of the graded pieces by Möbius inversion after specialisation. For more on free algebras see . What we will also need here is the multiplicity of a root $`\beta =_kn_k\beta _k`$ in the free algebra obtained by Möbius inversion of (3)

$`\text{mult}(\beta )={\displaystyle \underset{d|(n_1,..,n_m)}{}}\mu (d){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_k}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{d}n_k\\ \frac{n_1}{d},..,\frac{n_m}{d}\end{array}\right),`$
where

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}t_k\\ t_1,..,t_m\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{(t_k)!}{t_1!..t_m!}}`$
is a polynomial coefficient. We have to note that several elements in the free algebra will map into the same root space in the Kac-Moody algebra, where the number of such elements in a given example can be written easily in terms of a generating function as a standard combinatorial problem. Despite this complication, it is still possible to determine the dimension of a root space in the free algebra for a root at a given level without prior knowledge of the lower levels, basically because one knows the multiplicities of the primitive roots. This is in contrast to the recursive nature of the Peterson formula for multiplicities in the Kac-Moody algebra where one has a similar expression for the multiplicities but does not know the answer for the primitive roots and so is left with calculating recursively until one finally reaches the root one is interested in. (This procedure gets more and more expensive as one goes up in level in the hyperbolic case as the root multiplicities and the number of roots are known to increase exponentially.)

So, if we were able to calculate the dimension of the space associated with a root $`\beta `$ in the ideal $`𝔦`$ we could determine the root multiplicities in the hyperbolic Kac-Moody algebra in a non-recursive way. It is intriguing to note that from this perspective there is no difference at all between the finite, affine or indefinite cases which makes it quite surprising that the finite and affine (tame) cases are well understood whereas the (wild) indefinite ones are not. Unfortunately, it is not known how to work out the ideal in a closed form similar to the free algebra.

In order to obtain a feeling for the observations made above we give a few results for the simplest hyperbolic case which is determined by the Cartan matrix

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 3\\ 3& 2\end{array}\right).`$ (8)
This algebra carries some information from the Fibonacci numbers since the sum over the Weyl group $`_2`$ can be seen to be governed by a recursion relation among the odd Fibonacci numbers . We denote the roots by pairs $`(m,n)`$ and present the multiplicities of some low-lying roots in table 1.

Now we decompose this KM algebra with respect to one of its standard $`𝔰𝔩_2`$-subalgebras and read off the representation content for the first few rows. The result is given in table 2 where we have denoted the $`(n+1)`$-dimensional representation of $`𝔰𝔩_2`$ by $`P_n`$ and the level with respect to that subalgebra by $`l`$.

The ideal is generated by the representation $`P_{10}`$ at level $`4`$ in agreement with our general arguments. Trivially, at higher levels the ideal is always contained within the tensor product of $`P_{10}`$ with the right number of factors of the first level representation $`P_3`$. We can say a bit more about the detailed structure.

The ideal is precisely given by the tensor product up to $`l=8`$ when a defect in this pattern appears around $`n=21`$ and a reflection pattern appears in addition to the tensor product structure because $`P_{10}`$ at most influences a “width” of $`21`$ in tensor products. Thus we can obtain the value for $`n=0`$ by subtracting the value of $`n=22`$ from $`n=20`$. The reason for this defect is the Serre relation which comes into action for the first time in a quadruple commutator for our algebra and so at $`l=8`$ in the ideal and which reflections appear can also be understood in this way. This reflection behaviour persists up to $`l=12`$ where it is being augmented by another reflection property, again deriving from the Serre relation. Similar patterns appear for the other rank 2 cases and have been checked to some detail.

Apparently, understanding the precise nature of these patterns and their occurence is tantamount to understanding the Serre relations and the Jacobi identity in the original KM algebra to all levels. Solving the ideal problem seems as hard as solving the original problem.

Subalgebras obtained by deleting just a number of nodes together with the edges connected to them are not the only subalgebras which can appear. For instance, any affine KM algebra has affine subalgebras from just restricting the horizontal (level 0) piece to a subalgebra and then affinizing. The corresponding Dynkin diagram is not a subdiagram of the original one. In general it will be much harder to describe the representations with respect to these more involved cases as they do not necessarily belong to the category of representations which can be decomposed into highest weight representations at all levels.

As an example we just mention that the rank 2 algebra discussed above has a hyperbolic rank 2 subalgebra whose first simple root is identical with an original one and whose second simple root is a Weyl translate of the other original simple root. The smallest example corresponds to a subalgebra $`𝔨`$ where the simple roots have inner product $`7`$. At level $`l=0`$ (where we have a decomposition into the adjoint plus highest weight representations) we can give a few of the low-lying representations that appear

$`𝔨L(5\lambda _1+5\lambda _2)L(3\lambda _1+12\lambda _2)L(12\lambda _1+3\lambda _2)`$
$`L(\lambda _1+19\lambda _2)L(19\lambda _1+\lambda _2)..`$ (9)
It seems tempting to think that if one could determine all the representations with respect to this somewhat coarser algebra and then iterate the procedure one might learn something about the original algebra because the limiting point of this procedure is a free algebra where one is again able to calculate everything directly.

Similarly, some KM algebras have Borcherds subalgebras which are generalizations of Kac-Moody algebras . Again decomposing with respect to them will soon leave the realm of highest weight representations and is thus subject to the obstructions mentioned above. Some related ideas have recently appeared in .

## 3 Computational results for $`E_{10}E_{11}`$

In this section we apply the considerations from the last section to the KM algebras $`E_{10}`$ and $`E_{11}`$ which are hyperbolic and Lorentzian respectively. The Dynkin diagram of $`E_{11}`$ is given in figure 1 and the diagram for $`E_{10}`$ is obtained by deleting the node marked by $`2`$.

We can apply the denominator directly to obtain multiplicities for both these algebras and we can consider $`E_{10}`$ as a subalgebra of $`E_{11}`$ and apply the proposition. In that case we immediately deduce that the multiplicities of $`E_{11}`$ at level $`1`$ are given by the $`E_{10}`$ representation with highest weight $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda _1`$, i.e the fundamental weight corresponding to the overextended node. Then we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha >0}{}}\text{mult}(1,\alpha )e^\alpha =\chi _{L(\lambda _1)}`$
and the multiplicities can be computed from this identity as long as the $`E_{10}`$ multiplicities are known. This gives information about $`E_{11}`$ deep inside the forward lightcone. It turns out that doing the calculation for this representation only is not much faster than computing the full $`E_{11}`$ up to the same height and so we consider this problem.

The method we have used for calculating the multiplicities of $`E_{10}`$ and $`E_{11}`$ relies on the Peterson recursion formula

$`(\beta |\beta +2\rho )c_\beta ={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha >0:\beta \alpha >0}{}}(\alpha |\beta \alpha )c_\alpha c_{\beta \alpha }`$ (10)
for KM algebras . Here the quantities $`c_\beta `$ are the expansion coefficients of the negative logarithm of the denominator (2). They are related to the multiplicities via $`c_\beta =_k\frac{1}{k}\text{mult}(\beta /k)`$. By symmetry of the sum one can restrict to $`\alpha `$ with height not exceeding half the height of $`\beta `$. The algorithmic value of this relation can be improved by noting that the decomposition $`\beta =\alpha +\alpha ^{}`$ is invariant under the stabilizer $`𝒲_\beta `$ of $`\beta `$ and so are the inner product and the quantities $`c_\beta `$. Thus we can write the right hand side in (10) as a sum over orbits under this stabilizer group

$`(\beta |\beta +2\rho )c_\beta ={\displaystyle \underset{\text{orbits}o}{}}(\gamma |\beta \gamma )c_\gamma c_{\beta \gamma }|o|`$
where $`\gamma `$ is any element from the orbit under $`𝒲_\beta `$ and $`|o|`$ the size of the orbit in the positive root domain. If $`\beta =_il_i\lambda _i`$ then the stabilizer is generated by the reflections in the simple roots $`\alpha _i`$ for which $`l_i=0`$. Denote the set of values of $`i`$ for which this the case by $`JI`$. We can represent each orbit by a “lowest weight vector” $`\gamma `$ which is charaterised as having either only non-negative Dynkin labels on the set $`J`$ or being a simple root (or a multiple thereof) belonging to $`J`$ up to conjugacy. The element $`\beta \gamma `$ is then a highest element under the action of $`𝒲_\beta `$ and if it is not conjugate to a simple root from $`J`$ under $`𝒲_\beta `$ the full orbit will contribute and the size of the orbit is just the quotient of the order of the $`𝒲_\beta `$ by the order of the stabilizer of $`\gamma `$ within $`𝒲_\beta `$.555This formula does not cause trouble even though some elements $`\beta `$ in $`E_{10}`$ and $`E_{11}`$ have stablizers of infinite order as in that case either the support of $`\beta `$ is disconnected or one of $`\gamma `$ and $`\beta \gamma `$ belongs to $`𝒲_\beta \alpha _j`$ for some $`jJ`$. In the case that either $`\gamma `$ or $`\beta \gamma `$ is conjugate to a simple root $`\alpha _j`$ from $`J`$ the size of the orbit is given by the number of positive roots of the (finite) subalgebra defined by the connected part of $`J`$ to which $`\alpha _j`$ belongs. There is also a possible symmetry factor of $`2`$ one has to take into account if the $`\gamma `$ and $`\beta \gamma `$ are not conjugate under $`𝒲_\beta `$. This algorithm then is very similar to the ones described in .

In order to illustrate this algorithm we apply it to the first non-affine root666The affine roots all have multiplicity $`8`$ because they lie in the $`E_9`$ subalgebra. A light-like root thus has fewer polarisations than allowed for by transversality. of $`E_{11}`$ which is $`\beta =\lambda _7=(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,5,2,4)`$. Its stabilizer is the Weyl group of the Lie algebra $`𝒲_\beta =𝒲(D_{10})`$ of order $`2^910!`$ and the factor works out to $`(\beta |\beta +2\rho )=96`$. We always have the contributions from $`\alpha _7`$ and one of the simple roots of $`D_{10}`$ which are all conjugate under $`𝒲_\beta `$. Their contributions can be summarized in the following table:

| $`\gamma `$ | $`\gamma ^2`$ | $`c_\gamma `$ | $`\beta \gamma `$ | $`(\beta \gamma )^2`$ | $`c_{\beta \gamma }`$ | $`(\gamma |\beta \gamma )`$ | simple | $`|o|`$ | sym | c |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\alpha _7`$ | 2 | 1 | $`w(\alpha _7)`$ | 2 | 1 | -3 | no | $`2^9`$ | 1 | -1536 |
| $`\alpha _6`$ | 2 | 1 | $`w(\lambda _1)`$ | 0 | 8 | -2 | yes | $`90`$ | 2 | -2880 |

Here we have indicated the lowest element in the Weyl orbit of $`\beta \gamma `$. The column labelled “simple” indicates whether one of the vectors is conjugate to a simple root of $`D_{10}`$ under $`𝒲_\beta `$. Accordingly, the sizes of the orbits can be computed as $`|𝒲(D_{10})|/|𝒲(A_9)|=2^910!/10!=2^9`$ in the first case and $`90`$ is the number of positive roots of $`D_{10}`$. The column “sym” denotes the symmetry factor. One can convince oneself that these are all orbits that contribute. So the multiplicity of $`\lambda _7`$ is 46 which can also be checked independently.

We are also interested in highest weight representations of $`E_{10}`$ in order to decompose $`E_{11}`$ along the lines of proposition 1. Denote a highest weight module with dominant highest weight $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒞`$ by $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ then the Weyl-Kac character formula holds

$`\chi _{L(\mathrm{\Lambda })}={\displaystyle \frac{_{w𝒲}ϵ(w)\mathrm{exp}(w(\rho +\mathrm{\Lambda })\rho )}{_{\alpha >0}(1\mathrm{exp}(\alpha ))^{\text{mult}(\alpha )}}}.`$
As a consequence, we have the following version of the Freudenthal formula

$`(2(\mathrm{\Lambda }|\beta )2\text{ht}(\beta )+\beta ^2)\text{mult}_{L(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\beta )`$
$`=2{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha >0}{}}\text{mult}(\alpha ){\displaystyle \underset{j1}{}}`$ $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\beta j\alpha |\alpha )\text{mult}_{L(\mathrm{\Lambda })}(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\beta j\alpha ).`$
Here the right hand side can again be decomposed into a sum over Weyl orbits. Using these two formulas we can obtain the representation content of $`E_{11}`$ with respect to $`E_{10}`$ at low height.

Write a root $`\alpha `$ of $`E_{11}`$ as

$`\alpha =l\alpha _2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}}n_i\alpha _i`$
so that $`l`$ is the (hyperbolic) level of $`\alpha `$ with respect to $`E_{10}`$. We can then obtain the positive part of $`E_{11}`$ as

$`𝔫(E_{10})_+{\displaystyle \underset{l1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_l}{}}}(L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{(l)}))^{\mu (\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{(l)})},`$
where we assume all the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{(l)}`$ occuring for a fixed $`l`$ to be distinct and $`\mu (\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{(l)})`$ is the outer multiplicity with which they occur.

Computations using the modified Peterson and Freudenthal formulas can be done efficiently on a computer and we present the results for the decomposition above up to height $`120`$ in $`E_{11}`$ where the maximal occuring level is $`5`$ in table LABEL:te11e10. The computations were carried out with the help of a C program by compiling a list of all roots of $`E_{11}`$ to that height using the (orbit improved) Peterson formula and then the Freudenthal formula to iteratively determine the relevant $`E_{10}`$ representations. In an appendix we list the multiplicities of all elements in the fundamental chamber $`𝒞`$ for $`E_{10}`$ (up to height 340) and for $`E_{11}`$ (up to height 240) for reference. The results we obtain agree with other data in the literature .

We already encounter representations with outer multiplicity greater than one in this regime. At the first level we find only the $`E_{10}`$ representation $`V=[1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0]`$ as expected from proposition 1. This is a highly non-trivial check on the $`E_{10}`$ and $`E_{11}`$ data and the algorithm. The representations on the second level should be $`[V,V]/U`$ where $`U`$ has highest weight $`[0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0]`$ (corresponding to the $`E_{11}`$ element $`(2,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0)`$ which is the first non-trivial commutator in $`[V,V]`$). So we can learn someting about the Clebsch-Gordon series of the antisymmetric product of the $`E_{10}`$ representation $`V`$ with itself at low levels (in the $`E_{10}`$ weight lattice). Considerations similar in spirit apply to higher levels. Apparently, the information about tensor products of $`E_{10}`$ representations could also have been obtained by other methods (character theory, say) and then been used to generate data for $`E_{11}`$. As this does not give any obvious technical advantage we have used the method presented here as it makes direct use of the (possibly) more fundamental structure of $`E_{11}`$.

Acknowledgements: The author would like to thank P. Goddard for valuable discussions and H. Nicolai and P. West for comments. Support by the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes, EPSRC and the Cambridge European Trust is gratefully acknowledged.

## Appendix A $`E_{10}`$ up to height $`340`$

The following table contains the multiplicities of all elements $`\beta `$ in the fundamental chamber of $`E_{10}`$ up to height $`340`$. As noted before , the discrepancy between the multiplicity of a root $`\beta `$ and the number of transverse polarisations $`p_8(1\frac{1}{2}\beta ^2)`$, generated by the partition function on 8 colours $`_np_8(n)q^n=_{n1}(1q^n)^8`$, grows with increasing $`\beta ^2`$ and $`\text{mult}(\beta )p_8(1\frac{1}{2}\beta ^2)`$. The results of  show that the discrepancy is not only due to additional longitudinal states but that also some transversal states disappear from the spectrum. Furthermore, the anisotropy grows with increasing height, i.e. the amount by which the multiplicity fails to be a function just of $`\beta ^2`$.

## Appendix B $`E_{11}`$ up to height $`240`$

This table contains the multiplicities of all elements $`\beta `$ in the fundamental domain of $`E_{11}`$ up to height $`240`$. Unlike in the hyperbolic $`E_{10}`$ case not all $`\beta `$ have connected support and so are imaginary roots of the algebra. We list only the non-trivial elements. Again there is anisotropy but in stark contrast to the $`E_{10}`$ case now all multiplicities are (almost always strictly) less than the number of transverse polarisations: $`\text{mult}(\beta )p_9(1\frac{1}{2}\beta ^2)`$.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0304208 DAMTP-2003-36

The Holographic Dual of a SUSY Vector Model and Tensionless Open Strings

Nemani V. Suryanarayana

DAMTP, Centre for Mathematical Sciences

Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, U.K

v.s.nemani@damtp.cam.ac.uk

ABSTRACT

We describe a supersymmetric example of the holographic duality between 3 dimensional vector models and higher spin gauge theories in $`AdS_4`$, first proposed in a bosonic context by Klebanov and Polyakov. We argue that a particular Fradkin-Vasiliev type supersymmetric higher spin gauge theory in $`AdS_4`$ with 16 supersymmetries is dual to the singlet sector of bilinear operators of a free $`𝒩=4`$, $`SU(N)`$ vector model defined on the boundary. Starting from the duality between type IIB on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ with a D5–brane as an $`AdS_4\times S^2`$ subspace and the 4 dimensional $`SU(N)`$ SYM with a defect, we recover the duality between our vector model and the higher spin gauge theory. In this case, we propose that the higher spin gauge theory is a truncation of the open string theory on the world volume of the D5-brane in its tensionless string limit. We also comment on a possible Higgs mechanism in our model.

April 2003

1. Introduction

Recently Klebanov and Polyakov \[1\] have proposed that the holographic dual of the singlet sector of bilinear operators of the bosonic vector models should be certain bosonic Fradkin-Vasiliev \[2,,3\] type higher spin gauge theories in $`AdS`$ spaces. In particular, they argued that the 3-dimensional critical $`O(N)`$ vector model should be dual to the minimal higher spin gauge theory in $`AdS_4`$ which contains one massless physical field for each even spin $`s=0,2,4,\mathrm{}`$. This duality has been motivated by the fact that the free $`O(N)`$ vector model for the real fields $`\varphi ^a(\stackrel{}{x})`$ in the vector representation of $`O(N)`$:

$$S=\frac{1}{2}d^3x^\mu \varphi ^a_\mu \varphi ^a$$

has singlet bilinear conserved currents of the form

$$J_{(\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _s)}=\varphi ^a_{(\mu _1}\mathrm{}_{\mu _s)}\varphi ^a+\mathrm{}$$

which are primaries for $`s=0,2,4,\mathrm{}`$. A prescription, similar to that in the usual AdS/CFT correspondence, to find the correlation functions of these currents from the higher spin theory has also been proposed:

$$\mathrm{exp}d^3xh_0^{(\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _s)}J_{(\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _s)}=e^{S[h_0]}$$

where, as usual, $`h_0`$ is the boundary value of the massless spin $`s`$ field in the bulk and $`J`$ is the corresponding dual CFT operator. For example, the massless scalar in $`AdS_4`$ is proposed to be dual to the spin zero ‘current’ $`\varphi ^a\varphi ^a`$. The well known infrared conformal fixed point of the 3-dimensional vector model, in this language, is nicely interpreted as the one obtained by deforming (1.1) by a ‘double trace’ operator $`(\varphi ^a\varphi ^a)^2`$.

It is of interest to understand this duality in more detail. Some of the recent developments in this direction include \[4,,5,,6,,7\].

In this paper, we consider supersymmetric versions of this duality. As a particular example, we propose that the non-minimal $`𝒩=4`$ higher spin gauge theory \[8\] in $`AdS_4`$ based on the higher spin superalgebra $`hs_0(4|4;1)`$ should be holographically dual to the singlet sector of bilinear operators of the free supersymmetric 3-dimensional $`𝒩=4`$ theory with fields in the vector representation of $`SU(N)`$.

It has been suggested in the literature that the Klebanov-Polyakov (KP) duality should be realised as a truncation of the duality between M-theory on $`AdS_4\times X^7`$ and three dimensional CFT on the boundary in its free field theory limit. However, it is not yet clear if and how the KP type duality can be realised in a string theory context. Therefore, it is interesting to study any possible realisations of such dualities in string theory. Here, we propose an embedding of our supersymmetric version into type IIB string theory.

We start with the well known correspondence between a 4-d ‘defect’ conformal field theory and the type IIB string theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ plus a D5–brane with its world-volume embedded as an $`AdS_4\times S^2`$ subspace \[9,,10\]. The D5–brane acts as a co-dimension one defect in the boundary $`𝒩=4`$, $`d=4`$, $`SU(N)`$ SYM. On the 3 dimensional defect, there is matter in the fundamental (vector) representation of the gauge group $`SU(N)`$. We take a decoupling limit, the free field theory limit $`\lambda =4\pi g_{YM}^2N0`$ of the defect CFT, that separates the 4-d SYM dynamics from that of the 3-d vector model. In this limit the bulk theory becomes that of the tensionless closed and open strings. By taking recourse to a strong form of the AdS/dCFT duality, we argue that the holographic dual of the singlet sector of bilinear operators of the free vector model should be a consistent truncation of the open string theory living on the D5–brane in the tensionless string limit.

The paper is organised as follows. In section 2 we describe a supersymmetric version of the KP duality. In section 3 we deal with the subject of the string theory embedding of the duality of section 2. We also comment on how the higher string modes could become massive through a generalised Higgs mechanism when $`\lambda `$ is turned on in the defect CFT. In section 4 we give conclusions and open questions.

2. A supersymmetric version of Klebanov-Polyakov duality

In this section we describe the holographic dual of a supersymmetric Fradkin-Vasiliev type higher spin gauge theory in $`AdS_4`$. We start with a brief review of the higher spin gauge theory that we are interested in. For a general introduction to higher spin gauge theories of Fradkin-Vasiliev type, see \[11\] and for more details of the particular theory being considered here, see \[8\].

2.1. A non-minimal $`𝒩=4`$ higher spin gauge theory in $`AdS_4`$.

Let us consider the non-minimal $`U(1)_f`$ extended $`𝒩=4`$ higher spin gauge theory constructed in \[8\].1 It is an extension of the minimal $`𝒩=4`$ theory of \[12,,13,,11\]. This theory is defined in $`AdS_4`$ background and is based on the higher spin algebra $`hs_0(4|4;1)`$. This infinite dimensional superalgebra contains

$$OSp(4|4)\times U(1)_fhs_0(4|4;1)$$

as its maximal finite dimensional subalgebra. The spectrum of massless 2 Recall that in $`AdS_4`$ the massless fields have $`\mathrm{\Delta }=s+1`$ for $`s\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1,2`$ for $`s=0`$. physical fields of this theory, arranged into levels of $`𝒩=4`$ supermultiplets, is given in the table below \[8\]:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccccccc}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{(l,j)}\backslash \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s}{}& & & & 0& & \frac{1}{2}& & 1& & \frac{3}{2}& & 2& & \frac{5}{2}& & 3& & \frac{7}{2}& & 4& & \mathrm{}\\ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ (1,1)& & & & 6& & 4& & 1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ (0,0)& & & & 1+\overline{1}& & 4& & 6& & 4& & 1& & & & & & & & & & \\ (0,1)& & & & & & & & 1& & 4& & 6& & 4& & 1& & & & & & \\ (1,0)& & & & & & & & & & & & 1& & 4& & 6& & 4& & 1& & \\ \mathrm{}& & & & & & & & & & & & & & \mathrm{}& & & & & & & & \end{array}$$

Table(1): The higher spin spectrum based on the algebra $`hs_0(4|4;1)`$.

The spectrum contains eight fields of each spin $`s=0,\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{3}{2},2,\mathrm{}`$. At $`l=1`$, we have an $`𝒩=4`$ SYM multiplet and at the next level a supergravity multiplet and so on.

This spectrum is identical to the massless spectrum of higher spins obtained as a tensor product \[14,,15\] of two Dirac singletons \[16\] of $`OSp(4|4)`$ superalgebra.

$$\mathrm{Spectrum}[hs_0(4|4;1)]\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi }$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Xi }=D(\frac{1}{2},0;\frac{1}{2},0)D(1,\frac{1}{2};0,\frac{1}{2})$$

is the Dirac singleton. The infinite dimensional UIRs of the higher spin algebra $`hs_0(4|4;1)`$ are decomposed into those of $`OSp(4|4)`$ and denoted by $`D(\mathrm{\Delta },s;j_1,j_2)`$. The quantum numbers are those of the maximal compact subalgebra

$$SO(2)\times SO(3)\times SU(2)_H\times SU(2)_VOSp(4|4).$$

One can set up the higher spin field equations \[8\] which we will not reproduce here. At the level $`l=1`$, the vector multiplet has six scalars which are the lowest weight components of the UIRs $`D(1,0;\frac{1}{2},0)`$ and $`D(2,0;0,\frac{1}{2})`$. Similarly, the scalars at the next level are the lowest weight components of $`D(1,0;0,0)`$ and $`D(2,0;0,0)`$. The rest of the fields have $`\mathrm{\Delta }=s+1`$ and all the 6s in the table above are made out of $`(1,0)(0,1)`$ and all the 4s are made out of $`(\frac{1}{2},0)(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ of $`SU(2)_H\times SU(2)_V`$. The whole spectrum is neutral under $`U(1)_f`$ by construction. Next, we construct a dual vector model.

2.2. The dual vector model

We look for a $`d=3`$, $`SU(N)`$ vector model with $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetry with the following properties. It should admit conserved currents $`𝒥_s^{(i)}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ (with $`i=1,2,\mathrm{}8`$ and $`s=0,\frac{1}{2},1,\mathrm{}`$) belonging to the singlet sector of $`SU(N)`$ and are bilinear in the fundamental fields. It should admit $`OSp(4|4)\times U(1)_f`$ symmetry group. The conserved currents $`𝒥_s^{(i)}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ should have the right quantum numbers of $`OSp(4|4)`$ and neutral under $`U(1)_f`$ with multiplicities as the corresponding higher spin fields listed in the previous subsection.

We have seen that the bulk field content can be obtained as a tensor product of two Dirac singletons (2.1). Therefore, it is natural to choose the field content of the boundary theory to have the same quantum numbers as the lowest weight states of the singleton. That is, a doublet of complex scalar fields $`q^m(\stackrel{}{x})`$, $`m=1,2`$, and a doublet of spinors $`\psi ^i(\stackrel{}{x})`$, $`i=1,2`$, both in the fundamental representation of $`SU(N)`$ with their conjugates transforming in the anti-fundamental. The field content is summarised below:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}\mathrm{Field}& & \mathrm{\Delta }& & \mathrm{Spin}(s)& & SU(2)_H& & SU(2)_V& & SU(N)& & U(1)_f\\ q^m& & \frac{1}{2}& & 0& & \frac{1}{2}& & 0& & N& & 1\\ \psi ^i& & 1& & \frac{1}{2}& & 0& & \frac{1}{2}& & N& & 1\end{array}$$

where $`m`$ and $`i`$ are the double indices of $`SU(2)_H`$ and $`SU(2)_V`$ respectively. A free supersymmetric action with this field content can be written down:

$$S_{boundary}=d^3x[(^kq^m)^{}_kq^mi\overline{\psi }^i\rho ^k_k\psi ^i]$$

where $`\rho _k`$ are the Dirac matrices in $`d=3`$. This free theory is superconformal and admits $`OSp(4|4)\times U(1)_f`$ as its symmetry group. Eight of its supercharges correspond to the ordinary supersymmetries and the remaining eight generate superconformal supersymmetries.

Following \[1\] let us construct a set of conserved currents in this theory which are singlet bilinear operators and associate them with the corresponding bulk fields listed in the previous subsection.3 For details on the subject of higher spin conserved currents in conformal field theories, see Refs. \[17,,18,,11,,19,,20\]. First, there are eight scalar ($`s=0`$) operators:

$$\overline{q}^m\sigma _{mn}^Iq^n,\overline{\psi }^i\sigma _{ij}^A\psi ^j,\overline{q}^mq^m\mathrm{and}\overline{\psi }^i\psi ^i$$

where $`I`$ is a triplet index of $`SU(2)_H`$ and $`A`$ is a triplet index of $`SU(2)_V`$. $`\sigma ^I`$ and $`\sigma ^A`$ denote the Pauli matrices. The three scalars $`\overline{q}^m\sigma _{mn}^Iq^n`$ ($`I=1,2,3`$) have $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ and have the correct quantum numbers to be dual to three of the scalars at level $`l=1`$ in table (1). Similarly, operators $`\overline{\psi }^i\sigma _{ij}^A\psi ^j`$ correspond to the remaining three scalars in the $`𝒩=4`$ SYM multiplet of the table (1). The remaining two operators $`\overline{q}^mq^m`$ and $`\overline{\psi }^i\psi ^i`$ correspond to the scalars in the $`(l,j)=(0,0)`$ multiplet of table (1).

At $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$, we have

$$\psi ^iq^m\text{and}\overline{q}^m\psi ^i$$

which are again eight in number and have the right quantum numbers to be associated with the eight spin half fields appearing in table (1). Let us now turn to the vectors. We find the following eight conserved currents with $`s=1`$:

$$\overline{q}^m^k{}_{}{}^{^{}}q_{}^{m},\overline{\psi }^i\rho ^k\psi ^i,\overline{q}^m\sigma _{mn}^I^k{}_{}{}^{^{}}q_{}^{n}\mathrm{and}\overline{\psi }^i\sigma _{ij}^A\rho ^k\psi ^j.$$

We associate these currents with the eight vector fields in table (1) with the appropriate quantum numbers.

In general, at any given integer spin $`s0`$ we can construct eight conserved currents of the form

$$𝒥_s^\alpha (\stackrel{}{x})=\overline{q}^m\sigma _{mn}^\alpha ^{(k_1}{}_{}{}^{^{}}_{}^{k_2}{}_{}{}^{^{}}\mathrm{}^{k_s)}{}_{}{}^{^{}}q_{}^{n}+\mathrm{},$$

$$𝒥_s^\beta (\stackrel{}{x})=\overline{\psi }^i\sigma _{ij}^\beta \rho ^{(k_1}^{k_2}{}_{}{}^{^{}}\mathrm{}^{k_s)}{}_{}{}^{^{}}\psi _{}^{j}+\mathrm{}$$

where $`\alpha ,\beta =0,1,2,3`$ with $`\sigma ^0=I_{2\times 2}`$. Similarly, there are eight conserved currents for each half-integral spin:

$$𝒥_s^{im}=\psi ^i^{(k_1}{}_{}{}^{^{}}_{}^{k_2}{}_{}{}^{^{}}\mathrm{}^{k_s)}{}_{}{}^{^{}}q_{}^{m}+\mathrm{},$$

$$\overline{𝒥}_s^{im}=\overline{q}^m^{(k_1}{}_{}{}^{^{}}_{}^{k_2}{}_{}{}^{^{}}\mathrm{}^{k_s)}{}_{}{}^{^{}}\psi _{}^{i}+\mathrm{}.$$

Notice that these currents have the right quantum numbers of $`OSp(4|4)`$ and are neutral under $`U(1)_f`$ as required. For more complete expressions of these currents please see the appendix.4 Notice that all the higher spin fields can be packaged into the following set of bi-local collective fields in the sense of refs: $`\overline{q}^m(\stackrel{}{x})\sigma _{mn}^\alpha q^n(\stackrel{}{y})`$, $`\overline{\psi }^i(\stackrel{}{x})\sigma _{ij}^\beta \rho ^\mu \psi ^j(\stackrel{}{y})`$, $`\psi ^i(\stackrel{}{x})q^m(\stackrel{}{y})`$ and $`\overline{q}^m(\stackrel{}{x})\psi ^i(\stackrel{}{y})`$ with $`\rho ^\mu =\{I_{2\times 2},\rho ^k:k=0,1,2\}`$.

Thus we conclude that our free $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ vector model (2.1) admits the right set of bilinear operators in its singlet sector that are in one to one correspondence with the fields of the higher spin gauge theory of the previous subsection. Of course, one needs to arrange these currents into supermultiplets which may involve taking various linear combinations of the basic currents listed above.

One can easily generalise the precription Eq.(1.1) of \[1\] to evaluate the boundary correlators using the bulk higher spin theory to our supersymmetric context. The procedure followed here can clearly be generalised to construct the dual of any given higher spin gauge theory whose field content is contained in the tensor product of its Dirac singletons.

Let us now turn to finding an embedding of the model studied here into a string theory context.

3. Vector models and tensionless open strings

It has been conjectured in the literature that there exists an unbroken symmetric phase of M-theory on $`AdS_4\times X^7`$ backgrounds dual to an $`SU(N)`$ invariant free singleton theory on the boundary. To incorporate the Klebanov-Polyakov type dualities into this set up it has been suggested (see, for instance, \[21\] and references there in) that a massless sector of M-theory on $`AdS_4\times X^7`$ should be dual to the singlet sector of $`O(N^21)`$ vector model. In what follows, we argue that a more natural set up for realising a Klebanov-Polyakov type duality is type II string theories in the presence of D-branes.5 For discussions on higher spin theories from type II closed strings, see \[22,,23,,19,,24,,25\]. We concentrate on the particular example discussed in the previous section.

As was outlined in the introduction, the set-up of interest is a Karch-Randall compactification \[9\] of type IIB string theory. That is, we embed a D5–brane into the the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background as an $`AdS_4\times S^2`$ subspace. This theory is expected to be dual to a ‘defect’ CFT on the boundary generalising the usual AdS/CFT correspondence \[26\]. The details of this duality along with a perturbative definition of the the dual field theory have been worked out in \[10\](See also \[27\]). We are going to use this duality in an essential way. So let us first review briefly a few relevant details of this duality.

3.1. The bulk theory

The bulk side of this set up contains type IIB closed strings propagating in the maximally supersymmetric $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background along with the D5–brane open strings propagating in the $`AdS_4\times S^2`$ subspace. This system can be obtained by starting with $`N`$ D3–branes along $`(x^1,x^2,x^6)`$ directions plus one D5–brane along $`(x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4,x^5)`$ directions (with both D3 and D5–branes sitting at the same point in $`(x^7,x^8,x^9)`$ directions) and then taking the near horizon limit of the D3–branes. Before taking the large $`N`$ limit, one has closed strings along with open strings in the Chan-Paton sectors 3-3, 3-5 and 5-5. The 3-3 sector fields are in the adjoint representation of $`U(N)`$, 3-5 strings in the bifundamental representation of $`U(N)\times U(1)`$ and the 5-5 strings contain a $`U(1)`$ gauge field. Taking the near horizon limit separates the 3-3 and 3-5 strings from the 5-5 and closed strings.

The isometry group of the resultant background is

$$SO(2,3)\times SO(3)\times SO(3)Sp(4)\times SU(2)_H\times SU(2)_VSO(2,4)\times SO(6).$$

The latter is the isometry group of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ without the D5–brane. The presence of the D5–brane breaks half of the 32 supersymmetries of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ and we have

$$OSp(4|4)SU(2,2|4)$$

as the unbroken supergroup. There is also a $`U(1)_f`$ gauge field on the D5–brane. The low energy description of this system is studied in \[10\] and the modes are classified according to the representations of $`OSp(4|4)`$. Since the supergravity and the DBI modes are expected to survive the tensionless string limit, they will be useful for our purposes later on. Let us review the relevant open string results found in \[10\] here. For more details see section 3.2 of Ref.\[10\].

There are three sectors for the light 5-5 open string modes: $`(i)`$ The angular fluctuation ($`\psi `$) of the D5–brane on $`S^5`$, $`(ii)`$ The gauge field fluctuation ($`b_\mu `$) of the D5–brane along the $`AdS_4`$ directions and $`(iii)`$ two coupled sectors $`(b+z)^{(\pm )}`$ of gauge field components along $`S^2`$ and the remaining transverse fluctuations. Below, we summarise the spectrum of these fluctuations in terms of their $`AdS_4`$ energies (the conformal dimensions of the dual operators):

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (i)& \mathrm{\Delta }_+=2+l,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}=1l,\hfill \\ \hfill (ii)& \mathrm{\Delta }=2+l,\hfill \\ \hfill (iii)& \mathrm{\Delta }_\pm ^{(+)}=\frac{3}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}(2l+5),\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm ^{()}=\frac{3}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}|2l3|.\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`l`$ labels the spherical harmonics over the $`S^2`$ that the D5–brane wraps, whose symmetry we denote by $`SU(2)_H`$. The masses of these modes are related to their conformal dimensions by the usual relations. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ is allowed only for $`l=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{(+)}`$ is not possible at all and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{()}`$ is allowed only for $`l=1,2`$ by unitarity.6 Recall that the unitarity in $`AdS_4`$ requires the $`\mathrm{\Delta }s+\frac{1}{2}`$ for $`s=0,\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s+1`$ for $`s=1,\frac{3}{2},2,\mathrm{}`$. Under the $`SU(2)_V`$ symmetry the vector $`b_\mu `$ is a singlet, the scalars $`\psi `$ and $`(b+z)^{()}`$ are a triplet and a singlet respectively.

Further, for $`l=0`$, the sectors $`(i)`$ and $`(ii)`$ contain three massless scalars (a triplet of $`SU(2)_V`$) and a massless vector respectively. Similarly, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm ^{()}`$ sector contains another three massless scalars at $`l=1`$ (a triplet of $`SU(2)_H`$). There are also closed string supergravity modes which we do not describe here. Beyond the low energy limit, there will be higher stringy modes as well.

3.2. The boundary theory

Now, let us briefly review the relevant information about the boundary theory dual to the system described above. The intersection of the D5–brane on the boundary of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ is a co-dimension one defect in the 4-d CFT. The defect carries, on its world volume, a $`3`$-dim vector model with one hypermultiplet in the fundamental representation of the gauge group.

Therefore, the boundary theory is a ‘defect’ CFT (or simply a dCFT). This is expected to be a superconformal field theory with 16 supersymmetries. The symmetry group is again the superconformal group $`OSp(4|4)`$ of which the $`SO(2,3)`$ is the conformal group and the $`SO(4)=SU(2)_H\times SU(2)_V`$ is the global R-symmetry. There is also a $`U(1)_f`$ global symmetry under which the defect fields are charged.7 This is the remnant of the fact that the defect fields belonged to the sector of strings between D3 branes and a D5-brane. The $`SU(N)`$ is a gauge symmetry but $`U(1)_f`$ is only a global symmetry after taking the near horizon limit. A lagrangian formulation of this theory is described in \[10\]. Here we will be content with describing the field content of the theory and refer the reader to the original work for more details. The 4-d ambient CFT (which we refer to as $`a\mathrm{FT}`$) fields are the vector $`A_k,A_6`$ for $`k=0,1,2`$, the scalars $`X_H^I`$ and $`X_V^A`$ where $`I=3,4,5`$ and $`A=7,8,9`$ and the Majorana spinors $`\lambda _{im}`$ where $`i`$ and $`m`$ are the doublet indices of $`SU(2)_V`$ and $`SU(2)_H`$ respectively. All these fields are in the adjoint representation of the gauge group $`SU(N)`$. Further, we have the fields on the defect: the 3–d scalars $`q^m`$ and the fermions $`\psi ^i`$ which are doublets of $`SU(2)_H`$ and $`SU(2)_V`$ respectively. Both these fields are in the fundamental representation of the gauge group $`SU(N)`$. Notice that the quantum numbers of these fields are the same as the ones given in Eq.(2.1).

The operators dual to the light open string modes described in the previous subsection are to be identified with gauge invariant single trace operators made of the fundamental fields of the field theory on the defect (which we refer to as $`d\mathrm{FT}`$) and the adjoint fields of $`a\mathrm{FT}`$ restricted to the defect.

A dictionary of such identifications can be found in section 5 of Ref.\[10\] which we reproduce below for later reference.

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\mathrm{Mode}& & \mathrm{\Delta }& & SU(2)_H& & SU(2)_V& & \mathrm{Operator}\\ \\ b_\mu & & l+2& & l0& & 0& & i\overline{q}^mD^k{}_{}{}^{^{}}q_{}^{m}+\overline{\psi }^i\rho ^k\psi ^i\\ \\ \psi & & l+2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}l& & l0& & 1& & \overline{\psi }_i\sigma _{ij}^A\psi _j+2\overline{q}^mX_V^Aq^m\\ \\ (b+z)^{()}& & l,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}l& & l1& & 0& & \overline{q}^m\sigma _{mn}^Iq^n\end{array}$$

where, in the last column, we indicated the dual operators corresponding to the lowest $`l`$ modes which form a $`𝒩=4`$, $`d=4`$, $`U(1)`$ SYM multiplet as expected from the supersymmetry counting.8 The mode $`(b+z)^{(+)}`$ is not listed above as it is always massive and drops out of our story. The dual operators for higher $`l`$ modes are also proposed in \[10\]. For example:

$$C_{l+1}^{I_0\mathrm{}I_l}=\overline{q}^m\sigma _{mn}^{(I_0}X_H^{I_1}\mathrm{}X_H^{I_l)}q^n\mathrm{traces}$$

gives the operator dual to a mode with the $`SU(2)_H`$ quantum number $`l+1`$ in the last row of (3.1).

The boundary theory is argued to be an exact CFT \[10,,27\]. Therefore, one expects that the $`AdS_4\times S^2`$ embedding of the D5–brane is a solution to the string equations of motion. We are going to assume that there exists an exact world sheet boundary conformal field theory of this D5–brane in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background. We will also assume that the duality is valid in its strongest form for all values of the ’t Hooft coupling $`\lambda `$ and $`N`$ and treat the field theory as a definition of the dual string theory whenever necessary.

Having identified a type IIB string theory context in which the 3-dimensional field content (2.1) of the supersymmetric vector model of section 2 is realised, we next aim to carefully extract the vector model from the boudary theory and obtain its dual bulk theory using the AdS/dCFT correspondence reviewed above.

3.3. Super KP from AdS/dCFT

To summarise, on the bulk side of the duality there is the theory of type IIB closed strings in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ coupled to the open strings on a D5–brane embedded as an $`AdS_4\times S^2`$ subspace. On the boundary, we have the defect CFT. Holography tells us that these two systems describe the same physics. Therefore, we write

$$\begin{array}{cc}& _{IIBClosedStrings}^{(Bulk)}+_{D5OpenStrings}^{(Bulk)}+_{Int.}^{(Bulk)}\hfill \\ & _{d=4,𝒩=4,SU(N),SYM}^{(Bdy)}+_{d=3,𝒩=4,SU(N)VectorModel}^{(Bdy)}+_{Int.}^{(Bdy)}\hfill \end{array}$$

where we have denoted the theories by their Lagrangian densities schematically. On the right hand side, the first two terms represent $`a\mathrm{FT}`$ and $`d\mathrm{FT}`$ respectively and the third denotes the interactions between them.

Since we are interested in singling out the vector model, we first need to decouple both $`a\mathrm{FT}`$ and $`d\mathrm{FT}`$. Therefore, we seek a limit of the boundary theory in which the term $`_{Int.}^{(Bdy)}`$ can be dropped. This indeed happens in the limit $`\lambda 0`$ where $`\lambda =4\pi g_{YM}^2N`$ is the ’t Hooft coupling on the boundary9 For this limit we keep $`N`$ to be large but finite and take $`g_{YM}^20`$. and $`\lambda =\frac{R^4}{\alpha ^2}`$ in the bulk. In this limit, both $`_{4d,𝒩=4,SU(N),SYM}^{(Bdy)}`$ and $`_{3d,𝒩=4,SU(N)VectorModel}^{(Bdy)}`$ become free field theories and the interaction lagrangian $`_{Int.}^{(Bdy)}`$ goes to zero. On the bulk side, the limit $`\lambda 0`$ is the tensionless string limit.10 In a strict large $`N`$ limit one expects that $`_{Int.}^{(Bulk)}`$ also should go to zero. But we will be interested in keeping higher orders in $`1/N`$. Therefore, in this limit, one expects that the whole string spectrum to become massless with infinitely many states at each spin.

Now that we have decoupled the $`a\mathrm{FT}`$ and $`d\mathrm{FT}`$, we can in principle, extract the holographic dual of the vector model of $`d\mathrm{FT}`$ alone. But unfortunately we do not have much handle over the bulk side of the story. Therefore, we take recourse to indirect arguments based on the assumption that the strong form of the AdS/dCFT is true.

First we restrict ourselves to single trace operators of the boundary theory. The calculable quantities of interest in the CFT are the correlation functions of gauge invariant operators. In the limit $`\lambda 0`$, these operators are simply the singlets of $`SU(N)`$. There are essentially three classes of these singlet operators. Denoting an arbitrary adjoint field of $`a\mathrm{FT}`$ by $`𝒜`$ and a fundamental field of $`d\mathrm{FT}`$ by $``$ these operators, schematically, are of the type:

$$(a)\mathrm{Tr}(𝒜\mathrm{}𝒜),(b)\overline{}𝒜\mathrm{}𝒜,(c)\overline{}.$$

The operators of type $`(a)`$ correspond to the closed string states. The operators of type $`(b)`$ and $`(c)`$ (in general, combinations of those, like in Eq.(3.4)) correspond to the open string states.11 There is, in general, operator mixing with multitrace operators which is crucial at higher orders in perturbation theory. Here, we mean the operators which reduce to the ones listed in (3.1) at the lowest order in the perturbation theory.

We are interested in the vector model and therefore in the correlation functions involving type $`(c)`$ operators alone. Hence we need to ‘subtract’ the $`a\mathrm{FT}`$ from the boundary theory. At the level of correlation functions, this amounts to setting all the operators belonging to type $`(a)`$ and $`(b)`$ to zero which is achieved by simply setting the fields of the $`a\mathrm{FT}`$ to zero. This is consistent because we have decoupled $`a\mathrm{FT}`$ and $`d\mathrm{FT}`$ completely.

By ‘subtracting’ the $`a\mathrm{FT}`$ from the boundary theory, we are left with a much reduced set of operators (those of type $`(c)`$) on the boundary theory. Let us try to infer what this truncation of the set of operators of the boundary theory means for the bulk theory. Using the strong form of the AdS/dCFT correspondence, we conclude that setting type $`(a)`$ operators to zero amounts to setting all the dual closed string states on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ to zero. Similarly, setting type $`(b)`$ operators to zero corresponds to truncating the spectrum of tensionless open string states consistently.

More specifically, out of the spectrum of the light open string modes discussed in section (3.1) (all of which survive the tensionless string limit) we will be left with only the lowest $`l`$ modes after the truncation. This is because the operators dual to any higher $`l`$ mode contains powers of adjoint fields of $`a\mathrm{FT}`$ (like in (3.1)) which we set to zero as they belong to type $`(b)`$ of (3.1). Thus, we get rid of all the higher KK modes of these light states in this truncation. About the higher string modes we again go back to the dual theory. For this we simply note that the free field theory that we obtain in the limit is exactly the one we considered in section 2. There, we constructed all the operators that could be dual to the string states that we are after. Therefore, we expect that the truncated spectrum of the tensionless open strings on $`AdS_4\times S^2`$ should be identical to the spectrum of the higher spin gauge theory on $`AdS_4`$ discussed in section 2.

In other words, the higher spin gauge theory considered in section 2 is precisely the consistent truncation of the tensionless open string theory. The truncation is achieved by subtracting the $`d=4`$ $`a\mathrm{FT}`$ from the AdS/dCFT correspondence that we started with. The symmetry group $`OSp(4|4)`$ is now simply the superconformal group of the 3-d vector model and the $`U(1)_f`$ is now associated with the $`U(1)`$ gauge field on the D5–brane. The neutrality of the higher spin spetrum of section 2 under $`U(1)_f`$ is simply the reflection of the fact that the open string states on a single D-brane are neutral under its $`U(1)`$ gauge field. However, if we had more than one coincident D5-branes, the corresponding higher spin spectrum would have been charged under the the non-abelian gauge field on the branes.

It may be puzzling that the gravity theory expected for holography is now actually part of a tensionless open string theory living on a D5-brane. However, one expects a graviton (a massless spin two particle) in the open string spectrum in the tensionless string limit. One way of arguing for this is to look at the conserved energy-momentum tensor of the dual boundary CFT \[10\]:

$$T_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{y},x)=𝒯_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{y},x)+\delta (x)\delta _\mu ^k\delta _\nu ^lt_{kl}(\stackrel{}{y})$$

where, $`\stackrel{}{y}`$ and $`x`$ are the coordinates along and transverse to the defect. Neither $`𝒯_{\mu \nu }`$ nor $`t_{kl}`$ is conserved by itself in the full theory. In the free CFT limit, however, they are both conserved individually. Since in this limit $`t_{kl}`$ is quadratic in the fields of the $`d\mathrm{FT}`$, it corresponds to an open string mode. Hence, we expect that one of the stringy modes of the 5-5 sector to become massless exactly in this limit and play the role of the graviton dual to this conserved energy momentum tensor.12 This was also noticed recently in \[28\]. Notice that there are eight spin 2 fields in the higher spin spectrum of table (1). But we expect that the actual graviton dual to the 3-d energy momentum tensor is a combination of the spin 2 states in the second and fourth rows of table (1) as the others do not have the same global quantum numbers $`(j_1,j_2)`$ as $`t_{kl}`$.

Before concluding this section, we comment on the possibility of understanding how the higher open string states of the higher spin theory could attain masses once we go away from the decoupling limit discussed above.

3.4. The open string graviton and the higgs mechanism

For consistency we expect that, when $`\lambda `$ is turned on, all the fields except for the massless $`𝒩=4`$ SYM multiplet (at level $`l=1`$ in table (1)) acquire masses proportional to the string tension. From the boundary theory point of view, this means that the operators dual to these states develop anomalous dimensions

$$\mathrm{\Delta }s1𝒪(\lambda )$$

In the full interacting dCFT, one can see this happening in perturbation theory \[10,,28\]. From the bulk theory point of view, once we turn on the tension of the strings, we can no longer neglect interactions with closed string modes (and the rest of the open string modes which we set to zero by the consistent truncation explained above). But it may be possible to argue that the extra massless modes acquire mass for nonzero $`\lambda `$ in the higher spin theory in $`AdS_4`$. A related issue has been considered in the literature \[29\] (see also \[30\]) for $`s=2`$.13 There is, however, an essential difference between \[29\] and our case. In \[29\], Higgs mechanism for the the bulk (closed string) graviton was considered (à la Karch-Randall brane-world \[9\]). We are interested in the open string graviton. In Ref.\[29\] it has been argued that depending on the boundary conditions set for the massless scalar, the graviton goes through a Higgs mechanism to acquire mass. By simply noting that the required mixing of boundary conditions occurs precisely when the defect interacts with the ambient CFT, we can take over the results of \[29\] into our context.

Massless UIRs of $`AdS_4`$ group with spin $`s>0`$ have $`\mathrm{\Delta }=s+1`$ and massive ones have $`\mathrm{\Delta }>s+1`$. A massive UIR $`D(\mathrm{\Delta },s;j_1,j_2)`$ becomes reducible in the massless limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }s+1`$. For example, for a spin $`s`$ massive UIR in $`AdS_4`$ denoted by $`D(\mathrm{\Delta },s)`$ one has the decomposition

$$D(\mathrm{\Delta },s)D(s+1,s)D(s+2,s1)$$

in the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }s+1`$. The first piece on the r.h.s is massless and the second is a massive representation. This implies that in $`AdS_4`$ a spin $`s`$ field must eat a massive particle of spin $`s1`$ to attain mass. Generalising this result to our case, the decomposition of a massive representation $`D(\mathrm{\Delta },s,j_1,j_2)`$ in the limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }s+1`$ may be written as :

$$D(\mathrm{\Delta },s,j_1,j_2)D(s+1,s,j_1,j_2)D(s+2,s1,j_1,j_2).$$

This gives the quantum numbers required for the Higgs fields. One should be able to find these representations in the tensor product of the scalar field representations of table (1) as explained in \[5\]. We postpone a more detailed analysis to the future.

4. Conclusion

We have provided a supersymmetric example of the holographic duality between vector models and higher spin gauge theories first considered by Klebanov and Polyakov \[1\] in a bosonic context. Our bulk theory is a particular non-minimal $`𝒩=4`$ higher spin gauge theory in $`AdS_4`$ and based on the algebra $`hs_0(4|4;1)OSp(4|4)\times U(1)_f`$. It contains eight physical fields at each spin $`s=0,\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{3}{2},2,\mathrm{}`$. The holographic boundary theory is a 3-dimensional $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ free vector model. Since our method is based on constructing the field theory using the singleton representations of the higher spin algebra, it should help constructing other examples where the higher spin field content is contained in the tensor product of the corresponding Dirac singleton.

We have suggested that the model studied here can be embedded into type IIB string theory. We have argued that the bulk theory should be a truncation of the open string theory on a D5 brane, embedded as $`AdS_4\times S^2`$ subspace of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background of type IIB, in its tensionless string limit. The truncation is understood from the boundary theory point of view simply as the ‘subtraction’ of the free $`a\mathrm{FT}`$.

It is amusing that a large $`N`$ CFT is dual to an open string theory as opposed to a closed string theory. The role of the graviton is expected to be played by a massive open string mode which becomes massless in the tensionless string limit. One could consider variants of the model described in this paper. For example, taking an orientifold of the model considered here, where one replaces $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ by $`AdS_5\times RP^5`$, should result in an $`SO(N)`$ version of our duality. One can use the notion of consistent truncation to get to the minimal bosonic higher spin gauge theory based on $`hs(4)`$ algebra as explained in \[8\]. Similarly, with an $`SO(N)`$ analogue, one would end up with the proposal of Klebanov and Polyakov itself via consistent trucation.

One could have started with more than one (say $`M`$) coincident D5–branes in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. This should lead to a $`U(M)`$ valued higher spin spectrum. Such higher spin theories have been considered by Vasiliev \[11\].

It would be interesting to study the tensionless limit of open string theory side explicitly based on the recent results \[31,,32,,33,,34\]. Also, it may be possible to understand the higher spin spectrum considered here as that of a ‘brane’ in an appropriate higher spin gauge theory in $`AdS_5`$. The spectrum on $`AdS_4`$ subspace may perhaps be thought of as the goldstone and goldstino modes of broken higher spin symmetries of a corresponding $`AdS_5`$ theory. Related ideas have been considered recently in \[35\]. We note that we only tested the duality that we proposed here at the level of matching the spectra. However, the way we ‘derived’ it from a string theory context suggests that even the interactions of the higher spin theory considered should be reproducible from the dual modes. It will of course be interesting to check this explicitly. One may also be able to define the bulk theory in terms of the bilocal collective fields (see the footnote 4) as in \[7\]. Finally, we have not considered the possible ‘double trace’ deformations of our free theory theory. The allowed set of boundary conditions for the scalars in the bulk suggests the existence of other (interacting) CFTs \[36\]. It should be interesting to explore that aspect as well. We hope to return to some of the open questions in the future.

Acknowledgements:

I would like to thank David Berman, Michael Green, Sean Hartnoll, Octavio Obregon, Giuseppe Policastro, Fernando Quevedo, Adam Ritz and Aninda Sinha for discussions. I am particularly thankful to Sumit Das for introducing me to the subject, collaboration and encouragement. I thank Michael Green and Stefano Kovacs for their helpful comments on the manuscript. My research is supported by a PPARC Research Assistantship.

Appendix A. The conserved currents

In this appendix we provide more detailed expressions of the conserved currents listed in section 2. We closely follow Refs. \[17,,18,,11,,19,,20\].

We seek conserved tensor primary current of the free field theory of a complex scalar and a spinor in $`d=3`$ given in (2.1). More complete expressions of the ones indicated in section 2 are as follows:

$$\left(𝒥_s^{(\overline{q}q)}\right)^\alpha =\underset{k=0}{\overset{s}{}}\frac{(1)^k(_{i_1}\mathrm{}_{i_k}\overline{q}^m)\sigma _{mn}^\alpha (_{i_{k+1}}\mathrm{}_{i_s}q^n)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(sk+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(sk+\frac{1}{2})}\mathrm{traces},$$

$$\left(𝒥_s^{(\overline{\psi }\psi )}\right)^\beta =\underset{k=0}{\overset{s1}{}}\frac{()^k(_{i_1}\mathrm{}_{i_k}\overline{\psi }^i)\sigma _{ij}^\beta \rho _{i_{k+1}}(_{i_{k+2}}\mathrm{}_{i_s}\psi ^j)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(sk)\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+\frac{3}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(sk+\frac{1}{2})}\mathrm{traces}.$$

In the above expressions $`s=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and all the indices $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_s`$ are understood to be completely symmetrised. Further, as stated earlier, the indices $`\alpha ,\beta `$ take four values $`\alpha ,\beta =0,1,2,4`$ and the corresponding $`\sigma ^\alpha =\{I,\sigma ^i:i=1,2,3\}`$ with $`I`$ being the $`2\times 2`$ identity matrix and $`\sigma ^i`$ being the $`SU(2)`$ Pauli matrices. For each spin $`s`$, we have a total of eight currents. Similarly, the half-integer spin currents are given as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left(𝒥_s^{(\psi ^{}q)}\right)_i^m& =\underset{l,n,p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^l\mathrm{\Gamma }(p+l+n+\frac{3}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(p+1)2^p\mathrm{\Gamma }(p+l+\frac{3}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(p+n+\frac{3}{2})}\hfill \\ & [(p+n+\frac{1}{2})\delta _{sln2p\frac{1}{2}}\eta _{i_1i_2}\mathrm{}\eta _{i_{2p1}i_{2p}}_{i_{2p+1}}\mathrm{}_{i_{2p+l}}^{j_1}\mathrm{}^{j_p}\psi ^i\hfill \\ & \times _{i_{2p+l+1}}\mathrm{}_{i_{p+l+n}}_{j_1}\mathrm{}_{j_p}q^m\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{2}\delta _{sln2p\frac{3}{2}}\eta _{i_1i_2}\mathrm{}\eta _{i_{2p1}i_{2p}}\rho _{i_{2p+1}}_{i_{2p+2}}\mathrm{}_{i_{2p+l+1}}^{j_1}\mathrm{}^{j_p}\rho _{i_{2p+l+2}}\psi ^i\hfill \\ & \times _{i_{2p+l+3}}\mathrm{}_{i_{2p+l+n+2}}_{j_1}\mathrm{}_{j_{p+1}}q^m]\hfill \end{array}$$

and finally there is another set of currents obtained by $`\psi ^{}\overline{q}`$ and $`q\psi `$ in the expression (A.1). Again there are $`4+4=8`$ currents with half odd-integral spins as required for the model considered in section 2.

References

relax I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, “AdS dual of the critical O(N) vector model,” Phys. Lett. B 550, 213 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0210114\]. relax E. S. Fradkin and M. A. Vasiliev, “On The Gravitational Interaction Of Massless Higher Spin Fields,” Phys. Lett. B 189 (1987) 89. relax E. S. Fradkin and M. A. Vasiliev, “Cubic Interaction In Extended Theories Of Massless Higher Spin Fields,” Nucl. Phys. B 291, 141 (1987). relax T. Leonhardt and W. Ruhl, “General graviton exchange graph for four point functions in the AdS/CFT correspondence,” J. Phys. A 36, 1159 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0210195\]. relax L. Girardello, M. Porrati and A. Zaffaroni, “3-D interacting CFTs and generalized Higgs phenomenon in higher spin theories on AdS,” arXiv:hep-th/0212181. relax A. C. Petkou, “Evaluating the AdS dual of the critical O(N) vector model,” arXiv:hep-th/0302063. relax S. R. Das and A. Jevicki, “Large-N Collective Fields and Holography,” arXiv:hep-th/0304093. relax J. Engquist, E. Sezgin and P. Sundell, “On N = 1,2,4 higher spin gauge theories in four dimensions,” Class. Quant. Grav. 19, 6175 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0207101\]. relax A. Karch and L. Randall, “Locally localized gravity,” JHEP 0105, 008 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0011156\]. relax O. DeWolfe, D. Z. Freedman and H. Ooguri, “Holography and defect conformal field theories,” Phys. Rev. D 66, 025009 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0111135\]. relax M. A. Vasiliev, “Higher spin gauge theories: Star-product and AdS space,” arXiv:hep-th/9910096. relax S. E. Konstein and M. A. Vasiliev, “Extended Higher Spin Superalgebras And Their Massless Representations,” Nucl. Phys. B 331, 475 (1990). relax M. A. Vasiliev, “Higher-spin gauge theories in four, three and two dimensions,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 5, 763 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9611024\]. relax M. Flato and C. Fronsdal, “One Massless Particle Equals Two Dirac Singletons: Elementary Particles In A Curved Space. 6,” Lett. Math. Phys. 2, 421 (1978). relax W. Heidenreich, “Tensor Products Of Positive Energy Representations Of SO(3,2) And SO(4,2),” J. Math. Phys. 22, 1566 (1981). relax P. A. Dirac, “A Remarkable Respresentation Of The 3+2 De Sitter Group,” J. Math. Phys. 4, 901 (1963). relax D. Anselmi, “Theory of higher spin tensor currents and central charges,” Nucl. Phys. B 541, 323 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9808004\]. relax D. Anselmi, “Higher-spin current multiplets in operator-product expansions,” Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 1383 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/9906167\]. relax S. E. Konstein, M. A. Vasiliev and V. N. Zaikin, “Conformal higher spin currents in any dimension and AdS/CFT correspondence,” JHEP 0012, 018 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0010239\]. relax A. Mikhailov, “Notes on higher spin symmetries,” arXiv:hep-th/0201019. relax J. Engquist, E. Sezgin and P. Sundell, “Superspace formulation of 4D higher spin gauge theory,” arXiv:hep-th/0211113. relax B. Sundborg, “Stringy gravity, interacting tensionless strings and massless higher spins,” Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 102, 113 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0103247\]. relax E. Sezgin and P. Sundell, “Doubletons and 5D higher spin gauge theory,” JHEP 0109, 036 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0105001\]. relax E. Witten, talk given at J.H. Schwarz’ 60th Birthday Conference, Cal. Tech., Nov 2001 relax E. Sezgin and P. Sundell, “Massless higher spins and holography,” Nucl. Phys. B 644, 303 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0205131\]. relax J. M. Maldacena, “The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998) \[Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38, 1113 (1999)\] \[arXiv:hep-th/9711200\]. relax N. R. Constable, J. Erdmenger, Z. Guralnik and I. Kirsch, “Intersecting D3-branes and holography,” arXiv:hep-th/0211222. relax O. Aharony, O. DeWolfe, D. Z. Freedman and A. Karch, “Defect Conformal Field Theory and Locally Localized Gravity,” hep-th/0303249. relax M. Porrati, “Higgs phenomenon for 4-D gravity in anti de Sitter space,” JHEP 0204, 058 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0112166\]. relax M. J. Duff, J. T. Liu and H. Sati, “Complementarity of the Maldacena and Karch-Randall pictures,” arXiv:hep-th/0207003. relax A. A. Tseytlin, “On limits of superstring in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, Theor. Math. Phys. 133, 1376 (2002) \[Teor. Mat. Fiz. 133, 69 (2002)\] \[arXiv:hep-th/0201112\]. relax A. Karch, “Lightcone quantization of string theory duals of free field theories,” arXiv:hep-th/0212041. relax A. Dhar, G. Mandal and S. R. Wadia, “String bits in small radius AdS and weakly coupled N = 4 super Yang-Mills theory. I,” arXiv:hep-th/0304062. relax A. Clark, A. Karch, P. Kovtun and D. Yamada, “Construction of bosonic string theory on infinitely curved anti-de Sitter space,” arXiv:hep-th/0304107. relax A. Y. Segal, “Conformal higher spin theory,” arXiv:hep-th/0207212. relax I. R. Klebanov and E. Witten, “AdS/CFT correspondence and symmetry breaking,” Nucl. Phys. B 556, 89 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9905104\].