format: text

text:
# Bounds on leaves of foliations of the plane

## 1. Introduction

When does a singular foliation of $`\text{P}_\text{C}^2`$ defined by polynomials have a leaf defined by a polynomial? This question is fundamental, but difficult, and it has stimulated a lot of research for well over a century. 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification 37F75 (primary), 14H50, 32S65, 14H20 (secondary). Keywords Foliations, curves, singularities. 1This author thanks A. Campillo, L. G. Mendes, P. Sad, M. Soares, and especially J. V. Pereira for helpful discussions on the subject. He is also grateful to CNPq for a grant, Proc. 202151/90-5, supporting a year-long visit to MIT, and grateful to MIT for its hospitality. He was also supported by PRONEX, Convênio 41/96/0883/00, CNPq, Proc. 300004/95-8, and FAPERJ, Proc. E-26/170.418/2000-APQ1.  2This author thanks IMPA, Rio de Janeiro, ICMC-USP, São Carlos, and the XVI and XVII Escolas de Álgebra, Brasília and Cabo Frio, for their invitations and financial support, which enabled this work to be initiated, pursued, and presented.

Notably, in 1891, Poincaré \[P\], p. 161, observed that, once we possess a bound on the degree $`d`$ of a polynomial $`F`$ defining a leaf, we can try to find $`F`$ by making purely algebraic computations. The problem of finding such bounds is now known as the Poincaré problem. The substantial current interest in it was stimulated by Cerveau and Lins Neto \[CL\] in 1991.

The available bounds on the degree $`d`$ of $`F`$ depend on the degree $`m`$ of the foliation and on the number and type of the singularities of the Zariski closure $`C`$ of the leaf, the curve defined by $`F`$. For example, Campillo and Carnicer \[CC\] found bounds depending on the topological type as encoded in the Enriques resolution diagram; their results are improved in \[EK1\], Theorem 5.3. Du Plessis and Wall \[dPW\] found bounds depending on the analytic type as encoded in the Tjurina number; their results are generalized to curves in any projective space in \[EK1\], Section 6, via a second approach, and they are improved below via a third approach. Additional work is cited in \[EK1\].

The present note introduces a new sort of bound, one that also takes into account the distribution of the singularities as measured by the Castelnuovo–Mumford regularity $`\sigma `$ of the singular locus of $`C`$. In a similar vein, \[Es\] introduced the study of the regularity of a variety invariant under a singular vector field of projective space. And \[EK2\] introduced the study of the regularity of the intersection of a solution of a Pfaff system with the singular locus of the system.

In the present note, the first main result is Theorem 2.5, which asserts this: if $`\sigma d2`$, then $`dm+1`$; otherwise, $`dm+1+\rho `$ where $`\rho :=\sigma d2`$; furthermore, $`d=m+1+\rho `$ if $`d2m+2`$ and if the foliation has finitely many singularities. The proof requires Corollary 4.5 of \[EK2\], but only its assertion that $`\mathrm{h}^1(𝒪_C(m1))=0`$ if $`\mathrm{h}^1(\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1)=1`$.

The regularity $`\sigma `$ satisfies the following upper bound, given in Lemma 3.1:

$$\sigma d2+(\tau u)/(d1)$$

where $`\tau `$ is the total Tjurina number, the sum of the local Tjurina numbers of $`C`$, and where $`u`$ is the number of non-quasi-homogeneous singularities of $`C`$.

Lemma 3.1 and Theorem 2.5 yield the second main result, Theorem 3.2, which asserts that

$$(d1)(dm1)+u\tau .$$

By incorporating $`u`$, this bound improves that of du Plessis and Wall \[dPW\], Theorem 3.2, at least when $`C`$ is irreducible.

In singularity theory, upper bounds on $`\tau `$ are also important. Proposition 6.3 of \[EK1\] asserts a bound for curves in any projective space, if the foliation has finitely many singularities. In the present case, the bound is this:

$$\tau (d1)(dm1)+m^2.$$

If $`d2m`$, then the bound can be improved, provided $`C`$ is irreducible and is not the closure of a leaf of a foliation of smaller degree than $`m`$; namely, then

$$\tau (d1)(dm1)+m^2\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2m+2d}{2}\right).$$

At least when $`C`$ is irreducible, these two bounds agree with those proved by du Plessis and Wall \[dPW\], Theorem 3.2. Both bounds are asserted in Proposition 3.3 below, and proved via a rather different and more conceptual approach, similar to that of \[EK1\] and \[EK2\].

Du Plessis and Wall proved, with consummate skill, their lower and upper bounds on $`\tau `$ under different, possibly weaker hypotheses, which are discussed in Remark 3.4 below. However, seen from the viewpoint of foliation theory, our hypotheses, stronger or not, do not appear to be unreasonable.

All the proofs below are purely algebraic, and work over any algebraically closed field of characteristic 0, not just $`𝐂`$. In fact, Section 2 and Proposition 3.3 are set over an algebraically closed field of arbitrary characteristic $`p`$, but the proof of the Theorem 2.5 requires $`pd`$.

## 2. Bounds on the degree

###### 2.1.

*Foliations of the plane*. By definition, a *singular* *foliation* of $`\text{P}^2`$ is a nonzero map $`\eta :\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1`$ with $``$ invertible. Its *singular locus* is the subscheme $`S\text{P}^2`$ with ideal

$$_{S,\text{P}^2}:=\mathrm{Im}(\eta ^1).$$
$`(\mathrm{2.1.1})`$
The singular locus $`S`$ is never empty. Indeed, its degree is given by Formula (3.3.2) below, and plainly never 0. (This formula was, according to Poincaré \[P\], p. 165, known before 1870 to Darboux.)

The singular foliation $`\eta `$ defines an actual foliation of $`\text{P}^2S`$. For convenience, let’s call a singular foliation simply a foliation.

Note $`dimS1`$ since $`\eta 0`$. If $`dimS=1`$, let $`D\text{P}^2`$ be the largest curve (effective divisor) contained in $`S`$. Then $`\eta `$ factors through a foliation $`\eta ^{}:\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1(D)`$, and its singular locus is finite. Thus questions about foliations of $`\text{P}^2`$ can often be reduced to the case of foliations with finite singular locus.

Let $`P\text{P}^2`$. If $`PS`$, then $`\eta (P):\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1(P)(P)`$ is a surjection of vector spaces; hence, $`\eta (P)`$ defines a 1-dimensional subspace of the tangent space $`T_P\text{P}^2`$, so a line $`L_P\text{P}^2`$ through $`P`$. Enumerate the $`P`$ on a general line $`M\text{P}^2`$ with $`PS`$ or $`L_P=M`$; the total is called the *degree* of $`\eta `$ and denoted by $`\mathrm{deg}\eta `$. More precisely, $`\mathrm{deg}\eta `$ is the degree of the degeneracy locus of the induced map $`(\eta |M,\beta _M):\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1|M|M\mathrm{\Omega }_M^1`$ where $`\beta _M`$ is the natural map, which is the degeneracy locus of $`^2(\eta |M,\beta _M):\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^2|M|M\mathrm{\Omega }_M^1`$. Plainly, $`\mathrm{deg}\eta 0`$.

Recall $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1=3`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Omega }_M^1=2`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{deg}\eta =\mathrm{deg}+1`$, or

$$𝒪_{\text{P}^2}(m1)\text{ where }m:=\mathrm{deg}\eta .$$
$`(\mathrm{2.1.2})`$
Let $`C\text{P}^2`$ be a reduced curve. Call $`C`$ a *generalized* *leaf* of $`\eta `$ if no component of $`C`$ lies in $`S`$ and if $`\eta |C`$ factors through the natural surjection $`\beta _C:\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1|C\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1`$.

Assume $`CS`$ is finite. Then $`C`$ is a generalized leaf if and only if, for every simple point $`P`$ of $`C`$ off $`S`$, the line $`L_P`$ is the tangent to $`C`$ at $`P`$. Indeed, if $`C`$ is a generalized leaf, then the induced map $`\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1|C`$ is, at $`P`$, a surjection from one invertible sheaf to another, so an isomorphism; hence, $`L_P`$ is the tangent line. Conversely, suppose $`\eta |C`$ does not factor through $`\beta _C`$. Set $`𝒦:=\mathrm{Ker}\beta _C`$. Then $`\eta |𝒦`$ is nonzero. Hence, since $`C`$ is reduced and $``$ is invertible, $`\eta |𝒦`$ is surjective at infinitely many points of a component of $`C`$. So $`\eta |𝒦`$ is surjective at some simple point $`P`$ of $`C`$. Then $`PS`$, and $`L_P`$ is not the tangent to $`C`$ at $`P`$.

A generalized leaf is thus a union of actual leaves of the foliation defined by $`\eta `$ on $`\text{P}^2S`$. For added convenience, from now on, let’s call a generalized leaf simply a leaf.

###### 2.2.

*Singularities of plane curves.* Let $`C\text{P}^2`$ be a reduced curve. By definition, the *singular locus* of $`C`$ is the subscheme $`\mathrm{\Sigma }C`$ whose ideal $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma },C}`$ is the first Fitting ideal of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1`$.

Set $`d:=\mathrm{deg}C`$. Then the ideal $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma },C}`$ can be computed using the standard presentation

$$𝒪_C(d)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1|C\mathrm{\Omega }_C^10.$$
$`(\mathrm{2.2.1})`$
It yields a map $`𝒪_C(d)\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1|C`$, whence a map $`\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1𝒪_C(d3)`$. The latter is an isomorphism off $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and its image is $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma },C}(d3)`$. Hence

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1/\text{Torsion}\stackrel{}{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma },C}(d3).$$
$`(\mathrm{2.2.2})`$
Let $`P\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Take local coordinates $`x,y`$ for $`\text{P}^2`$ at $`P`$, and let $`f(x,y)=0`$ be a local equation for $`C`$. By definition, the *Tjurina number* $`\tau _P`$ of $`C`$ at $`P`$ is the colength in $`𝒪_{\text{P}^2,P}`$ of the ideal generated by $`f`$ and its partials $`f_x,f_y`$. And the *Milnor number* $`\mu _P`$ of $`C`$ at $`P`$ is the colength in $`𝒪_{\text{P}^2,P}`$ of the ideal generated only by $`f_x,f_y`$. Plainly, both $`\tau _P`$ and $`\mu _P`$ are analytic (formal) invariants.

By definition, $`P`$ is a *quasi-homogeneous* singularity of $`C`$ if, after a suitable analytic change of variables, $`f(x,y)`$ becomes a weighted-homogeneous polynomial. Saito \[Sa\], second “Satz” on p. 123, proved that, in characteristic zero, $`P`$ is quasi-homogeneous if and only if $`\tau _P=\mu _P`$; the result is also discussed in \[D\], see Theorem 7.42, p. 120.

From (2.2.1) and (2.2.2), it is clear that the ideal $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma },C}`$ is generated at $`P`$ by $`f_x,f_y`$. Hence the Tjurina number $`\tau _P`$ is the length of $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at $`P`$. Since $`C`$ is reduced, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is finite. Set $`\tau :=_{P\mathrm{\Sigma }}\tau _P`$, and call $`\tau `$ the *total Tjurina number* of $`C`$. Note $`\tau =\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

By definition, the *polar system* of $`C`$ is the linear system on $`\text{P}^2`$ generated by the three partial derivatives of the homogeneous polynomial $`F`$ defining $`C`$ (see \[Do\], Section 3). If the characteristic is $`0`$, or if it is positive and does not divide $`\mathrm{deg}C`$, then Euler’s formula shows that $`F`$ belongs to the ideal generated by its partial derivatives. Therefore, the base locus of the polar system is, scheme-theoretically, just the singular locus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`C`$.

###### Proposition 2.3.

Let $`\eta `$ be a foliation of $`\text{P}^2`$. Let $`S`$ be its singular locus, and $`m`$ its degree. If $`S`$ is finite and if $`m>0`$, then $`\mathrm{reg}S=2m`$.

###### Proof.

Owing to (2.1.1) and (2.1.2), the Koszul complex on $`\eta ^1`$ yields a short sequence

$$0\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^2(22m)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1(1m)_{S,\text{P}^2}0.$$
$`(\mathrm{2.3.1})`$
It is exact since $`S`$ is finite and $`\text{P}^2`$ is Cohen-Macaulay.

Twisting (2.3.1) by $`i1`$, and taking cohomology, we obtain the following exact sequence:

$$\mathrm{H}^1(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1(im))\mathrm{H}^1(_{S,\text{P}^2}(i1))\mathrm{H}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^2(i+12m))\mathrm{H}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1(im)).$$
$`(\mathrm{2.3.2})`$
Now, $`\mathrm{H}^1(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1(im))0`$ if and only if $`i=m`$, by \[De\], Théorème 1.1, p. 40. By duality, $`\mathrm{H}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^2(i+12m))=0`$ if and only if $`i2m`$. By hypothesis, $`m>0`$, or $`2m>m`$. Take $`i=2m`$ in (2.3.2). Its exactness now yields $`\mathrm{H}^1(_{S,\text{P}^2}(2m1))=0`$. Thus $`\mathrm{reg}S2m`$.

On the other hand, by \[De\], Théorème 1.1, p. 40, again, $`\mathrm{H}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1(m1))=0`$ as $`m0`$. Now, $`\mathrm{H}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^2)0`$. Take $`i=2m1`$ in (2.3.2). Its exactness yields $`\mathrm{H}^1(_{S,\text{P}^2}(2m2))0`$. Thus $`\mathrm{reg}S2m`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`C\text{P}^2`$ be a curve of degree $`d`$, and $`TC`$ a finite subscheme. Then

$`\mathrm{h}^2(_{T,\text{P}^2}(i))`$ $`=0\text{ for }i2,`$ (2.4.1)
$`\mathrm{h}^1(_{T,C}(i))`$ $`=\mathrm{h}^1(_{T,\text{P}^2}(i))+ϵ\text{ where }ϵ:=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{if }i=d3;\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if }i>d3.\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.4.2)
###### Proof.

For any $`i`$, consider the two twisted standard exact sequences:

$$0_{T,\text{P}^2}(i)𝒪_{\text{P}^2}(i)𝒪_T(i)0,$$

$$0𝒪_{\text{P}^2}(id)_{T,\text{P}^2}(i)_{T,C}(i)0.$$

Since $`T`$ is finite, $`\mathrm{h}^1(𝒪_T(i))=0`$. So Serre’s computation of $`\mathrm{h}^q(𝒪_{\text{P}^2}(i))`$ yields the formulas. ∎

###### Theorem 2.5.

Let $`C\text{P}^2`$ be a reduced curve of degree $`d`$. Assume either the characteristic is $`0`$ or it is positive and does not divide $`d`$. Assume $`C`$ is a leaf of a foliation of $`\text{P}^2`$ of degree $`m`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the singular locus of $`C`$, and set $`\sigma :=\mathrm{reg}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and $`\rho :=\sigma d+2`$. Then

$$d\{\begin{array}{cc}m+1,\hfill & \text{if }\rho 0;\hfill \\ m+1+\rho ,\hfill & \text{if }\rho >0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Furthermore, if $`S`$ is finite and $`d2m+2`$, then $`d=m+1+\rho `$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`\rho 0`$. Then $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\text{P}^2}`$ is $`(d2)`$-regular; in particular, $`\mathrm{h}^1(_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\text{P}^2}(d3))=0`$. So $`\mathrm{h}^1(_{\mathrm{\Sigma },C}(d3))=1`$ by (2.4.2). It now follows from (2.2.2) that $`\mathrm{h}^1(\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1)=1`$. Hence \[EK2\], Corollary 4.5, yields

$$\mathrm{h}^1(𝒪_C(m1))=0.$$
$`(\mathrm{2.5.1})`$
Suppose $`\rho >0`$. Then $`\sigma >d2`$. So (2.4.2) applies with $`i:=\sigma 1`$ and $`ϵ:=0`$. Now, $`\mathrm{h}^1(_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\text{P}^2}(\sigma 1))=0`$ by definition of $`\sigma `$. Hence

$$\mathrm{h}^1(_{\mathrm{\Sigma },C}(\sigma 1))=0.$$
$`(\mathrm{2.5.2})`$
By hypothesis, $`C`$ is a leaf of a foliation $`\eta :\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1𝒪_{\text{P}^2}(m1)`$. So $`\eta `$ induces a map $`\phi :\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1𝒪_C(m1)`$. In fact, $`\eta |C=\phi \beta _C`$ where $`\beta _C:\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1|C\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1`$ is the standard surjection. Let $`S`$ be the singular locus of $`\eta `$. By (2.1.1) and (2.1.2), the image of $`\eta `$ is $`_{S,\text{P}^2}(m1)`$. Hence the image of $`\phi `$ is $`_{SC,C}(m1)`$.

Since $`C`$ is reduced, $`𝒪_C(m1)`$ is torsion free. Hence, $`\phi `$ factors through $`\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1/\text{Torsion}`$, which is equal to $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma },C}(d3)`$ by (2.2.2). Thus there is a map $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma },C}(d3)𝒪_C(m1)`$. It is injective since no component of $`C`$ lies in $`S`$. Its image is $`_{SC,C}(m1)`$ by the preceding paragraph. In other words, there is an exact sequence,

$$0_{\mathrm{\Sigma },C}(d3)𝒪_C(m1)𝒪_{SC}(m1)0.$$
$`(\mathrm{2.5.3})`$
Twist by $`\rho `$, and take cohomology. Then use (2.5.2) to obtain

$$\mathrm{h}^1(𝒪_C(m+\rho 1))=0.$$
$`(\mathrm{2.5.4})`$
By duality, $`\mathrm{h}^1(𝒪_C(i))=\mathrm{h}^0(𝒪_C(d3i))`$ for any $`i`$. Hence $`\mathrm{h}^1(𝒪_C(i))=0`$ if and only if $`id2`$. Therefore, (2.5.1) and (2.5.4) yield the first assertion.

Assume now that $`d2m+2`$. Then $`dm+2`$. So the first assertion yields $`dm+1+\rho `$. It remains to prove $`dm+1+\rho `$.

The hypothesis on the characteristic implies that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the base locus of the polar system; see the end of § 2.2. Hence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is contained in the finite intersection $`T`$ of two members of the system. Now, given any two curves $`E,F\text{P}^2`$ of degrees $`e,f`$, their intersection $`Z`$, if finite, has regularity $`e+f1`$, because the ideal $`_{Z,\text{P}^2}`$ has the Koszul resolution

$$0𝒪_{\text{P}^2}(EF)𝒪_{\text{P}^2}(E)𝒪_{\text{P}^2}(F)_{Z,\text{P}^2}0.$$

Therefore, $`\mathrm{reg}(T)=2d3`$. However, $`T\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`T`$ is finite; whence, $`\sigma \mathrm{reg}(T)`$. Hence $`\rho :=\sigma d+2d1`$. Thus if $`m=0`$, then $`dm+1+\rho `$.

Assume $`m>0`$. Then $`d2m+2m+3`$. But $`dm+1+\rho `$ as observed just above. So $`dm+\sigma d+3\sigma `$. Therefore, we may take $`i:=\sigma 2`$ in (2.4.2). Now, $`\mathrm{h}^1(_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\text{P}^2}(\sigma 2))0`$ by definition of $`\sigma `$. Hence $`\mathrm{h}^1(_{\mathrm{\Sigma },C}(\sigma 2))0`$. The exactness of (2.5.3) means $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma },C}(d3)=_{SC,C}(m1)`$. Twisting by $`\rho 1`$ and taking cohomology, we conclude

$$\mathrm{h}^1(_{SC,C}(m+\rho 2))0.$$
$`(\mathrm{2.5.5})`$
Proposition 2.3 implies $`S`$ is $`i`$-regular for all $`i2m`$. So $`\mathrm{h}^1(_{S,\text{P}^2}(i1))=0`$ for all $`i2m`$. Assume $`S`$ is finite. Then $`_{S,\text{P}^2}`$ has finite colength in $`_{SC,\text{P}^2}`$. Hence

$$\mathrm{h}^1(_{SC,\text{P}^2}(i1))=0\text{ for all }i2m.$$
$`(\mathrm{2.5.6})`$
Set $`j:=m+\rho 2`$. Then $`j+1d22m`$. Form the twisted exact sequence of ideals

$$0_{C,\text{P}^2}(j)_{SC,\text{P}^2}(j)_{SC,C}(j)0.$$

The first term is equal to $`𝒪_{\text{P}^2}(jd)`$. Take cohomology. Then (2.5.6) and (2.5.5) yield $`\mathrm{h}^2(𝒪_{\text{P}^2}(jd))0`$. Hence $`jd3`$, or $`dm+1+\rho `$. ∎

## 3. Bounds on the total Tjurina number

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`C\text{P}^2`$ be a reduced curve of degree $`d2`$. Let $`\tau `$ be its total Tjurina number, and $`u`$ its number of non-quasi-homogeneous singularities. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be its singular locus, and set $`\sigma :=\mathrm{reg}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Assume the characteristic is $`0`$. Then

$$\sigma d2+(\tau u)/(d1).$$

###### Proof.

Let $`M`$ be a general polar of $`C`$. Then $`M`$ is smooth off the base locus of the polar system by Bertini’s First Theorem, Theorem (3.2) in \[K2\], because the characteristic is $`0`$. This base locus is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, again because the characteristic is $`0`$; see the end of § 2.2. But $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is finite, since $`C`$ is reduced. Hence, $`M`$ is generically smooth. So, since $`M`$ is Cohen–Macaulay, $`M`$ is reduced.

Either $`M`$ is irreducible or $`C`$ is the union of concurrent lines by \[GL\], Lemma 3.8, p. 333. An alternative proof of this fact is given at the end of the present proof.

First, assume $`C`$ is the union of concurrent lines, say meeting at $`P`$. Then $`P`$ is a quasi-homogeneous singularity of $`C`$, and its only singularity; so $`u=0`$. Since $`C`$ is a cone, its polar system has dimension 1. Hence the base locus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the complete intersection of two polars. So $`\tau =(d1)^2`$ by Bezout’s theorem. In addition, $`\sigma =2d3`$; see the middle of the proof of Theorem 2.5. Thus, in the present case, equality holds in the asserted inequality.

From now on, assume $`M`$ is irreducible. The lemma holds if $`\sigma d2`$ since $`\tau u0`$; so we may assume $`\sigma d1`$.

Since $`\sigma 1`$, we have $`\mathrm{h}^2(_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\text{P}^2}(\sigma 3))=0`$ by (2.4.1). Hence $`\mathrm{h}^1(_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\text{P}^2}(\sigma 2))0`$ by definition of $`\sigma `$. So (2.4.2) yields $`\mathrm{h}^1(_{\mathrm{\Sigma },M}(\sigma 2))0`$. Hence duality yields

$$\mathrm{Hom}(_{\mathrm{\Sigma },M}(\sigma 2),𝒪_M(d4))0.$$
$`(\mathrm{3.1.1})`$
Given $`P\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, denote by $`\epsilon _P`$ the multiplicity of the ideal of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the local ring $`𝒪_{\text{P}^2,P}`$. Then two general polars $`M`$ and $`N`$ meet at $`P`$ with multiplicity $`\epsilon _P`$. On the one hand, the Tjurina number $`\tau _P`$ of $`C`$ at $`P`$ is the length at $`P`$ of the scheme cut out by all the polars. On the other hand, the Milnor number $`\mu _P`$ of $`C`$ at $`P`$ is equal to the intersection number at $`P`$ of two special polars. Hence

$$\tau _P\epsilon _P\mu _P.$$
$`(\mathrm{3.1.2})`$
Saito’s theorem (see § 2.2) asserts $`\tau _P=\mu _P`$ if and only if $`P`$ is quasi-homogeneous.

Suppose $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma },M}`$ is invertible at $`P\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Let’s prove $`P`$ is quasi-homogeneous on $`C`$. (We don’t need the converse, but it holds as $`M`$ is general. Indeed, if $`\tau _P=\mu _P`$, then $`\tau _P=\epsilon _P`$ by (3.1.2), and the equation $`\tau _P=\epsilon _P`$ just means $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is cut out of $`\text{P}^2`$ at $`P`$ by two general polars.)

Take local coordinates $`x,y`$ for $`\text{P}^2`$ at $`P`$, and let $`f(x,y)=0`$ be a local equation for $`C`$. Then $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\text{P}^2}`$ is generated at $`P`$ by $`f`$ and its partials $`f_x,f_y`$. If the latter alone generate, then $`\tau _P=\mu _P`$, and so $`P`$ is quasi-homogeneous on $`C`$ by Saito’s theorem, recalled above. Suppose $`f_x,f_y`$ don’t generate, and let’s achieve a contradiction.

At any rate, $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\text{P}^2}`$ is 2-generated at $`P`$ as $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma },M}`$ is invertible there. Hence $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\text{P}^2}`$ is generated at $`P`$ either by $`f,f_x`$ or by $`f,f_y`$. Either way, $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma },C}`$ is invertible at $`P`$. But then, (2.2.2) implies $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1,𝒪_C)`$ is invertible at $`P`$. So $`P\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by \[L\], Theorem 1, p. 879, a contradiction.

Alternatively, since $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma },C}`$ is invertible at $`P`$, it follows that $`\tau _P=e_P`$ where $`e_P`$ denotes the multiplicity of $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma },C}`$ at $`P`$. However, Teissier proved $`e_P=\mu _P+m_P1`$ where $`m_P`$ denotes the multiplicity of $`C`$ at $`P`$; see Corollaire 1.5 on p. 320 and Remarque 1.6 1) on p. 300 in \[Te\]; alternatively, see pp. 358–359 of \[K1\], where Teissier’s formula is derived from the Milnor–Jung formula and another formula for $`e_P`$, due to Piene. Since $`\tau _P\mu _P`$ by (3.1.2), it follows that $`m_P=1`$. So again $`P\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, a contradiction.

Owing to (3.1.1), there is a nonzero map $`w:_{\mathrm{\Sigma },M}𝒪_M(d\sigma 2)`$. Since $`M`$ is reduced and irreducible, $`w`$ is injective and its cokernel $`\mathrm{Cok}w`$ is supported by a finite subset $`WM`$. If $`PC`$ is one of the $`u`$ singularities that are not quasi-homogeneous, then $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma },M}`$ is not invertible at $`P`$, as we just proved. Hence $`w`$ is not surjective at $`P`$; in other words, $`PW`$. It follows that

$`u`$ $`\mathrm{deg}W\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{Cok}w=\chi (𝒪_M(d\sigma 2))\chi (_{\mathrm{\Sigma },M})`$
$`=\left(\chi (𝒪_M)\chi (_{\mathrm{\Sigma },M})\right)\left(\chi (𝒪_M)\chi (𝒪_M(d\sigma 2))\right)`$
$`=\tau (d1)(\sigma d+2).`$
The asserted bound on $`\sigma `$ follows directly, and the proof is complete.

Here’s an alternative proof that either $`M`$ is irreducible or $`C`$ is the union of concurrent lines. The Milnor–Jung formula says $`\mu _P=2\delta _P(r_P1)`$ where $`\delta _P`$ is the genus diminution at $`P`$ and $`r_P`$ is the number of branches of $`C`$ at $`P`$. Set $`\delta :=\delta _P`$, and let $`r`$ be the number of irreducible components of $`C`$. Since $`C`$ is connected, $`(r_P1)r1`$. Hence,

$$\mu _P2\delta (r1).$$
$`(\mathrm{3.1.3})`$
Let $`p_a`$ be the arithmetic genus of $`C`$, and $`g`$ its geometric genus. Then $`\delta =p_ag+r1`$. In addition, $`p_a=(d1)(d2)/2`$ because $`C\text{P}^2`$ is of degree $`d`$. Since $`g0`$, we get

$$2\delta (r1)(d1)(d2)+(r1).$$

But $`rd`$. So the above inequality and (3.1.3) yield

$$\mu _P(d1)^2.$$
$`(\mathrm{3.1.4})`$
By Bezout’s theorem, two general polars $`M`$ and $`N`$ meet in $`(d1)^2`$ points $`P`$ counted with multiplicity. If $`P\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, then this multiplicity is $`\epsilon _P`$. Hence

$$_{P\mathrm{\Sigma }}\epsilon _P(d1)^2.$$
$`(\mathrm{3.1.5})`$
In addition, either equality holds in (3.1.5) or $`M`$ and $`N`$ meet outside of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

First, assume equality holds in (3.1.5). Then equality holds in (3.1.4) because of (3.1.2). Hence also $`r=d`$ and $`(r_P1)=r1`$. The first equation says $`C`$ is a union of lines. Then the second says these lines are concurrent.

Finally, assume $`M`$ and $`N`$ meet outside $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then the polar system is not composite with a pencil. Hence, by Bertini’s second theorem, Theorem (5.1) in \[K2\], a general polar is irreducible. ∎

###### Theorem 3.2 (du Plessis–Wall).

Let $`C\text{P}^2`$ be a reduced curve of degree $`d2`$. Let $`\tau `$ be its total Tjurina number, and $`u`$ its number of non-quasi-homogeneous singularities. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be its singular locus, and set $`\sigma :=\mathrm{reg}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Assume the characteristic is $`0`$. Assume $`C`$ is a leaf of a foliation of $`\text{P}^2`$ of degree $`m`$. Then

$$(d1)(dm1)+u\tau .$$

If equality holds, then either $`d=m+1`$ and $`C`$ is smooth, or $`d>m+1`$ and $`\sigma =2dm3`$.

###### Proof.

First, assume $`dm+1`$. Then the asserted inequality holds because $`\tau u`$. Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $`d=m+1`$ and $`\tau =u`$. Now, $`\tau =u`$ if and only if every singularity of $`C`$ is non-quasi-homogeneous and has Tjurina number 1. However, only an ordinary node has Tjurina number 1, and it is quasi-homogeneous. Thus $`\tau =u`$ if and only if $`\tau =0`$.

Finally, assume $`d>m+1`$. Then $`dm1\sigma +2d`$ by Theorem 2.5. In addition, $`(d1)(\sigma +2d)\tau u`$ by Lemma 3.1. The asserted inequality follows directly. Furthermore, if equality holds, then $`dm1=\sigma +2d`$. ∎

###### Proposition 3.3 (du Plessis–Wall).

Let $`C\text{P}^2`$ be a reduced curve of degree $`d`$ and total Tjurina number $`\tau `$. Let $`m`$ be the least degree of a foliation of $`\text{P}^2`$ with $`C`$ as leaf. Then

$$md1\text{ and }\tau (d1)(dm1)+m^2.$$

Moreover, if $`d2m`$ and if $`C`$ is irreducible, then

$$\tau (d1)(dm1)+m^2\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2m+2d}{2}\right).$$

###### Proof.

To see $`md1`$, take homogeneous coordinates $`x,y,z`$ for $`\text{P}^2`$, and let $`F(x,y,z)=0`$ define $`C`$. Given a component of $`C`$, there is a partial of $`F`$ that doesn’t vanish along it since $`C`$ is reduced. So some linear combination of the partials doesn’t vanish along any component. Changing coordinates, we may assume neither $`F_x`$ nor $`z`$ vanishes along any component.

Form the Hamilton foliation $`\theta :\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1𝒪_{\text{P}^2}(1)^3𝒪_{\text{P}^2}(d2)`$ where the second map is $`(F_y,F_x,0)`$. Then $`\theta |C`$ factors through $`\beta _C:\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1|C\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1`$ because $`F_yF_x=F_xF_y`$. Suppose $`\theta `$ vanishes along some component $`C^{}`$ of $`C`$. Then $`(F_y,F_x,0)`$ is a polynomial multiple of $`(x,y,z)`$ on $`C^{}`$ since the restriction of the Euler sequence $`0\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1𝒪_{\text{P}^2}(1)^3𝒪_{\text{P}^2}0`$ is exact where the third map is $`(x,y,z)`$. Hence, either $`z`$ or $`F_x`$ must vanish along $`C^{}`$ , but neither do. Thus $`C`$ is a leaf of $`\theta `$. Now, $`\theta `$ is of degree $`d1`$. Therefore $`md1`$.

The first bound on $`\tau `$ is proved for curves in higher space in \[EK1\], Proposition 6.3. In the present case, the proof becomes shorter. We give it now mainly to recall its ingredients.

Let $`\eta :\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1𝒪_{\text{P}^2}(m1)`$ be a foliation with $`C`$ as leaf, and $`S`$ its singular locus. Since $`m`$ is minimal, $`S`$ is finite. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the singular locus of $`C`$. The exactness of (2.5.3) means $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma },C}(d3)=_{SC,C}(m1)`$. So $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma },C}(dm2)=_{SC,C}`$. Hence

$`\tau `$ $`=\chi (𝒪_C)\chi (_{\mathrm{\Sigma },C})=\chi (𝒪_C(dm2))\chi (_{\mathrm{\Sigma },C}(dm2))`$
$`=(\chi (𝒪_C(dm2)\chi (𝒪_C))+(\chi (𝒪_C)\chi (_{SC,C}))`$
$`=d(dm2)+\mathrm{deg}(SC)`$ (3.3.1)
Since $`S`$ is finite, $`S`$ represents the top Chern class of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1)^{}(m1)`$; so

$$\mathrm{deg}S=m^2+m+1.$$
$`(\mathrm{3.3.2})`$
Alternatively, $`\mathrm{deg}S`$ can be computed from Sequence (2.3.1). The first assertion now follows from (3.3.1), from (3.3.2) and from the trivial bound $`\mathrm{deg}(SC)\mathrm{deg}S`$.

Better lower bounds for $`\mathrm{deg}S\mathrm{deg}(SC)`$ yield better upper bounds for $`\tau `$. For example, if $`d2m`$ and if $`C`$ is irreducible, then the following bound obtains:

$$\mathrm{deg}S\mathrm{deg}(SC)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2m+2d}{2}\right).$$
$`(\mathrm{3.3.3})`$
And it, (3.3.1), and (3.3.2) yield the second assertion. This bound is proved next.

Assume $`d2m`$. Then $`_{C,\text{P}^2}=𝒪_{\text{P}^2}(d)`$ yields $`\mathrm{h}^0(_{C,\text{P}^2}(2m))=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2m+2d}{2}\right)`$. Now, $`_{C,\text{P}^2}`$ generates $`_{SC,S}`$ in $`𝒪_S`$. Hence (3.3.3) obtains if the following composition is injective:

$$u:\mathrm{H}^0(_{C,\text{P}^2}(2m))\mathrm{H}^0(𝒪_{\text{P}^2}(2m))\mathrm{H}^0(𝒪_S(2m)).$$

Extend the exact sequence (2.3.1) to an augmented resolution:

$$0\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^2(2m+2)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1(m+1)𝒪_{\text{P}^2}𝒪_S0.$$

Twist it by $`2m`$ and take global sections to obtain this complex:

$$\mathrm{H}^0(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1(m+1))\mathrm{H}^0(𝒪_{\text{P}^2}(2m))\mathrm{H}^0(𝒪_S(2m)).$$
$`(\mathrm{3.3.4})`$
It is exact because $`\mathrm{H}^1(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^2(2))=0`$.

Given $`s\mathrm{H}^0(_{C,\text{P}^2}(2m))`$ with $`u(s)=0`$, we must show $`s=0`$.

Since (3.3.4) is exact, $`s`$ is the image of some $`s^{}\mathrm{H}^0(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1(m+1))`$. Let $`\pi :\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^2`$ be the natural pairing, and consider the composition,

$`\eta ^{}:\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1\stackrel{1s^{}}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1(m+1)\stackrel{\pi (m+1)}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^2(m+1).`$
It turns out that $`\eta ^{}`$ is a foliation with $`C`$ as leaf if $`s0`$ and if $`C`$ is irreducible. But then $`\eta ^{}`$ has degree $`m1`$, contradicting the minimality of $`m`$. Thus necessarily $`s=0`$, as desired.

So assume $`s0`$. Then $`s^{}0`$. Also $`\eta ^{}0`$ because $`\pi `$ is a perfect pairing. Thus $`\eta ^{}`$ is a foliation. And it remains to show $`C`$ is a leaf of $`\eta ^{}`$.

Let $`𝒦`$ be the kernel of $`\beta _C:\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1|C\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1`$. Since $`C`$ is reduced, $`C`$ is generically smooth and $`𝒪_C(d)`$ is torsion free. So the first map in (2.2.1) is injective. Thus $`𝒦=𝒪_C(d)`$.

Note $`s^{}|C\mathrm{H}^0(\mathrm{Ker}(\eta (m+1)|C))`$ because $`s\mathrm{H}^0(_{C,\text{P}^2}(2m))`$. Since $`C`$ is a leaf of $`\eta `$, there is, by definition, a map $`\phi :\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1𝒪_C(m1)`$ such that $`\eta |C=\phi \beta _C`$. Since $`S`$ is finite and $`C`$ is generically smooth, $`\phi `$ is generically an isomorphism. Thus $`\mathrm{Ker}(\eta (m+1)|C)`$ and $`𝒦(m+1)`$ agree generically, and hence $`\mathrm{Im}(s^{}|C)`$ generically lies in $`𝒦(m+1)`$.

It follows that $`\eta ^{}|C`$ factors through $`\beta _C`$, or $`(\eta ^{}|C)𝒦=0`$. Indeed, since $`\mathrm{Im}(s^{}|C)`$ generically lies in $`𝒦(m+1)`$, also $`(\eta ^{}|C)𝒦`$ generically lies in $`(\pi |C)(m+1)(𝒦𝒦(m+1))`$. But $`𝒦`$ is invertible; whence, $`(\pi |C)(𝒦𝒦)=0`$. So $`(\eta ^{}|C)𝒦`$ is generically trivial. But $`(\eta ^{}|C)𝒦`$ lies in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^2|C(m+1)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^2|C(m+1)`$ is torsion free. Therefore, $`(\eta ^{}|C)𝒦=0`$.

Finally, $`C`$ does not lie in the singular locus of $`\eta ^{}`$; otherwise, $`\eta ^{}`$ would factor through a foliation of degree $`m1d`$, but $`m1d<0`$. So, since $`C`$ is irreducible, no component of $`C`$ lies in the singular locus. Thus $`C`$ is indeed a leaf of $`\eta ^{}`$. ∎

###### Remark 3.4.

Over $`𝐂`$, let $`C\text{P}^2`$ be a reduced curve of degree $`d`$ and with total Tjurina number $`\tau `$. Let $`m`$ be the least degree of a foliation $`\eta `$ of $`\text{P}^2`$ such that $`\eta |C`$ factors through the natural surjection $`\beta _C:\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{P}^2}^1|C\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1`$. In essentially this setting, Du Plessis and Wall, in \[dPW\], Theorem 3.2, p. 263, proved $`dm+1`$ and

$$(d1)(dm1)\tau (d1)(dm1)+m^2;$$
$`(\mathrm{3.4.1})`$
furthermore, if $`d2m`$, then

$$\tau (d1)(dm1)+m^2\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2m+2d}{2}\right).$$
$`(\mathrm{3.4.2})`$
Let $`m^{}`$ be the least degree of a foliation of $`\text{P}^2`$ with $`C`$ as leaf. Clearly, $`mm^{}`$. If $`m=m^{}`$, then (3.4.1) follows from Theorem 3.2 and Proposition 3.3. In this case, Theorem 3.2 is stronger, since $`u0`$. If also $`C`$ is irreducible, then (3.4.2) follows from Proposition 3.3.

In fact, if $`C`$ is irreducible, then $`m=m^{}`$. Indeed, let $`\eta `$ be a foliation of degree $`m`$ of $`\text{P}^2`$ such that $`\eta |C`$ factors through $`\beta _C`$. If $`C`$ were not a leaf of $`\eta `$, then $`C`$ would be contained in the singular locus of $`\eta `$, and hence $`md`$. But $`md1`$ by Proposition 3.3.

However, if $`C`$ is reducible then possibly $`m<m^{}`$. For instance, suppose $`C`$ is the union of $`d`$ lines, $`d1`$ concurrent. Let $`K`$ be the union of the latter, $`M`$ the additional line. Since $`C`$ is not a cone, $`m>0`$. But $`K`$ is a leaf of a foliation of degree 0. So there is a foliation $`\eta `$ of degree 1, with $`M`$ in its singular locus, and such that $`\eta |C`$ factors through $`\beta _C`$. Thus $`m=1`$. However, given a foliation $`\eta ^{}`$ of $`\text{P}^2`$ of degree $`m^{}`$ with $`C`$ as leaf, it follows from \[dPW\], Corollary 3.1.1, p. 263, that either $`m+m^{}d1`$ or both $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ factor through a foliation $`\eta ^{\prime \prime }`$ such that $`\eta ^{\prime \prime }|C`$ factors through $`\beta _C`$. If the latter were true, then $`\eta `$ would be a scalar multiple of $`\eta ^{\prime \prime }`$, because $`m`$ is minimal. Then $`\eta ^{}`$ would factor through $`\eta `$, and hence the singular locus of $`\eta `$ would be contained in that of $`\eta ^{}`$. But $`M`$ is in the singular locus of $`\eta `$ and not in that of $`\eta ^{}`$. So $`m+m^{}d1`$, and hence $`m^{}d2`$.

It is possible to recover Du Plessis and Wall’s lower bound on $`\tau `$ with a bit more work. Given a foliation $`\eta `$ such that $`\eta |C`$ factors through $`\beta _C`$, let $`BC`$ be the union of all the 1-dimensional components of the singular locus of $`\eta `$ contained in $`C`$. Then $`\eta `$ factors through a foliation $`\eta ^{}`$ whose degree is $`d\mathrm{deg}B`$ and for which $`A:=CB`$ is a leaf. Then Theorem 3.2 applies to $`A`$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ in place of $`C`$ and $`\eta `$. The resulting lower bound on the Tjurina number of $`A`$ can now be used to obtain the desired lower bound on $`\tau `$. This argument is described in detail in the proof of \[EK1\], Corollary 6.4. However, the argument does not seem to yield the upper bounds.


text:
# Strings, 𝑝-Branes and 𝐷𝑝-Branes With Dynamical Tension

## 1 Introduction

The crucial relevance of Dirichlet $`p`$-branes ($`Dp`$-branes) , i.e., $`p+1`$-dimensional extended objects in space-time on which the ends of fundamental open strings can be confined, is largely appreciated and exploited in modern string theory (for reviews of string and brane theories, see ). Their importance is primarily due to the following basic properties: providing explicit realization of non-perturbative string dualities, microscopic description of black-hole physics, gauge theory/gravity correspondence, large-radius compactifications of extra dimensions, brane-world scenarios in particle phenomenology, etc. .

When building actions in geometrically motivated field theories, which is the class where strings and branes belong, one of the most important ingredients is the consistent generally-covariant integration measure density, i.e., covariant under arbitrary diffeomorphisms (reparametrizations) on the underlying space-time manifold. A priori there are no compelling geometric reasons restricting us to the natural choice, which is the standard Riemannian metric density $`\sqrt{g}`$ with $`gdetg_{\mu \nu }`$. For instance, introducing additional $`D`$ scalar fields $`\phi ^i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},D`$ where $`D`$ is the space-time dimension) we may employ the following alternative non-Riemannian measure density $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )`$ :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )\frac{1}{D!}\epsilon ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _D}\epsilon _{i_1\mathrm{}i_D}_{\mu _1}\phi ^{i_1}\mathrm{}_{\mu _D}\phi ^{i_D}.$$
(1)
Making use of (1) allows to construct a broad class of new models involving Gravity called Two-Measure Gravitational Models , whose actions are typically of the form:

$$S=d^Dx\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )L_1+d^Dx\sqrt{g}L_2,$$
(2)
$$L_{1,2}=e^{\frac{\alpha \varphi }{M_P}}\left[\frac{1}{\kappa }R(g,\mathrm{\Gamma })\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi +\left(\mathrm{Higgs}\right)+\left(\mathrm{fermions}\right)\right].$$
(3)
Here $`R(g,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is the scalar curvature in the first-order formalism (i.e., the connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is independent of the metric), $`\varphi `$ is the dilaton field, $`M_P`$ is the Planck mass, etc.. Although naively the additional “measure-density” scalars $`\phi ^i`$ appear in (2) as pure-gauge degrees of freedom (due to the invariance under arbitrary diffeomorphisms in the $`\phi ^i`$-target space), there is still a remnant – the so called “geometric” field $`\chi (x)\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )}{\sqrt{g}}`$, which remains an additional dynamical degree of freedom beyond the standard physical degrees of freedom characteristic to the ordinary gravity models with the standard Riemannian-metric integration measure. The most important property of the “geometric” field $`\chi (x)`$ is that its dynamics is determined solely through the matter fields locally (i.e., without gravitational interaction). The latter turns out to have a significant impact on the physical properties of the two-measure gravity models which allows them to address various basic problems in cosmology and particle physics phenomenology and provide physically plausible solutions, for instance: (i) the issue of scale invariance and its dynamical breakdown, i.e., spontaneous generation of dimensionfull fundamental scales; (ii) cosmological constant problem; (iii) geometric origin of fermionic families.

In what follows we are going to apply the above ideas to the case of string, $`p`$-brane and $`Dp`$-brane models. To make the exposition self-contained Sections 2 and 3 below review our earlier works  by providing a detailed description of the simplest $`p=1`$ case - the class of new modified-measure string models. Then in Section 4 we proceed with the extension of our construction to the physically most interesting case of new modified-measure $`Dp`$-brane models. Along the way we elaborate on various important properties of the modified-measure string and brane models with dynamical string/brane tension.

## 2 Bosonic Strings with a Modified World-Sheet Integration Measure

First let us recall the standard Polyakov-type action for the bosonic string :

$$S_{\mathrm{Pol}}=Td^2\sigma \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\gamma }\gamma ^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX^\nu G_{\mu \nu }(X).$$
(4)
Here $`(\sigma ^0,\sigma ^1)(\tau ,\sigma )`$; $`a,b=0,1`$; $`\mu ,\nu =0,1,\mathrm{},D1`$; $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the Riemannian metric on the embedding space-time; $`\gamma _{ab}`$ is the intrinsic Riemannian metric on the $`1+1`$-dimensional string world-sheet and $`\gamma =det\gamma _{ab}`$; $`T`$ indicates the string tension – a dimensionfull scale introduced ad hoc. The resulting equations of motion w.r.t. $`\gamma ^{ab}`$ and $`X^\mu `$ read, respectively:

$`T_{ab}\left(_aX^\mu _bX^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{ab}\gamma ^{cd}_cX^\mu _dX^\nu \right)G_{\mu \nu }(X)=0,`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma }}}_a\left(\sqrt{\gamma }\gamma ^{ab}_bX^\mu \right)+\gamma ^{ab}_aX^\nu _bX^\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\mu =0,`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\mu =\frac{1}{2}G^{\mu \kappa }\left(_\nu G_{\kappa \lambda }+_\lambda G_{\kappa \nu }_\kappa G_{\nu \lambda }\right)`$ is the connection for the external metric.

Now, following the same ideas as in the construction of two-measure gravity theories (2)–(3) let us introduce two additional world-sheet scalar fields $`\phi ^i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) and replace $`\sqrt{\gamma }`$ with a new reparametrization-covariant world-sheet integration measure density $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )`$ defined solely in terms of $`\phi ^i`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{ij}\epsilon ^{ab}_a\phi ^i_b\phi ^j=\epsilon _{ij}\dot{\phi }^i_\sigma \phi ^j.$$
(7)
However, the naively generalized string action:

$`S_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )\gamma ^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX^\nu G_{\mu \nu }(X)}`$
has a problem: the equations of motion w.r.t. $`\gamma ^{ab}`$ lead to an unacceptable condition $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )_aX^\mu _bX^\nu G_{\mu \nu }(X)=0`$, i.e., vanishing of the induced metric on the world-sheet.

To remedy the above situation let us consider topological (total derivative) terms $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ w.r.t. the standard Riemannian world-sheet integration measure. Upon measure replacement $`\sqrt{\gamma }\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )}{\sqrt{\gamma }}`$, the former are not any more topological – they will contribute nontrivially to the equations of motion. For instance:

$$d^2\sigma \sqrt{\gamma }Rd^2\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )R,R=\frac{\epsilon ^{ab}}{2\sqrt{\gamma }}(_a\omega _b_b\omega _a),$$
(8)
where $`R`$ is the scalar curvature w.r.t. $`D=2`$ spin-connection $`\omega _a^{\overline{a}\overline{b}}=\omega _a\epsilon ^{\overline{a}\overline{b}}`$ (here $`\overline{a},\overline{b}`$ denote tangent space indices). Note that the vector field $`\omega _a`$ behaves as world-sheet Abelian gauge field.

Eq.(8) prompts us to construct the following consistent modified bosonic string action111In ref. another interesting geometric modification of the standard bosonic string model has been proposed, which is based on dynamical world-sheet metric and torsion.:

$$S=d^2\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )\left[\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX^\nu G_{\mu \nu }\frac{\epsilon ^{ab}}{2\sqrt{\gamma }}F_{ab}(A)\right],$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )`$ is given by (7) and $`F_{ab}(A)_aA_b_bA_a`$ is the field-strength of an auxiliary Abelian gauge field $`A_a`$. The action (9) is reparametrization-invariant as its ordinary string analogue (4). Furthermore, (9) is invariant under diffeomorphisms in $`\phi `$-target space supplemented with a special conformal transformation of $`\gamma _{ab}`$ :

$$\phi ^i\phi ^i=\phi ^i(\phi ),\gamma _{ab}\gamma _{ab}^{}=J\gamma _{ab},Jdet\frac{\phi ^i}{\phi ^j}.$$
(10)
The latter symmetry, which we will call $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-extended Weyl symmetry”, is the counterpart of the ordinary Weyl conformal symmetry of the standard string action (4).

The equations of motion of the action (9) w.r.t. $`\phi ^i`$ :

$$\epsilon ^{ab}_b\phi ^i_a\left(\gamma ^{cd}_cX^\mu _dX^\nu G_{\mu \nu }(X)\frac{\epsilon ^{cd}}{\sqrt{\gamma }}F_{cd}\right)=0$$
(11)
imply (provided $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )0`$) :

$$\gamma ^{cd}_cX^\mu _dX^\nu G_{\mu \nu }(X)\frac{\epsilon ^{cd}}{\sqrt{\gamma }}F_{cd}=M\left(=\mathrm{const}\right).$$
(12)
The equations of motion w.r.t. $`\gamma ^{ab}`$ are:

$$T_{ab}_aX^\mu _bX^\nu G_{\mu \nu }(X)\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{ab}\frac{\epsilon ^{cd}}{\sqrt{\gamma }}F_{cd}=0.$$
(13)
Both Eqs.(12)–(13) yield $`M=0`$ and:

$$\left(_aX^\mu _bX^\nu \frac{1}{2}\gamma _{ab}\gamma ^{cd}_cX^\mu _dX^\nu \right)G_{\mu \nu }(X)=0,$$
(14)
which is the same as in standard Polyakov-type formulation (5).

The equations of motion w.r.t. $`X^\mu `$ read:

$$_a\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\gamma ^{ab}_bX^\mu \right)+\mathrm{\Phi }\gamma ^{ab}_aX^\nu _bX^\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\mu =0,$$
(15)
where again $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\mu `$ is the connection corresponding to the external space-time metric $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ as in the standard string case (6).

Now, let us consider the equations of motion w.r.t. $`A_a`$ resulting from (9) :

$$\epsilon ^{ab}_b\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )}{\sqrt{\gamma }}\right)=0.$$
(16)
The latter can be integrated to yield a spontaneously induced string tension:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )}{\sqrt{\gamma }}}=\text{const}T.`$
Since the modified-measure string model (9) naturally requires the presence of the auxiliary Abelian world-sheet gauge field $`A_a`$, we may extend it by introducing a coupling of $`A_a`$ to some world-sheet charge current $`j^a`$ :

$$S=d^2\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )\left[\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX^\nu G_{\mu \nu }\frac{\epsilon ^{ab}}{2\sqrt{\gamma }}F_{ab}(A)\right]+d^2\sigma A_aj^a.$$
(17)
In particular, we may take $`j^a`$ to be the current of point-like charges on the string, so that in the “static” gauge:

$$d^2\sigma A_aj^a=\underset{i}{}e_i𝑑\tau A_0(\tau ,\sigma _i),$$
(18)
where $`\sigma _i`$ ($`0<\sigma _1<\mathrm{}<\sigma _N2\pi `$) are the locations of the charges. Now, instead of (16) the action (17) produces the following $`A_a`$-equations of motion:

$$\epsilon ^{ab}_bE+j^a=0,E\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )}{\sqrt{\gamma }}.$$
(19)
Note that Eqs.(19) look exactly as $`D=2`$ Maxwell equations where the variable dynamical string tension $`E\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )/\sqrt{\gamma }`$ is identified as world-sheet electric field strength, i.e., canonically conjugated momentum w.r.t. $`A_1`$.

The physical meaning of the dynamical string tension as world-sheet electric field strength can be directly verified in the framework of the canonical Hamiltonian treatment of the modified-measure string model (17). Indeed, from the explicit form of the action (17) we find the canonical momenta to be:

$`\pi _i^\phi =\epsilon _{ij}_\sigma \phi ^j\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX^\nu G_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{ab}}{2\sqrt{\gamma }}}F_{ab}(A)\right],`$ (20)
$`\pi _{A_1}E={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )}{\sqrt{\gamma }}},𝒫_\mu =\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )\left(\gamma ^{00}\dot{X}^\nu +\gamma ^{01}_\sigma X^\nu \right)G_{\mu \nu },`$ (21)
Using (20)–(21) we obtain the canonical Hamiltonian as a linear combination of first-class constraints only. Part of the latter resemble the constraints in the ordinary string case $`\pi _{\gamma ^{ab}}=0`$ and

$`𝒯_\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G^{\mu \nu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒫_\mu }{E}}\pm G_{\mu \kappa }_\sigma X^\kappa \right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒫_\nu }{E}}\pm G_{\nu \lambda }_\sigma X^\lambda \right)=0,`$
where in the last Virasoro constraints the dynamical string tension $`E`$ appears instead of the ad hoc constant tension.

The rest of the Hamiltonian constraints are $`\pi _{A_0}=0`$ and

$$_\sigma E\underset{i}{}e_i\delta (\sigma \sigma _i)=0,$$
(22)
which is precisely the $`D=2`$ “Gauss law” constraint for the dynamical string tension coinciding with the $`0`$-th component of the Maxwell-type Eq.(19). Finally, we have constraints involving only the measure-density fields:

$$_\sigma \phi ^i\pi _i^\phi =0,\frac{\pi _2^\phi }{_\sigma \phi ^1}=0.$$
(23)
The last two constraints span a closed Poisson-bracket algebra:

$`\{_\sigma \phi ^i\pi _i^\phi (\sigma ),_\sigma ^{}\phi ^i\pi _i^\phi (\sigma ^{})\}=`$
$`2_\sigma \phi ^i\pi _i^\phi (\sigma )_\sigma \delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})+_\sigma \left(_\sigma \phi ^i\pi _i^\phi \right)\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),`$
(a centerless Virasoro algebra), and:

$`\{_\sigma \phi ^i\pi _i^\phi (\sigma ),{\displaystyle \frac{\pi _2^\phi }{_\sigma \phi ^1}}(\sigma ^{})\}=_\sigma \left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi _2^\phi }{_\sigma \phi ^1}}\right)\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}).`$
Therefore, the constraints (23) imply that the measure-density scalars $`\phi ^i`$ are pure-gauge degrees of freedom. The only physical remnant of the latter is the specific combination $`\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )}{\sqrt{\gamma }}`$ (see first Eq.(21)) – the world-sheet electric field-strength simultaneously playing the role of dynamical string tension.

## 3 Non-Abelian Generalization

We will now show that it is possible to introduce an alternative form of topological term necessary to make consistent the modified-measure string model which is built in terms of a non-Abelian auxiliary world-sheet gauge field.

First, let us notice the following identity in $`D=2`$ involving Abelian gauge field $`A_a`$:

$$\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\gamma }}\epsilon ^{ab}F_{ab}(A)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}F_{ab}(A)F_{cd}(A)\gamma ^{ac}\gamma ^{bd}}.$$
(24)
This suggests the following proper extension of the modified-measure bosonic string action (9) involving a non-Abelian (e.g., $`SU(𝒩)`$) auxiliary gauge field $`A_a`$ (here we take for simplicity flat external metric $`G_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$) :

$`S={\displaystyle d^2\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )\left[\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX_\mu \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{T}r(F_{ab}(A)F_{cd}(A))\gamma ^{ac}\gamma ^{bd}}\right]}`$
$`={\displaystyle d^2\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )\left[\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX_\mu \frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma }}\sqrt{\mathrm{T}r(F_{01}(A)F_{01}(A))}\right]},`$ (25)
where $`F_{ab}(A)=_aA_b_bA_c+i[A_a,A_b]`$.

The action (25) is again invariant under the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-extended Weyl (conformal) symmetry (10).

Notice that the “square-root” Yang-Mills action (with the regular Riemannian metric integration measure):

$$d^2\sigma \sqrt{\gamma }\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{T}r(F_{ab}(A)F_{cd}(A))\gamma ^{ac}\gamma ^{bd}}=d^2\sigma \sqrt{\mathrm{T}r(F_{01}(A)F_{01}(A))}$$
(26)
is a “topological” action similarly to the $`D=3`$ Chern-Simmons action, i.e., it is metric-independent.

Similarly to the Abelian case (17) we can also add a coupling of the auxiliary non-Abelian gauge field $`A_a`$ to an external “color”-charge world-sheet current $`j^a`$:

$`S={\displaystyle d^2\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )\left[\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX_\mu \frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma }}\sqrt{\mathrm{T}r(F_{01}(A)F_{01}(A))}\right]}`$
$`+{\displaystyle d^2\sigma \mathrm{T}r\left(A_aj^a\right)}.`$ (27)
In particular, for a current of “color” point-like charges on the world-sheet in the “static” gauge :

$$d^2\sigma \mathrm{T}r\left(A_aj^a\right)=\underset{i}{}\mathrm{T}rC_i𝑑\tau A_0(\tau ,\sigma _i),$$
(28)
where $`\sigma _i`$ ($`0<\sigma _1<\mathrm{}<\sigma _N2\pi `$) are the locations of the charges.

The action (27) produces the following equations of motion w.r.t. $`\phi ^i`$ and $`\gamma ^{ab}`$, respectively:

$$\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{cd}_cX^\mu _dX_\mu \frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma }}\sqrt{\mathrm{T}r(F_{01}F_{01})}=M\left(=\mathrm{const}\right),$$
(29)
$$T_{ab}_aX^\mu _bX_\mu \frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma }}\gamma _{ab}\sqrt{\mathrm{T}r(F_{01}F_{01})}=0.$$
(30)
As in the Abelian case the above Eqs.(29)–(30) imply $`M=0`$ and the Polyakov-type equation (5).

Similarly to the Abelian case (19), the equations of motion of (27) w.r.t. the auxiliary gauge field $`A_a`$ resemble the $`D=2`$ non-Abelian Yang-Mills equations:

$$\epsilon ^{ab}_b+j^a=0,$$
(31)
where:

$$_a_a+i[A_a,],\pi _{A_1}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )}{\sqrt{\gamma }}\frac{F_{01}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{T}r(F_{01}F_{01})}}.$$
(32)
Here $``$ is the non-Abelian electric field-strength – the canonically conjugated momentum $`\pi _{A_1}`$ of $`A_1`$, whose norm is the dynamical string tension $`T||=\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )/\sqrt{\gamma }`$.

The equations of motion for the dynamical string tension following from (31) is:

$$_a\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )}{\sqrt{\gamma }}\right)+\epsilon _{ab}\frac{\mathrm{T}r\left(F_{01}j^b\right)}{\sqrt{\mathrm{T}r\left(F_{01}^2\right)}}=0.$$
(33)
In particular, in the absence of external charges ($`j^a=0`$) : $`T\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )/\sqrt{\gamma }=T_0\mathrm{const}`$

Finally, the $`X^\mu `$-equations of motion $`_a\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )\gamma ^{ab}_bX^\mu \right)=0`$ resulting from the action (27) can be rewritten in the conformal gauge $`\sqrt{\gamma }\gamma ^{ab}=\eta ^{ab}`$ as:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )}{\sqrt{\gamma }}^a_aX^\mu \stackrel{~}{j}^a_aX^\mu =0,\mathrm{where}\stackrel{~}{j}_a\epsilon _{ab}\frac{\mathrm{T}r\left(F_{01}j^b\right)}{\sqrt{\mathrm{T}r\left(F_{01}^2\right)}}.$$
(34)
For static charges $`\stackrel{~}{j}_1=_i\stackrel{~}{e}_i\delta (\sigma \sigma _i)`$ :

$$T\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )/\sqrt{\gamma }=T_0+\underset{i}{}\stackrel{~}{e}_i\theta (\sigma \sigma _i),\stackrel{~}{e}_i\frac{\mathrm{T}r\left(F_{01}C_i\right)}{\sqrt{\mathrm{T}r\left(F_{01}^2\right)}}|_{\sigma =\sigma _i};$$
(35)
$$T^a_aX^\mu +\left(\underset{i}{}\stackrel{~}{e}_i\delta (\sigma \sigma _i)\right)_\sigma X^\mu =0\{\begin{array}{cc}^a_aX^\mu =0\hfill & \\ _\sigma X^\mu |_{\sigma =\sigma _i}=0\hfill & \end{array}.$$
(36)
Let us return to the $`D=2`$ Yang-Mills-like Eqs.(31) whose $`0`$-th component $`_\sigma +i[A_1,]+j^0=0`$ is the “Gauss law” constraint for the dynamical string tension ($`T||=\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )/\sqrt{\gamma }`$). For point-like “color” charges and using the gauge $`A_1=0`$ (i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{}=GG^1`$ where $`A_1=iG^1_\sigma G`$), the latter reads:

$$_\sigma \stackrel{~}{}\underset{i}{}\stackrel{~}{C}_i\delta (\sigma \sigma _i)=0,\stackrel{~}{C}_iGC_iG^1|_{\sigma =\sigma _i}.$$
(37)
Let us consider the case of closed modified string with positions of the “color” charges at $`0<\sigma _1<\mathrm{}<\sigma _N2\pi `$. Then, integrating the “Gauss law” constraint (37) along the string (at fixed proper time) we obtain:

$$\underset{i}{}\stackrel{~}{C}_i=0,\stackrel{~}{}_{i,i+1}=\stackrel{~}{}_{i1,i}+\stackrel{~}{C}_i,$$
(38)
where $`\stackrel{~}{}_{i,i+1}=\stackrel{~}{}`$ in the interval $`\sigma _i<\sigma <\sigma _{i+1}`$.

The implications of Eqs.(35)–(38) can be summarize as follows:

* Eqs.(35)–(36) tell us that the modified-measure (closed) string with $`N`$ point-like (“color”) charges on it ((17) or (27)) is equivalent to $`N`$ chain-wise connected regular open string segments (stretching from $`\sigma _i`$ to $`\sigma _{i+1}`$, $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$) which obey Neumann boundary conditions.
* Each of the above open string segments, with end-points at the charges $`e_i`$ and $`e_{i+1}`$ (in the Abelian case) or $`C_i`$ and $`C_{i+1}`$ (in the non-Abelian case), has different constant string tension $`T_{i,i+1}`$ such that $`T_{i,i+1}=T_{i1,i}+\underset{i}{\overset{()}{e}}`$ (the non-Abelian $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$ are defined in (35)).
* Eq.(38) shows that the only (classically) admissable configuration of “color” point-like charges coupled to a modified-measure closed bosonic string is the one with zero total “color” charge, i.e., the model (27) provides a classical mechanism of “color” charge confinement.

## 4 $`Dp`$-Branes With Dynamical Tension

Our construction from the previous two sections can be extended to the case of higher-dimensional extended objects with dynamical tension embracing both (ordinary) $`p`$-branes and $`Dp`$-branes. First, let us recall the standard formulation of $`Dp`$-branes given in terms of the Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) action  :

$$S_{DBI}=Td^{p+1}\sigma \left[e^{\alpha U}\sqrt{detG_{ab}_{ab}}+\frac{\epsilon ^{a_1\mathrm{}a_{p+1}}}{p+1}𝒞_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{p+1}}\right],$$
(39)
with the following short-hand notations:

$$G_{ab}_aX^\mu _bX^\nu G_{\mu \nu }(X),_{ab}_aX^\mu _bX^\nu B_{\mu \nu }(X)F_{ab}(A),$$
(40)
$$𝒞_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{p+1}}_{a_1}X^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}_{a_{p+1}}X^{\mu _{p+1}}C_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p+1}}(X).$$
(41)
Here $`G_{\mu \nu }(X)`$, $`U(X)`$, $`B_{\mu \nu }(X)`$, and $`C_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p+1}}(X)`$ are the background metric, the dilaton, $`2`$-form Neveu-Schwarz and $`(p+1)`$-form Ramond-Ramond gauge fields, respectively, whereas $`F_{ab}(A)=_aA_b_bA_b`$ is the field-strength of the Abelian world-volume gauge field $`A_a`$. All world-volume indices take values $`a,b=0,1,\mathrm{},p`$ and $`\epsilon ^{a_1\mathrm{}a_{p+1}}`$ is the $`(p+1)`$-dimensional totally antisymmetric tensor ($`\epsilon ^{01\mathrm{}p}=1`$).

Similarly to the string case we now introduce a modified world-volume integration measure density in terms of $`p+1`$ auxiliary scalar fields $`\phi ^i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},p+1`$) :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )\frac{1}{(p+1)!}\epsilon _{i_1\mathrm{}i_{p+1}}\epsilon ^{a_1\mathrm{}a_{p+1}}_{a_1}\phi ^{i_1}\mathrm{}_{a_{p+1}}\phi ^{i_{p+1}},$$
(42)
and use it to construct the following new $`p`$-brane-type action (coupling to the Ramond-Ramond background field is omitted for simplicity)222Some time ago a Polyakov-type action classically equivalent to the original DBI-action of the $`Dp`$-brane (39) has been proposed in  : $`S=Td^{p+1}\sigma \sqrt{\zeta }\left[e^{\beta U}\frac{1}{2}\zeta ^{ab}\left(G_{ba}_{ba}\right)(p1)\right]`$. The advantage of the present more general action (43) is that not only it yields variable dynamical brane tension and naturally introduces additional higher-rank world-volume gauge fields, but also it does not need a “cosmological” term.:

$$S=d^{p+1}\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )\left[e^{\beta U}\frac{1}{2}\zeta ^{ab}\left(G_{ba}_{ba}\right)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\zeta }}\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)\right]+d^{p+1}\sigma (𝒜).$$
(43)
Here apart from (40) the following new notations are used. The $`(p+1)\times (p+1)`$ matrix $`\zeta _{ab}`$ of auxiliary variables is an arbitrary world-volume $`2`$-tensor, $`\zeta ^{ab}`$ denotes the corresponding inverse matrix ($`\zeta ^{ac}\zeta _{cb}=\delta _b^a`$) and $`\zeta det\zeta _{ab}`$. The term $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)`$ indicates a topological density given in terms of some additional auxiliary gauge (or matter) fields $`𝒜^I`$ living on the world-volume, where “topological” means:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{𝒜^I}_a\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{_a𝒜^I}\right)=0\mathrm{identically},\mathrm{i}.\mathrm{e}.\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)=_a\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{_a𝒜^I}\delta 𝒜^I\right).$$
(44)
$`(𝒜)`$ describes possible coupling of the auxiliary fields $`A^I`$ to external “currents” on the brane world-volume.

The requirement for $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)`$ to be a topological density is dictated by the requirement that the new brane action (43) (in the absence of the last gauge/matter term $`d^{p+1}\sigma (𝒜)`$) reproduces the standard $`Dp`$-brane equations of motion resulting from the DBI action (39) apart from the fact that the $`Dp`$-brane tension $`T\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )/\sqrt{\zeta }`$ becomes now an additional dynamical degree of freedom (note that no ad hoc dimensionfull tension factor $`T`$ has been introduced in (43)). Let us stress that, similarly to the string case, the modified-measure brane model (43) naturally requires (through the necessity to introduce topological density $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)`$) the existence on the world-volume of an additional (higher-rank tensor) gauge field $`𝒜`$ apart from the standard world-volume Abelian vector gauge $`A_a`$.

Splitting the auxiliary tensor variable $`\zeta ^{ab}=\gamma ^{ab}+\zeta ^{[ab]}`$ into symmetric and anti-symmetric parts and setting $`\zeta ^{[ab]}=0`$, the action (43) reduces to the action of the modified-measure model of ordinary $`p`$-branes  with Neveu-Schwarz field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ and world-volume gauge field $`A_a`$ disappearing and $`\gamma _{ab}`$ assuming the role of world-volume Riemannian metric.

The most obvious example of a topological density $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)`$ for the additional auxiliary gauge/matter world-volume fields in (43) is:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)=\frac{\epsilon ^{a_1\mathrm{}a_{p+1}}}{p+1}F_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{p+1}}(𝒜),F_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{p+1}}(𝒜)=(p+1)_{[a_1}𝒜_{a_2\mathrm{}a_{p+1}]},$$
(45)
where $`𝒜_{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}`$ denotes rank $`p`$ antisymmetric tensor (Abelian) gauge field on the world-volume. Further, as a physically interesting example let us consider the following natural coupling of the auxiliary $`p`$-form gauge field:

$$d^{p+1}\sigma (𝒜)=d^{p+1}\sigma 𝒜_{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}j^{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}$$
(46)
to an external world-volume current:

$$j^{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}=\underset{i}{}e_i__id^pu\frac{1}{p!}\epsilon ^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _p}\frac{\sigma _i^{a_1}}{u^{\alpha _1}}\mathrm{}\frac{\sigma _i^{a_p}}{u^{\alpha _p}}\delta ^{(p+1)}\left(\underset{¯}{\sigma }\underset{¯}{\sigma }_i(\underset{¯}{u})\right).$$
(47)
Here $`j^{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}`$ is a current of charged $`(p1)`$-sub-branes $`_i`$ embedded into the original $`p`$-brane world-volume via $`\sigma ^a=\sigma _i^a(\underset{¯}{u})`$ with parameters $`\underset{¯}{u}(u^\alpha )_{\alpha =0,\mathrm{},p1}`$. For simplicity we assume that the $`_i`$ sub-branes do not intersect each other.

With the choices (45) and (46)–(47) the action (43) becomes:

$`S={\displaystyle d^{p+1}\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )\left[e^{\beta U}\frac{1}{2}\zeta ^{ab}\left(G_{ba}_{ba}\right)\frac{\epsilon ^{a_1\mathrm{}a_{p+1}}}{(p+1)\sqrt{\zeta }}F_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{p+1}}(𝒜)\right]}`$
$`{\displaystyle d^{p+1}\sigma 𝒜_{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}\epsilon ^{aa_1\mathrm{}a_p}\stackrel{~}{j}_a},`$ (48)
with $`\stackrel{~}{j}_a=_ie_i𝒩_a^{(i)}`$, where $`𝒩_a^{(i)}`$ is the normal vector w.r.t. world-hypersurface of the $`(p1)`$-sub-brane $`_i`$ :

$$𝒩_a^{(i)}\frac{1}{p!}\epsilon _{ab_1\mathrm{}b_p}__id^pu\frac{1}{p!}\epsilon ^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _p}\frac{\sigma _i^{a_1}}{u^{\alpha _1}}\mathrm{}\frac{\sigma _i^{a_p}}{u^{\alpha _p}}\delta ^{(p+1)}\left(\underset{¯}{\sigma }\underset{¯}{\sigma }_i(\underset{¯}{u})\right).$$
(49)
Let us note that some time ago a modified $`p`$-brane model has been proposed in ref. which also contains world-volume $`p`$-form gauge field $`𝒜_{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}`$. However, the latter model is significantly different from (48) since it is not of Polyakov-type and, moreover, $`𝒜_{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}`$ appears there quadratically rather than linearly.

More generally, for $`p+1=rs`$ we can have a more general type of topological density entering (43) :

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)=\frac{1}{rs}\epsilon ^{a_{11}\mathrm{}a_{1r}\mathrm{}a_{s1}\mathrm{}a_{sr}}F_{a_{11}\mathrm{}a_{1r}}(𝒜)\mathrm{}F_{a_{s1}\mathrm{}a_{sr}}(𝒜)$$
(50)
with rank $`r1`$ (smaller than $`p`$) auxiliary world-volume gauge fields.

We may also employ non-Abelian auxiliary world-volume gauge fields as in the string case. For instance, when $`p=3`$ we may take:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)=\frac{1}{4}\epsilon ^{abcd}\mathrm{T}r\left(F_{ab}(𝒜)F_{cd}(𝒜)\right)$$
(51)
or, more generally, for $`p+1=2q`$ :

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)=\frac{1}{2q}\epsilon ^{a_1b_1\mathrm{}a_qb_q}\mathrm{T}r\left(F_{a_1b_1}(𝒜)\mathrm{}F_{a_qb_q}(𝒜)\right),$$
(52)
where $`F_{ab}(𝒜)=_a𝒜_b_b𝒜_a+i[𝒜_a,𝒜_b]`$.

The modified-measure brane action (48) yields the following equations of motion w.r.t. $`\phi ^i`$ and $`\zeta ^{ab}`$ :

$$e^{\beta U}\frac{1}{2}\zeta ^{ab}\left(G_{ba}_{ba}\right)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\zeta }}\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)=M\mathrm{const},$$
(53)
$$e^{\beta U}\left(G_{ab}_{ab}\right)+\zeta _{ab}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\zeta }}\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)=0.$$
(54)
Both Eqs.(53)–(54) imply:

$$\zeta ^{ab}(G_{ba}_{ba})=2M\frac{p+1}{p1}e^{\beta U},\frac{1}{\sqrt{\zeta }}\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)=\frac{2M}{p1}$$
(55)
which when substituted in (54) give:

$$G_{ab}_{ab}=\frac{2M}{p1}e^{\beta U}\zeta _{ab}$$
(56)
We now consider the equations of motion of the modified brane action (43) w.r.t. auxiliary (gauge) fields $`𝒜^I`$ – these are the equations determining the dynamical brane tension $`𝒯\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )/\sqrt{\zeta }`$ :

$$_a\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )}{\sqrt{\zeta }}\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{_a𝒜^I}+j_I=0,$$
(57)
where $`j_I\frac{}{𝒜^I}_a\left(\frac{}{_a𝒜^I}\right)`$ is the corresponding “current” coupled to $`𝒜^I`$. Note that the topological nature of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)`$ (Eq.(44)) is crucial in the derivation of (57). With the choice (46)–(47), Eq.(57) becomes:

$$_a\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )}{\sqrt{\zeta }}\right)+\stackrel{~}{j}_a=0,\stackrel{~}{j}_a\underset{i}{}e_i𝒩_a^{(i)}.$$
(58)
It is straighforward to deduce from the action (48) that, similarly to the modified string case (19), the dynamical brane tension is identified as the electric-type field strength, i.e., the canonical momentum corresponding to the $`p`$-form gauge field: $`\pi _{A_{1\mathrm{}p}}E=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )}{\sqrt{\zeta }}`$. Accordingly, Eqs.(58) are of the same form as the Maxwell-type equations of motion for the $`p`$-form gauge field in $`p+1`$ dimensions.

In particular, in the absence of coupling of external world-volume currents to the auxiliary (gauge) fields $`𝒜^I`$ Eq.(57) (or (58)) imply:

$$𝒯\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )/\sqrt{\zeta }=C\mathrm{const}$$
(59)
Now, using Eqs.(53) and (56) it is straightforward to show that the modified brane action (43) with $`(𝒜)=0`$ classically reduces to the standard $`Dp`$-brane DBI-action (39) :

$$S_{DBI}^{}=T^{}d^{p+1}\sigma e^{\beta ^{}U}\sqrt{detG_{ab}_{ab}},$$
(60)
$$T^{}\frac{1}{2}C(2M)^{\frac{p1}{2}}(p1)^{\frac{p+1}{2}},\beta ^{}\frac{p+1}{2}\beta ,$$
(61)
where, however, the $`Dp`$-brane tension $`T^{}`$ is dynamically generated according to (59) and (61).

More generally, recalling the definition (49) of $`𝒩_a^{(i)}`$ we find from (58) that the dynamical brane tension $`𝒯\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )/\sqrt{\zeta }`$ is piece-wise constant on the world-volume with jumps when crossing the world-hypersurface of each charged $`(p1)`$-sub-brane $`_i`$. The corresponding jump being equal to the charge magnitude $`\pm e_i`$ (the overall sign depending on the direction of crossing w.r.t. the normal $`𝒩_a^{(i)}`$).

Finally, let us consider the equations of motion of (43) w.r.t. the Abelian $`Dp`$-brane vector gauge field $`A_a`$ :

$$_b\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )\zeta ^{[ab]}e^{\beta U}\right)=0,$$
(62)
and the equations of motion w.r.t. the embedding coordinates $`X^\mu `$ (taking into account Eqs.(62)) :

$`_a\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )\zeta ^{(ab)}_bX^\mu \right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )G^{\mu \nu }\beta _\nu U\zeta ^{[ab]}F_{ab}(A)+`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )_aX^\lambda _bX^\nu \left[\zeta ^{(ab)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda \nu }^\mu (\overline{G})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\zeta ^{[ab]}G^{\mu \kappa }\left(\beta _\kappa UB_{\lambda \nu }_{\kappa \lambda \nu }(B)\right)\right]=0.`$ (63)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda \nu }^\mu (\overline{G})`$ is the connection of the rescaled background metric $`\overline{G}_{\mu \nu }=e^{\beta U}G_{\mu \nu }`$ :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda \nu }^\mu (\overline{G})=\frac{1}{2}\overline{G}^{\mu \kappa }\left(_\lambda \overline{G}_{\kappa \nu }+_\nu \overline{G}_{\kappa \lambda }_\kappa \overline{G}_{\lambda \nu }\right)$$
(64)
and $`_{\kappa \lambda \nu }(\overline{B})`$ is the field-strength of the background Neveu-Schwarz two-form gauge field:

$$_{\kappa \lambda \nu }(B)=_\kappa B_{\lambda \nu }+_\nu B_{\kappa \lambda }+_\lambda B_{\nu \kappa }$$
(65)
Using (58), both Eqs.(62)–(63) can be rewritten in the form:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )}{\sqrt{\zeta }}_b\stackrel{~}{H}^{ab}\underset{i}{}e_i𝒩_b^{(i)}\stackrel{~}{H}^{ab}=0,\stackrel{~}{H}^{ab}\sqrt{\zeta }\zeta ^{[ab]}e^{\beta U},$$
(66)
and:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )}{\sqrt{\zeta }}\left[_a\left(\sqrt{\zeta }\zeta ^{(ab)}_bX^\mu \right)+\mathrm{}\right]\underset{i}{}e_i𝒩_a^{(i)}\sqrt{\zeta }\zeta ^{(ab)}_bX^\mu =0.$$
(67)
The dots in the l.h.s. of (67) indicate the same expression as in the second line of Eq.(63) with $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )`$ substituted by $`\sqrt{\zeta }`$.

Recalling again the definition (49) of the normal $`𝒩_b^{(i)}`$ w.r.t. the charged $`(p1)`$-sub-branes $`_i`$ and the resulting property of the dynamical tension $`𝒯\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )/\sqrt{\zeta }`$ being piece-wise constant on the world-volume with jumps when crossing each sub-brane $`_i`$, we find that Eqs.(66) imply:

$$_b\stackrel{~}{H}^{ab}=0,\stackrel{~}{H}^a|__i=0,$$
(68)
where the superscript $``$ indicates projection along the normal $`N_a^{(i)}`$ w.r.t. the world-hypersurface of sub-brane $`_i`$. The first Eq.(68) can be viewed as Bianchi identity for the field-strength of a new $`p2`$-form world-volume gauge field $`B_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{p2}}`$ (which can be viewed as dual variable w.r.t. anti-symmetric part of $`\zeta ^{ab}`$) :

$$H_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{p1}}=(p1)_{[a_1}B_{a_2\mathrm{}a_{p1}]},\stackrel{~}{H}^{ab}\frac{1}{(p1)!}\epsilon ^{abc_1\mathrm{}c_{p1}}H_{c_1\mathrm{}c_{p1}}$$
(69)
with $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{ab}`$ as defined in (66). The second Eq.(68) shows that the restrictions of the dual field strength $`H`$ on each $`(p1)`$-sub-brane $`_i`$ vanish:

$$H_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{p1}}|__i=0$$
(70)
Here the $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{p1}`$ indicate $`p`$-dimensional world-hypersurface tensorial indices on the sub-brane $`_i`$. Let us note that the objects $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{ab}`$ and $`B_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{p2}}`$ already appeared in the Polyakov-type formulation of the standard (non-modified) $`Dp`$-brane . The new feature in the present modified-measure $`Dp`$-brane model is the condition (70) on the dual field strength.

The same arguments from the previous paragraph applied to (67) imply that $`X^\mu `$ satisfy the standard $`Dp`$-brane equations of motion (in the Polyakov-type formulation ) :

$`_a\left(\sqrt{\zeta }\zeta ^{(ab)}_bX^\mu \right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\zeta }G^{\mu \nu }\beta _\nu U\zeta ^{[ab]}F_{ab}(A)+`$
$`\sqrt{\zeta }_aX^\lambda _bX^\nu \left[\zeta ^{(ab)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda \nu }^\mu (\overline{G})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\zeta ^{[ab]}G^{\mu \kappa }\left(\beta _\kappa UB_{\lambda \nu }_{\kappa \lambda \nu }(B)\right)\right]=0.`$ (71)
together with Neumann boundary conditions on the world-hypersurfaces of each charged $`(p1)`$-sub-brane $`_i`$ :

$$_{}X^\mu |__i=0,_{}N_a^{(i)}\zeta ^{(ab)}_b$$
(72)
(recall that the symmetric part $`\gamma ^{ab}\zeta ^{(ab)}`$ plays the role of (inverse) world-volume Riemannian metric).

Let us consider again Eq.(58) and integrate it along arbitrary smooth closed curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on the $`Dp`$-brane world-volume which is transversal to (some or all of) the $`(p1)`$-sub-brane $`_i`$, we obtain the following constraints on the possible sub-brane configurations:

$$\underset{i}{}e_in_i(\mathrm{\Gamma })=0,$$
(73)
Here $`n_i(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is the sign-weighted total number of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ crossing $`_i`$. Eq.(73) is the brane analog of the “color” charge confinement condition (first Eq.(38)) in the modified-measure string model. In the present $`p2`$-brane case, however, due to the much more complicated topologies of the pertinent world-volumes Eq.(73) may yield various different types of allowed sub-brane configurations.

As a simple illustration, let us consider the simplest non-trivial case $`p=2`$ and take the static gauge for the $`p=1`$ sub-branes (strings), i.e., the proper times of the charged strings coincides with the proper time of the bulk membrane. The latter means that the fixed-time world-volume of the bulk closed membrane is a Riemann surface with some number $`g`$ of handles and no holes. Further, we will assume the following simple topology of the attached $`N`$ charged strings $`_i`$ : upon cutting the membrane surface along these attached strings it splits into $`N`$ open membranes $`_i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$) with Neumann boundary conditions (cf. (72)), each of which being a Riemann surface with $`g_i`$ handles and 2 holes (boundaries) formed by the strings $`_{i1}`$ and $`_i`$, respectively333The Euler characteristics of the bulk membrane Riemann surface is $`\chi =22g`$, whereas for the open brane $`_i`$ it is $`\chi _i=22g_i2`$, so that $`\chi =_i\chi _i`$ or, equivalently, $`g=1+_ig_i`$.. The brane tension of $`_i`$ is a dynamically generated constant $`T_i`$ where $`T_{i+1}=T_i+e_i`$. In the present configuration Eq.(73) evidently reduces to the constraint $`_ie_i=0`$.

Thus, we conclude that similarly to the string case, modified-measure $`Dp`$-brane models describe configurations of charged $`(p1)`$-branes with charge confinement. Apart from the latter, in general there exist more complicated configurations allowed by the constraint (73), whose properties deserve further study.

## 5 Conclusions

Finally, let us sumarize the main features of the new class of modified-measure string and brane models. The above discussion shows that:

* There exist natural from physical point of view modifications of world-sheet and world-volume integration measures which may significantly affect string and brane dynamics.
* Consistency of dynamics naturally requires the introduction of auxiliary world-sheet vector gauge field (in the string case) and higher-rank world-volume antisymmetric tensor gauge fields in the general brane case beyond the standard $`Dp`$-brane $`U(1)`$ vector gauge field.
* The string/brane tension is not anymore a constant scale given ad hoc, but rather appears as an additional dynamical degree of freedom beyond the ordinary string/brane degrees of freedom.
* The dynamical string/brane tension has physical meaning of an electric field strength for the auxiliary world-sheet/world-volume gauge field.
* The dynamical string/brane tension obeys “Gauss law” constraint equation and may be nontrivially variable in the presence of point-like charges (on the string world-sheet) or charged lower-dimensional branes (on the $`Dp`$-brane world-volume).
* Modified-measure string/brane models provide simple classical mechanisms for confinement of point-like “color” charges or charged lower-dimensional branes due to variable dynamical tension.

Possible applications of the new class of modified-measure $`Dp`$-brane models in the context of modern brane-world theories are currently being studied. As a step in this direction we refer to the recent paper  where by employing the modified integration measure density (1) a new conformally invariant brane-world model without (bulk) cosmological constant fine tuning has been constructed.

Acknowledgements. Two of us (E.N. and S.P.) are sincerely grateful to Prof. Branko Dragovich for his cordial hospitality at the Second Summer School on Modern Mathematical Physics, Kopaonik (Yugoslavia), 2002. E.N. and S.P. are partially supported by Bulgarian NSF grant F-904/99.