format: text

text:
# Effect of bulk inversion asymmetry on the Datta-Das transistor

## Abstract

A model of the Datta-Das spin field-effect transistor is presented which, in addition to the Rashba interaction, takes into account the influence of bulk inversion asymmetry of zinc-blende semiconductors. In the presence of bulk inversion asymmetry, the conductance is found to depend significantly on the crystallographic orientation of the channel. We determine the channel direction optimal for the observation of the Datta-Das effect in GaAs and InAs-based devices.

Various spin-orbit (SO) effects which are always present in semiconductor quantum structures, are recognized as an important issue in the emerging field of spintronic devices. Already the first proposal of a spin transistor by Datta and Das Datt90  relied on the SO-induced splitting of the carrier bands in high electron mobility transistors (HEMT). As postulated by Bychkov and Rashba,Bych84  in such systems, owing to the SO interaction and interfacial electric field $`𝑬`$ (the structure inversion asymmetry - SIA), the spins of the electrons flowing with the velocity $`𝒗`$ precess in a magnetic field $`𝑩_R𝑬\times 𝒗`$. To take advantage of this fact, Datta and Das considered a hybrid structure consisting of a ballistic quasi-one-dimensional (1D) wire patterned of a 2D HEMT and of ferromagnetic source and drain ohmic contacts, serving as spin injector and detector, respectively. The contacts were assumed to be magnetized along the current direction and to have 100% spin injection/detection efficiency. The calculated conductance for such a device was found to oscillate as a function of the SO coupling strength $`\alpha `$, whose magnitude could be controlled via a metal gate located on the top of the structure. Datta and Das showed that in the lowest order in $`\alpha `$ the oscillations depended on neither 1D sub-band index $`n`$ nor electron wave vector $`k`$.

Since the original proposal of Datta and Das, the operation of their spin field-effect transistor (spin-FET) has been analyzed in much detail. For example, calculations of device conductance not only for small but also for large $`\alpha `$ were carried outMire01  as well as possible effects of electron-electron interactions were analyzed.Haus01  Furthermore, an important problem of spin injection across the ferromagnet/semiconductor interface was considered from various viewpoints.Mats02 ; Dede02 ; Meie02  However, in addition to the SIA (Rashba) term, owing to the lack of inversion symmetry in bulk materials – there exists the so-called bulk inversion asymmetry (BIA) or Dresselhaus term.Dres55  It is known that the combined effect of both terms modifies considerably spin properties of zinc-blende heterostructures.Ohno99Aver99  Therefore, the SIA and BIA contributions should be considered on equal footing when analyzing the performance of spin devices.Schl03

In this work, we consider a ballistic quantum wire patterned of a zinc-blende heterostructure grown along the  direction. The Hamiltonian describing the electron motion takes into account both SIA and BIA terms. By a numerical solution of the Schrödinger equation for GaAs- and InAs-based systems, we demonstrate the importance, of hitherto neglected, non-linear terms in the BIA hamiltonian. Moreover, we show that the device performance depends strongly on the wire direction in respect to the crystal axes. This allows us to determine channel orientation corresponding to the largest transconductance for both GaAs and InAs based devices.

In order to model the Datta-Das transistor, we consider an infinite quantum wire that extends in the $`x`$ direction, which is oriented at an angle of $`\varphi `$ to the  crystal axis. The potential confining electrons in $`y`$ direction, $`V(y)`$, is assumed to be parabolic and characterized by the energy difference between consecutive harmonic oscillator levels $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$=1 meV in GaAs and $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$=3 meV in InAs, respectively. In order to simulate the presence of ferromagnetic electrodes, we assume that in the regions $`x<0`$ and $`x>L`$ the electron spins experience the magnetic field $`|B_{\text{out}}|=10^3`$ T, which is strong enough to ensure the entire spin polarization. Following Datta and Das we take the vectors $`𝑩_{\text{out}}`$ to point in the $`x`$ direction and consider the case of their parallel or anti-parallel relative orientations. In the channel region, $`0<x<L`$, $`B_{\text{out}}`$ decays adiabatically to zero. For $`x[100]`$, the SO Hamiltonian is given byPiku95

$`H_{SO}=i\alpha \left(\sigma _y_x\sigma _x_y\right)`$
$`+i\gamma \left(\sigma _x_x\left(_y^2+k_z^2\right)\sigma _y_y\left(k_z^2_x^2\right)\right),`$ (1)
where $`\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _y`$ are the Pauli matrices. The terms proportional to $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ corresponds to the SIA and BIA, respectively, whose effect on the band splitting has been thoroughly examined.Pfef99  Here, we estimate the magnitude of $`\alpha `$ and $`k_z^2`$ according to Ref. Piku95,

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(2E_g+\mathrm{\Delta }\right)}{E_g\left(E_g+\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\left(3E_g+2\mathrm{\Delta }\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi e^2N_s}{\kappa }};`$ (2)
$`k_z^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(16.5\pi e^2mN_s/\kappa \mathrm{}^2)^{1/3},`$ (3)
which gives values comparable with those obtained from the more refined theories, at least in low Fermi energy limit. In Eq. (2) $`\kappa `$ is the static dielectric constant, $`m`$ is the effective mass, $`E_g`$ is the energy gap, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the spin-orbit splitting in the valence band.uwaga3  For example, for typical areal electron density $`N_s=5\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2, this approach implies $`\alpha =`$1.7 meVÅ and 42.0 meVÅ for GaAs- and InAs-based heterostructures, respectively. The BIA parameter $`\gamma `$ is equal to 25 eVÅ3 for GaAs and 130 eVÅ3 for InAs.Piku95 ; Silv94

By transforming the Hamiltonian (Effect of bulk inversion asymmetry on the Datta-Das transistor) to a new coordinate system such that the angle between new and old $`x`$ axes is $`\varphi `$ we obtain,

$`H_{SO}=i\alpha \left(\sigma _y_x\sigma _x_y\right)`$
$`i\gamma [\sigma _y\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_x^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_y^2+k_z^2)`$
$`\sigma _x\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )(_y^2+k_z^2)]_x`$
$`i\gamma [\sigma _y\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )(_x^2+k_z^2)`$
$`+\sigma _x\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_y^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_x^2+k_z^2)]_y.`$ (4)
We see that only the Dresselhaus (BIA) term changes, while the Rashba (SIA) term remains invariant with respect to the rotations around the $`z`$ axis.
The full Schrödinger equation for our calculations reads,

$`({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}(_x^2+_y^2)+V(y)+H_{SO}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g\mu _B𝝈𝑩_{\text{out}}(x))\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)=E_F\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y),`$ (5)
where $`E_F`$ is the Fermi energy.

To calculate conductance in the non-interacting electron model we employ the recursive Green function methodLee81MacK83Ciep91  in a form developed in Ref. Zozo96, . We expand the spinor wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)`$ into a series

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)=\underset{n}{}\chi _n(x)\psi _n(y),$$
(6)
where $`\psi _n(y)`$ are the eigenfunctions of one dimensional harmonic oscillator potential

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}_y^2+V(y)\right)\psi _n(y)=ϵ_n\psi _n(y).$$
(7)
By using the orthonormality property of these functions, it is easy to derive a set of differential equations for $`\chi _n(x)`$.

The problem we encounter is the appearance of third order derivative with respect to $`x`$ in the term $`i\gamma \mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )_x^3\chi _n(x)`$, which originates from the BIA part of the Hamiltonian. We replace this term by $`i\gamma \mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )k_x^2(n)_x\chi _n`$ where $`k_x^2(n)\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(E_Fϵ_n\right)`$ is the wave vector for $`n`$’th mode in the absence of spin-orbit coupling. This approximation is justified by the fact that for typical experimental situations, $`\gamma k_F^3<<\frac{\mathrm{}^2k_F^2}{2m}`$. Indeed, for GaAs for $`k_F10^8\mathrm{m}^1`$ and $`\gamma =25`$ meVÅ3, $`\gamma k_F^34.0\times 10^{24}`$ J, which is much smaller than $`\frac{\mathrm{}^2k_F^2}{2m}8\times 10^{22}`$ J. In other words, the spatial changes of the wave function are governed mainly by the $`\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}_x^2`$ term in the Hamiltonian. Treating $`\chi _n`$ as the components of a vector $`𝝌`$ we arrive to

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}R\left(_x^2𝝌+2iQ_x𝝌\right)+\left(hE_F\right)𝝌=0,$$
(8)
where matrix $`QR^1P`$ and

$$R_{nn^{}}=\delta _{nn^{}}+i\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}\gamma \left[\sigma _y\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )\frac{1}{2}\sigma _x\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )\right]D_{nn^{}}^{(1)};$$
(9)
$`P_{nn^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2}}\gamma \{\delta _{nn^{}}\sigma _y\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )[k_z^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k_x^2(n)]`$
$`\delta _{nn^{}}k_z^2\sigma _x\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )[\sigma _x\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _y\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )]D_{nn^{}}^{(2)}\}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2}}\alpha \delta _{nn^{}}\sigma _y;`$ (10)
$`h_{nn^{}}=\left(ϵ_n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g\mu _B𝝈𝑩_{\text{out}}(x)\right)\delta _{nn^{}}`$
$`i\gamma [k_z^2(\sigma _y\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )+\sigma _x\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi ))D_{nn^{}}^{(1)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _x\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )D_{nn^{}}^{(3)}]i\alpha \sigma _xD^{(1)}_{nn^{}},`$ (11)
and the the matrix $`D_{mn}^{(n)}=\chi _m|_y^{(n)}|\chi _n`$. After discretization along $`x`$ direction (with the lattice constant $`a`$) we finally obtain

$`tV_{x,x+a}𝝌(x+a)tU_{x,xa}𝝌(xa)+2tR𝝌(x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}RQ^2𝝌(x)+\left(hE_F\right)𝝌(x)=0,`$ (12)
where $`t=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2ma^2}`$, $`V_{x,x+a}=Re^{iaQ}`$, $`U_{x,xa}=Re^{iaQ}`$. This form is appropriate for the conductance calculation.

Before presenting our results we discuss briefly the "linear" approximation to the BIA term. Within this approximation second order derivatives $`_x^2`$ and $`_y^2`$ are neglected in Eq. (Effect of bulk inversion asymmetry on the Datta-Das transistor). On the basis of this linear approximation one can easily understand the influence of the channel crystallographic orientation on the performance of spin-FET. Let us consider a transversal running mode characterized by wave vector $`k`$. Following Datta and Das Datt90  we neglect intermode coupling caused by spin-orbit terms. Then, it is possible to define Rashba and Dresselhaus "magnetic fields" $`𝑩_R=\alpha k(0,1)`$ and $`𝑩_D=\gamma k_z^2k(\mathrm{cos}2\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}2\varphi )`$. Their sum $`𝑩_{SO}=𝑩_R+𝑩_D`$ determines the spin precession frequency. Importantly, the magnitude and orientation of $`𝑩_{SO}`$ with respect to the $`x`$ axis depend on the angle $`\varphi `$. That is why the precession frequency varies with the channel crystallographic orientation. It is easy to find out that for $`\varphi =135^{}`$, $`𝑩_{SO}`$ is perpendicular to the $`x`$ axis, and its length assumes a maximum value. Thus, for the $`[\overline{1}10]`$ channel orientation, in the linear approximation, the period of the oscillations is the shortest, and thus the Datta-Das effect best visible. These qualitative considerations have been confirmed by our numerical calculations performed in the linear approximation. However, in neither GaAs nor InAs the linear approximation is justified for the experimentally relevant Fermi energy range.

We start the discussion of the full nonlinear model from results for the device oriented along the  direction ($`\varphi =0`$). As shown in the upper panel of Fig. 1, for a given relative magnetization of the contacts, two types of conductance oscillations as a function of the Fermi energy appear: the long-period Datta-Das oscillations and the short-period Fabry-Perot oscillations resulting from interference between transmitted and reflected spin wave functions by the two contacts.Mats02  In real experiments, the latter are expected to be washed out by thermal broadening and effects of non perfect geometry. Therefore, in the following pictures we show smoothed data obtained by averaging with the Fermi energy window of 1.0 meV. We realize that in the nonlinear case, contributions to the conductance originating from particular modes oscillate with different periods. When the Fermi energy or, equivalently, electron concentration grows, every 1 meV a new mode, with its own period, starts to participate in the transport. We illustrate this effect in the lower panel of Fig. 1, where a partial conductance due to 0th, 6th and 12th mode is depicted. This leads to the disappearance of the conductance minima when the nonlinear terms in the SO Hamiltonian are taken into account, as shown in Fig. 2 (upper panel). By analyzing the conductance for different angles $`\varphi `$ we have found that the optimal angle for the observation of Datta-Das effect in GaAs is $`\varphi =110^{}`$ (see Fig. 2 lower panel).

Turning to the InAs-based transistors, we note that different ratios of parameters describing SIA and BIA terms result in a different behavior of the conductance as a function of the transistor direction. For InAs the spin-orbit parameters are about order of magnitude larger, however, the electron mobility in InAs is low comparing to GaAs so the length of the quantum wire have to be shorter, otherwise we cannot assume ballistic transport regime. In calculations we have assumed $`L`$=4.0 $`\mu `$m.Erom02  The results for the optimal angle $`\varphi `$=0 are presented in Fig. 3. They are compared to the case $`\varphi `$=135 which is the optimal angle determined within the linear approach. In Fig. 3 we show conductance for opposite (upper panel) and parallel (lower panel) source-drain polarizations, respectively.

The angle dependence of conductance for GaAs and InAs devices is summarized in the upper panel of Fig. 4, where we plot the transconductance, $`|dG/dE_F|`$, a quantity of particular experimental interest. The transconductance in Fig. 4 is defined as the absolute value the derivative of conductance with respect to the Fermi energy. For a given angle $`\varphi `$, we take into account the energy region, where the conductance decreases. Indeed, a decrease of $`G`$ is directly connected with the Datta-Das effect while its increases is connected also with the increasing number of modes participating in the transport. In the lower panel of Fig. 4 we present the Fermi energy dependence of another quantity which is also important in the experimental search for the Datta-Das effect,Mats02 ; Meie02  $`P=(G_+G_{++})/(G_++G_{++})`$, where $`G_{++}`$ and $`G_+`$ are conductances for parallel and opposite source-drain polarizations respectively. Our results imply, therefore, that there is much room for the enhancement of the Datta-Das signal by selecting an appropriate crystallographic orientation of the device.

In conclusion, we have developed a theoretical approach suitable to numerical studies of ballistic electron transport in semiconductor wires taking into account spin-orbit effects. The model has been applied to the Datta-Das spin-FET of zinc-blende semiconductors. There are two main results of our model calculations. First, there is a strong dependence of the transistor conductance on its direction with respect to crystallographic axes. Secondly, our calculations explicitly show the importance of nonlinear terms in BIA Hamiltonian. For particular model of the spin-orbit parameters, Eq. (2) and Eq. (3), we have also determined transistor direction optimal for the observation of the Datta-Das effect, which is $`[\overline{1}20]`$ and  for the GaAs and InSb-based devices, respectively.

The work was supported by the KBN grant PBZ-KBN-044/P03/2001, FENIKS project (EC: G5RD-CT-2001-0535), and Centre of Excellence CELDIS (ICA1-CT-2000-70018) within the 5th Framework Programme of European Commission. The authors thank P. Pfeffer for discussions concerning the role of nonlinear terms in BIA Hamiltonian.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The recent observations on the acceleration of the universe has led to renewed interest in de Sitter backgrounds in cosmology. At the same time, this has led to much debate on whether de Sitter space itself is in fact compatible with M-theory. Although several arguments may be made against this possibility, it should be noted that de Sitter spaces naturally arise as backgrounds for the * theories of . These * theories are obtained through a timelike T-duality of the ordinary string theories, and admit an unconventional effective field theory description involving wrong sign kinetic energy terms for the RR fields. Because of this and other problems, the field theory limits of the * theories appear ill-defined. Nevertheless, so long as one allows T-duality along a timelike circle, one must allow for the existence of such * theories as a component of the full M-theory. It is in this spirit that we choose to investigate the de Sitter supergravities which arise as consistent dimensional reductions of IIB and M theory.

Conventional wisdom indicates that de Sitter space is incompatible with supersymmetry. This may be seen, for example, in the standard classification of possible supersymmetry algebras, which allows for both Poincaré and anti-de Sitter superalgebras, but not for the possibility of a de Sitter superalgebra. Thus in order to obtain de Sitter supersymmetry, one must relax one or more of the usual assumptions. Such possibilities were first generally studied in . In the present case, the de Sitter supergravities which we investigate are unconventional in that they have wrong sign kinetic energy terms as well as non-compact gaugings. Of course, unitary theories do exist with non-compact gaugings. However, as will be explained below, the non-compact symmetries which we consider here are of a different nature, and yield mixed sign kinetic terms for the gauge fields. While these properties of the de Sitter supergravities are clearly undesirable, they follow as a natural consequence of the underlying * theory. As a result, we leave open the possibility that such de Sitter supergravities would be of relevance for the * theory beyond the field theory limit. It is, however, possible that the effective field theories which we explore, being unstable, do not provide an adequate description of the full * theory. Nevertheless, one may hope to gain additional insight into de Sitter space and supersymmetry regardless of the ultimate fate of the * theories.

For the case of anti-de Sitter supersymmetry, it has long been known that a generalized Freund-Rubin compactification yields backgrounds of the form AdS$`\times `$Sphere. Furthermore, a linearized Kaluza-Klein analysis indicates that the zero mode fluctuations about the AdS$`\times `$Sphere background gives rise to a maximal gauged supergravity in the lower dimensional AdS space. More recently, various full and truncated non-linear Kaluza-Klein reductions have been constructed, demonstrating the consistent embedding of the corresponding gauged supergravities in the higher dimensional theory . Based on the observation that such gauged supergravities yield a negative cosmological constant of the form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }g^2`$, one may at least formally obtain a de Sitter supergravity through the analytic continuation to imaginary coupling constant, namely $`gi\widehat{g}`$. While we follow this approach in spirit, it is important to note that the de Sitter supergravities discussed here (being descended from * theories) have only real bosonic fields and real gauge couplings (although Majorana conditions on the fermions may have to be relaxed).

The non-linear Kaluza-Klein ansatze for the conventional sphere reductions allow the embedding of various lower-dimensional solutions into the underlying higher-dimensional theories. For example, R-charged AdS black holes may be lifted to ten and eleven dimensions, where they take on the nature of rotating branes . Similarly, the consistent reductions constructed below allow us to lift dS black holes into the original * theory. In particular, multi-centered dS black holes have been constructed in ; these were furthermore shown to satisfy an unconventional supersymmetry involving the imaginary coupling constant mentioned above . Here we demonstrate that such dS black holes provide an interesting cosmological background for * theory and furthermore investigate their lifting to ten or eleven dimensions. Such multi-centered black holes have also been considered recently by Behrndt and Cvetič as examples of time-dependent backgrounds in the analytically continued de Sitter supergravity .

In the following section we describe the general procedure of obtaining consistent reduction ansatze for * theories. Then in sections 3 and 4 we turn to the specific cases of IIB and M reductions, respectively. The latter model is particularly interesting, as it admits a dS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times `$AdS7 background, whereupon either dS4 or AdS7 may be viewed as the lower-dimensional spacetime. Since both cases arise from the same eleven-dimensional background, this hints at some form of a dS4/AdS7 duality . Finally, we consider the lifting of dS black holes in section 5, and conclude in section 6.

## 2 Generalized sphere reductions of IIB and M theory

It has been an important observation that non-dilatonic branes, in particular the D3, M2 and M5 branes, serve as interpolating solutions between asymptotic Minkowski and near horizon AdS$`\times `$Sphere geometries (AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$, AdS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times S^7`$ and AdS$`{}_{7}{}^{}\times S^4`$, respectively). Alternatively, the AdS$`\times `$Sphere geometry directly arises from a generalized Freund-Rubin compactification. In several cases, the complete non-linear Kaluza-Klein reduction corresponding to such geometries is known. However, it is generally more common that only a truncated ansatz (often to a maximal Abelian subgroup of the full gauge group, or with a subset of scalars and higher-rank potentials) has been constructed. Such truncated ansatze are often sufficient for the lifting of solutions such as AdS black holes to the higher dimensional theory.

While it would be desirable to obtain a complete reduction, in this paper we exclusively focus on the truncation to the sector arising from the higher dimensional metric and $`p`$-form fields. To motivate our approach, consider the Kaluza-Klein sphere reduction ansatz to AdS$`{}_{d}{}^{}\times S^n`$. In this case, the metric has the general form

$$ds_D^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^{2/(d1)}ds_d^2+g^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{(d3)/(d1)}(T^1)^{ij}D\mu ^iD\mu ^j.$$
(2.1)
Here, $`i`$ and $`j`$ run from $`1`$ to $`n+1`$, and the $`\mu ^i`$’s satisfy the constraint $`_i\mu ^{i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=1`$, corresponding to a parametrization of $`S^n`$. The $`n`$-sphere itself is given by the coset space $`SO(n+1)/SO(n)`$, while $`T_{ij}`$ is a symmetric unimodular matrix consisting of $`\frac{1}{2}n(n+3)`$ scalar degrees of freedom parameterizing the coset $`SL(n+1,R)/SO(n+1)`$. The isometry of $`S^n`$ gives rise to a $`SO(n+1)`$ gauge symmetry, with gauge potentials $`A_{(1)}^{[ij]}`$. The gauge covariant derivative is given by, e.g., $`D\mu ^i=d\mu ^i+gA_{(1)}^{ij}\mu ^j`$. Associated with the metric ansatz (2.1) is a corresponding one on the $`p`$-form potential ($`F_4`$ for $`D=11`$, or $`F_5`$ for IIB). This will be considered in more detail below, when we specialize to the various cases at hand.

The above analysis of the near-horizon dynamics of non-dilatonic branes may be generalized to encompass the * theories of . For example, the IIA and IIB theories admit branes which are the timelike T-duals of ordinary D branes, while M theory admits generalized M2 and M5 branes, all of which may have unusual signatures on their world sheets . In themselves, these branes are all legitimate solutions of the * theories. However, it has been noted that they may be obtained from the ordinary brane solutions via appropriate analytic continuations222That this is the case simply follows from the fact that the supergravity description of the * theories may be obtained by suitable Wick rotations and analytic continuations of the usual supergravities.. This fact will be important to us below in constructing the generalized sphere reductions.

Just as the ordinary non-dilatonic branes serve as interpolating solutions between maximally symmetric spaces, the branes of * theory serve a similar role. However, in this case, the near horizon limits are generalizations of the AdS$`\times `$Sphere geometries to different signatures and different signs of the spacetime and internal space curvatures. In all such cases, the resulting geometries for either spacetime or the internal manifold have the maximally symmetric coset form $`SO(s+1,t)/SO(s,t)`$ or $`SO(s,t+1)/SO(s,t)`$ where $`s`$ and $`t`$ denote space and time dimensions, respectively . It should be noted that the internal spaces are often non-compact, and may include time-like coordinates. In particular, M theory admits an interesting dS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times `$AdS7 vacuum, which may be obtained as the near horizon of either a M2 $`(3,0,)`$ or a M5 $`(5,1,+)`$ brane. This has led to speculation on a possible AdS/CFT duality between the worldvolume theories of M2 and M5, with the roles of spacetime and internal space interchanged .

In order to obtain the non-linear Kaluza-Klein ansatz for reduction on either $`SO(s+1,t)/SO(s,t)`$ or $`SO(s,t+1)/SO(s,t)`$, we may analytically continue away from the sphere, $`S^n`$, corresponding to $`SO(n+1)/SO(n)`$. More specifically, starting with the homogeneous embedding of $`S^n`$ in $`R^{n+1}`$, given by $`(\mu ^1)^2+(\mu ^2)^2+\mathrm{}+(\mu ^{n+1})^2=1`$, we analytically continue an appropriate subset of $`\mu ^i`$’s, namely333Throughout this paper, we use a caret to distinguish quantities involved in the generalized reduction from those of the usual sphere reduction. $`\mu ^ii\widehat{\mu }^i`$, while at the same time changing the signature of the embedding space in the natural manner. This generalization to a non-compact internal space is conveniently encoded in terms of the Lorentzian metric, $`\eta _{ij}`$, on the embedding space, with the hyperbolic embedding specified by the constraint $`\eta _{ij}\widehat{\mu }^i\widehat{\mu }^j=1`$. In this case, the generalization of the metric reduction ansatz, (2.1), takes the essentially identical form

$$ds_D^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^{2/(d1)}ds_d^2+\widehat{g}^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{(d3)/(d1)}\eta _{ij}(\widehat{T}^1)^{jk}\eta _{kl}D\widehat{\mu }^iD\widehat{\mu }^l.$$
(2.2)
Note, however, that while the scalars are still represented by a symmetric matrix $`\widehat{T}_{ij}`$, they now parametrize the coset $`SL(s+1+t,R)/SO(s+1,t)`$ or $`SL(s+t+1,R)/SO(s,t+1)`$ as appropriate to a generalized signature internal space. As a result, $`\widehat{T}_{ij}`$ may have negative eigenvalues, and $`\widehat{T}_{ij}=\eta _{ij}`$ corresponds to the vacuum with no scalar excitations.

At this point, it is important to realize that our claim of negative eigenvalues for $`\widehat{T}_{ij}`$ yields an unconventional version of non-compact gauging. In an ordinary gauged supergravity theory, one may choose to gauge a non-compact group, say, $`SO(p,q)`$. Nevertheless, all fields have conventional kinetic energies, and the theory remains unitary. In particular, the equivalent of $`\widehat{T}_{ij}`$ for the conventional supergravity never has negative eigenvalues, regardless of the compact versus non-compact nature of the gauging. Furthermore, when the gauging is removed by taking $`g0`$, one recovers the standard ungauged supergravity. For a conventional non-compact gauging, the gauge group is spontaneously broken to its maximal compact subgroup. In this case, it has been shown in  that such theories arise from dimensional-reductions on non-compact spaces, and that they may be obtained via analytical continuation in the same spirit that we are advocating here. The difference with the present case, however, is that here we choose to reduce the * theory on the maximally symmetric vacuum. In particular, this means that, even in the ungauged limit, we retain both compact and non-compact gauge fields (with both positive and negative kinetic terms, related to the eigenvalues of $`\eta _{ij}`$). In the framework of , we would be expanding about an unstable vacuum. However we leave this issue as one that must be resolved by the underlying * theory.

While (2.2) is the universal form of the metric ansatz for a generalized internal space, we have at the moment left the nature of the $`p`$-form field unspecified. To proceed, we must specialize to a particular theory. This is what we carry out in the next section (for IIB theory) and the subsequent one (for M theory).

## 3 The $`H^5`$ reduction of IIB supergravity

The bosonic sector of IIB supergravity consists of the metric, dilaton and 3-form field strength $`H_{(3)}`$ in the NSNS sector, as well as $`F_{(1)}`$, $`F_{(3)}`$ and $`F_{(5)}`$ in the RR sector. The complete $`S^5`$ reduction of type IIB supergravity gives rise to five-dimensional $`SO(6)`$ gauged $`N=8`$ supergravity. However, by considering the truncation of IIB supergravity to only the metric and self-dual 5-form, one ends up in five dimensions with a truncation of $`N=8`$ supergravity to a bosonic system with $`SO(6)`$ gauge fields and 20 scalars. The consistent $`S^5`$ reduction in this subsector (which is the one most directly relevant to the D3-brane) was given in , and has the form

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}ds_5^2+g^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}(T^1)^{ij}D\mu ^iD\mu ^j,`$
$`F_{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`G_{(5)}+G_{(5)},`$
$`G_{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`gUϵ_{(5)}+g^1((T^1)^{ij}\overline{}DT_{jk})(\mu ^kD\mu ^i){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^2(T^1)^{ik}(T^1)^{jl}\overline{}F_{(2)}^{ij}D\mu ^kD\mu ^l,`$
where

$$U=2T_{ij}T_{jk}\mu ^i\mu ^k\mathrm{\Delta }T_{ii},\mathrm{\Delta }=T_{ij}\mu ^i\mu ^j.$$
(3.2)
Here, $`ϵ_{(5)}`$ is the volume 5-form in the spacetime. As usual, the field strength $`F_{(2)}^{[ij]}`$ and gauge covariant derivatives are given in terms of the $`SO(6)`$ gauge fields $`A_{(1)}^{[ij]}`$ by

$`F_{(2)}^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`dA_{(1)}^{ij}+gA_{(1)}^{ik}A_{(1)}^{kj},`$
$`DT_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`dT_{ij}+gA_{(1)}^{ik}T_{kj}+gA_{(1)}^{jk}T_{ik},`$
$`D\mu ^i`$ $`=`$ $`d\mu ^i+gA_{(1)}^{ij}\mu ^j.`$ (3.3)
We mostly follow the notation of , except that we reserve the caret to denote quantities relevant to * theory. The coordinates, $`\mu ^i`$, are subject to the constraint $`\delta _{ij}\mu ^i\mu ^j=1`$, and parametrize the internal $`S^5`$.

We now recall that IIB supergravity with signature $`(9,1)`$ may be obtained from IIB theory by changing the signs of the RR kinetic terms. In particular, the wrong-sign kinetic term for the self-dual 5-form gives rise to the ten-dimensional Einstein equation

$$R_{MN}=\frac{1}{224!}\widehat{F}_{MPQRS}\widehat{F}_N{}_{}{}^{PQRS},$$
(3.4)
which in turn leads to a dS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times H^5`$ Freund-Rubin vacuum. This simply corresponds to an interchange of positive and negative curvatures between spacetime and internal space (as is evident from the extra sign in the above Einstein equation). It should now be evident how the appropriate IIB reduction ansatz may be obtained by the analytic continuation of (LABEL:eq:ads5s5). To generate the wrong-sign kinetic term, we take $`F_{(5)}i\widehat{F}_{(5)}`$. However, since $`G_{(5)}=gUϵ_{(5)}+\mathrm{}`$, we avoid a resulting imaginary $`\widehat{G}_{(5)}`$ by simultaneously taking $`gi\widehat{g}`$. At this stage, we find

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}ds_5^2\widehat{g}^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}(T^1)^{ij}D\mu ^iD\mu ^j,`$
$`\widehat{G}_{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{g}Uϵ_{(5)}\widehat{g}^1((T^1)^{ij}\overline{}DT_{jk})(\mu ^kD\mu ^i){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\widehat{g}^2(T^1)^{ik}(T^1)^{jl}\overline{}F_{(2)}^{ij}D\mu ^kD\mu ^l.`$
Here, we implicitly assume that both $`U`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ remain real quantities throughout the analytic continuation. This intermediate result for the metric and 5-form is unsatisfactory in that the internal five-dimensional space has the wrong signature and that $`\widehat{G}_{(5)}`$ is still complex because of the factor of $`i`$ in the last term. Both issues may be solved by the analytic continuation

$`\mu ^ii\widehat{\mu }^i,\mu ^6\widehat{\mu }^6,`$
$`A_{(1)}^{ij}i\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{ij},A_{(1)}^{[i6]}\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{[i6]}(i,j=1,\mathrm{},5).`$ (3.6)
It is this step that changes the $`\mu ^i`$’s from parameterizing $`S^5`$ as $`SO(6)/SO(5)`$ to parameterizing $`H^5`$ as $`SO(5,1)/SO(5)`$. At the same time, the analytic continuation of the gauge fields leads to the non-compact gauge group $`SO(5,1)`$.

In order for $`U`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to be real, we finally continue appropriate entries in the $`T_{ij}`$ matrix, namely

$$T_{ij}\widehat{T}_{ij},T_{(i6)}i\widehat{T}_{(i6)},T_{66}\widehat{T}_{66}(i,j=1,\mathrm{},5),$$
(3.7)
with corresponding inverse

$`(T^1)^{ij}(\widehat{T}^1)^{ij},(T^1)^{(i6)}i(\widehat{T}^1)^{(i6)},(T^1)^{66}(\widehat{T}^1)^{66}`$
$`(i,j=1,\mathrm{},5).`$ (3.8)
Note that $`\widehat{T}`$ has a single negative eigenvalue, and $`det\widehat{T}=1`$. We reiterate that this negative eigenvalue results in both correct and wrong-sign gauge kinetic energy terms showing up, depending on the non-compact versus compact nature of the corresponding generator. The resulting reduction ansatz for IIB theory on dS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times H^5`$ is most conveniently given in terms of the $`SO(5,1)`$ metric $`\eta _{ij}=\mathrm{diag}(+,+,+,+,+,)`$. We find

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}ds_5^2+\widehat{g}^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}\eta _{ij}(\widehat{T}^1)^{jk}\eta _{kl}D\widehat{\mu }^iD\widehat{\mu }^l,`$
$`\widehat{F}_{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{G}_{(5)}+\widehat{G}_{(5)},`$
$`\widehat{G}_{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{g}Uϵ_{(5)}+\widehat{g}^1(\eta _{ij}(\widehat{T}^1)^{jk}\overline{}D\widehat{T}_{kl})(\widehat{\mu }^lD\widehat{\mu }^i)`$ (3.9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{g}^2\eta _{ij}(\widehat{T}^1)^{jk}\eta _{kl}\eta _{mn}(\widehat{T}^1)^{np}\eta _{pq}\overline{}\widehat{F}_{(2)}^{im}(D\widehat{\mu }^lD\widehat{\mu }^q),`$
where

$$U=2\widehat{T}_{ij}\eta ^{jk}\widehat{T}_{kl}\widehat{\mu }^i\widehat{\mu }^l\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^{ij}\widehat{T}_{ij},\mathrm{\Delta }=\widehat{T}_{ij}\widehat{\mu }^i\widehat{\mu }^j,\eta _{ij}\widehat{\mu }^i\widehat{\mu }^j=1,$$
(3.10)
and the gauge covariant derivatives are given by

$`\widehat{F}_{(2)}^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`d\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{ij}+\widehat{g}\eta _{kl}\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{ik}\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{lj},`$
$`D\widehat{T}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`d\widehat{T}_{ij}+\widehat{g}\eta _{ik}\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{kl}\widehat{T}_{lj}+\widehat{g}\eta _{jk}\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{kl}\widehat{T}_{il},`$
$`D\widehat{\mu }^i`$ $`=`$ $`d\widehat{\mu }^i+\widehat{g}\eta _{jk}\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{ij}\widehat{\mu }^k.`$ (3.11)
Although the structure of the non-compact gauging is perhaps obvious in this reduction, to avoid confusion we will always retain explicit factors of the $`SO(5,1)`$ metric $`\eta _{ij}`$.

Since this reduction of IIB supergravity on dS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times H^5`$ was obtained by appropriate continuation of the ansatz given in , it follows that the resulting five-dimensional Lagrangian may similarly be obtained through analytic continuation. The resulting Lagrangian has the form

$`_5`$ $`=`$ $`R\overline{}1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\widehat{T}^1)^{ij}\overline{}D\widehat{T}_{jk}(\widehat{T}^1)^{kl}D\widehat{T}_{li}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\eta _{ij}(\widehat{T}^1)^{jk}\eta _{kl}\eta _{mn}(\widehat{T}^1)^{np}\eta _{pq}\overline{}\widehat{F}_{(2)}^{im}\widehat{F}_{(2)}^{lq}`$ (3.12)
$`V\overline{}1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}ϵ_{i_1i_2i_3i_4i_5i_6}(\widehat{F}_{(2)}^{i_1i_2}\widehat{F}_{(2)}^{i_3i_4}\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{i_5i_6}\widehat{g}\widehat{F}_{(2)}^{i_1i_2}\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{i_3i_4}\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{i_5j}\eta _{jk}\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{ki_6}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}\widehat{g}^2\widehat{A}^{i_1i_2}\widehat{A}^{i_3j}\eta _{jk}\widehat{A}^{ki_4}\widehat{A}^{i_5l}\eta _{lm}\widehat{A}^{mi_6}).`$
This corresponds to a truncation of maximally symmetric $`SO(5,1)`$ gauged de Sitter supergravity. Note that the kinetic terms for the gauge fields in the compact subgroup $`SO(5)SO(5,1)`$ have the wrong sign, as expected in the $``$ theory. In addition, the potential

$$V=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{g}^2(2\widehat{T}_{ij}\eta ^{jk}\widehat{T}_{kl}\eta ^{li}(\eta ^{ij}\widehat{T}_{ij})^2),$$
(3.13)
has opposite sign from the sphere case, and yields a maximally symmetric dS5 vacuum, invariant under the de Sitter supergroup $`SU^{}(4|4)`$. Note that this is the opposite sign of the $`SO(6)`$ but not the $`SO(5,1)`$ potential of  since in the present case $`T_{ij}\eta ^{jk}`$ has all positive eigenvalues.

### 3.1 Truncation to $`D=5`$, $`N=2`$ de Sitter supergravity

The maximal $`N=8`$ $`SO(6)`$ gauged anti-de Sitter supergravity has a natural $`U(1)^3`$ truncation to $`N=2`$ gauged supergravity coupled to two vector multiplets. The bosonic fields of this truncation comprise the metric, two scalars and three gauge fields. The three gauge fields are naturally taken to be the mutually commuting subset $`A^{12}`$, $`A^{34}`$ and $`A^{56}`$ of the full $`SO(6)`$ gauge fields. At the same time, the two scalars originate from the parametrization of $`T_{ij}`$ as $`T=\mathrm{diag}(X_1,X_1,X_2,X_2,X_3,X_3)`$, with the constraint $`X_1X_2X_3=1`$.

Turning to the de Sitter supergravity, on the other hand, the maximal compact subgroup $`SO(5)SO(5,1)`$ does not admit a $`U(1)^3`$ truncation. Nevertheless, we may perform an analogous truncation to two compact and one non-compact $`U(1)`$ gauge fields. To do so, we let

$$A^1=\widehat{A}^{12},A^2=\widehat{A}^{34},A^3=\widehat{A}^{56},$$
(3.14)
where $`A^3`$ is the non-compact gauge field. In addition, the scalars may be given by $`\widehat{T}=\mathrm{diag}(X_1,X_1,X_2,X_2,X_3,X_3)`$, with $`X_1X_2X_3=1`$.

Since the choice of $`U(1)^3`$ truncation corresponds to taking mutually commuting rotation (boost) planes along the 1-2, 3-4 and 5-6 directions, it is natural to parametrize the hyperboloid $`H^5`$ by taking

$$\widehat{\mu }=\{\mu _1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1,\mu _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1,\mu _2\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2,\mu _2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2,\mu _3\mathrm{sinh}\varphi _3,\mu _3\mathrm{cosh}\varphi _3\}.$$
(3.15)
In this case, the constraint $`\eta _{ij}\widehat{\mu }^i\widehat{\mu }^j=1`$ turns into $`\mu _1^2+\mu _2^2\mu _3^2=1`$, and the reduction ansatz (3.9) becomes

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}ds_5^2+\widehat{g}^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}X_i^1(\eta _id\mu _i^2+\mu _i^2(d\varphi _i+\widehat{g}A^i)^2),`$
$`\widehat{F}_{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{G}_{(5)}+\widehat{G}_{(5)},`$
$`\widehat{G}_{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\widehat{g}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(\eta _iX_i^2\mu _i^2+\mathrm{\Delta }X_i)ϵ_{(5)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{g}^1{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\eta _iX_i^1\overline{}dX_id(\mu _i^2)`$ (3.16)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{g}^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\eta _iX_i^2d(\mu _i^2)(d\varphi _i\widehat{g}A^i)\overline{}F^i,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=_{i=1}^3\eta _iX_i\mu _i^2`$ and $`\eta _i=(+1,+1,1)`$, signifying the non-compact nature of $`H^5`$. Inserting the above $`U(1)^3`$ truncation into (3.12), we obtain the Lagrangian describing the bosonic sector of the $`N=2`$ theory:

$$e^1_5=R\overline{}1\frac{1}{2}\overline{}d\phi _1d\phi _1\frac{1}{2}\overline{}d\phi _2d\phi _2V\overline{}1+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\eta _iX_i^2\overline{}F^iF^iF^1F^2A^3.$$
(3.17)
Here we have chosen to parametrize the scalars in terms of two dilatons $`\stackrel{}{\phi }=\{\phi _1,\phi _2\}`$ according to

$$X_i=e^{\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{\phi }},\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{a}_j=4\delta _{ij}\frac{4}{3}.$$
(3.18)
Note that the first two compact gauge fields in (3.17) have wrong sign kinetic terms, while the non-compact gauge field, which would ordinarily have come in with the wrong sign, now enters with the proper one. The potential is positive definite, and has the form $`V=4\widehat{g}^2_iX_i^1`$. While we have started with a truncation of the $`D=5`$, $`N=8`$ theory, the $`N=2`$ content is complete. Thus from an $`N=2`$ perspective, we have obtained a consistent reduction of IIB theory (followed by truncation) to $`N=2`$ de Sitter supergravity in five dimensions coupled to two vector multiplets, at least in the bosonic sector.

We may further truncate the bosonic Lagrangian (3.17) by setting $`F^1=F^2=F/\sqrt{2}`$ along with $`X_1=X_2=X_3^{1/2}=e^{\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\phi }`$. The resulting Lagrangian is that of $`N=2`$ de Sitter supergravity coupled to a single vector multiplet

$$e^1_5=R\overline{}1\frac{1}{2}\overline{}d\phi d\phi 4\widehat{g}^2(2e^{\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\phi }+e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}\phi })\overline{}1+\frac{1}{2}e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}\phi }\overline{}FF\frac{1}{2}e^{\frac{4}{\sqrt{6}}\phi }\overline{}\frac{1}{2}FF𝒜.$$
(3.19)
Here $`𝒜=A^3`$ denotes the non-compact gauge field.

The anti-de Sitter supergravity, where both $`F`$ and $``$ have proper kinetic terms, admits one further truncation to eliminate the remaining vector multiplet by setting $`\phi =0`$ and $`A=\sqrt{2}𝒜`$. However, in this case, a consistent truncation to $`\phi =0`$ involves satisfying the condition $`\overline{}FF+\overline{}=0`$, which arises from the $`\phi `$ equation of motion. Since this condition cannot be met for real gauge fields, we are unable to reduce the de Sitter theory of (3.19) any further.

It should be noted, of course, that were one to simply analytically continue from the truncated $`N=2`$ anti-de Sitter supergravity Lagrangian to obtain the pure supergravity truncation of (3.17), one would have to set $`iF^1=iF^2=F^3=F/\sqrt{3}`$ in order to obtain

$$e^1_5=R\overline{}112\widehat{g}^2\overline{}1\frac{1}{2}\overline{}FF+\frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}}FFA.$$
(3.20)
While this appears to yield a desirable theory with proper sign kinetic term and positive cosmological constant, we emphasize that this cannot be viewed as a reduction of IIB nor of IIB theory, since this would necessarily involve imaginary (or in general complex) bosonic fields.

## 4 Reductions of $`M^{}`$-theory

In the previous section we have examined the $`H^5`$ reduction of IIB supergravity, which gives rise to a de Sitter supergravity in five dimensions. Of course, similar techniques may be applied for the reduction of $`M^{}`$ theory. In particular, we now turn to the dS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times `$AdS7 reduction of $`M_{(9,2)}^{}`$ theory. Since this theory has two time directions, an interesting feature arises in that we have the freedom of regarding either dS4 or AdS7 as the spacetime, with the other factor considered as an internal space. We now examine both possibilities in detail.

### 4.1 The AdS7 reduction of M theory

By taking AdS7 as a compactification space, the resulting reduction will yield a four-dimensional de Sitter supergravity theory with non-compact gauge symmetry $`SO(6,2)`$. As before, we begin with the truncated $`S^7`$ reduction ansatz of $`M`$-theory, given by

$`ds_{11}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{2/3}ds_4^2+g^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/3}T_{ij}^1D\mu ^iD\mu ^j,`$ (4.1)
$`F_{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`gUϵ_{(4)}+g^1((T^1)^{ij}\overline{}DT_{jk})(\mu ^kD\mu ^i){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^2(T^1)^{ik}(T^1)^{jl}\overline{}F_{(2)}^{ij}D\mu ^kD\mu ^l,`$
where

$$U=2T_{ij}T_{jk}\mu ^i\mu ^k\mathrm{\Delta }T_{ii},\mathrm{\Delta }=T_{ij}\mu ^i\mu ^j,$$
(4.3)
and $`\delta _{ij}\mu ^i\mu ^j=1`$ (with $`i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},8`$) so that the $`\mu ^i`$ coordinates parametrize a seven-sphere. This ansatz retains the full set of $`SO(8)`$ Yang-Mills fields, $`A_{(1)}^{[ij]}`$, which satisfy the standard relations given by (3.3). In addition, there are 35 scalars represented by the symmetric unimodular matrix $`T_{ij}`$, and which are described by the coset $`SL(8,R)/SO(8)`$. Note that the 35 pseudo-scalars of $`D=4`$, $`N=8`$ have been truncated away, and as a result this is technically not a consistent truncation. Nevertheless, this ansatz may be used to lift a large class of four-dimensional solutions without axions.

The M$`{}_{(9,2)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ supergravity may be formally obtained from M-theory by analytically continuing the four-form, $`F_{(4)}i\widehat{F}_{(4)}`$, while simultaneously performing a Wick rotation on one of the spatial coordinates (so as to yield a theory with two times). For the Freund-Rubin ansatz leading to AdS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times S^7`$, it is clear that the Wick rotation should be performed on one of the seven sphere coordinates, thus yielding AdS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times `$dS7. The analytic continuation on $`F_{(4)}`$ then finally gives the dS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times `$AdS7 solution of M$`{}_{(9,2)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$. As a result, this leads us to make the continuation $`gi\widehat{g}`$ along with a reparametrization of the sphere coordinates

$$\mu ^ii\widehat{\mu }^i,\mu ^m\widehat{\mu }^m(i=1,\mathrm{},6,m=7,8).$$
(4.4)
The resulting $`\widehat{\mu }`$’s now parametrize AdS7 in terms of an $`SO(6,2)/SO(6,1)`$ coset.

In addition, we must analytically continue the gauge fields

$$A_{(1)}^{ij}i\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{ij},A_{(1)}^{[im]}\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{[im]},A_{(1)}^{[mn]}i\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{[mn]}(i,j=1,\mathrm{},6,m,n=7,8),$$
(4.5)
as well as the scalar matrix

$$T_{ij}\widehat{T}_{ij},T_{(im)}i\widehat{T}_{(im)},T_{mn}\widehat{T}_{mn}(i,j=1,\mathrm{},6,m,n=7,8).$$
(4.6)
The analytic continuation of the gauge fields leads to a non-compact gauge group $`SO(6,2)`$. As a result, the reduction ansatz for M$`{}_{(9,2)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ theory on dS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times AdS_7`$ is given by

$`ds_{11}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{2/3}ds_4^2+\widehat{g}^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/3}\eta _{ij}(\widehat{T}^1)^{jk}\eta _{kl}D\widehat{\mu }^iD\widehat{\mu }^l,`$
$`\widehat{F}_{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{g}Uϵ_{(4)}+\widehat{g}^1(\eta _{ij}(\widehat{T}^1)^{jk}\overline{}D\widehat{T}_{kl})(\widehat{\mu }^lD\widehat{\mu }^i)`$ (4.7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{g}^2\eta _{ij}(\widehat{T}^1)^{jk}\eta _{kl}\eta _{mn}(\widehat{T}^1)^{np}\eta _{pq}\overline{}\widehat{F}_{(2)}^{im}(D\widehat{\mu }^lD\widehat{\mu }^q),`$
where

$$U=2\widehat{T}_{ij}\eta ^{jk}\widehat{T}_{kl}\widehat{\mu }^i\widehat{\mu }^l\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^{ij}\widehat{T}_{ij},\mathrm{\Delta }=\widehat{T}_{ij}\widehat{\mu }^i\widehat{\mu }^j,\eta _{ij}\widehat{\mu }^i\widehat{\mu }^j=1.$$
(4.8)
Here, $`\eta _{ij}=\mathrm{diag}(+,+,+,+,+,+,,)`$ is the $`SO(6,2)`$ invariant metric. The $`SO(6,2)`$ covariant derivatives may be written in a straightforward manner using $`\eta _{ij}`$ when appropriate, and have the same structure as those of (3.11).

The resulting four-dimensional Lagrangian has the form

$`_4`$ $`=`$ $`R\overline{}1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\widehat{T}^1)^{ij}\overline{}D\widehat{T}_{jk}(\widehat{T}^1)^{kl}D\widehat{T}_{li}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\eta _{ij}(\widehat{T}^1)^{jk}\eta _{kl}\eta _{mn}(\widehat{T}^1)^{np}\eta _{pq}\overline{}\widehat{F}_{(2)}^{im}\widehat{F}_{(2)}^{lq}`$ (4.9)
$`V\overline{}1,`$
and corresponds to a truncation (without pseudoscalars) of the bosonic sector of $`N=8`$, $`SO(6,2)`$ gauged de Sitter supergravity. The potential is given by

$$V=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{g}^2(2\widehat{T}_{ij}\eta ^{jk}\widehat{T}_{kl}\eta ^{li}(\eta ^{ij}\widehat{T}_{ij})^2),$$
(4.10)
and yields a maximally symmetric dS4 vacuum. In addition, the gauge fields in the compact subgroup $`SO(6)\times SO(2)SO(6,2)`$ have wrong sign kinetic terms.

### 4.2 Truncation to $`D=4`$, $`N=2`$ de Sitter supergravity

Although the $`N=8`$ de Sitter supergravity has a non-compact $`SO(6,2)`$ gauge group, it nevertheless admits a natural $`U(1)^4SO(6)\times SO(2)SO(6,2)`$ truncation to $`N=2`$ de Sitter supergravity coupled to three vector multiplets. The four gauge fields are naturally taken as

$$A^1=\widehat{A}^{12},A^2=\widehat{A}^{34},A^3=\widehat{A}^{56},A^4=\widehat{A}^{78},$$
(4.11)
where we follow the notation of the previous section that $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},6`$ are $`SO(6)`$ indices, while $`m,n=7,8`$ are $`SO(2)`$ indices. This choice of parametrization also suggests that we take

$$\widehat{\mu }=\{\mu _a\mathrm{sin}\varphi _a,\mu _a\mathrm{cos}\varphi _a\},a=1,\mathrm{},4.$$
(4.12)
Note that $`\varphi _4`$ has the conventional interpretation as a periodic AdS7 time coordinate. Thus $`A^4`$, the $`SO(2)`$ gauge field, is necessarily connected to gauging the isometry related to the second time direction of the $`M_{(9,2)}^{}`$ theory.

Corresponding to this choice of truncation, we take the surviving scalars to be given by $`\widehat{T}=\mathrm{diag}(X_1,X_1,X_2,X_2,X_3,X_3,X_4,X_4)`$, where $`X_1X_2X_3X_4=1`$. The background AdS7 geometry is determined by the constraint $`\eta _{ij}\widehat{\mu }^i\widehat{\mu }^j=1`$, or equivalently $`\mu _1^2+\mu _2^2+\mu _3^2\mu _4^2=1`$. The truncation of (4.7) is then

$`ds_{11}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{2/3}ds_4^2+\widehat{g}^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/3}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}X_i^1\eta _i(d\mu _i^2+\mu _i^2(d\varphi _i+\widehat{g}A^i)^2),`$
$`\widehat{F}_{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\widehat{g}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(\eta _iX_i^2\mu _i^2+\mathrm{\Delta }X_i)ϵ_{(4)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{g}^1{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\eta _iX_i^1\overline{}dX_id(\mu _i^2)`$ (4.13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{g}^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\eta _iX_i^2d(\mu _i^2)(d\varphi _i\widehat{g}A^i)\overline{}F^i,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=_{i=1}^4\eta _iX_i\mu _i^2`$ and $`\eta _i=(+1,+1,+1,1)`$. The resulting theory may be described by the Lagrangian

$$e^1_4=R\overline{}1\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{3}{}}\overline{}d\phi _\alpha d\phi _\alpha +\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}X_i^2\overline{}F^iF^iV\overline{}1,$$
(4.14)
where

$$V=4\widehat{g}^2\underset{i<j}{}X_iX_j=8\widehat{g}^2\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{3}{}}\mathrm{cosh}\phi _\alpha $$
(4.15)
is positive definite. Here the $`X_i`$ scalars are parametrized in terms of three dilatons $`\stackrel{}{\phi }=\{\phi _1,\phi _2,\phi _3\}`$ according to

$$X_i=e^{\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{\phi }},\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{a}_j=4\delta _{ij}1.$$
(4.16)
This Lagrangian is simply the $`U(1)^4`$ truncation of (4.9). Unlike the $`D=5`$, $`N=2`$ de Sitter theory of (3.19), here all four $`U(1)`$ fields are compact (and all have wrong sign kinetic terms). Note furthermore that, as already mentioned previously, (4.14) cannot be viewed as a consistent $`N=2`$ reduction of $`M_{(9,2)}^{}`$ theory, as it is missing three axionic scalars. Hence the vector multiples are incomplete. This truncation with only dilatonic scalars is similar to that considered in  for the truncated $`N=8`$ anti-de Sitter supergravity.

We may further truncate the bosonic Lagrangian (4.14) by setting $`F^1=F^2=F/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`F^3=F^4=/\sqrt{2}`$ along with $`X_1=X_2=X_3^1=X_4^1=e^{\frac{1}{2}\phi }`$. The resulting Lagrangian is that of $`N=2`$ de Sitter supergravity coupled to a single vector multiplet

$$e^1_4=R\overline{}1\frac{1}{2}\overline{}d\phi d\phi 8\widehat{g}^2(2+\mathrm{cosh}\phi )\overline{}1+\frac{1}{2}e^\phi \overline{}FF+\frac{1}{2}e^\phi \overline{}.$$
(4.17)
While this theory is still incomplete in that it lacks an axion, one further truncation to pure $`N=2`$ de Sitter supergravity is possible by equating the $`U(1)`$ fields and setting $`\phi =0`$. The pure supergravity Lagrangian is

$$e^1_4=R\overline{}124\widehat{g}^2\overline{}1+\frac{1}{2}\overline{}FF,$$
(4.18)
and concisely captures both features of * theory, namely a positive cosmological constant and wrong-sign kinetic term for the graviphoton.

### 4.3 The dS4 reduction of M theory

We now consider the second possibility for interpreting the dS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times `$AdS7 compactification of $`M_{(9,2)}^{}`$ theory, namely where we view the resulting theory as a seven dimensional anti-de Sitter supergravity with $`SO(4,1)`$ gauging. This case is especially interesting in that the complete consistent Kaluza-Klein reduction of ordinary eleven-dimensional supergravity to seven dimensions is known from the work of . Thus, unlike in the cases considered above, there is no need to truncate.

To obtain the dS4 reduction of $`M_{(9,2)}^{}`$ theory, we analytically continue and Wick rotate the ansatz obtained in , which is given by

$`ds_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/3}ds_7^2+g^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{2/3}T_{ij}^1D\mu ^iD\mu ^j,`$
$`_{11}F_{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`gUϵ_{(7)}g^1(T_{ij}^1\overline{}DT_{jk})(\mu ^kD\mu ^i)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^2T_{ik}^1T_{jl}^1\overline{}F_{(2)}^{ij}D\mu ^kD\mu ^l`$
$`+g^4\mathrm{\Delta }^1T_{ij}S_{(3)}^i\mu ^jW{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}g^3\mathrm{\Delta }^1ϵ_{ijl_1l_2l_3}\overline{}S_{(3)}^mT_{im}T_{jk}\mu ^kD\mu ^{l_1}D\mu ^{l_2}D\mu ^{l_3},`$
where

$`U=2T_{ij}T_{jk}\mu ^i\mu ^k\mathrm{\Delta }T_{ii},\mathrm{\Delta }=T_{ij}\mu ^i\mu ^j,`$
$`W=\frac{1}{4!}ϵ_{i_1i_2i_3i_4i_5}\mu ^{i_1}D\mu ^{i_2}D\mu ^{i_3}D\mu ^{i_4}D\mu ^{i_5}.`$ (4.20)
The full reduction gives rise to $`N=4`$ gauged $`SO(5)`$ supergravity in seven dimensions. The bosonic fields consist of 14 scalars given by the symmetric unimodular $`T_{ij}`$ which describe the coset $`SL(5,R)/SO(5)`$, the $`SO(5)`$ gauge fields $`A_{(1)}^{[ij]}`$, and 5 three-form potentials $`S_{(3)}^i`$ transforming in the fundamental of $`SO(5)`$. Note that the reduction is given on the dual of the eleven-dimensional four-form, $`_{11}F_{(4)}`$, with $`ϵ_{(7)}`$ corresponding to the volume 7-form in spacetime. In addition, the coordinates $`\mu ^i`$, subject to the constraint $`\delta _{ij}\mu ^i\mu ^j=1`$, parameterize the unit four-sphere.

The analytic continuation to * theory is different from the previous cases, since here this is no need to take $`gi\widehat{g}`$. This is because the simultaneous continuation $`F_{(4)}i\widehat{F}_{(4)}`$ along with Wick rotation of one of the $`S^4`$ coordinates leaves the present four-form ansatz unchanged. To see this, consider the pure AdS$`{}_{7}{}^{}\times S^4`$ solution, given essentially by $`F_{(4)}=gdx^7dx^8dx^9dx^{10}`$. While $`F_{(4)}`$ picks up an $`i`$, so does, say, $`dx^{10}`$. The only important modification is then to replace the $`S^4`$ coset structure $`SO(5)/SO(4)`$ by the dS4 coset $`SO(4,1)/SO(3,1)`$ by analytic continuation on the $`\mu _i`$’s. The combined transformation, including that of 1-form and 3-form potentials is given by

$`\mu ^i\widehat{\mu }^i,\mu ^5i\widehat{\mu }^5,`$
$`S_{(3)}^i\widehat{S}_{(3)}^i,S_{(3)}^5i\widehat{S}_{(3)}^5,A_{(1)}^{[ij]}\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{[ij]},A_{(1)}^{[i5]}i\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{[i5]}(i,j=1,\mathrm{},4).`$ (4.21)
In order for $`U`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to be real, we also continue appropriate entries in the $`T_{ij}`$ matrix, namely

$$T_{ij}\widehat{T}_{ij},T_{(i5)}i\widehat{T}_{(i5)},T_{55}\widehat{T}_{55}(i,j=1,\mathrm{},4).$$
(4.22)
The resulting reduction ansatz for $`M_{(9,2)}^{}`$ theory on dS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times `$AdS7 may be given in terms of the $`SO(4,1)`$ metric $`\eta _{ij}=\mathrm{diag}(+,+,+,+,)`$. We find

$`ds_{11}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/3}ds_7^2+g^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{2/3}\eta _{ij}(\widehat{T}^1)^{jk}\eta _{kl}D\widehat{\mu }^iD\widehat{\mu }^l,`$
$`_{11}\widehat{F}_{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`gUϵ_{(7)}g^1(\eta _{ij}(\widehat{T}^1)^{jk}\overline{}D\widehat{T}_{kl})(\widehat{\mu }^lD\widehat{\mu }^i)`$ (4.23)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^2\eta _{ij}(\widehat{T}^1)^{jk}\eta _{kl}\eta _{mn}(\widehat{T}^1)^{np}\eta _{pq}\overline{}\widehat{F}_{(2)}^{im}D\widehat{\mu }^lD\widehat{\mu }^q`$
$`+g^4\mathrm{\Delta }^1\widehat{T}_{ij}\widehat{S}_{(3)}^i\widehat{\mu }^j\widehat{W}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}g^3\mathrm{\Delta }^1\widehat{ϵ}_{ijl_1l_2l_3}\eta ^{in}\eta ^{jp}\overline{}\widehat{S}_{(3)}^m\widehat{T}_{nm}\widehat{T}_{pk}\mu ^k\widehat{D}\mu ^{l_1}\widehat{D}\mu ^{l_2}\widehat{D}\mu ^{l_3},`$
where

$`U=2\widehat{T}_{ij}\eta ^{jk}\widehat{T}_{kl}\widehat{\mu }^i\widehat{\mu }^l\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^{ij}\widehat{T}_{ij},\mathrm{\Delta }=\widehat{T}_{ij}\widehat{\mu }^i\widehat{\mu }^j,\eta _{ij}\widehat{\mu }^i\widehat{\mu }^j=1,`$
$`\widehat{W}=\frac{1}{4!}\widehat{ϵ}_{i_1i_2i_3i_4i_5}\widehat{\mu }^{i_1}\widehat{D}\mu ^{i_2}\widehat{D}\mu ^{i_3}\widehat{D}\mu ^{i_4}\widehat{D}\mu ^{i_5}.`$ (4.24)
Note that $`\widehat{ϵ}_{ijklm}`$ is the $`SO(4,1)`$ invariant antisymmetric tensor.

The resulting Lagrangian has the form

$`_7`$ $`=`$ $`R\overline{}1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\widehat{T}^1)^{ij}\overline{}D\widehat{T}_{jk}(\widehat{T}^1)^{kl}D\widehat{T}_{li}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\eta _{ij}(\widehat{T}^1)^{jk}\eta _{kl}\eta _{mn}(\widehat{T}^1)^{np}\eta _{pq}\overline{}\widehat{F}_{(2)}^{im}\widehat{F}_{(2)}^{lq}`$ (4.25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{T}_{ij}\overline{}\widehat{S}_{(3)}^i\widehat{S}_{(3)}^j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g}}\eta _{ij}\widehat{S}_{(3)}^i\widehat{H}_{(4)}^j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\widehat{ϵ}_{ij_1j_2j_3j_4}\widehat{S}_{(3)}^i\widehat{F}_{(2)}^{j_1j_2}\widehat{F}_{(2)}^{j_3j_4}V\overline{}1`$
$`+\text{(Chern-Simons)},`$
where

$$\widehat{H}_{(4)}^i=d\widehat{S}_{(3)}^i+g\widehat{A}^{ik}\eta _{kj}\widehat{S}_{(3)}^j.$$
(4.26)
This resulting theory is simply an unusual non-compact gauging of maximal $`D=7`$ supergravity. In particular, both the $`SO(4,1)`$ gauge fields and the potential

$$V=\frac{1}{2}g^2(2\widehat{T}_{ij}\eta ^{jk}\widehat{T}_{kl}\eta ^{li}(\eta ^{ij}\widehat{T}_{ij})^2),$$
(4.27)
have their usual signs, despite the $`M_{(9,2)}^{}`$ origin of this theory.

### 4.4 Truncation of the $`D=7`$ theory

The $`D=7`$, $`N=4`$ theory constructed above admits a truncation to $`N=2`$ supergravity coupled to an $`N=2`$ vector. The fields in the supergravity multiplet consist of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, three gauge bosons in the adjoint of $`SU(2)_+SO(4)SO(4,1)`$, namely $`\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{\overline{ij}}+\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\overline{ijkl}}\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{\overline{kl}}`$, a single three-form potential $`\widehat{S}_{(3)}^5`$, and a dilaton scalar $`\phi `$. In addition, the vector multiplet consists of a single $`U(1)`$ gauge potential contained in $`SO(2)_{}`$ and three axionic scalars. In principle, it is straightforward to consistently truncate the above reduction to yield the $`N=2`$ theory. However, the presence of the non-abelian graviphotons and the axionic scalars results in some complication. We choose here not to pursue this truncation, but instead focus on a two $`U(1)`$ truncation with $`U(1)^2SO(4,1)`$, while simultaneously retaining two dilatonic scalars . While this is not a consistent truncation, it may still be used to lift solutions to eleven dimensions.

To obtain this $`U(1)^2`$ truncation of the full theory, we parametrize the internal $`dS_4`$ by $`(\mu _1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1,\mu _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1,\mu _2\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2,\mu _2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2,\mu _0)`$. Only two gauge fields, $`A^1=\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{12}`$ and $`A^2=\widehat{A}_{(1)}^{34}`$, are kept as well as $`\widehat{T}=\mathrm{diag}(X^1,X^1,X^2,X^2,X^0)`$. The rest of the fields are truncated. The reduction ansatz, (4.23), then becomes

$`ds_{11}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/3}ds_7^2+g^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{2/3}(X_0^1d\mu _0^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}X_i^1(d\mu _i^2+\mu _i^2(d\varphi _i+gA^i)^2),`$
$`_{11}\widehat{F}_{(4)}=2g{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}(X_i^2\mu _i^2\mathrm{\Delta }X_i)ϵ_{(7)}g(2X_0^2\mu _0^2\mathrm{\Delta }X_0)ϵ_{(7)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^1{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}X_i^1\overline{}dX_id(\mu _i^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^1X_0^1\overline{}dX_0d(\mu _0^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{g}^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\eta _iX_i^2d(\mu _i^2)(d\varphi _i\widehat{g}A^i)\overline{}F^i,`$ (4.28)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=X_0\mu _0^2+_{i=1}^2X_i\mu _i^2`$. Inserting the above $`U(1)^2`$ truncation into (4.25), we obtain the bosonic Lagrangian

$$e^1_7=R\overline{}1\frac{1}{2}\overline{}d\phi _1d\phi _1\frac{1}{2}\overline{}d\phi _2d\phi _2\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}X_i^2\overline{}F^iF^iV\overline{}1.$$
(4.29)
Here we have chosen to parametrize the scalars in terms of two dilatons $`\stackrel{}{\phi }=\{\phi _1,\phi _2\}`$ according to

$$X_i=e^{\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{\phi }},\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{a}_j=4\delta _{ij}\frac{8}{5},X_0=(X_1X_2)^2(i,j=1,2).$$
(4.30)
The potential is given by

$$V=g^2(4X_1X_2+2X_0X_1+2X_0X_2\frac{1}{2}X_0^2).$$
(4.31)
corresponding to the AdS7 vacuum. Further truncation is possible by setting $`\phi _1=0`$ and $`F^1=F^2=F/\sqrt{2}`$. In this case, the resulting Lagrangian becomes

$$e^1_7=R\overline{}1\frac{1}{2}\overline{}\phi \phi \frac{1}{2}X^2\overline{}FF+g^2(4X^2+4X^3\frac{1}{2}X^8)\overline{}1.$$
(4.32)
Note that both truncations (4.29) and (4.32) have gauge fields contained in the maximally compact subgroup $`SO(4)SO(4,1)`$. As a result, they both have proper kinetic energy terms and a standard potential admitting the AdS vacuum. So, after appropriate truncation, we have in fact obtained a unitary theory (indistinguishable from the corresponding truncation of ordinary $`N=4`$ gauged supergravity in seven dimensions) from a non-unitary one. Nevertheless, this fact is perhaps of limited usefulness, as the model before truncation inherits the usual drawbacks of the underlying field theory description of * theory.

## 5 Lifting de Sitter black hole solutions

It is an interesting observation that, even in the absence of obvious supersymmetry, multi-centered de Sitter black hole solutions are known to exist, and have been constructed in  in the context of Einstein-Maxwell theory with a positive cosmological constant. These solutions resemble traditional BPS objects in that they satisfy a set of first order equations  related to the analytic continuation of the Killing spinor equation in AdS gauged supergravity. In the $`d`$-dimensional Reissner-Nordstrom case (for $`d4`$), the solution may be written in terms of a cosmological metric

$$ds^2=H^2(t,\stackrel{}{x})dt^2+H^{2/(d3)}(t,\stackrel{}{x})a^2(t)d\stackrel{}{x}^2,$$
(5.1)
where the scale factor is given by $`a(t)=e^{\widehat{g}t}`$ and the harmonic function has the multi-center form

$$H(t,\stackrel{}{x})=1+\underset{i}{}\frac{q_i}{(a(t)|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_i|)^{d3}}.$$
(5.2)
It is apparent that while the background is time-dependent, this time dependence is rather trivial and is simply a reflection of the cosmological expansion in de Sitter space. For this reason, these black holes are natural candidates to lift to the higher dimensional * theory, where they may be interpreted as possible fundamental objects of the * theory.

It was demonstrated in  that this Reissner-Nordstrom black hole, (5.1), may be generalized to the analytically continued $`D=5`$, $`N=2`$ supergravity, and in particular the STU model corresponding to the anti-de Sitter version of (3.17). Further generalizations to Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton theories in arbitrary dimensions are also possible.

### 5.1 $`D=5`$ dS black holes

We first examine the five-dimensional case obtained by the hyperbolic reduction of IIB. The $`U(1)^3`$ truncated theory of (3.17) admits a three-charge black hole solution, given by

$`ds_5^2`$ $`=`$ $`(H_1H_2H_3)^{2/3}dt^2+(H_1H_2H_3)^{1/3}e^{2\widehat{g}t}d\stackrel{}{x}^2,`$
$`X_i`$ $`=`$ $`H_i^1(H_1H_2H_3)^{1/3},`$
$`A_{(1)}^{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H_{1,2}}}\right)dt,A_{(1)}^3=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H_3}}\right)dt,`$ (5.3)
where

$$H_i(t,\stackrel{}{x})=1+e^{2\widehat{g}t}\underset{j}{}\frac{q_i^j}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_j|^2}.$$
(5.4)
This solution was given implicitly in , at least up to analytic continuation to the present * theory vacuum. The continuation is chosen here so that the metric remains real at the expense of introducing imaginary background gauge fields444The de Sitter black hole solution is a real solution for positive cosmological constant and correct sign kinetic terms for the fields. Since the first two $`U(1)`$’s of (3.17) have the wrong sign, the corresponding gauge potentials become imaginary in (5.3).. In fact, the complexification of the solution compensates for the wrong sign kinetic terms in (3.17) in just such a way that the black hole solution has positive energy compared with the vacuum.

There is a potential difficulty associated with lifting the solution (5.3) to ten dimensions, in that the imaginary gauge fields $`A_{(1)}^1`$ and $`A_{(1)}^2`$ would lead to a complex ten dimensional metric (as well as $`F_4`$). To avoid this, we turn off the first two gauge fields, and lift the single charge ($`A_{(1)}^3`$) black hole to IIB theory. The resulting metric is

$$ds_{10}^2=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/2}(H^1dt^2+e^{2\widehat{g}t}d\stackrel{}{x}^2)+\widehat{g}^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/2}ds^2(\stackrel{~}{H}^5),$$
(5.5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}H^{2/3}\mathrm{\Delta }=1+(1H)\mathrm{sinh}^2\alpha `$ and

$$ds^2(\stackrel{~}{H}^5)=d\alpha ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\alpha d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+(1H)\mathrm{sinh}^2\alpha d\alpha ^2+H\mathrm{cosh}^2\alpha (d\psi \widehat{g}H^1(1H)dt)^2$$
(5.6)
is the metric on the distorted internal hyperbolic space. Note that we have chosen an explicit parametrization of the maximally symmetric $`H^5`$ as

$$ds^2(H^5)=d\alpha ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\alpha d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+\mathrm{cosh}^2\alpha d\psi ^2.$$
(5.7)
After applying a change of coordinates, $`\widehat{g}\tau =e^{\widehat{g}t}`$, and a rearrangement of terms, the lifted solution (5.5) may be written in the form

$$ds_{10}^2=\stackrel{~}{}_0^{1/2}d\stackrel{}{x}^2+\stackrel{~}{}_0^{1/2}[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}H^1d\tau ^2+\tau ^2ds^2(\stackrel{~}{H}^5)],$$
(5.8)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{}_0=\underset{\tau 0}{lim}\stackrel{~}{},\stackrel{~}{}=1+\frac{1}{\widehat{g}^4\tau ^4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}.$$
(5.9)
We have written $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ in this form in anticipation of the brane interpretation of this lifted solution.

In fact, we recall that the IIB theory admits an E4-brane solution of the form

$$ds_{10}^2=^{1/2}d\stackrel{}{x}^2+^{1/2}(dt^2+dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2),$$
(5.10)
where

$$=1+\frac{1}{\widehat{g}^4|t^2r^2|^2}.$$
(5.11)
This may be most readily compared to the lifted single charge black hole solution of (5.8) by taking the near brane limit $`tr`$ with $`t^2>r^2`$. In this case, we may make a change of variables, $`t=\tau \mathrm{cosh}\beta `$, $`r=\tau \mathrm{sinh}\beta `$, and drop the one in the harmonic function. The resulting dS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times H^5`$ metric has the form

$$ds_{10}^2=_0^{1/2}d\stackrel{}{x}^2+_0^{1/2}[d\tau ^2+\tau ^2(d\beta ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\beta d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2)],$$
(5.12)
where $`_0=1/\widehat{g}^4\tau ^4`$. It should now be apparent that (5.8) is a generalization of this solution to the case of non-zero R-charge in five dimensions. Recalling that the R-charged AdS black holes may be interpreted as rotating branes , we see here that a similar picture holds, albeit with time as a transverse as opposed to a longitudinal coordinate.

### 5.2 $`D=4`$ dS black holes

Turning now to four dimensions, we note that the $`U(1)^4`$ truncation, (4.14), admits a four charge dS black hole solution, given by

$`ds_4^2`$ $`=`$ $`(H_1H_2H_3H_4)^{1/2}dt^2+(H_1H_2H_3H_4)^{1/2}e^{2\widehat{g}t}d\stackrel{}{x}^2,`$
$`X_i`$ $`=`$ $`H_i^1(H_1H_2H_3H_4)^{1/4},`$
$`A_{(1)}^i`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H_i}}\right)dt,`$ (5.13)
where

$$H_i(t,\stackrel{}{x})=1+e^{\widehat{g}t}\underset{j}{}\frac{q_i^j}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_j|}.$$
(5.14)
Again we are faced with the difficulty of imaginary gauge potentials. However, unlike the five-dimensional case, all fields in the $`U(1)^4`$ truncation have the wrong sign. Hence there is no truncation (short of setting all the charges to zero) that makes the solution real. For this reason, any lifting of these black holes to the M theory would result in a complex metric, and hence it is unclear what the physical significance of these solutions is.

Nevertheless, we note that the analytic continuation of the Reissner-Nordstrom-de Sitter solution is obtained by setting all four charges equal in (5.13):

$`ds_4^2`$ $`=`$ $`H^2dt^2+H^2e^{2\widehat{g}t}d\stackrel{}{x}^2,`$
$`A_{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H}}\right)dt.`$ (5.15)
This may be viewed as a solution to the pure $`N=2`$ de Sitter supergravity of (4.18) where $`A_{(1)}`$ is taken as the graviphoton.

### 5.3 $`D=7`$ AdS black holes

Finally, we note that the $`U(1)^2`$ truncation of the seven-dimensional theory, (4.29), admits a two charge AdS black hole solution given by

$`ds_7^2`$ $`=`$ $`(H_1H_2)^{4/5}dt^2+(H_1H_2)^{1/5}e^{2igt}d\stackrel{}{x}^2,`$
$`X_i`$ $`=`$ $`H_i^1(H_1H_2)^{2/5},`$
$`A_{(1)}^{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H_{1,2}}}\right)dt,`$ (5.16)
where

$$H_i(t,\stackrel{}{x})=1+e^{4igt}\underset{j}{}\frac{q_i^j}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_j|^4}.$$
(5.17)
Although the gauge fields have correct sign kinetic terms, the negative cosmological constant formally results a complex metric, as noted in . The further truncated theory of (4.32) also admits a solution by setting all $`H_i=H`$ in (5.16):

$`ds_7^2`$ $`=`$ $`H^{8/5}dt^2+H^{2/5}e^{2igt}d\stackrel{}{x}^2,`$
$`X`$ $`=`$ $`H^{1/5},`$
$`A_{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H}}\right)dt.`$ (5.18)
## 6 Discussion

So far we have focused only on the reduction of the bosonic sector of * theories. Nevertheless, it should be possible to handle the fermions in a similar manner through analytic continuation. Unlike the conventional case, where analytic continuation from an anti-de Sitter to a de Sitter theory would complexify the fermions and destroy the matching between bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom , here the * theories have a twisted supersymmetry built in (at the expense of wrong sign kinetic terms). Thus the resulting fermion sectors should not have any doubling problem.

Although we do not examine the fermions in detail, the structure of the de Sitter supersymmetry transformations may be derived by an appropriate continuation of the anti-de Sitter supergravities. For example, it is well known that the $`S^5`$ compactification of IIB supergravity will lead to maximal $`SO(6)`$ gauged supergravity in five dimensions . In addition, the non-compact $`SO(p,6p)`$ gauged case has also been investigated in . Turning to the $`H^5`$ compactification of IIB supergravity, we have seen in section 3 that the appropriate analytic continuation requires sending $`g`$ to $`i\widehat{g}`$. This results in an unconventional de Sitter supersymmetry with noncompact SO(5,1) gauge group.

Recall that the $`D=5`$ ungauged maximal supergravity fields consists of one graviton, eight gravitini $`\psi _\mu ^a`$, 27 vector fields $`A_\mu ^{[ab]}`$, 48 spin-$`1/2`$ fields $`\lambda ^{abc}`$ and 42 scalars $`\phi ^{abcd}`$, where $`a,b,\mathrm{}`$ are $`USp(8)`$ indices. The complete scalars parametrize the noncompact coset space $`E_{6(6)}/USp(8)`$. However, for the truncation considered in section 3, we specialize to the subgroup $`SO(5,1)SL(6,R)\times SL(2,R)E_{6(6)}`$, with scalars parametrized by a 15-bein $`V_{AB}^{}{}_{}{}^{cd}`$. This 15-bein may be constructed by starting with a $`SL(6,R)`$ matrix $`S`$ and then taking

$`U^{IJ}_{KL}`$ $`=`$ $`2S_{[K}^{}{}_{}{}^{[I}S_{L]}^{}{}_{}{}^{J]},V^{IJab}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{KL})^{ab}U_{}^{IJ}{}_{KL}{}^{},`$
$`U_{I\alpha }^{J\beta }`$ $`=`$ $`S_I{}_{}{}^{J}\delta _{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta },V_{I\alpha }{}_{}{}^{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K\beta })^{ab}U_{I\alpha }{}_{}{}^{K\beta },`$ (6.1)
where the $`SO(5,1)`$ Dirac matrices satisfy $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_I,\mathrm{\Gamma }_J\}=2\eta _{IJ}`$ with $`\eta _{IJ}=\mathrm{diag}(+,+,+,+,+,)`$. In addition, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{I\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_I`$ ($`\alpha =1`$); $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{I\alpha }i\mathrm{\Gamma }_I\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ ($`\alpha =2`$) where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ anticommutes with the first six Dirac matrices. Here we are following the notations and conventions of .

The scalar kinetic terms $`P_\mu ^{abcd}`$ and the composite connection $`Q_{\mu a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}`$ are defined through

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_{cd}{}_{}{}^{AB}D_{\mu }^{}V_{AB}^{}{}_{}{}^{ab}=2Q_{\mu [c}^{}{}_{}{}^{[a}\delta _{d]}^{b]}+P_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{ab}{}_{cd}{}^{},$$
(6.2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{cd}^{AB}`$ is the inverse of $`V_{AB}^{cd}`$. In addition, the T-tensor is defined as

$`T_{}^{a}{}_{bcd}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(2V^{IKae}\stackrel{~}{V}_{beJK}V_{J\alpha }{}_{}{}^{ae}\stackrel{~}{V}_{be}^{}{}_{}{}^{I\alpha })\eta ^{JL}\stackrel{~}{V}_{cdIL},`$ (6.3)
$`T_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{}^{c}{}_{abc}{}^{}.`$ (6.4)
Note that, the matrix $`S`$ is related to $`\widehat{T}_{ij}`$ introduced in section 3 by

$$(\widehat{T}^1)^{ij}=S_I{}_{}{}^{i}S_{J}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}\eta _{}^{IJ}.$$
(6.5)
This simply corresponds to the unconventional * supersymmetry with scalars parameterizing $`SL(6,R)/SO(5,1)`$.

Besides introducing this noncompact gauging, we also analytically continue $`gi\widehat{g}`$ and $`F_{(2)}i\widehat{F}_{(2)}`$ in order to obtain the Lagrangian (3.12). Therefore the unconventional supersymmetry transformation rules for the gravitini and spin-$`1/2`$ fermions are

$`\delta \psi _{\mu a}`$ $`=`$ $`D_\mu ϵ_a{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{45}}\widehat{g}T_{ab}\gamma _\mu ϵ^b+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{6}}(\gamma _\mu {}_{}{}^{\nu \rho }4\delta _\mu ^\nu \gamma ^\rho )\widehat{F}_{\nu \rho ab}ϵ^b,`$
$`\delta \lambda _{abc}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\gamma ^\mu P_{\mu abcd}ϵ^d{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\widehat{g}T_{d[abc]}ϵ^d+{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{2\sqrt{2}}}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu [ab}ϵ_{c]},`$ (6.6)
where

$`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu IJ}V_{}^{IJ}{}_{ab}{}^{}=\frac{1}{4}\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }^{ij}\eta _{im}\eta _{jn}S_K{}_{}{}^{m}S_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{KL})_{}^{ab},`$
$`D_\mu ϵ_a`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu ϵ_a+Q_{\mu a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}ϵ_b.`$ (6.7)
One should be able to obtain these transformations by direct reduction of the IIB transformations, although we have not directly verified this.

The multi-centered dS black holes of the previous section are half-BPS solutions of this twisted supersymmetry. However it is not clear if this is sufficient to demonstrate their stability. Unlike for BPS objects in an ordinary supergravity theory, here the wrong-sign kinetic terms allows the possibility of excitations above the supersymmetric background that nevertheless have negative energy. On the other hand, the existence of multi-centered solutions is at least suggestive that there may be a hidden symmetry ensuring their stability.

Although the de Sitter supergravities which we have investigated involve wrong sign kinetic terms and are hence ill-behaved as field theories, such problems were already present in the underlying * theory. Thus we may expect that whatever stringy phenomenon cures the behavior of * theory would also stabilize the ensuing de Sitter supergravities. On the other hand, it is possible that the reduction on non-compact internal manifolds may yield inherently unstable lower dimensional theories. Of course, consistent truncations are possible in a standard AdS$`\times `$Sphere reduction, even when states are not well separated by e.g. charge or mass. Hence even if the full lower dimensional de Sitter theory would be unstable, it is possible that a stable truncation would exist. An example of this is given by the truncated seven-dimensional Lagrangians (4.29) and (4.32).

While presently we have only examined multi-centered de Sitter black holes, it would be of interest to investigate and lift other de Sitter backgrounds to the underlying IIB or M theory. In fact, such lifted solutions may additionally be T-dualized along the time direction so that they become conventional solutions in ten or eleven dimensions. For the case of the lifted $`D=5`$ de Sitter black holes, it may be seen that the T-dual of the rotating E4-brane solution, (5.8), would involve D4-branes as well as NSNS flux.

Finally, it remains an open issue whether multi-centered anti-de Sitter black holes may be constructed in ordinary gauged supergravities without resorting to complexification or analytic continuation. To do so, one would have to overcome the fact that in an ordinary supergravity, a background preserving some fraction of the supersymmetries necessarily admits a timelike or null Killing vector. This is in direct contradiction to the expectation that a multi-centered anti-de Sitter black hole configuration would be time dependent, due to the focusing effect of geodesics in anti-de Sitter space. On the other hand, there is no obstruction to the multi-centered de Sitter black holes, as the unconventional signs in the superalgebra relax the condition of having a timelike Killing vector. This hints, at least, that the unconventional de Sitter supergravities investigated here may play a crucial role in the better understanding of de Sitter cosmologies and time dependent backgrounds for string theory.

## Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the US Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-95ER40899.


text:
# On a composition of digraphs

## 1. Introduction

Point-to-point interconnection networks for parallel and distributed systems are usually modeled by (di)graphs. Survey papers on interconnection networks are, *e.g.*, (in chronological order) Feng \[F81\], Heydemann \[H97\] and Ferrero \[Fe99\]. The vertices of the (di)graph correspond to the nodes of the network, that is processors, nodes with local memory, switches, *etc*.; the arcs correspond to communication wires. Performance of parallel and distributed systems is significantly determined by the choice of the network topology. The basic requirements are: (i) large numbers of nodes; (ii) small distance between any two nodes (small communication delay); (iii) limited number of wires. These requirements result in the need of finding (di)graphs, with, respectively: (i) large order; (ii) small diameter; (iii) bounded degree. Another important requirement is fault-tolerance, which is measured in the terms of several parameters, two of which are vertex-connectivity and arc(edge)-connectivity.

Many “good” topologies for interconnection networks are based on line digraphs of regular digraphs (*e.g.* de Bruijn digraphs, Reddy-Pradhan-Kuhl digraphs, butterflies digraphs, *etc.*), hypercubes (that are not line digraphs), and a number of their generalizations. Line digraphs have many remarkable properties. Line digraphs are used as tools in algorithmic applications (see, *e.g.*, Gusfield \[GKWS98\]), as underlying digraphs of coined quantum random walks \[S03\] (see Kempe \[K03\], for a survey paper on quantum random walks), in the study of spectral statistics and random matrix theory (see, *e.g.*, Pakonski *et al.* \[PTZ02\]), in the study of growth functions of free groups (see, *e.g.*, Rivin \[R99\]).

Recall that, given an $`n\times n`$ matrix $`M`$ (over any field), a digraph $`D`$ is said to *support* $`M`$, or, equivalently, to be *the digraph of* $`M`$, if $`D`$ is on $`n`$ vertices, and its adjacency matrix, $`M\left(D\right)`$, has $`ij`$-th element

$$M\left(D\right)_{i,j}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1& \text{if }M_{i,j}0,\\ 0& \text{otherwise.}\end{array}$$

Recall that a complex $`n\times n`$ matrix $`U`$ is *unitary* if $`U^{}U=I_n`$, where $`U^{}`$ is the adjoint of $`U`$, and $`I_n`$ is the identity matrix of size $`n`$. The digraph of a unitary matrix is without cut-vertices and it is bridgeless, then it is $`2`$-vertex-connected and $`2`$-arc-connected. Note that this properties insure a certain degree of fault-tolerance when thinking about the digraph as a model of an interconnection network. Both, line digraphs of regular digraphs and hypercubes support unitary matrices \[S03I\]. This observation motivates the present paper, which is structured as follows.

A *composition of digraphs* is a method to construct digraphs “putting together” smaller digraphs and adding arcs according to specific rules. In §2 we define a composition of digraphs, which we call *diagonal union*. The composition can be used to construct digraphs of unitary matrices. We observe: simple conditions under which a diagonal union digraph supports unitary matrices; that line digraphs of regular digraphs are diagonal union digraphs (§3); that diagonal union digraphs are state split graphs, as defined in symbolic dynamics (§3). Finally, in §4, we propose a few potential direction for future research.

Although the content of the paper is elementary, we wish to write it as self-contained as possible. For terms of graph theory not defined here, we refer the reader to the monograph by Bang-Jensen and Gutin \[B-JG01\].

## 2. A composition of digraphs

### 2.1. Set-up

A (finite) *directed graph*, for short *digraph*, consists of a non-empty finite set of elements called *vertices* and a (possibly empty) finite set of ordered pairs of vertices called *arcs*. Let us denote by $`D=(V,A)`$ a digraph with vertex-set $`V\left(D\right)`$ and arc-set $`A\left(D\right)`$. The *adjacency matrix* of a digraph $`D`$ on $`n`$ vertices, denoted by $`M\left(D\right)`$, is the $`n\times n`$ $`(0,1)`$-matrix with $`ij`$-th entry

$$M_{i,j}\left(D\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }(v_i,v_j)A\left(D\right),\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

A digraph $`H`$ is a *subdigraph* of a digraph $`D`$ if $`V\left(H\right)V\left(D\right)`$ and $`A\left(H\right)A\left(D\right)`$. A subdigraph $`H`$ of a digraph $`D`$ is a *spanning subdigraph* of $`D`$ if $`V\left(H\right)=V\left(D\right)`$; in such a case, we say that $`H`$ *spans* $`V\left(D\right)`$. A *decomposition* of a digraph $`D`$ is a set $`\{H_1,H_2,\mathrm{},H_k\}`$ of subdigraphs whose arc-sets are exactly the classes of a partition of $`A\left(D\right)`$. A subdigraph of $`D`$ is called a *factor* of $`D`$ if it spans $`V\left(D\right)`$. A *factorization* of $`D`$ is a decomposition of $`D`$ into factors.

The *Hadamard product* (in the literature, sometimes called *Schur product* or *entry-wise product*) of $`n\times m`$ matrices $`N`$ and $`M`$, denoted by $`NM`$, is defined as follows:

$$\left(NM\right)_{i,j}=N_{i,j}M_{i,j}.$$

###### Definition 1 (Generalized Hadamard product).

Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be respectively an $`m\times m`$ and an $`n\times n`$ matrix (over any field). Let $`m=nr`$. The *generalized Hadamard product* of $`N`$ with $`M`$, denoted by $`N_GM`$, is defined as follows:

* If $`r=1`$ ($`n=m`$ and $`N`$ has the same size of $`M`$) then

$$N_GM=NM.$$
* If $`r>1`$ then we look at $`M`$ as a block-matrix of the form

$$\left[\begin{array}{ccc}A_{1,1}& \mathrm{}& A_{1,n}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ A_{n,1}& \mathrm{}& A_{n,n}\end{array}\right],$$

where the $`ij`$-th block is $`r\times r`$. Then

$$N_G\left[\begin{array}{ccc}A_{1,1}& \mathrm{}& A_{1,n}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ A_{n,1}& \mathrm{}& A_{n,n}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}N_{1,1}A_{1,1}& \mathrm{}& N_{1,n}A_{1,n}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ N_{n,1}A_{n,1}& \mathrm{}& N_{n,n}A_{n,n}\end{array}\right].$$

###### Example 1.

Let

$$\sigma _x=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right].$$

Then

| $`\sigma _x_G\left[\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ D& C\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟎}& B\\ D& \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right]`$ | and | $`I_2_G\left[\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ D& C\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}A& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& C\end{array}\right].`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |

### 2.2. Definition

Let $`G`$ be a finite group of order $`n`$. Let $`W`$ be a complex vector space of finite dimension. Let $`GL\left(W\right)`$ be the group of the bijective linear maps on $`V`$. A *linear representation* of $`G`$ is a homomorphism $`\rho :GGL\left(W\right)`$. To each $`g_iG`$, we associate the unit column vector $`e_iW`$ with $`j`$-th entry

$$e_{i_j}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{1}\hfill & \text{if }j=i,\hfill \\ \text{0}\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`GL(n,F)`$ be the group of invertible $`n\times n`$ matrices over the field $`F=GF\left(2\right)`$. The (left) *regular permutation representation* of $`G`$, denoted by $`\rho _{reg}`$, is a homomorphism $`\rho _{reg}:GGL(n,F)`$. Then $`\rho _{reg}\left(g_l\right)`$ is a permutation matrix with $`ij`$-entry

$$\rho _{reg}\left(g_l\right)_{i,j}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{1}\hfill & \text{if }g_lg_i=g_j,\hfill \\ \text{0}\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Let us denote by $`_n`$ the additive abelian group of the integers modulo $`n`$. Let us denote by $`J_n`$ the $`n\times n`$ all-ones matrix, and by $`MN`$ the direct sum of matrices $`M`$ and $`N`$.

###### Definition 2 (Diagonal union).

Let $`D`$ be a digraph on $`n`$ vertices and let $`=\{H_1,H_2,\mathrm{},H_k\}`$ be a factorization of $`D`$. The digraph $`D_{}`$ is defined as follows:

$$M\left(D_{,1}\right)=M\left(D_{}\right)=\left(J_kI_n\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}M\left(H_i\right).$$

Iteratively,

$$M\left(D_{,d}\right)=\left(J_kI_{n^{d1}}\right)\underset{j=0}{\overset{k1}{}}\left[\rho _{reg}\left(j\right)_GM\left(D_{,d1}\right)\right],$$

$`\rho _{reg}`$ is the (left) regular permutation representation of $`_k`$. The digraph $`D_{,d}`$ is called $`d`$*-diagonal union*111On the choice of the terminology: The term “diagonal union” may be justified by the structure of $`M\left(D_{,d}\right)`$. In fact, $`M\left(D_{,d}\right)`$ is a block-matrix, with the blocks on the diagonal being the adjacency matrices of the factors of $`D_{,d1}`$. of $`D`$ in respect to $``$.

###### Remark 1.

If the factors $`H_1,H_2,\mathrm{},H_k`$ are digraphs of unitary matrices then $`M\left(D_{,d}\right)`$ is also the digraph of a unitary matrix. This insures that $`M\left(D_{,d}\right)`$ is $`2`$-vertex-connected and $`2`$-arc-connected \[S03I\].

A concrete example might be useful to clarify Definition 2. Let us denote by $`\stackrel{}{K}_n^+`$ the complete symmetric digraph with a self-loop at each vertex.

###### Example 2.

Let $`=\{H_1,H_2\}`$ be a factorization of a digraph $`D`$. In Figure 2, below, are represented the matrices $`M\left(D_{}\right)^{}`$, $`M\left(D_{,2}\right)^{}`$, $`M\left(D_{,3}\right)^{}`$ and $`M\left(D_{,4}\right)^{}`$. The light and the dark shaded blocks represent $`M\left(H_1\right)`$ and $`M\left(H_2\right)`$, respectively; the white areas are of zeros only.

Let

| $`D=\stackrel{}{K}_2^+,`$ | $`M\left(H_1\right)=I_2`$ | and | $`M\left(H_2\right)=\sigma _x.`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

Then

$$M\left(D_{,k}\right)=B(2,k),$$

the binary $`k`$-dimensional de Bruijn digraph.

## 3. Remarks

### 3.1. Extremal cases

Let $`D`$ be a digraph on $`n`$ vertices and $`m`$ arcs. Suppose that $``$ is the trivial factorization of $`D`$, that is $`=\left\{D\right\}`$. In such a case, $`D_{}=D`$. A *cycle factor* of a digraph $`D`$ is a collection of pairwise vertex-disjoint dicycles spanning $`D`$. In other words, a cycle factor is a spanning $`1`$-regular subdigraph of $`D`$. Note that the adjacency matrix of a cycle factor is a permutation matrix. A *factorization in cycle factors* is a factorization whose members are cycle factors. The *line digraph* of a digraph $`D`$, denoted by $`\stackrel{}{L}D`$, is defined as follows (see, *e.g.*, \[P96\]): the vertex-set of $`\stackrel{}{L}D`$ is $`A\left(D\right)`$; $`(v_i,v_j),(v_k,v_l)A\left(\stackrel{}{L}D\right)`$ if and only if $`v_j=v_k`$. Suppose that $``$ is a factorization in cycle factors. In such a case,

$$D_{,d}=\stackrel{}{L}^{d1}D.$$

So, note that the line digraph of a regular digraph is a diagonal union digraph.

### 3.2. State split graphs

The notion of *state split graph*, introduced by Williams \[W74\], is important in symbolic dynamics and coding. Lind and Marcus \[LM95\] is comprehensive for a monograph on symbolic dynamics. Given a digraph $`D`$, let $`_i`$ be the set of the arcs in which $`v_i`$ is tail. For each vertex $`v_iV\left(D\right)`$, let

| $`_i=_{k=1}^{m\left(i\right)}_i^k,`$ |  | $`m\left(i\right)1.`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |

Let $`𝒫`$ be the resulting partition of $``$, and let $`𝒫_i`$ the resulting partition restricted to $`_i`$. The *state split graph* $`D^{\left[𝒫\right]}`$ *formed from* $`D`$ *using* $`𝒫`$ has vertices $`v_i^1,v_i^2,\mathrm{},v_i^{m\left(i\right)}`$, for all $`v_iV\left(D\right)`$. The arc $`(v_h,v_l)^jA\left(D^{\left[𝒫\right]}\right)`$, where $`(v_h,v_l)A\left(D\right)`$ and $`1jm\left(v_l\right)`$. The arc $`(v_h,v_l)_h^k`$, for some $`k`$. The tail and the head of $`(v_h,v_l)^j`$ are respectively $`v_h^k`$ and $`v_l^j`$. If the construction of a state split graph uses a partition of the outgoing (ingoing) arcs (as above) then the obtained digraph is called *out-split (in-split) graph*.

###### Remark 2.

A digraph $`M\left(D_{}\right)`$ is a state split graph. In particular, $`M\left(D_{}\right)`$ is a in-split graph formed from $`D`$ using the partition of $`A\left(D\right)`$ arising from the factorization $``$.

###### Example 3.

Consider the Cayley digraph $`D=Cay(_4,\{1,2,3\})`$:

$$M\left(D\right)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\rho _{reg}\left(i\right)=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}\text{0}& 0& 1& 1& 1\\ \text{1}& 1& 0& 1& 1\\ \text{2}& 1& 1& 0& 1\\ \text{3}& 1& 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right],$$

where in the first column are the labels of the vertices.

Let $`=\{D_1,D_2\}`$, where

| $`M\left(D_1\right)=\rho _{reg}\left(1\right)+\rho _{reg}\left(3\right)`$ | and | $`M\left(D_2\right)=\rho _{reg}\left(2\right).`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |

Then

$`M\left(D_{}\right)`$ $`=\left[\rho _{reg}\left(1\right)\rho _{reg}\left(3\right)\right]\left(J_2I_4\right)`$
$`=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\text{0}^\text{1}& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ \text{1}^\text{1}& 1& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ \text{2}^\text{1}& 0& 1& 0& 1& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ \text{3}^\text{1}& 1& 0& 1& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ \text{0}^\text{2}& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ \text{1}^\text{2}& 1& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ \text{2}^\text{2}& 0& 1& 0& 1& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ \text{3}^\text{2}& 1& 0& 1& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right].`$
Then $`D_{}`$ is an in-split graph formed from $`D`$ using the partition arising from $``$.

## 4. What’s next?

The following seem to be natural questions:

* To what extent the property “being the digraph of a unitary matrix” makes a digraph a “good” network topology?
* Can we make use of diagonal union digraphs as bases of new network topologies?
* We have seen that diagonal union digraphs are obtained via state-splitting. Are tools from symbolic dynamics and coding helpful in the design and analysis of interconnection networks, and in broadcasting problems?

There is also space for a legitimate speculation:

* The time-evolution of a quantum mechanical system, in a pure state, is induced by unitary matrices. Then interconnection networks based on digraphs of unitary matrices have something to do with quantum mechanical systems. What? In some way, these networks model certain classical systems, whose dynamics share some combinatorial structure with quantum systems. So, they are (partially?) combinatorially quantum. Can this idea be exploited in the context of quantum computation and communication?

Acknowledgement. The author wishes to thank Yaokun Wu for introducing him to symbolic dynamics, Cecilia Bebeacua and Dhiraj Pradhan for showing interest in this paper. The author is supported by a University of Bristol Research Scholarship.