text:
# Orientifolds, RR Torsion, and K-theory

## 1 Introduction

Orientifold planes are intriguing objects in many ways. They appear, at least perturbatively, to be void of dynamics, and in this respect they are similar to orbifolds. On the other hand orientifold planes are also similar to D-branes, in that they appear with the same dimensionalities, carry RR charge, and have a non-vanishing tension. However the latter two differ from their D-brane values in two important ways. In some cases the tension of an orientifold plane is negative, and in some cases its charge (and tension) is fractional.

There are actually a variety of orientifold planes for each dimensionality $`p`$, associated with the possibility of turning on discrete fluxes of certain anti-symmetric tensor fields . These fluxes come in two varieties corresponding to the NSNS three-form $`H`$, and the RR $`(6p)`$-form $`G_{6p}`$, and have traditionally been classified by the (integral) cohomologies $`H^3(\mathrm{P}^{8p})`$ and $`H^{6p}(\mathrm{P}^{8p})`$, respectively. The space $`\mathrm{P}^{8p}`$ is the “sphere” that surrounds the O$`p`$-plane in the reduced space of the orientifold projection. Except for the case $`p=6`$, both of these cohomologies are $`_2`$, so the fluxes are torsion classes. This means that there are four variants of the orientifold plane for each $`p`$ (for $`p5`$), depending on the values of the discrete fluxes (table 1). For $`p<2`$ there are actually additional variants, which are associated with a discrete $`G_{2p}`$-flux .

One immediately observes that orientifold planes with $`p4`$ are fractionally charged (relative to D$`p`$-branes). This appears to be at odds with Dirac’s quantization condition, suitably generalized to higher rank anti-symmetric tensor fields, or equivalently with the idea that RR charges and fields take values in integral cohomology. In particular, since the O$`p`$-plane is charged under $`C_{p+1}`$, the relevant cohomology group is given by $`H^{8p}(\mathrm{P}^{8p})=`$. The generator of this group has a unit D$`p`$-brane charge, so the O$`p`$-plane charge $`\pm 2^{p5}`$ is not an allowed value for $`p4`$. In addition, the presence of RR torsion in $`H^{6p}(\mathrm{P}^{8p})`$ shifts the charge by 1/2 for the O$`p^{}`$ plane, but not for the O$`p^+`$ plane. So in the first case it seems to lead to a further violation of Dirac’s condition.

In some cases the violation can be attributed to an anomaly in the path integral for the dual magnetic object, i.e. a D$`(6p)`$-brane, and can be expressed in terms of spacetime fields , but this is not generally the case. For example, the $`\pm 1/2`$ charge of the O$`4^\pm `$ plane is consistent with an anomalous phase in the D2-brane path integral coming from the fermion determinant . However one needs another contribution to the phase in order to explain the $`0`$ charge of the $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}4}^{}`$ variant, and yet another to explain the $`+1/2`$ charge of $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}4}^+`$. One could imagine that the latter is due to the term $`BC_1`$ in the D2-brane action, but there is no obvious candidate for the former contribution. For other orientifold planes one does not even have an analog of the anomaly contribution of .

All this indicates that integral cohomology is not the appropriate mathematical framework for RR fields. We are familiar with the idea that D-branes, or more properly RR charges, take values in K-theory rather than in integral cohomology . This follows from the fact that a D$`p`$-brane is characterized not only by its charge under the RR field $`C_{p+1}`$, but also by a gauge bundle, which in turn determines its charges under lower rank RR fields. It has recently been suggested that the RR fields take values in K-theory as well . This is intuitively obvious for RR fields created by D-brane sources, since the field at infinity should belong to the same class as the source which creates it. But the idea is that all RR fields, including source-free RR fluxes, are classified in K-theory.

In this paper we investigate some of the consequences of describing RR fluxes in K-theory rather than integral cohomology. In particular, this provides a partial explanation of the observed fractional charges; K-theory correlates different RR fields in such a way, that the discrete flux of $`G_{6p}`$ alters the quantization of $`G_{8p}`$-flux. For $`p=6`$ the former ($`G_0`$) is integral rather than discrete, but there is an analogous correlation between the parity of $`G_0`$ and the half-integral part of $`G_2`$. Thus we are able to compute the shift in the quantization condition of the RR charge due to the discrete RR flux. We are not able to establish the quantization condition for the absolute charges however. In comparing the K-theory classification with the cohomological one we also discover that some discrete fluxes are actually trivial, while others are obstructed. This has interesting physical implications concerning some of the lower orientifold planes.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we review what is known about orientifold planes, and their classification in terms of discrete fluxes in cohomology. In section 3 we describe the necessary K-theory machinery required for describing RR fields in orientifold backgrounds, and compute the relevant groups. We also explain how to compare the K-theory results with cohomology using a real version of the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence (AHSS), which is further elaborated in the appendix. In section 4 we discuss three implications of the difference between K-theory and cohomology in orientifolds. The first concerns the question of proper RR charge quantization, the second is the identification in K-theory of certain orientifold variants which are distinct in cohomology, and the third is the dismissal of certain orientifold variants as unphysical. Section 5 is devoted to a separate discussion of the orientifold 6-plane, which in many ways was the original motivation for this work.

## 2 Review of orientifolds

### 2.1 Basics

Orientifolds are defined by gauging a discrete symmetry in string theory which includes a reversal of the string world-sheet orientation (denoted $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$). The loci of points which are fixed under this symmetry are called orientifold planes. In particular, an orientifold $`p`$-plane (O$`p`$) in Type II string theory is given by the $`_2`$ projection

$$\text{O}p:^{1,p}\times ^{9p}/_{9p}\mathrm{\Omega }\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & p=0,1\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}4}\hfill \\ (1)^{F_L}\hfill & p=2,3\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}4},\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`p`$ is even in IIA and odd in IIB. The presence of $`(1)^{F_L}`$ for $`p=2,3`$ mod 4 can be understood from the requirement that the generator square to 1 on fermions. For example, $`(_2\mathrm{\Omega })^2=1`$ on fermions, but $`(_2\mathrm{\Omega }(1)^{F_L})^2=(_2\mathrm{\Omega })^2(1)^{F_L+F_R}=+1`$. The action of the orientifold on the antisymmetric tensor fields is given by

$$\begin{array}{cccc}B\hfill & & B\hfill & \\ C_p^{}\hfill & & +C_p^{}\hfill & p^{}=p+1\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}4}\hfill \\ C_p^{}\hfill & & C_p^{}\hfill & p^{}=p+3\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}4}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
In particular, the projection leaves the D$`p`$-brane invariant, and in fact preserves the same 16 supersymmetries.

If we include $`n`$ D$`p`$-branes (and their images), there are two possible actions on the open string Chan-Paton factors ,

$$\lambda M^1\lambda ^TM,M=𝕀_{2n\times 2n}\text{or}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& i𝕀_{n\times n}\\ i𝕀_{n\times n}& 0\end{array}\right](𝕁).$$
(3)
In the first case the resulting gauge group is $`SO(2n)`$, and in the second case $`USp(2n)`$. The corresponding Möbius strip amplitudes, and therefore also the vacuum $`\mathrm{P}^2`$ amplitudes, have the opposite sign, so we see that there are actually two types of O$`p`$-planes. These are denoted O$`p^{}`$ and O$`p^+`$ for the $`SO(2n)`$ and $`USp(2n)`$ cases, respectively. Comparing the Möbius strip amplitude with the cylinder amplitude, one finds that the RR charge and tension of the O$`p`$-planes (as compared with those of the D$`p`$-branes) is given by $`2^{p5}`$ for O$`p^{}`$, and $`+2^{p5}`$ for O$`p^+`$ (hence the sign in the notation).

### 2.2 Cohomology torsion variants

Another way to see that there are (at least) two variants (at least for $`p6`$) is to note that the orientifold background admits a discrete degree of freedom corresponding to the holonomy of the $`B`$ field ,

$$b=_{\mathrm{P}^2}\frac{B}{2\pi }=0\text{or}\frac{1}{2},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{P}^2\mathrm{P}^{8p}`$ which surrounds the O$`p`$-plane. A non-trivial holonomy contributes $`e^{2\pi ib}=1`$ in the $`\mathrm{P}^2`$ amplitude, and therefore exchanges the O$`p^{}`$ and O$`p^+`$ planes.111It isn’t obvious at this stage which variant should be identified with trivial holonomy, and which with non-trivial holonomy. This will be clarified in K-theory. Since $`B`$ is odd under the projection, which maps opposite points in the double cover of $`\mathrm{P}^{8p}`$, the holonomy is an element of $`H^2(\mathrm{P}^{8p},\stackrel{~}{U(1)})`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{U(1)}`$ is the twisted $`U(1)`$ bundle. This has the same torsion subgroup as $`H^3(\mathrm{P}^{8p},\stackrel{~}{})`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{}`$ being the twisted $``$ bundle), so we can identify the field strength $`H=dB`$ as an element of the latter,

$$[H]H^3(\mathrm{P}^{8p},\stackrel{~}{})=_2,$$
(5)
where the choice of torsion coincides with the holonomy $`b`$.

RR fields can also have a discrete holonomy, which leads to additional variants of the orientifold plane. For the O$`p`$-plane with $`p5`$ the relevant holonomy is

$$c=_{\mathrm{P}^{5p}}\frac{C_{5p}}{2\pi }=0\text{or}\frac{1}{2},$$
(6)
and is identified with a torsion $`G_{6p}`$-field,

$$[G_{6p}]\left\{\begin{array}{cc}H^{6p}(\mathrm{P}^{8p},)\hfill & \text{for}p=0,2,4\hfill \\ H^{6p}(\mathrm{P}^{8p},\stackrel{~}{})\hfill & \text{for}p=1,3,5\hfill \end{array}\right\}=_2.$$
(7)
The choice of a non-trivial $`c`$ is denoted $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}p}^\pm `$. Unlike the previous case, the charges of these variants cannot be computed in perturbation theory, since they involve a RR background. Instead, one must appeal to arguments involving strong coupling. For example, the O3-plane has four variants corresponding to $`H`$ and $`G_3`$ torsion, both of which take values in $`H^3(\mathrm{P}^5,\stackrel{~}{})=_2`$. S-duality in Type IIB string theory exchanges $`H`$ and $`G_3`$, so O$`3^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}3}^+`$ are invariant, and O$`3^+`$ is interchanged with $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}3}^{}`$ . If we include D3-branes, string S-duality becomes Olive-Montonen duality in the world-volume $`N=4`$ supersymmetric gauge theory. The $`SO(2n)`$ theory corresponding to O$`3^{}`$ is invariant under this duality, but the $`USp(2n)`$ theory of O$`3^+`$ is related to an $`SO(2n+1)`$ theory . We can therefore interpret the $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}3}^{}`$ plane as an O$`3^{}`$ plane with an additional fractional (1/2) D3-brane. The fourth variant, $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}3}^+`$, corresponds to turning on $`H`$ torsion on $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}3}^{}`$. This exchanges the orthogonal gauge group with a symplectic one, $`USp(2n)`$. The theory is perturbatively the same as for O$`3^+`$, but the BPS dyon spectrum is different . This $`USp(2n)`$ theory is self-dual.

There are analogous strong coupling arguments for Type IIA O2 planes  and O4 planes  using M-theory. However, it is clear from T-duality that this pattern persists for all $`p5`$ (see table 1).

The case $`p=6`$ is special, since $`[G_0]H^0(\mathrm{P}^{8p},)=`$, rather than $`_2`$. These classes correspond to the allowed (integral) values of the cosmological constant in massive Type IIA supergravity . It does not appear, at this stage, to label distinct O$`6`$-planes, but rather different IIA backgrounds in which an O$`6`$-plane can sit. One might therefore conclude that the O$`6`$-plane only has two variants, O$`6^{}`$ and O$`6^+`$. However, we shall see in section 5 that there is another variant, which has the properties (namely charge and tension) of the $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}p}^{}`$-planes, and is therefore similarly denoted $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}6}^{}`$ (see also ).

For $`p=0`$ and 1 there is another possible holonomy given by

$$c^{}=_{\mathrm{P}^{1p}}\frac{C_{1p}}{2\pi }=0\text{or}\frac{1}{2}.$$
(8)
This is related to the torsion groups $`H^1(\mathrm{P}^7,\stackrel{~}{})`$ and $`H^2(\mathrm{P}^8,)`$. We denote the corresponding variants $`\widehat{\text{O}1}`$ and $`\widehat{\text{O}0}`$. When both RR torsions are turned on we get more variants, $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\text{O}1}}`$ and $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\text{O}0}}`$. The charges of these variants were not known. Using K-theory, we will be able to determine their charges. We will also see that some of these variants are removed when one interprets RR fields in K-theory. For the O2-plane, one could also consider a $`G_0`$ background, which takes values in $`H^0(\mathrm{P}^6,)=`$. The situation is similar to the O6-plane case above, and will also be addressed in section 5.

### 2.3 Brane realization of torsion

Pure torsion fields can be realized physically by simple brane constructions . Consider an O$`p`$-plane ($`p5`$) situated along the directions $`\{x^1,\mathrm{},x^{p1},x^6\}`$, and either an NS5-brane along $`\{x^1,\mathrm{},x^5\}`$ for the case of the $`H`$ field, or a D$`(p+2)`$-brane along $`\{x^1,\mathrm{},x^{p1},x^7,x^8,x^9\}`$ for the case of the $`G_{6p}`$ field (figure 1).222A similar construction can be made for the additional RR torsion ($`c^{}`$) in the case of $`p=0,1`$, using an intersection with a D6-brane and D7-brane, respectively. In both cases the brane intersects the orientifold plane along $`\{x^1,\mathrm{},x^{p1}\}`$, and therefore forms a “domain wall” on the O$`p`$-plane. The brane is “fractional” in the sense that it is its own image under the orientifold projection, and can therefore not move off the orientifold plane. It is therefore a source of 1/2 unit of flux in the reduced space, i.e.

$$_{𝕊^{3,1}}\frac{H}{2\pi }=\frac{1}{2}$$
(9)
for the NS5-brane, and

$$_{𝕊^{6p,1}}\frac{G_{6p}}{2\pi }=\frac{1}{2}$$
(10)
for the D$`(p+2)`$-brane.333We use $`𝕊^{l,m}`$ to denote the sphere in the reduced space $`^{l,m}^{l+m}/_2`$, where the $`_2`$ inverts $`l`$ of the coordinates. In particular $`𝕊^{l,0}\mathrm{P}^{l1}`$. Now remove two small disks at the intersection of the sphere with the orientifold plane, and apply Stoke’s law to get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{P}^2}\frac{B}{2\pi }=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{P}^{5p}}\frac{C_{5p}}{2\pi }=\frac{1}{2}$$
(11)
for the difference in the holonomy between the two sides. The field strengths $`H`$ and $`G_{6p}`$ are trivial (as differential forms) at infinity, but the above result shows that there is relative torsion between the two pieces of the O$`p`$-plane. The NS5-brane interchanges the O$`p^{}`$ and O$`p^+`$ planes, and the D$`(p+2)`$-brane interchanges the O$`p`$ and and $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}p}`$ planes.

For two coincident branes the flux is 1, but they are now free to move off the orientifold plane (in opposite directions). The torsion part of the field is therefore trivial, and the orientifold plane remains unchanged.

For $`p=6`$ the D-brane picture (figure 1b) is special, in that $`G_0`$ is created by a D8-brane, which fills the entire transverse space. The D8-branes can therefore never move off the orientifold plane, and this is consistent with the fact that $`G_0`$ is integral rather than torsion.

We can try to use this picture to understand the relative charges of the $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}p}^\pm `$ planes. Consider a “deformation” of the intersecting D-brane configuration, in which the D$`(p+2)`$-brane wraps $`^p\times \mathrm{P}^2`$ at $`x^6\mathrm{}`$, and “opens up” into a flat $`^{p+2}`$ at $`x^6=0`$ (figure 2). The $`\mathrm{P}^2`$ is not a homology cycle in the bulk, so the wrapped part of the brane shrinks to zero size, giving the original intersection configuration. If we assume that the world-volume gauge field on the D$`(p+2)`$-brane satisfies

$$_{\mathrm{P}^2}\frac{F}{2\pi }=\frac{1}{2}\text{mod},$$
(12)
then the charge of the O$`p^{}`$ plane would shift by 1/2, due to the coupling $`FC_{p+1}`$. On the other hand the charge of O$`p^+`$ could only change by an integral amount due the additional coupling $`BC_{p+1}`$, since the $`B`$ field also has 1/2 unit of flux on $`\mathrm{P}^2`$. This would therefore explain the observed relative charges of these two variants. A result similar to (12) was obtained in  for orientable manifolds for which $`w_2`$ is non-trivial. However $`\mathrm{P}^2`$ is non-orientable, so the question remains open.

## 3 Orientifolds in K-theory

In ordinary (non-orientifold) Type IIA and IIB backgrounds RR fluxes take values in $`K(X)`$ and $`K^1(X)`$, respectively . This complements the fact that RR charges, or D-branes, are classified by $`K^1(X)`$ and $`K(X)`$, respectively.444If $`X`$ is non-compact, then D-branes are actually classified by K-theory with compact support, $`K_{cpct}^1(X)`$ and $`K_{cpct}(X)`$, or more precisely by the kernel of the natural maps from these groups to the ones without compact support. One way to think about this, which will be useful in generalizing to orientifolds, is to divide the space into two regions using a domain wall made of D8-branes and anti-D8-branes in IIA, and non-BPS D8-branes in IIB. Differences in the values of the RR fluxes between the two regions are then in one-to-one correspondence with the RR charges carried by the D8-brane system, and are therefore classified by $`K(X)`$ in IIA, and by $`K^1(X)`$ in IIB. The groups are exchanged relative to the D-brane classification since there we start with a D9-$`\overline{\text{D9}}`$ system in IIB, and non-BPS D9-branes in IIA.

### 3.1 Real K-theory

The orientifold backgrounds of interest are defined by a $`_2`$ projection on closed strings that includes world-sheet parity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and an action on the open string Chan-Paton factors that squares to either 1 or $`1`$. In K-theoretic terms, one is given an involution $`\tau `$ on the space $`X`$, and an antilinear involution on the bundles that commutes with $`\tau `$. This defines the real and quaternionic K-theory groups $`KR(X)`$ and $`KH(X)`$, depending on whether the involution on the bundles squares to 1 or $`1`$ . Higher groups can then be defined by (assuming compact support)

$$KR^{p,q}(X)=KR(X\times ^{p,q}),$$
(13)
where the involution acts on $`p`$ coordinates in $`^{p,q}`$, and similarly for $`KH`$. These satisfy the periodicity conditions

$`KR^{p,q}(X)`$ $`=`$ $`KR^{p+1,q+1}(X)`$ (14)
$`KR^{p,q}(X)`$ $`=`$ $`KR^{p+8,q}(X),`$ (15)
and similarly for $`KH`$. The first implies that $`KR^{p,q}`$ depends only on the difference $`pq`$, so we denote $`KR^{p,q}(X)=KR^{pq}(X)`$. In addition $`KR`$ and $`KH`$ are related by

$$KR^n(X)=KH^{n+4}(X).$$
(16)
Another variant of real K-theory can be defined by considering an involution that also exchanges the two bundles $`E`$ and $`F`$. Physically this corresponds to the inclusion of the operator $`(1)^{F_L}`$ (e.g. for $`p=3`$ mod 4 in (1)), which exchanges the branes and antibranes. The corresponding groups are denoted $`KR_\pm (X)`$ and $`KH_\pm (X)`$, and higher versions are defined precisely as in (13). These groups are related to ordinary real K-theory as follows,

$$KR_\pm (X)=KR(X\times ^{0,2})=KR^2(X),$$
(17)
and similarly for $`KH_\pm `$.555This relation is the analog in real K-theory of Hopkins’ relation in complex equivariant K-theory, $`K_\pm (X)=K__2(X\times ^{1,1})`$. The latter can be understood as the failure of ordinary Bott periodicity when one tries to construct the Dirac index map: $`K__2(X\times ^{1,1})K__2(X)`$. Orientation reversal on the $`^2`$ exchanges the two spinor chiralities, and therefore gives $`K_\pm (X)`$ rather than $`K__2(X)`$. In the real case it’s exactly the opposite, since complex conjugation also exchanges the two chiralities. Bott periodicity works for $`^{1,1}`$ (14), and fails for $`^{0,2}`$ and $`^{2,0}`$. The former gives $`KR_\pm (X)`$, and the latter $`KH_\pm (X)`$.

### 3.2 RR fields in orientifold backgrounds

To classify RR fields in the background of an orientifold $`p`$-plane we divide the transverse space $`^{9p}`$ by wrapping D8-branes on the transverse sphere $`𝕊^{8p}`$. In IIA we again consider both D8-branes and anti-D8-branes, and in IIB we use the non-BPS D8-branes. The orientifold projection (1) acts freely on the sphere, giving $`\mathrm{P}^{8p}`$, and the corresponding K-groups are obtained by keeping track of how the projection acts on the D8-branes and their bundles.

For example, the O$`0`$ projection $`^9/_9\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in IIA maps a D8-brane wrapping $`𝕊^8`$ with a given orientation to a D8-brane wrapping it with the opposite orientation. It therefore exchanges wrapped D8-branes with wrapped anti-D8-branes, and vice-versa. The group is therefore either $`KR_\pm (𝕊^{9,0})`$ or $`KH_\pm (𝕊^{9,0})`$, depending on whether the action on the Chan-Paton bundle squares to 1 or $`1`$. Following the general arguments of , we associate the former to the O$`0^{}`$-plane, and the latter to the O$`0^+`$-plane.

The usual 8-fold periodicity of orientifolds (and real K-theory) implies that for the O$`8^{}`$ and O$`8^+`$ planes the groups are also $`KR_\pm `$ and $`KH_\pm `$, respectively. This is somewhat counterintuitive, in that a D8-brane gets mapped to an image D8-brane and not an anti-D8-brane. However recall that the D8-branes wrap the transverse sphere, which in this case is just two points on either side of the O8-plane. This means that the orientation of the “wrapped” D8-brane is reversed on the other side. The projection maps the D8-brane to a D8-brane of the same orientation on the other side, so it looks like a “wrapped” anti-D8-brane.

The appropriate groups for the other orientifold planes can be similarly determined. The results are summarized in table 2.

Using (14)-(17) we can re-express these groups as $`KR^{p10}(𝕊^{9p,0})`$ for O$`p^{}`$, and $`KH^{p10}(𝕊^{9p,0})=KR^{p6}(𝕊^{9p,0})`$ for O$`p^+`$. Note that, as expected, the groups which classify RR fields are shifted by one relative to the groups which classify RR charges, $`KR^{p9}`$ and $`KH^{p9}`$ . For example, D-branes in an O8 background (Type IA) are classified by $`KR^1`$, whereas RR fields take values in $`KR_\pm =KR^2`$. To compute the groups we used the following decomposition isomorphism due to Atiyah

$$KR^n(𝕊^{m,0})=KR^{mn+1}(pt.)KR^n(pt.)(m3),$$
(18)
and our knowlege of the real K-groups of a point,

$$KR^m(pt.)=\{,_2,_2,0,,0,0,0\}\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}8}.$$
(19)
### 3.3 Comparing with cohomology

The above results agree with cohomology in some cases, and differ in other cases. The free ($``$) part of K-theory always agrees with cohomology. This corresponds to the RR flux of the orientifold $`p`$-plane itself, i.e. $`G_{8p}`$. For $`p=2,6`$ there is an additional free part corresponding to $`G_0`$, which also agrees with cohomology. The difference between K-theory and cohomology can only be in the torsion subgroup.666This is a consequence of the Chern isomorphism, e.g. $`K(X)\times H^{even}(X,)`$. In the real case the cohomologies will be twisted or normal, according to the action of the orientifold on the corresponding RR field (2).

For example, the relevant cohomologies for orientifold 5-planes are

$$H^3(\mathrm{P}^3,)H^1(\mathrm{P}^3,\stackrel{~}{})=_2.$$
(20)
The first term corresponds to the integral $`G_3`$ flux of the O5-plane, and the second is $`G_1`$ torsion, which gives the $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}5}`$ variants. Let us once again stress that these cohomologies do not incorporate the fractional shift in the $`G_3`$ flux of $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}5}^{}`$ relative to O$`5^{}`$. In K-theory we find

$$\begin{array}{cccc}KH^1(𝕊^{4,0})\hfill & =& \hfill & \text{for O}5^{}\hfill \\ KR^1(𝕊^{4,0})\hfill & =& _2\hfill & \text{for O}5^+.\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
How should we interpret the absence of the torsion subgroup in the first case? Clearly we need to understand better how to relate (or “lift”) cohomology to K-theory.

There is in fact a systematic algorithm which does exactly this, known as the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence (AHSS).777Introductory reviews of the AHSS for complex K-theory can be found in the appendix, as well as in the appendices of  and . The basic idea of the AHSS is to compute $`K(X)`$ using a sequence of successive approximations, starting with integral cohomology $`H^{}(X,)`$. Each successive step is given by the cohomology of a differential $`d_r`$ that acts on classes in the previous step. Thus classes which are not $`d_r`$-closed are removed in the new approximation, and classes which are $`d_r`$-exact are trivial. For example, $`d_1`$ is just the usual co-boundary operator acting on co-chains (which are the zero’th step), so the first step is ordinary de-Rahm cohomology. Higher differentials, if they are non-trivial, will refine the approximation by removing some cohomology classes, and trivializing others. The first non-trivial higher differential in the complex case is given by $`d_3=Sq^3+H`$, where $`Sq^3`$ is the Steenrod square . The only other differential which may be non-trivial in ten dimensions is $`d_5`$.

The AHSS can be extended to real K-theory as well. In the appendix we describe how to do this in the case of a freely acting involution, such as the ones appearing in table 2. In this case the AHSS follows a similar pattern to the complex case, with the modification that the cohomologies appearing in the first approximation can be twisted or normal, in accordance with the orientifold action on the RR fields (2). Correspondingly, the differential $`d_3`$ maps between ordinary and twisted cohomologies, and must therefore itself be twisted. The precise form of $`d_3`$ is not known, but it can presumably be expressed in the form $`d_3=\stackrel{~}{Sq^3}+H`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{Sq^3}`$ is a twisted version of the Steenrod square. Here the second term is torsion, since $`[H]H^3(\mathrm{P}^{8p},\stackrel{~}{})=_2`$. As we have seen before, this provides the difference between the O$`p^{}`$-plane and the O$`p^+`$-plane. We shall assume that the first term is trivial in both cases, and justify this assumption is hindsight. We shall also see that $`d_5`$ (which is untwisted) is trivial in all cases.

Actually, what one really computes in the AHSS is an “associated graded complex” of $`K(X)`$ (or any of its variants), denoted $`\text{Gr}K(X)`$. This is defined in terms of a filtration of $`K(X)`$, $`K_n(X)K_{n1}(X)\mathrm{}K_0(X)=K(X)`$, as

$$\text{Gr}K(X)=_pK_p(X)/K_{p+1}(X),$$
(22)
where $`K_p(X)`$ is the subgroup of classes in $`K(X)`$ which are trivial on the $`(p1)`$-tree of $`X`$. The successive ratios appearing in (22) are precisely the objects one computes by the AHSS. In particular, in the first order approximation

$$K_p(X)/K_{p+1}(X)=\{\begin{array}{cc}H^p(X,)\hfill & \text{for}p\text{even}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{for}p\text{odd}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
To get the actual subgroups $`K_p(X)`$, and in particular $`K(X)`$ itself, requires solving extension problems of the form

$$0K_{p+1}(X)K_p(X)K_p(X)/K_{p+1}(X)0.$$
(24)
If the above exact sequence splits, i.e. if it is exact both ways, the extension is said to be trivial, and $`K_p(X)=K_{p+1}(X)K_p(X)/K_{p+1}(X)`$. If all the extensions are trivial we deduce recursively that $`K(X)=\text{Gr}K(X)`$. In other words, K-theory is isomorphic to the ring of cohomologies that survive the higher differentials of the AHSS. On the other hand, if some of the extensions are non-trivial $`K(X)`$ will differ from its graded complex. In particular, the additive structure in K-theory will be different from that of the cohomology classes. Physically this means that RR fields of different degree become correlated.

Consider for example the space $`X=\mathrm{P}^5`$, for which

$`\text{Gr}K(\mathrm{P}^5)`$ $`=`$ $`H^0(\mathrm{P}^5)H^2(\mathrm{P}^5)H^4(\mathrm{P}^5)`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`_2_2.`$
The relevant extension is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & K_3(\mathrm{P}^5)& & K_2(\mathrm{P}^5)& & K_2(\mathrm{P}^5)/K_3(\mathrm{P}^5)& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ & & H^4=_2& & K_1(\mathrm{P}^5)& & H^2=_2& & \end{array}.$$
(26)
On the other hand it is known (see for example the appendix of ) that

$$K_1(\mathrm{P}^5)=\stackrel{~}{K}(\mathrm{P}^5)=_4,$$
(27)
so this extension is non-trivial. The RR 2-torsion and 4-torsion appearing in $`H^2(\mathrm{P}^5)`$ and $`H^4(\mathrm{P}^5)`$ become correlated in K-theory; twice the generator of the former corresponds to the generator of the latter.

In practical terms, one often needs additional information to determine whether an extension is trivial or not, which precludes the AHSS as a useful method for computing $`K(X)`$ (as opposed to $`\text{Gr}K(X)`$). However it will be extremely useful in our case, since we already know the precise groups (table 2). We are therefore able to determine all the extensions (24) unambiguously, and thereby compare the K-theory data with cohomology.

## 4 Applications

Having elaborated the K-theory machinery needed to classify RR fields surrounding orientifolds, we would now like to demonstrate three important implications of the fact that that RR fields are valued in K-theory rather than cohomology.

### 4.1 Charge quantization

As was previously stated, there are two separate issues related to the question of proper RR charge quantization. The first has to do with the absolute fractional charges (of the O$`p`$-planes with $`p4`$, for example), and the second with the relative charge induced by RR torsion (1/2 for O$`p^{}`$, 0 for O$`p^+`$). The first issue encompasses the second, and should in principle be resolved by an analog of the relation

$$\frac{G(x)}{2\pi }=\sqrt{\widehat{A}}\text{ch}(x),xK(X)$$
(28)
for real K-theory. Unfortunately the generalization is not known, so we will concentrate on the issue of the relative charge. The main idea, as alluded to in the previous section, is that in K-theory RR fields of different degree become correlated via non-trivial extensions.

Note first that for the O8 and O7-planes K-theory is in complete agreement with cohomology. There is only a single RR flux, and therefore no possibility for a non-trivial extension. There are only two variants of these planes, O$`p^{}`$ and O$`p^+`$. In particular the O8-plane (O7-plane) cannot support a fractional D8-brane (D7-brane). This is consistent with other arguments which rule out the possibility of a gauge group $`SO(2n+1)`$ in these cases .

The O6-plane background supports two RR fluxes, $`G_2`$ and $`G_0`$, but both are integral. Since the differential $`d_3`$ (and $`d_5`$) is obviously trivial in this case, the AHSS terminates at the first approximation, i.e.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill K_0/K_1& =& H^0(\mathrm{P}^2,)=\hfill \\ \hfill K_1/K_2& =& 0\hfill \\ \hfill K_2& =& H^2(\mathrm{P}^2,\stackrel{~}{})=.\hfill \end{array}$$

Using $`K_0=KH(𝕊^{3,0})`$ and $`KR(𝕊^{3,0})`$ for O$`6^{}`$ and O$`6^+`$, respectively, we can determine the filter groups uniquely,

$$\begin{array}{c}K_0=\hfill \\ K_1=K_2=.\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
However the extension given by

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & K_1& & K_0& & K_0/K_1& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ & & H^2=& & & & H^0=& & \end{array}$$
(30)
does not have a unique solution, so one cannot determine in this way whether and how the two RR fluxes are correlated. We will return to the O6-plane in section 5.

The first case where this procedure gives a non-trivial result is the O$`5`$-plane. The cohomologies and K-theory for the O$`5`$-planes were given in (20) and (21). The only possible non-triviality of $`d_3`$ could be in the map

$$H^0(\mathrm{P}^3,\stackrel{~}{})\stackrel{d_3}{}H^3(\mathrm{P}^3,).$$
(31)
However $`H^0(\mathrm{P}^3,\stackrel{~}{})=0`$, so $`d_3`$ (and $`d_5`$) is trivial for both O$`5^{}`$ and O$`5^+`$. The AHSS again terminates at cohomology, and we find

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}K_0\hfill & =& K_1\hfill & =& \{\begin{array}{cc}KH^1(𝕊^{4,0})=\hfill & \text{for O}5^{}\hfill \\ KR^1(𝕊^{4,0})=_2\hfill & \text{for O}5^+\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ K_2\hfill & =& K_3\hfill & =& H^3(\mathrm{P}^3,)=\text{for both}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(32)
This time we find that the extension given by

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & K_2& & K_1& & K_1/K_2& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ & & H^3=& & & & H^1=_2& & \end{array}$$
(33)
is trivial for O$`5^+`$, but non-trivial for O$`5^{}`$. The generator of $`H^3`$ maps to the generator of (the free part of) $`K_1`$ for O$`5^+`$, but to twice the generator for O$`5^{}`$. In the latter case the generator of $`K_1`$ maps to non-trivial torsion in $`H^1`$. We therefore see that $`G_1`$ torsion produces a half-integral shift in the flux of $`G_3`$ for the O$`5^{}`$ plane, and has no effect on the charge of the O$`5^+`$ plane.

The story repeats along similar lines for the lower O$`p^{}`$ planes. The relevant cohomologies are $`H^{8p}(\mathrm{P}^{8p})=`$ and $`H^{6p}(\mathrm{P}^{8p})=_2`$, which are appropriately twisted or untwisted. The differential $`d_3`$ is trivial since $`H=0`$ (and we assume $`\stackrel{~}{Sq^3}=0`$). Possible non-trivialities of $`d_5`$ could arise from the (twist preserving) maps

$`H^{3p}(\mathrm{P}^{8p})`$ $``$ $`H^{8p}(\mathrm{P}^{8p})`$
$`H^{1p}(\mathrm{P}^{8p})`$ $``$ $`H^{6p}(\mathrm{P}^{8p})`$ (34)
$`H^{6p}(\mathrm{P}^{8p})`$ $``$ $`H^{11p}(\mathrm{P}^{8p}),`$
however in all cases the maps are found to be trivial. The relevant extension is

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & K_{7p}& & K_{6p}& & K_{6p}/K_{7p}& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ & & H^{8p}=& & & & H^{6p}=_2& & \end{array},$$
(35)
so the half-integral part of the $`G_{8p}`$ flux, i.e. the charge of the orientifold plane, is determined by the $`G_{6p}`$ torsion.

Actually, for $`p2`$ there is an additional RR cohomology $`H^{2p}`$, i.e.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}H^0(\mathrm{P}^6,)\hfill & =& \hfill & \text{for}p=2\hfill \\ H^1(\mathrm{P}^7,\stackrel{~}{})\hfill & =& _2\hfill & \text{for}p=1\hfill \\ H^2(\mathrm{P}^8,)\hfill & =& _2\hfill & \text{for}p=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(36)
As with the other cohomologies, these lift unobstructed to the graded complex; $`d_3`$ is trivial since $`H=0`$ for O$`p^{}`$ planes, and $`d_5`$ is trivial since $`H^{7p}(\mathrm{P}^{8p})`$ (appropriately normal or twisted) is trivial. There is also an additional extension to solve,

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & K_{3p}& & K_{2p}& & K_{2p}/K_{3p}& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & H^{2p}& & \end{array}.$$
(37)
One can show that in all three cases $`K_{3p}=`$, and $`K_{2p}=K_0`$, which is $``$ for $`p=2`$, and $`_2`$ for $`p=0,1`$. The O$`2^{}`$ case is similar to the O$`6^{}`$ case above; there is no unique solution to the extension, so one must use a different method to determine the effect of $`G_0`$. We will return to this problem in section 5. For O$`1^{}`$ and O$`0^{}`$ the extension is trivial, so $`G_{2p}`$ torsion does not shift their charge.888This is also consistent with the fact that the branes which create this torsion, i.e. a D6-brane for O$`0^{}`$ and a D7-brane for O$`1^{}`$, cannot support the end of a D-string. The variants we called $`\widehat{\text{O}1}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{\text{O}0}^{}`$ therefore have the same charge (and tension) as the original torsion-free planes. It would be interesting to investigate whether (and how) the gauge theories on D1-branes and D0-branes in the presence of these exotic orientifold variants differ from the ordinary $`SO(2n)`$ theories on O$`1^{}`$ and O$`0^{}`$.

The story becomes even more interesting for the lower O$`p^+`$ planes, as we will see next.

### 4.2 Equivalent orientifolds

O$`p^+`$ planes correspond to O$`p^{}`$ planes with non-trivial $`H`$-torsion. This will modify the AHSS for $`p3`$ through the differential $`d_3`$. In particular, for the O$`3^+`$ plane

$$d_3:H^0(\mathrm{P}^5,)\stackrel{H}{}H^3(\mathrm{P}^5,\stackrel{~}{})$$
(38)
is a surjective map from $``$ to $`_2`$. $`G_3`$ torsion therefore lifts to a trivial class, and the graded complex is simply $`\text{Gr}KR_\pm ^1(𝕊^{6,0})=`$. As with the O$`5^+`$ plane, the extensions are trivial, so the charge doesn’t shift. However, the new feature here is that, since the two $`G_3`$ fluxes are equivalent in K-theory, the two variants O$`3^+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}3}^+`$ are equivalent as well. Physically this can be understood as follows. Equation (38) implies the existence of a constant 0-form $`\omega _0`$, such that

$$G_3=H\omega _0,$$
(39)
and the two O$`3^+`$ variants are related by a shift $`\omega _0\omega _0+1`$. On the other hand, the NSNS and RR 3-torsions of the two variants are related by an $`SL(2,)`$ transformation in Type IIB string theory given by

$$T=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right],$$
(40)
which also shifts the axion $`C_0C_0+1`$. We therefore identify $`\omega _0`$ with $`C_0`$.

Note that this transformation is global; in a background with several O$`3^+`$ planes, it changes all of them into $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}3}^+`$ planes. In particular, a configuration with two O$`3^+`$ planes at opposite points on a circle is not equivalent to a configuration with one O$`3^+`$ and one $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}3}^+`$. This is also consistent with the fact that the these configurations are related by T-duality to an O$`4^+`$ plane and an $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}4}^+`$ plane, respectively (fig. 3). The latter are inequivalent, since they differ by a ($`G_2`$) torsion class which is not trivial in K-theory.

For $`p2`$ we similarly find that $`G_{6p}`$ torsion can be written as

$$G_{6p}=H\omega _{3p},$$
(41)
where $`\omega _{3p}H^{3p}(\mathrm{P}^{8p})=_2`$ (appropriately normal or twisted), so O$`p^+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}p}^+`$ are equivalent in K-theory. For $`p=2`$ there is again an interesting physical picture. Consider the lift of O$`2^+`$ to M-theory . This corresponds to an OM$`2^+`$ plane and and OM$`2^{}`$ plane located at opposite points on the circle.999Two OM$`2^{}`$ planes correspond to an O$`2^{}`$ plane, and two OM$`2^+`$ planes correspond to an $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}2}^{}`$ plane The $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}2}^+`$ plane is then simply gotten by exchanging the positions of the two OM2 planes, which is equivalent to the shift $`x^{10}x^{10}\pm \pi `$. On the other hand, the M-theory shift $`x^{10}x^{10}+\xi `$ ($`\pi \xi \pi `$) in flat space reduces to a $`U(1)`$ gauge transformation in Type IIA string theory,

$$\delta C_1=d\xi ,\delta C_3=\frac{B}{2\pi }d\xi .$$
(42)
In the OM2 background we require $`\xi (x^i)=\xi (x^i)`$, where $`x^i`$ ($`i=3,\mathrm{},9`$) are the coordinates transverse to the O$`2^+`$-plane. In particular, at the location of the orientifold plane $`\xi (0)=0`$ or $`\pi `$ (mod $`2\pi `$) only, and this labels the discrete choice of the O$`2^+`$ variant. Comparing (42) with (41) we are led to identify $`\omega _1`$ with flat RR 1-forms $`C_1H^1(\mathrm{P}^6,\stackrel{~}{})=_2`$.

In this case there are two possible non-trivial transformations for a pair of O$`2^+`$ planes at opposite points on a circle,

$$\xi _1(x^9)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \pi & \hfill \text{for}& \hfill \pi <x^9<0\\ \hfill \pi & \hfill \text{for}& \hfill 0<x^9<\pi \end{array},\xi _2(x^9)=x^9.$$
(43)
In the first case both are transformed into $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}2}^+`$ planes, but in the second case only one (at $`x^9=\pi `$) is transformed. The configuration with one O$`2^+`$ and one $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}2}^+`$ is therefore equivalent to the one with two O$`2^+`$ planes. This is unlike the $`O3^+`$ case, since here the T-dual configurations are $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}3}^+`$ and O$`3^+`$, respectively (fig. 3), which are equivalent.

In general, the third differential $`d_3`$ will not correspond to just the cup product with $`H`$, but the intuition remains. If a field strength $`G_n`$ can be written as a derivative $`d_mC_{nm}`$, then it can be trivialized by a gauge transformation, and does not truly index a new RR field configuration.

### 4.3 Unphysical orientifolds

For O$`p^+`$ planes with $`p2`$ there is one more modification of the AHSS due to the differential $`d_3`$. The map

$$d_3:H^{2p}(\mathrm{P}^{8p})\stackrel{H}{}H^{5p}(\mathrm{P}^{8p})=_2,$$
(44)
where the cohomologies are appropriately normal or twisted (36), implies that $`G_{2p}`$ is not $`d_3`$-closed, but rather

$$d_3G_{2p}=\omega _{5p}_2.$$
(45)
If $`\omega _{5p}`$ is the non-trivial element of $`_2`$ then the corresponding class in $`H^{2p}`$ cannot be lifted to K-theory. In particular, for the O$`0^+`$ and O$`1^+`$ planes $`G_{2p}`$ torsion is completely obstructed, which means that the variants $`\widehat{\text{O}0}^+`$ and $`\widehat{\text{O}1}^+`$ (as well as the composites $`\stackrel{~}{\widehat{\text{O}0}}^+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\widehat{\text{O}1}}^+`$) do not exist.

For the O$`2^+`$ plane the above map is $`_2`$, which implies that odd values of $`G_0/2\pi `$ are not allowed. We will see in the next section that this can also be understood in terms of an anomaly in the three-dimensional gauge theory on D2-branes in an O$`2^+`$ background with odd $`G_0/2\pi `$.

It would be interesting to find a physical interpretation for these obstructions, analogous to the interpretations we gave for the equivalences before.

## 5 The orientifold 6-plane

### 5.1 K-theory

In the previous section we used the AHSS to obtain new insight into how the cohomological classification of RR fluxes in orientifold backgrounds is modified by K-theory. In particular, we saw that independent RR fluxes may become correlated, certain RR fluxes become trivial, and others are obstructed. For the O6-planes the latter features are absent for dimensional reasons. On the other hand we were not able to determine the correlation of the two RR fluxes $`G_2`$ and $`G_0`$.

Luckily, representative gauge bundles for the relevant K-groups, $`KH(𝕊^{3,0})`$ and $`KR(𝕊^{3,0})`$, can easily be worked out. Start with a flat Type IIA background, and consider complex vector bundles over $`𝕊^2`$. These are classified by $`K(𝕊^2)=K(pt.)\stackrel{~}{K}(𝕊^2)=`$, where the first term corresponds to the rank of the bundle, and the second term to its topological ($`ch_1`$) class. Physically these correspond to D8-branes ($`G_0`$ flux) and D6-branes ($`G_2`$ flux), respectively. A convenient basis of generators to work with is $`x=(1,0)`$ and $`y=(1,1)`$. The former corresponds to a constant rank 1 bundle $`v_0`$, and the latter to the basic rank 1 (monopole) line bundle with $`ch_1=1`$. This bundle can be constructed by assigning trivial bundles $`v_+`$ and $`v_{}`$ to the upper and lower hemishpheres, respectively, with a transition function along the equator,

$$v_+(\theta )=g(\theta )v_{}(\theta ).$$
(46)
The transition function $`g(\theta )`$ is a map $`𝕊^1U(n)`$, which is classified by a winding number $`w\pi _1(U(n))=`$. The basic line bundle has $`w=ch_1=1`$.

Now consider the action of the involution on the two generators. On the constant bundle the action is

$$v_0\overline{v_0}$$
(47)
if the involution squares to 1, and

$$v_0𝕁\overline{v_0}$$
(48)
if it squares to $`1`$. Consequently $`x`$ is a generator for $`KR(𝕊^{3,0})`$, whereas $`2x`$ is a generator for $`KH(𝕊^{3,0})`$. The action on the line bundle is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill v_+(x)& & \overline{v}_{}(x)\\ \hfill v_{}(x)& & \pm \overline{v}_+(x),\end{array}$$
(49)
where the upper sign corresponds to the $`KR`$ projection and the lower sign to the $`KH`$ projection. On the equator this becomes

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill v_+(\theta )& & \overline{v}_{}(\theta +\pi )\\ \hfill v_{}(\theta )& & \pm \overline{v}_+(\theta +\pi ).\end{array}$$
(50)
Compatibility with (46) requires

$$g(\theta +\pi )=\pm \overline{g}(\theta )^1=\pm g(\theta )^T,$$
(51)
which implies that $`w2`$ for $`KR`$, and $`w2+1`$ for $`KH`$. Thus $`y`$ is a generator for $`KH(𝕊^{3,0})`$, whereas only $`2y`$ is a generator for $`KR(𝕊^{3,0})`$.

The results are summarized as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\text{Covering Space}:\hfill & K(S^2)=\hfill & \text{generators}x=(1,0)\hfill & y=(1,1)\hfill \\ \text{O}6^{}\text{plane}:\hfill & KH(S^{3,0})=\hfill & \text{generators}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}2}x=(2,0)\hfill & y=(1,1)\hfill \\ \text{O}6^+\text{plane}:\hfill & KR(S^{3,0})=\hfill & \text{generators}x=(1,0)\hfill & 2y=(2,2).\hfill \end{array}$$
(52)
A unit $`G_2`$ flux, i.e. a bulk D6-brane, in the reduced space corresponds to the element $`2y2x=(0,2)`$. We therefore see that half-odd-integral $`G_2`$ flux, i.e. a fractional D6-brane, is required for O$`6^{}`$ when $`G_0`$ is odd, and forbidden when $`G_0`$ is even. In the former case the gauge group on D6-branes is $`SO(2n+1)`$, and we denote the orientifold plane $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}6}^{}`$. For O$`6^+`$ $`G_2`$ flux is always integral, and independent of $`G_0`$. The picture is similar to the one for the lower O$`p`$-planes, except that instead of the charge quantum being correlated with a RR torsion class (for O$`p^{}`$), it is corellated with the parity of an integral class.

### 5.2 Anomalies

The above conclusion can also be arrived at by considering the world-volume theory on probe D-branes. It was shown in  that a Chern-Simons (CS) term which includes $`G_0`$ is crucial for cancellation of an anomaly with respect to large gauge transformations in the world volume theory of D2-branes in an $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}6}^{}`$ background. We shall review the argument, and extend it to the other cases.

Consider first a flat Type IIA background. The CS terms on a D$`p`$-brane ($`p`$ even) are given by

$$S_{CS}^{flat}=_{p+1}Ctre^{F/2\pi }_{p+1}\frac{G_0}{2\pi }\omega _{p+1}(A),$$
(53)
where $`\omega _{p+1}(A)`$ is the Chern-Simons $`(p+1)`$-form defined by

$`d\omega _{2n1}(A)=2\pi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!(2\pi )^n}}trF^n`$ (54)
up to exact forms. Here ‘$`tr`$’ denotes the trace in the fundamental representation of the gauge group. As is well known, the integral of a CS form is not gauge invariant, but rather shifts by a $`2\pi `$ multiple of the winding number of the gauge transformation. Namely, for an element $`gU(n)`$ with winding $`w\pi _{p+1}(U(n))=`$, the gauge transformation $`Ag^1Ag+g^1dg`$ induces

$`{\displaystyle _{p+1}}\omega _{p+1}(A){\displaystyle _{p+1}}\omega _{p+1}(A)+2\pi w.`$ (55)
Invariance of the path integral therefore requires $`G_0/2\pi `$ .

In orientifold backgrounds the CS terms are given by

$$S_{CS}=\frac{1}{2}_{p+1}Ctre^{F/2\pi }\frac{1}{2}_{p+1}\frac{G_0}{2\pi }\omega _{p+1}(A),$$
(56)
where now the traces are in the fundamental representation of $`G=O(n)`$ or $`USp(2n)`$, and the factor of $`1/2`$ is needed to correctly reproduce the action (53) when the D-branes move away from the orientifold plane. The cases of interest are $`p=2`$ and $`6`$, as these are the only cases (in ten dimensions) with integral winding, $`\pi _3(G)=\pi _7(G)=`$. The integrals of the corresponding CS forms defined in (54) transform as follows

$`\delta {\displaystyle \omega _3(A)}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}4\pi w\hfill & \text{for}O\hfill \\ 2\pi w\hfill & \text{for}USp\hfill \end{array}`$ (59)
$`\delta {\displaystyle \omega _7(A)}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}2\pi w\hfill & \text{for}O\hfill \\ 4\pi w\hfill & \text{for}USp,\hfill \end{array}`$ (62)
where $`w`$ is the appropriate winding number of the gauge transformation. The relative factors of 2 can be understood by considering $`USp`$ and $`O`$ as projections of $`U`$. The generator of $`\pi _3(U)`$ is associated with the instanton bundle on $`𝕊^4`$ (i.e. the generator of $`\stackrel{~}{K}(𝕊^4)`$). Since this bundle is pseudoreal it survives the projection to $`USp`$, but must be doubled to get the generator for $`O`$. For $`\pi _7`$ the situation is reversed, since the associated bundle on $`𝕊^8`$ is real.

There is an additional contribution to the CS action from the fermion determinant $`det(iD/)`$ known as the parity anomaly. It was shown in  that a complex fermion in a representaion $`R`$ of the gauge group contributes to the three-dimensional CS term as follows

$`S_{CS}^{\text{1-loop}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{|m|}}{\displaystyle \omega _3^R(A)},`$ (63)
where $`m`$ is the mass of the fermion. A similar computation in seven-dimensional gauge theory gives

$`S_{CS}^{\text{1-loop}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{|m|}}{\displaystyle \omega _7^R(A)}.`$ (64)
Consider first $`N`$ D2-branes in the presence of an O6-plane and $`n`$ D6-branes. The case of O$`6^{}`$ was considered in . In this case the gauge group on the D2-branes is $`USp(2N)`$, and the global symmetry corresponding to the D6-brane gauge group is $`O(2n)`$ for O$`6^{}`$ and $`O(2n+1)`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}6}^{}`$. The spectrum of (complex) fermions in the D2-brane world-volume theory consists of a state in the bi-fundamental representation $`(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ },\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ })`$, as well as a pair of states in the symmetric representation of the gauge group $`(\text{    }\text{    },\mathrm{𝟏})`$, and a pair in the antisymmetric representation $`(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ },\mathrm{𝟏})`$. Invariance (mod $`2\pi `$) of the sum of (56) and (63) therefore requires $`G_0/2\pi `$ to be even for O$`6^{}`$, and odd for $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}6}^{}`$. For O$`6^+`$ the D2-brane gauge group is $`O(2N)`$ (or $`O(2N+1)`$), and the global symmetry is $`USp(2n)`$. The fermion representations are the same as above, so in this case there is no parity anomaly. Furthermore, we see from (59) that $`G_0/2\pi `$ can be any integer. This is exactly what we obtained in K-thoery.

The same result can also be obtained by considering the world-volume theory on the D6-branes. In this case there is a single complex fermion in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. The CS 7-forms defined in the adjoint representation are related to those defined in the fundamental representaion by

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_7}}\omega _7^{\mathrm{adj}}`$ $`=`$ $`(m8){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_7}}\omega _7\text{for}O(m)`$ (65)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_7}}\omega _7^{\mathrm{adj}}`$ $`=`$ $`(2m+8){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_7}}\omega _7\text{for}USp(2m).`$ (66)
Together with (62) we see that, in the first case, invariance under a large gauge transformation requires $`G_0/2\pi 2`$ for O$`6^{}`$ ($`m`$ even), and $`G_0/2\pi 2+1`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}6}^{}`$ ($`m`$ odd). There is no such correlation for O$`6^+`$, and $`G_0/2\pi `$ is an arbitrary integer.

The same approach can be applied to the O$`2`$-plane with $`G_0`$ flux, for which we only had partial K-theory results. In particular, we determined that $`G_0/2\pi `$ had to be even for O$`2^+`$, but we made no statement about O$`2^{}`$. The world-volume theory on D2-branes in the background of an O2-plane contains an even number (four) of complex fermions in the adjoint representation in all cases, so there is no parity anomaly. Invariance under large gauge transformations therefore requires $`G_0/2\pi 2`$ for O$`2^+`$ (and $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}2}^+`$), but allows any integer value for O$`2^{}`$ (and $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}2}^{}`$). This implies, in particular, that the $`G_6`$ charge quantum is not correlated with the value of $`G_0`$ (only with the torsion class of $`G_4`$, as we saw in the previous section).

### 5.3 Components of Type I vacuua

In many ways the orientifold 6-plane was the motivation for this investigation. Compactification of Type I string theory on $`𝕋^3`$, and T-duality, yields a background with eight O$`6^{}`$ planes and sixteen D6-branes. On the other hand it is known that the moduli space of Type I (or heterotic) vacua on $`𝕋^3`$ has additional disconnected components, with gauge groups of lower rank . One of our original goals was to describe these different components in the T-dual picture, using D6-branes and orientifold 6-planes.

Some of the additional components can indeed be described in this way, by including both O$`6^{}`$ and O$`6^+`$ planes, in much the same way as one describes the eight-dimensional theory without vector structure in terms of O$`7^{}`$ and O$`7^+`$ planes . In the fully compact case the seven-dimensional orientifold contains eight O6-planes, which are located at the vertices of a cube. Since each plane can be either O$`6^{}`$ or O$`6^+`$, there are naively $`2^8=256`$ configurations. However not all of them are consistent, and many of them are related by the symmetry group of the 3-torus $`SL(3,)`$.

Consider a configuration with $`N_{}`$ O$`6^{}`$ planes and $`N_+`$ O$`6^+`$ planes. Supersymmetry requires $`N_{}N_+`$, since otherwise anti-D6-branes would be required for tadpole cancellation. Furthermore, consistency of the orientifold projection requires $`N_{}`$ and $`N_+`$ to be even. For example, let us assume that the plane at the origin of the cube is O$`6^+`$, and the seven others are O$`6^{}`$. If we denote the action of the projection on the CP factors by $`\{g,g_1,g_2,g_3\}`$, where $`g_i`$ correspond to translations along the torus, then we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill g^T& =& g\hfill \\ \hfill (gg_i)^T& =& +gg_i(i=1,2,3)\hfill \\ \hfill (gg_ig_j)^T& =& +gg_ig_j(ij)\hfill \\ \hfill (gg_1g_2g_3)^T& =& +gg_1g_2g_3.\hfill \end{array}$$
(67)
From the first three relations we deduce that

$$\{g_i,g_j\}=0(ij).$$
(68)
On the other hand this implies

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(gg_1g_2g_3)^T\hfill & =\hfill & (gg_3g_2g_1)^T=g_1^Tg_2^Tg_3^Tg^T\hfill \\ & =\hfill & (gg_1g^1)(gg_2g^1g)(g_3g^1)(g)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & gg_1g_2g_3,\hfill \end{array}$$
(69)
in contradiction with the last relation. The allowed values of $`(N_{},N_+)`$ are thus $`(8,0)`$, $`(6,2)`$, and $`(4,4)`$ (fig. 4). In the first case the configuration is unique and corresponds to the original rank 16 component (fig. 4a). In the $`(6,2)`$ case the configuration is unique up to $`SL(3,)`$ transformations, and the rank is 8 (fig. 4b). In the $`(4,4)`$ case there is no gauge group, and there are actually two $`SL(3,)`$ equivalence classes. One corresponds to configurations in which four O6-planes of the same type are co-planar (fig. 4c), and the other to configurations where they are not co-planar (fig. 4d).101010Since $`MSL(n,)`$ satisfies $`\text{det}M=1`$, it follows that the Levi-Civita tensor $`ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}`$, and therefore also the pseudo-scalar product of $`n`$ vectors $`ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}v^{i_1}\mathrm{}v^{i_n}`$, is invariant under $`SL(n,)`$. For $`n=3`$ this means that co-planarity is an $`SL(3,)`$-invariant property.

Given the previous results, we now understand that the above configurations require $`G_0/2\pi `$ to be even. In particular, they exist for $`G_0=0`$. For $`G_0/2\pi `$ odd on the other hand, we must replace O$`6^{}`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}6}^{}`$, and change the number of D6-branes appropriately to cancel the tadpole. This can only be done supersymmetrically in the $`(8,0)`$ and $`(6,2)`$ configurations, which yield new components with a rank 12 and a rank 5 gauge group, respectively. (In the $`(4,4)`$ configurations the total charge of the $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O}6}`$-planes is $`+2`$, and can only be cancelled by anti-D6-branes.) Of course since $`G_00`$ in these cases, there is a non-vanishing vacuum energy, and supersymmetry is spontaneously broken.

## 6 Conclusions and open questions

In this paper we have demonstrated how K-theory generates very useful information on the nature of discrete RR G-fluxes in string theory, specifically for orientifold backgrounds. We saw that certain G-fluxes are correlated, that some become identified due to discrete transformations, and finally that some are disallowed outright. A very useful tool in this process was the Atiyah-Hirzebruch Spectral Sequence and our generalization of it. The AHSS ties together our understanding of separate RR-fields (even torsion ones) in terms of single K-classes.

The AHSS was particularly powerful for our set of examples because we already knew the relevant K-groups. However, use of the AHSS in general faces two obstacles. The first obstacle involves computing higher differentials in the sequence. We were able to circumvent this obstacle by using our exact knowledge of the K-groups. For complex K-theory, the $`d_3`$ differential has been explicitly worked out . For KR- and KH-theory, we did not work these out, although (along the lines of ) we can see that adding the torsion H-fields to $`d_3`$ brings us from one to the other. We would like to conclude by making some comments regarding the other obstacle: the matter of extensions.

One way to understand the extension problem is to realize that while the graded complex generated by the AHSS yields the elements of a K-group, it does not provide us with their additive structure. We propose that this additive structure can be extracted by thinking of the K-group elements on the asymptotic sphere as limiting values of generalized differentials in the bulk. For our purposes, a general differential form consists of a vector of differential forms of different ranks with a differential action which can increase the rank by more than one (for some ideas along these lines, we refer the reader to the ongoing project in ).

The equation of motion for fields described by generalized differentials involve the generalized derivative (naively a combination of the $`d_1,d_3`$ and $`d_5`$ seen in the AHSS), which in general will not be zero but can also give a K-class corresponding to the source of the particular RR-fields. The novelty here is that a K-class corresponding to a $`p`$-form current $`J_p`$ could be a source for any field strength $`G_m`$ with $`mp1`$, instead of just for $`G_{p1}`$. Consistency (commutativity) of the additive structure with the differential action will put useful restrictions on the additive structure of the generalized differential forms, which will in turn help determine the group structure of the K-group at infinity.

Another outstanding issue concerns the absolute charges of the orientifold. In this work we have only used K-theory to compute jumps in the charges, and one can make use of the fact that K-theory contributes and integral index to the path-integral to argue that the jumps are anomaly free . This leaves us with one constant still to be determined, the bare charge of the orientifold plane (for example, an $`O3^{}`$-plane starts with charge $`1/4`$). Although some earlier work on this exists , there does not yet exist a satifactory answer within the K-theory framework.

Note added: The classification of consistent and inequivalent O6-plane configurations (for $`G_0=0`$) in subsection 5.3 also appeared in .

## Appendix A AHSS in complex and real K-theory

In this appendix we will summarize the notion of the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence (AHSS), which can be used to compute K-theory groups which have a triangulation. We will show how this generalizes to real variants of K-theory. The first step in using the AHSS is to define an associated graded complex.

### A.1 Defining the Associated Graded Complex

Consider a space $`X`$, with a triangulation $`\widehat{X}`$. $`X_p`$ is the subset of this triangulation with simplices of maximum dimension $`p`$. For example the two-sphere, $`𝕊^2`$, has a triangulation $`\widehat{X}=X_2`$ equal to

$$\{(x_2x_3x_4),(x_1x_3x_4),(x_1x_2x_4),(x_1x_2x_3)\}$$
(70)
and so

$$\begin{array}{c}X_1=\{(x_1x_2),(x_1x_3),(x_1x_4),(x_2x_3),(x_2x_4),(x_3x_4)\},\hfill \\ X_0=\{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(71)
We are now going to use the triangulation to filter the group K(X). Define

$$K_0(X)K(X),K_p(X)|_{1pDim(X)}\{xϵK(X)|x\mathrm{trivial}\mathrm{on}X_{p1}\}.$$
(72)
Going back to our example $`X=𝕊^2`$, we have $`K_0(𝕊^2)=`$. When we wrap a Dp-brane on this $`S_2`$, these two charges correspond to Dp-brane charge and D(p$`2`$)-brane charge. Thus in this example, $`K_1(𝕊^2)=K_2(𝕊^2)=`$, reflecting the fact that these groups capture only D(p$`2`$)-brane charge.

For a finite dimensional space X of dimension $`N`$, the $`K_p`$’s define a filtration,

$$K=K_0K_1\mathrm{}K_N,$$
(73)
which makes $`K(X)`$ a filtered complex. This allows us to define an associated graded complex

$$\text{Gr}K\underset{p=0}{\overset{p=N}{}}K_p/K_{p+1}\underset{p=0}{\overset{p=N}{}}G_p.$$
(74)
Although $`\text{Gr}K(X)`$ doesn’t capture all the structure of $`K(X)`$, there is, as it turns out, a simple algorithm for computing $`\text{Gr}K`$ which usefully connects with much of the physicist’s intuition about fields as seen in cohomology. Also note that we can easily extend the notion of the associated graded complex $`\text{Gr}K`$ to any other K-theory, such as $`K^1(X),KR(X),K_\pm (X)`$, etc.

### A.2 Computing Gr$`K`$ using a spectral sequence

To compute $`\text{Gr}K`$, we are going to use a sequence of successive approximations. The first approximation to $`G_p`$ we can label as $`E_1^p`$, and it consists of K-classes on the $`p`$-simplices $`\sigma _p^i`$ trivial on their boundaries. In other words,

$$E_1^p=K(_i\sigma _i^p,_i\dot{\sigma }_i^p)=_iK(\sigma _i^p,\dot{\sigma }_i^p).$$
(75)
Of course, since $`K(\sigma _i^p,\dot{\sigma }_i^p)=\stackrel{~}{K}(𝕊^p)=K^p(pt)`$ we get that

$$E_1^p=C^p(X,K^p(pt)).$$
(76)
Since we our using complex K-theory for now, only the even-dimensional co-chains appear.

Now the first approximation gives us a candidate K-classes on the $`\sigma _i^p`$’s, but we need to make sure that they can be extended to K-classes on $`\widehat{X}`$ and thus $`X`$. The first step is to extend a class on the $`p`$-skeleton to a class on the ($`p+1`$)-skeleton, i.e. take every element in $`E_1^p`$ and extend it to the $`\sigma _i^{p+1}`$’s. Summing up the integers from each component of the boundary $`\dot{\sigma }_i^{p+1}`$ yields, with appropriate orientation, a winding number which if non-zero acts as an obstruction to extending the co-chain to the ($`p+1`$)-skeleton. This is precisely the cohomology differential which maps

$$d_1:C^p(X,K^p(pt))C^{p+1}(X,K^p(pt)),$$
(77)
which implies that the next approximation to $`G_p`$ should be

$$E_2^p=H^p(X,K^p(pt)).$$
(78)
To continue with this construction, we define elements

$$E_2^{p,q}=H^p(X,K^q(pt))\mathrm{with}E_2^p=E_2^{p,p}.$$
(79)
where $`p`$ ranges from 0 to the dimension of X, but $`q`$ is allowed to range freely. With these elements, the whole approximation scheme can then be refined recursively as follows. We define $`d_r`$ to be the obstruction to lifting a K-class in $`E_r`$ up $`r`$ steps. Formally,

$$d_r:E_r^{p,q}E_r^{p+r,q(r1)}.$$
(80)
We then define $`E_{r+1}`$ as the cohomology of the operator $`d_r`$ and repeat. We have already seen what $`E_1`$, $`d_1`$ and $`E_2`$ correspond to. In complex K-theory, only odd differentials appear, and $`d_3`$ is the Steenrod square $`Sq^3`$. For finite dimensional spaces, this procedure terminates at some finite order $`n`$. We then have

$$K_p(X)/K_{p+1}(X)=G_p(X)=E_n^{p,p}(X).$$
(81)
There are two features to this construction that are of particular interest. The first is that cohomology appears at the $`E_2`$ level in the scheme, hence we can view this construction of K-classes as a sort of refinement of $`H^{}(X)`$ with a different addition structure. The second is that the same coefficients $`E_r^{p,q}`$ can naturally be used to compute the associated graded complex for other K-theories (as long as there is no involution on the space $`X`$) such as $`K^s(X)`$ and $`KO^s(X)`$ using a slight modification of the coefficients in eq (79). For example

$$G_p^s(X)K_p^s(X)/K_{p+1}^s(X)=E_n^{p,(p+s)}(X).$$
(82)
Note that the differentials $`d_r`$ all map from the $`E^{p,q}`$’s for $`K^s(X)`$ to those for $`K^{s+1}(X)`$ just as the regular cohomology differential $`d`$ maps co-chains in $`C^s(X)`$ to co-chains in $`C^{s+1}(X)`$.

### A.3 Extending the AHSS to K-theories with freely acting involutions

In order to extend the AHSS construction above to K-theories with a freely acting spatial involution, e.g. $`KR^s(𝕊^{p,0})`$, we need to make some restrictions on the triangulation, namely that every simplex $`\sigma _i^p`$ is mapped by the involution $`\chi `$ to another simplex $`\overline{\sigma _i}^p`$ such that

$$\sigma _i^p\overline{\sigma _i}^p=\mathrm{}.$$
(83)
As an example, we can give a simple such triangulation for the $`𝕊^{p,0}`$. Start with the set of points $`\{x_\pm ^1,\mathrm{},x_\pm ^p\}`$. The simplices that make up the triangulation consist of all sets $`S`$ of these points (with appropriate orientations) such that

$$x_\pm ^iSx_{}^iS.$$
(84)
For example, $`(x_+^1x_{}^2x_+^3)`$ is a 2-simplex in this triangulation, but $`(x_+^1x_{}^2x_{}^1)`$ is not. We then define the involution to to take

$$\chi :(x_\pm ^i,\mathrm{},x_\pm ^j)(x_{}^i,\mathrm{},x_{}^j).$$
(85)
which clearly satisfies eq.83.

Given a proper triangulation then, we can continue to follow the procedure above, except now there should be a slight modification of the $`E_1`$ term given in eq.75. For example, for computing $`KR`$-groups we use

$$E_1^p=KR(_i(\sigma _i^p\overline{\sigma }_i^p),_i(\dot{\sigma }_i^p\dot{\overline{\sigma }}_i^p))=_iKR(\sigma _i^p\overline{\sigma }_i^p,\dot{\sigma }_i^p\dot{\overline{\sigma }}_i^p).$$
(86)
At this point it useful to bear in mind that generator of $`K(\sigma ^i,\dot{\sigma }^i)`$ is real (or pseudo real) for $`i=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$ but not for $`i=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$ (the conjugate spinors have opposite chirality) . This implies that for $`KR`$\- and $`KH`$-groups,

$`E_1^{p,q}=C^p(X|_\chi ,)`$ $`\mathrm{for}`$ $`q=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$ (87)
$`E_1^{p,q}=C^p(X|_\chi ,\stackrel{~}{})`$ $`\mathrm{for}`$ $`q=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$ (88)
$`E_1^{p,q}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}`$ $`\mathrm{for}`$ $`q\mathrm{odd}`$ (89)
where $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ refers to the local coefficients on X which switch signs with the map $`\chi `$, i.e., the co-chain takes opposite value for opposite simplices in the covering space $`X`$.

The differential $`d_1`$ is identical with the usual differential operator, so $`E_2`$ gives twisted and un-twisted cohomologies. On the other hand, we can see from eq. 87 that $`d_3`$ takes twisted chains to un-twisted chains and vice-versa and so is not the Steenrod square like in the complex case. It provides for a difference between KR- and KH-groups.

### A.4 Illustrative Example: $`KR(𝕊^{6,0})`$ and $`KH(𝕊^{6,0})`$

To illustrate the AHSS in the context of KR-groups and KH-groups, we can examine as an example the groups $`KR(𝕊^{6,0})`$ and $`KH(𝕊^{6,0})`$. The $`E_2`$ terms are:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}E_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(𝕊^{6,0})\hfill & =& H^0(\mathrm{P}^5,)& =& \\ E_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},1}(𝕊^{6,0})\hfill & =& 0& & \\ E_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},2}(𝕊^{6,0})\hfill & =& H^2(\mathrm{P}^5,\stackrel{~}{})& =& 0\\ E_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3},3}(𝕊^{6,0})\hfill & =& 0& & \\ E_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4},4}(𝕊^{6,0})\hfill & =& H^4(\mathrm{P}^5,)& =& _2\\ E_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5},5}(𝕊^{6,0})\hfill & =& 0& & \end{array}$$
(90)
There are two possible places where the differential $`d_3`$ can act non-trivially:

$`d_3:E_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(𝕊^{6,0})=E_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3},2}(𝕊^{6,0})=_2`$ (91)
$`d_3:E_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},2}(𝕊^{6,0})=_2E_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4},4}(𝕊^{6,0})=_2`$ (92)
Let us look at the case (91) more closely. The generator of $`E_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(𝕊^{6,0})`$ is a bundle of rank one over the 0-skeleton. Being in $`E_2`$ (and thus $`E_3`$) means that it extends to a rank one bundle over the 2-skeleton. Let’s try to extend it to a rank one bundle over the 3-skeleton. Consider the 3-chain in $`C_3(\mathrm{P}^5,\stackrel{~}{})`$ which looks like an $`\mathrm{P}^3`$ inside $`\mathrm{P}^5`$. It has as a boundary a 2-chain made up of two $`\mathrm{P}^2`$’s (which explains why $`H_3(\mathrm{P}^5,\stackrel{~}{})=0`$). In KR-theory, the constant rank one bundle over the $`\mathrm{P}^2`$’s can be extended to the “$`\mathrm{P}^3`$”, but in KH-theory the rank one bundle over $`\mathrm{P}^2`$ has non-trivial first Chern class and so cannot be extended to the “$`\mathrm{P}^3`$”. Looking at eq. (91), this fact implies that $`d_3`$ takes $`z0`$ in $`KR(𝕊^{6,0})`$ but that $`zzmod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ in $`KH(𝕊^{6,0}).`$ Further analysis of the same kind reveals that $`d_3`$ is only non-trivial in eq. (92) for $`KH(𝕊^{6,0}).`$ The final result is then:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill KR(𝕊^{6,0})& =& _2\hfill \\ \hfill KH(𝕊^{6,0})& =& 2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(93)
where the factor of 2 denotes the fact that only even rank constant bundles are allowed.

Acknowledgments

O.B. and E.G would like to thank M. Atiyah, A. Hanany, B. Kol, and especially E. Witten for useful conversations. S.S. would like to thank Y. Hyakutake and Y. Imamura for useful discussions. O.B. was supported in part by the DOE under grant no. DE-FG03-92-ER40701, and by a Sherman Fairchild Prize Fellowship. The work of E.G. was supported by the NSF under grant no. 0070928 and Frank and Peggy Taplin. The work of S.S. was supported in part by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.


format: text

text:
# Superconductivity in an organic insulator at very high magnetic fields.

## Abstract

We investigate by electrical transport the field-induced superconducting state (FISC) in the organic conductor $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2FeCl4. Below 4 K, antiferromagnetic-insulator, metallic, and eventually superconducting (FISC) ground states are observed with increasing in-plane magnetic field. The FISC state survives between 18 and 41 T, and can be interpreted in terms of the Jaccarino-Peter effect, where the external magnetic field compensates the exchange field of aligned Fe3+ ions. We further argue that the Fe3+ moments are essential to stabilize the resulting singlet, two-dimensional superconducting state

Received:

Superconductivity is usually destroyed by diamagnetic currents induced in the presence of strong magnetic fields. This effect has orbital character and prevails in most conventional “s-wave” superconductors that involve singlet state of the Cooper pairs. In addition, superconductivity can also be suppressed by the Pauli pair breaking mechanism: here the external field destroys the spin-singlet state of the Cooper pair, imposing the so-called Clogston-Chandrasekhar paramagnetic limit . Nevertheless, and despite these well known physical limitations, S. Uji et al.  have recently reported the observation of a magnetic-field induced superconducting phase (FISC) in the quasi-two-dimensional organic conductor $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2FeCl4 for fields exceeding 18 tesla, applied parallel to the conducting layers. This is particularly remarkable since this compound, at zero field, is an antiferromagnetic insulator (AI) below $`T_p8.5`$K . The AI state is suppressed by the application of magnetic fields above 10 tesla at low temperatures .

The present work was motivated by the apparent increase in the critical temperature of the FISC above 18 T with increasing magnetic field (Ref. ). Here, for instance, in the case of spin-triplet superconductivity, there would be in principle, no limit on the upper critical field. The presence of Fe3+ magnetic moments, which coexist with the FISC state, adds further appeal to the triplet state model. To clarify the nature of the FISC, we have studied the $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2FeCl4 compound at low temperatures in steady, tilted magnetic fields up to 42 tesla. Our main result is the observation of reentrance towards the metallic state at a temperature-dependent critical field. We obtain a temperature-magnetic field phase diagram for the FISC state, which we interpret in terms of the Jacarino-Peter (JP) field compensation effect . This implies that the Cooper pairs condense into a spin-singlet state. We argue further that the Fe3+ magnetic state is indeed necessary to stabilize the singlet superconducting state by suppression of diamagnetic currents in the associated in-plane high magnetic fields.

$`\lambda `$-(BETS)2FeCl4 (where BETS stands for Bis(ethylenedithio)tetraselenafulvalene) crystallizes in a triclinic unit cell. The BETS planar molecules are stacked along the crystallographic a-axis, and constitute conducting planes parallel to the a-c plane. These conducting layers alternate along the b-axis with layers containing linear chains of FeCl$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{4}{}^{}`$ magnetic anions, hence the b-axis is the least conducting direction. Spin interactions between localized Fe3+ 3d electrons and $`\pi `$ conducting electrons are expected due to the short interatomic distance between the BETS molecules and the FeCl4 anions.

Single crystals of $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2FeCl4 were obtained by electro-crystallization . Annealed (low strain) gold wires ($`\varphi `$ = 12.5 $`\mu `$m) were attached with graphite paint in a four-terminal arrangement along the c-axis. An ac current (10 to 100 $`\mu `$A) was used, and the voltage was measured by a conventional lock-in amplifier technique. Samples were mounted in a rotating sample holder in a 3He refrigerator. The measurements were carried out in the Hybrid magnet at the DC Field Facility of the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory.

Our magnetic field dependent resistance of a $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2FeCl4 single crystal is shown in Fig. 1(a) for different temperatures. Here the magnetic field $`B`$ is applied along the in-plane c-axis. The main characteristic of the data is that between 18 and 41 tesla, the resistance of the material drops with decreasing temperature, reaching zero within experimental uncertainties below 2 K in a field range centered near 33 T. It is important to mention that in this part of the ($`BT`$) phase diagram, the material behaves as a good metal. We find Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations (of order 700 T with effective mass $`m^{}4m_0`$) for the magnetic field perpendicular to the conducting planes , which for an isotropic model would give a Fermi energy $`\epsilon _F`$ 200 K. The normal state resistivity is of order of 10-4 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.cm in the metallic state near 15 T. We estimate $`k_F\mathrm{}20`$ (where $`k_F`$ is the Fermi wave vector and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the mean free path) and thus, despite the low scale of $`\epsilon _F`$, the standard metallic conditions are fulfilled.

In the FISC state at higher fields, the resistivity drops typically by 2 to 4 orders of magnitude, putting it at or below the conductivity of copper, and beyond our ability to measure by standard ac lock-in methods. From the isothermal field scans we can extract the temperature dependence of the resistance at fixed values of the field, see Fig. 1(b). For fields between 18 and 37 T, the resistance shows a phase transition from the metallic phase (above 4.2 K) to the full superconducting state. Above a certain threshold field $`B_{th}=`$18 tesla, the onset of this transition increases with magnetic field, reaching a maximum $`T_c4`$ K at $`B^{}`$ = 33 tesla. Above $`B^{}`$ the onset decreases in temperature with increasing field, and above 41 T the FISC is suppressed rapidly. We note that the experimental resistance does not fall immediately to zero below $`T_c`$. We expect, given the very small, delicate nature of the samples, that the presence of strain, sample quality, or sample mis-alignment may cause some inhomogeneity (percolation) in the superconducting fraction at the onset of the FISC.

We next discuss a central question concerning the interpretation of the FISC state as “truly” superconducting, beyond the observation of zero resistance within experimental uncertainties. The Meissner effect - the standard test for the onset of superconductivity - where magnetic flux is excluded when a sample enters the superconducting state, may become a non-trivial experiment in the present case. This is due to the fact that the magnetic flux may be trapped between two-dimensional superconducting layers. However, as torque magnetization measurements show , there is a bulk phase transition at $`B_{th}(T)`$ from the metallic to the FISC state.

The present work provides two additional, independent pieces of evidence that the FISC is superconducting. The first is that the state is re-entrant to a metallic state above 41 T what excludes triplet pairing. This observation also rules out field-induced low-resistance models. When magnetic scattering, or some other form of higher resistance state is removed by magnetic fields, restoration of disorder-related, inelastic processes at higher fields is very unlikely. The second observation is the effect of the transverse magnetic field (i.e. field perpendicular to the layers) on the FISC state. This behavior is illustrated in Fig. 2(a), where we show results from a systematic variation of the magnetic field away from the in-plane orientation at the lowest temperature of our investigation. The essential detail here is that the zero resistance state begins to vanish for a transverse field $`B_c`$ greater than 3.5 T. This observation is elucidated in Fig. 2(b) by plotting the resistance for a constant in-plane field $`B_c=Bsin(\theta )`$ of about 33 T (i.e. $`B_c=B^{}`$ ) vs. the transverse field $`B_c=Bcos(\theta )`$. Hence the FISC state is removed when orbital components appear. The most striking observation is that the critical field $`B_c`$ for the FISC state is essentially identical to that of the non-magnetic, isostructural material $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 , and by comparison, this suggests that the FISC is also a singlet superconducting state.

We next consider how the FISC state is stabilized. While the two anions (Fe3+ and Ga3+) have different ground states at $`T=0`$ in the low field range of the ($`BT`$) phase diagram, alloying by Ga and external pressure restores superconductivity in the Fe-based material . We expect that the superconducting states, in both cases, are close in energy. We therefore argue that the in-plane physics is similar for both materials, and the differences in the phase diagrams arise from correspondingly small energies related to, for instance, the inter-layer coupling. Our model is as follows. In-plane fields orient the $`S=5/2`$ spin of the Fe3+ ions, and we assume that this decouples the BETS conducting layers. The problem then becomes two-dimensional (2D), with no diamagnetic currents flowing between layers in the presence of a purely in-plane magnetic field (we will return to this point later). For the 2D geometry, the in-plane field can destroy singlet superconductivity by means of paramagnetic effects only, i.e., breaking the Cooper pairs . The $`S=5/2`$ Fe3+ magnetic moments, oriented by magnetic field, exert the exchange field $`JS`$ on the spins $`s`$ of the conduction electrons via the exchange interaction, $`J\stackrel{}{s}\stackrel{}{S}`$. Thus, the effective field $`H_{eff}`$ acting on the electron spin is:

$$I(B)=\mu _BH_{eff}=\mu _BB+JS$$
(1)
Eq. (1) is at the heart of the Jaccarino-Peter effect : for $`J<0`$ the two contributions will compensate each other to restore superconductivity. For our experiments with $`B20`$ \- 40 tesla and $`T<5`$ K, the iron moments are saturated: $`S=5/2`$. Following Refs. , the restoration of superconductivity (at $`T=0`$) will occur in the field interval $`|I(B)|<0.755\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ is the superconducting gap at $`T=0`$ (in the absence of the field). The situation, however, is more complicated by the fact that the phase transitions separating normal and superconducting states in the $`(T,I(B))`$ \- plane, may be either 1st or 2nd order . The phase diagram has recently been revised by two of us in  (see also ); we plot in Fig. 3 the theoretical results, together with the experimental data in the ($`T,B`$)-plane. Experiments suggest $`I(B^{})=0`$ at $`B^{}=33`$ tesla, $`T_c4.2`$ K, and these parameters were used in the theoretical plots in Fig. 3. In Fig. 3 the solid line is the 2nd order transition line. At lower temperatures, transitions from the normal to the superconducting states begin with a 2nd order transition into the inhomogeneous LOFF-state (shaded area) , rapidly followed by a 1st order transition (dashed curve) into the homogeneous state. The branching points are at $`T_t2.3`$ K. The range of existence of the LOFF state is rather narrow : we estimate the width (at $`T=0`$) as only $`\mathrm{\Delta }B0.72`$ T. (In addition, this state is very sensitive to defects). We see from Fig. 3 that the theoretical model discussed above reproduces the main features of the FISC phase diagram very well.

Let us now return to the question regarding the nature of the new FISC state in $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2FeCl4 and its relation to the “conventional” SC state in $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4. Here we argue that remarkably, the Fe3+ magnetic ions may be essential to stabilize the two-dimensionality of the FISC state produced by the JP effect. Both compounds have similar, anisotropic, layered structure. Nevertheless, there is an inter-plane electronic coupling in the $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4, as is evidenced in the finite upper critical field  for the in-plane direction, $`H_{C2}(0)=1215`$ tesla, which is well below the field where the FISC is stable. To restore superconductivity in $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2FeCl4 within the field range of the JP compensation effect, one needs a mechanism to fully eliminate the diamagnetic interlayer currents in this compound. We suggest that the coupling between 2D BETS layers comes about through the bridging of MCl4 tetrahedra, so that in the second order effective tunneling matrix element, the (MCl4)0-state shows up as the intermediate state in simple perturbation theory. While the p-shell is empty for Ga3+, all the “d-levels” are occupied in Fe3+, according to Hund’s rule. Placing an additional electron at the Fe3+ site (with spin antiparallel to $`\stackrel{}{S}`$) is energetically unfavorable, i.e. it costs the Hund coupling energy. Furthermore, when the $`S=5/2`$ spins of Fe3+ are aligned by the field, an electron with parallel spin has no accessible states on the d-shell, and the energy cost inside the FeCl4-complex is expected to increase even further. Therefore, tunneling across magnetically oriented Fe3+-tetrahedra becomes a spin selective process, consequently, transport of an s-wave Cooper pair between adjacent planes is excluded. Clearly, in $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 there is no spin selective process, and hence a correspondingly smaller upper critical field is observed .

Finally, we consider why $`T_c^{}4.2`$ K in $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2FeCl4 is less than $`T_c^{}5.5`$ K for $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4. Our guess is that both superconducting ground states (due to the two-dimensionality) are basically the same at $`T=0`$, (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)_{Fe}\mathrm{\Delta }(0)_{Ga}=1.76T_c^{Ga}`$). $`T_c^{}=T_c^{Fe}`$ seems to be smaller, since at higher temperatures, thermal activation of the Fe3+ spins via the exchange interaction $`J`$ provides a mechanism for pair breaking scattering.

We conclude by noting that $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2FeCl4 (along with the non-magnetic analog $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4) has provided a rich new area for the study of low dimensional superconductivity and magnetism, where the two mechanisms compete on a very low energy scale. In this paper we have provided a simple theoretical picture that describes the broader features of the newly discovered high field induced superconducting state. We show experimentally that in-plane diamagnetic currents ($`B_c`$) can destroy the FISC state. We have argued that magnetic ions are actually essential to suppress the coupling between planes in the presence of in-plane magnetic fields. However, there are many unusual features in this system that will require a significant, further level of both experimental and theoretical work. In particular, the mechanism by which the magnetic field penetrates in the bulk of our 2D superconducting samples remains unclear and may produce hysteretic behavior.

We would like to thank the Hybrid Magnet Group at the NHMFL for their invaluable assistance during these measurements. One of us (JSB) acknowledges support from NSF-DMR-99-71474 for this work. The NHMFL is supported by a cooperative agreement between the State of Florida and the National Science Foundation through NSF-DMR-0084173.