format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In this article we explain in detail the construction of maximal gauged supergravities in three dimensions, recently announced in . While maximal gauged supergravities in higher dimensions have been known for a long time, starting with the gauged $`N=8`$ theory in four dimensions , and subsequently for dimensions $`5D8`$ , the results on gauged supergravities in three dimensions and below have remained somewhat fragmentary until now. The results presented in this paper close this gap. In addition they open up new perspectives: unlike maximal gauged supergravities in higher dimensions, the maximal AdS3 supergravities, which we obtain here, are neither contained in nor derivable by any known mechanism from the known maximal supergravities in higher dimensions. The new, and purely field theoretic, evidence for a theory beyond $`D=11`$ supergravity  and type IIB supergravity  that we have thus obtained is perhaps the most important consequence of the present work.

Topological gauged supergravities in three dimensions were first constructed in ; these theories are supersymmetric extensions of Chern-Simons (CS) theories with $`(n_L,n_R)`$ supersymmetry and gauge group $`SO(n_L)\times SO(n_R)`$, but have no propagating matter degrees of freedom (see also  for earlier work on $`D=3`$ supergravity). Matter coupled gauged supergravities can, of course, be obtained by direct dimensional reduction of gauged supergravities in $`D4`$ to three dimensions and below, but these do not preserve the maximal supersymmetry . Another matter coupled theory with half maximal supersymmetry, obtained by compactifying the ten-dimensional $`N=1`$ supergravity on a seven-sphere, has been discussed in  (however,  deals only with the bosonic part of the Lagrangian). In a different vein,  constructs an abelian gauged supergravity by deforming the $`D=3`$, $`N=2`$ supergravity whose matter sector is described by an $`SO(n,2)/SO(n)\times SO(2)`$ coset space sigma model. This model bears some resemblance to the present work in that the vector fields appear via a CS term rather than a Yang-Mills term, unlike the matter-coupled theories mentioned before. However, the construction is limited to the abelian case, whereas the present construction yields non-abelian CS theories, thereby providing the first examples of a non-abelian duality between scalars and vector fields in three space-time dimensions.

Gauged supergravities have attracted strong interest again recently in the context of the conjectured duality between AdS supergravities and superconformal quantum field theories on the AdS boundary . For instance, classical supergravity domain wall solutions are claimed to encode the information on the renormalization group flow of the strongly coupled gauge theory . The theories admitting AdS3 ground states are expected to be of particular interest for the AdS/CFT duality due to the rich and rather well understood structure of two-dimensional superconformal field theories. However, a large part of the recent work dealing with the conjectured AdS/CFT correspondence in AdS3 has been based on the BTZ black hole solution of , which has no propagating matter degrees of freedom in the bulk. We will see that the gauged $`N=16`$ theories yield a rich variety of supersymmetric groundstates, virtually exhausting all the possible vacuum symmetries of AdS type listed in , and thus an equally rich variety of superconformal theories on the boundary.

As is well known , the scalar fields in the toroidal compactification of $`D=11`$ supergravity  on a $`d`$-torus form a coset space sigma model manifold $`G/H`$ with the exceptional group $`G=E_{d(d)}`$ and $`H`$ its maximally compact subgroup; in particular, for $`d=8`$ one obtains a theory with global $`E_{8(8)}`$ symmetry and local $`SO(16)`$ . The complete list of ungauged matter coupled supergravities in three dimensions (which unlike topological supergravities only exist with $`N16`$ supersymmetries) has been presented in . Gauging any of these theories corresponds to promoting a subgroup $`G_0`$ of the rigid $`G`$ symmetry group to a local symmetry in such a way that the full local supersymmetry is preserved. The latter requirement engenders additional Yukawa-like couplings between the scalars and fermions, as well as a rather complicated potential for the scalar fields. As we will demonstrate by explicit construction, the possible compact and non-compact non-abelian gauge groups, all of which are subgroups of the global $`E_{8(8)}`$ symmetry of the ungauged maximal supergravity theory and preserve the full local $`N=16`$ supersymmetry, are more numerous in three dimensions than in higher dimensions.

There are essentially two properties which distinguish the three dimensional models from all their higher dimensional relatives. First, the gravitational sector does not contain any propagating degrees of freedom such that the theories without matter coupling may be formulated as CS theories of AdS supergroups ; see also the classic article  for a description of the peculiarities of gravity in three space-time dimensions. In fact, pure quantum gravity  and quantum supergravity  are exactly solvable in three space-time dimensions. Second, in three dimensions scalar fields are on-shell equivalent to vector fields. At the linearized level, this duality is encapsulated in the relation

$$ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }^\rho \phi ^m=_{[\mu }B_{\nu ]}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}.$$
(1.1)
This relation plays a special role in the derivation of maximal $`N=16`$ supergravity in three dimensions : in order to expose its rigid $`E_{8(8)}`$ symmetry, all vector fields obtained by dimensional reduction of $`D=11`$ supergravity  on an 8-torus must be dualized into scalar fields. Vice versa, the duality (1.1) allows us to redualize part of the scalar fields into vector fields, such that the ungauged theory possesses different equivalent formulations which are related by duality . As explained there, the replacement of scalar fields by vector fields breaks the exceptional $`E_{8(8)}`$ symmetry; when attempting to gauge this theory while maintaining its $`E_{8(8)}`$ structure and thus keeping all the scalars, it is therefore a priori not clear how to re-incorporate the vector fields necessary for the gauging without introducing new and unwanted propagating degrees of freedom. We will circumvent this apparent problem by interpreting (1.1) as defining up to 248 vector fields as (nonlocal) functions of the scalar fields. This freedom in the choice of the number of vector fields is at the origin of the large number of possible gauge groups that we encounter in three dimensions.

In higher dimensions, the gauge group is to a large extent determined by the number and transformation behavior of the vector fields under the rigid $`G`$ symmetry of the ungauged theory. As a necessary condition for gauging a subgroup $`G_0G`$, the vector fields or at least a maximal subset thereof must transform in the adjoint representation of $`G_0`$. In the latter case there may remain additional vector fields which transform nontrivially under the gauge group. Upon gauging, these charged vector fields would acquire mass terms and thereby spoil the matching of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom; to avoid such inconsistencies one needs some additional mechanism to accommodate these degrees of freedom. Altogether, this does not leave much freedom for the choice of the gauge group. In $`D=4`$ and $`D=7`$ one must make use of the full set of vector fields transforming in the adjoint representation of the gauge groups $`SO(8)`$ and $`SO(5)`$, respectively. The situation is more subtle in dimensions $`D=5,6`$ where only a subset of the vector fields transforms in the adjoint representation of the gauge groups $`SO(6)`$ and $`SO(5)`$, respectively. The problem of coupling charged vector fields is circumvented in $`D=5`$ by dualizing the additional vector fields into massive self-dual two forms ; in $`D=6`$ they are absorbed by massive gauge transformations of the two forms .

By contrast the proper choice of gauge group is much less obvious in three dimensions. With (1.1), we may introduce for any subgroup $`G_0E_{8(8)}`$ a set of $`\nu =\mathrm{dim}G_0`$ vector fields transforming in the adjoint representation of $`G_0`$. A priori, there is no restriction on the choice of $`G_0`$; however, demanding maximal supersymmetry of the gauged theory strongly restricts the possible choices for $`G_0`$. It is one of our main results that the entire set of consistency conditions for the three-dimensional gauged theory may be encoded into a single algebraic condition

$$_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕𝟎𝟎𝟎}}\mathrm{\Theta }=0,$$
(1.2)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the embedding tensor characterizing the subgroup $`G_0`$, and $``$ a projector in the $`E_{8(8)}`$ tensor product decomposition $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟖}\times \mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟖})_{\mathrm{sym}}=\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟑𝟖𝟕𝟓}+\mathrm{𝟐𝟕𝟎𝟎𝟎}`$. Solutions to (1.2) may be found by purely group theoretical considerations. Having formulated the consistency conditions of the gauged theory as a projector condition for the embedding tensor of the gauge group allows us to construct a variety of models with maximal local supersymmetry. As a result, we identify a “regular” series of gauged theories with gauge group $`SO(p,8p)\times SO(p,8p)`$, including the maximal compact gauge group $`SO(8)\times SO(8)`$ as a special case. In addition, we find several theories with exceptional noncompact gauge groups, among them an extremal theory which gauges the full $`E_{8(8)}`$ symmetry. These theories have no analog in higher dimensions.

This collection of maximal admissible gauge groups is presented in Table I; all the gauge groups — apart from the theory with local $`E_{8(8)}`$ — have two simple factors with a fixed ratio of coupling constants. As a by-product of our construction we can understand and re-state the corresponding consistency conditions for the higher dimensional gauged supergravities of  in very simple terms; in particular, the derivation of the $`T`$-identities for the $`D=4,5`$ theories can now be simplified considerably by reducing it to purely group theoretical condition analogous to (1.2). Remarkably, and even though the rigid $`G=E_{d(d)}`$ symmetry of the ungauged theory is broken, the construction and proof of consistency of the gauged theory makes essential use of the properties of the maximal symmetry group $`E_{d(d)}`$ in all cases.

This paper is organized as follows. In Chapter 2 we review the ungauged $`N=16`$ theory and in particular discuss the full nonlinear version of the duality (1.1) between scalar and vector fields. In Chapter 3 we present the Lagrangian of the gauged theory. It is characterized by a set of tensors $`A_{1,2,3}`$ which are nonlinear functions of the scalar fields and describe the Yukawa-type couplings between fermions and scalars as well as the scalar potential. We derive the consistency conditions that these tensors must satisfy in order for the full $`N=16`$ supersymmetry to be preserved, and show that $`A_{1,2,3}`$ combine into a “$`T`$-tensor” analogous to the one introduced in , but now transforming as the $`\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟑𝟖𝟕𝟓}`$ of $`E_{8(8)}`$. In Chapter 4 we show that these consistency conditions imply and may entirely be encoded into the algebraic equation (1.2) for the embedding tensor of the gauge group, which selects the admissible gauge groups $`G_0E_{8(8)}`$. In turn, every solution to (1.2) yields a nontrivial solution for $`A_{1,2,3}`$ in terms of the scalar fields which satisfies the full set of consistency conditions. Maximal supersymmetry of the gauged theory thus translates into a simple projector equation for the gauge group $`G_0`$.

In Chapter 5 we analyze equation (1.2) and its solutions among the maximal subgroups of $`SO(16)`$ and $`E_{8(8)}`$, respectively. We find the maximal compact admissible gauge group $`G_0=SO(8)\times SO(8)`$ as well as its noncompact real forms $`SO(p,8p)\times SO(p,8p)`$ for $`p=1,\mathrm{},4`$. In addition, we identify the exceptional noncompact gauge groups given in Table I. Each of these groups gives rise to a maximally supersymmetric gauged supergravity. Chapter 6 is devoted to an analysis of stationary points of the scalar potential which preserve the maximal number of $`16`$ supersymmetries. We show that all our theories admit a maximally symmetric ground state and determine their background isometries. Finally we speculate on a possible higher dimensional origin of these theories.

## 2 The ungauged $`𝑵\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ theory

We first summarize the pertinent results about (ungauged) maximal $`𝑵\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ supergravity in three dimensions. The complete Lagrangian and supersymmetry transformations were presented in , whose conventions and notation we follow throughout this paper.111In particular we use the metric with signature $`(+)`$ and three-dimensional gamma matrices with $`e\gamma ^{\mu \nu \rho }=\mathrm{i}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }`$, where $`ϵ^{012}=ϵ_{012}=1`$, and $`e\mathrm{det}e_\mu ^\alpha `$ is the dreibein determinant. The physical fields of $`𝑵\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ supergravity constitute an irreducible supermultiplet with 128 bosons and 128 fermions transforming as inequivalent fundamental spinors of $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$. In addition, the theory contains the dreibein $`𝒆_{𝝁}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝜶}`$ and 16 gravitino fields $`𝝍_𝝁^𝑰`$, which do not carry propagating degrees of freedom in three dimensions. As first shown in , it possesses a “hidden” invariance under rigid $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ and local $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ transformations. Consequently, the scalar fields are described by an element $`𝓥`$ of the non-compact coset space $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{/}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ in the fundamental 248-dimensional representation of $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$, which transforms as

$$𝓥\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝒈𝓥\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}𝒉^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒈\mathbf{}𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝒉\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(2.1)
(see App. A for our $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ conventions). The scalar fields couple to the fermions via the currents

$$𝓥^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}_𝝁𝓥\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑸_𝝁^{𝑰𝑱}𝑿^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{+}𝑷_𝝁^𝑨𝒀^𝑨\mathbf{.}$$
(2.2)
The composite $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ connection $`𝑸_𝝁^{𝑰𝑱}`$ enters the covariant derivative $`𝑫_𝝁`$ in

$`𝑫_𝝁^{}𝝍_𝝂^𝑰`$ $`\mathbf{:=}`$ $`\mathbf{}_𝝁^{}𝝍_𝝂^𝑰\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}𝝎_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝒂𝒃}𝜸_{𝒂𝒃}^{}𝝍_𝝂^𝑰\mathbf{+}𝑸_𝝁^{𝑰𝑱}𝝍_𝝂^𝑱\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝑫_𝝁𝝌^{\dot{𝑨}}`$ $`\mathbf{:=}`$ $`\mathbf{}_𝝁𝝌^{\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}𝝎_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝒂𝒃}𝜸_{𝒂𝒃}^{}𝝌^{\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}𝑸_𝝁^{𝑰𝑱}𝚪_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}^{𝑰𝑱}𝝌^{\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{.}`$ (2.3)
Definition (2.2) implies the integrability relations:

$$𝑸_{𝝁𝝂}^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝚪_{𝑨𝑩}^{𝑰𝑱}𝑷_𝝁^𝑨𝑷_𝝂^𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝑫_{\mathbf{[}𝝁}^{}𝑷_{𝝂\mathbf{]}}^𝑨\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}$$
(2.4)
where the $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ field strength is defined as

$$𝑸_{𝝁𝝂}^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{:=}\mathbf{}_𝝁𝑸_𝝂^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}_𝝂𝑸_𝝁^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑸_𝝁^{𝑲\mathbf{[}𝑰}𝑸_𝝂^{𝑱\mathbf{]}𝑲}\mathbf{.}$$

The full supersymmetry variations read

$`𝜹𝒆_{𝝁}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝜶}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝐢\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}^𝑰𝜸^𝜶𝝍_𝝁^𝑰\mathbf{,}𝜹𝝍_𝝁^𝑰\mathbf{=}𝑫_𝝁\mathit{ϵ}^𝑰\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}𝐢𝜸^𝝂\mathit{ϵ}^𝑱\overline{𝝌}𝚪^{𝑰𝑱}𝜸_{𝝁𝝂}𝝌\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝓥^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}𝜹𝓥`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑰\overline{𝝌}^{\dot{𝑨}}\mathit{ϵ}^𝑰𝒀^𝑨\mathbf{,}𝜹𝝌^{\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝐢}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝜸^𝝁\mathit{ϵ}^𝑰𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑰\widehat{𝑷}_𝝁^𝑨\mathbf{,}`$ (2.5)
with the supercovariant current

$$\widehat{𝑷}_𝝁^𝑨\mathbf{:=}𝑷_𝝁^𝑨\mathbf{}\overline{𝝍}_𝝁^𝑰𝝌^{\dot{𝑨}}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑰\mathbf{.}$$

As shown in , they leave invariant the Lagrangian 222Note that the factor in front of the last term $`(\overline{\chi }\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^{IJ}\chi )^2`$ differs from the one given in  as was already noticed in .

$`𝓛`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}𝒆𝑹\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}𝒆𝑷^{𝝁𝑨}𝑷_𝝁^𝑨\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathit{ϵ}^{𝝀𝝁𝝂}\overline{𝝍}{}_{𝝀}{}^{𝑰}𝑫_{𝝁}^{}𝝍_𝝂^𝑰`$ (2.6)
$`\mathbf{}\frac{𝐢}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒆\overline{𝝌}^{\dot{𝑨}}𝜸^𝝁𝑫_𝝁𝝌^{\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒆\overline{𝝌}^{\dot{𝑨}}𝜸^𝝁𝜸^𝝂𝝍_𝝁^𝑰𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑰𝑷_𝝂^𝑨`$
$`\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟖}}𝒆\mathbf{\left(}\overline{𝝌}𝜸_𝝆𝚪^{𝑰𝑱}𝝌\mathbf{\left(}\overline{𝝍}{}_{𝝁}{}^{𝑰}𝜸_{}^{𝝁𝝂𝝆}𝝍_𝝂^𝑱\mathbf{}\overline{𝝍}{}_{𝝁}{}^{𝑰}𝜸_{}^{𝝆}𝝍^{𝝁𝑱}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}\overline{𝝌}𝝌\overline{𝝍}{}_{𝝁}{}^{𝑰}𝜸_{}^{𝝂}𝜸^𝝁𝝍_𝝂^𝑰\mathbf{\right)}`$
$`\mathbf{+}𝒆\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟖}}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝌}𝝌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝌}𝝌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟗𝟔}}\overline{𝝌}𝜸^𝝁𝚪^{𝑰𝑱}𝝌\overline{𝝌}𝜸_𝝁𝚪^{𝑰𝑱}𝝌\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}`$
The invariance is most conveniently checked in 1.5 order formalism, with the torsion

$$𝑻_{𝝁𝝂}{}_{}{}^{𝝆}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝐢\overline{𝝍}{}_{𝝁}{}^{𝑲}𝜸_{}^{𝝆}𝝍_𝝂^𝑲\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}𝐢\overline{𝝌}^{\dot{𝑨}}𝜸_{𝝁𝝂}{}_{}{}^{𝝆}𝝌_{}^{\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{.}$$
(2.7)
A central role in our construction is played by the on-shell duality between scalar fields and vector fields in three dimensions, which we shall now discuss. The scalar field equation induced by (2.6) is given by

$`𝑫_𝝁\mathbf{\left(}𝒆\mathbf{\left(}𝑷^{𝝁𝑨}\mathbf{}\overline{𝝍}_𝝂^𝑰𝜸^𝝁𝜸^𝝂𝝌^{\dot{𝑨}}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑰\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{=}`$ (2.8)
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathit{ϵ}^{𝝁𝝂𝝆}\overline{𝝍}_𝝁^𝑰𝝍_𝝂^𝑱𝚪_{𝑨𝑩}^{𝑰𝑱}𝑷_𝝆^𝑩\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟖}}𝐢𝒆\overline{𝝌}𝜸^𝝁𝚪^{𝑰𝑱}𝝌𝚪_{𝑨𝑩}^{𝑰𝑱}𝑷_𝝁^𝑩\mathbf{,}`$
Upon use of the Rarita-Schwinger and Dirac equations for $`𝝍_𝝁^𝑰`$ and $`𝝌^{\dot{𝑨}}`$, respectively, this equation may be rewritten in the form

$$\mathbf{}^𝝁\mathbf{(}𝒆𝓙_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝓜}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}$$
(2.9)
where $`𝓙_𝝁^𝓜`$ is the conserved Noether current associated with the rigid $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ symmetry :

$`𝒆𝓙^𝝁^𝓜`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝓥^𝓜{}_{𝑩}{}^{}\widehat{𝑷}_{}^{𝝁𝑩}\mathbf{}\frac{𝐢}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝓥^𝓜{}_{𝑰𝑱}{}^{}\overline{𝝌}𝜸^𝝁𝚪^{𝑰𝑱}𝝌`$ (2.10)
$`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒆^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathit{ϵ}^{𝝁𝝂𝝆}\mathbf{\left(}𝓥^𝓜{}_{𝑰𝑱}{}^{}\overline{𝝍}{}_{𝝂}{}^{𝑰}𝝍_{𝝆}^{𝑱}\mathbf{}𝐢𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑰𝓥^𝓜{}_{𝑨}{}^{}\overline{𝝍}{}_{𝝂}{}^{𝑰}𝜸_{𝝆}^{}𝝌^{\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}`$
In writing this expression we have made use of the equivalence of the fundamental and adjoint representations of $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ which yields the relation (see also App. A)

$$𝓥^𝓜{}_{𝓐}{}^{}\mathbf{:=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}}\mathrm{𝐓𝐫}\mathbf{\left(}𝒕^𝓜𝓥𝒕_𝓐𝓥^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$

The existence of the conserved current (2.10) allows us to introduce 248 abelian vector fields $`𝑩_{𝝁}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝓜}`$ (with index $`𝓜\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟖}`$), via

$$\mathit{ϵ}^{𝝁𝝂𝝆}𝑩_{𝝂𝝆}{}_{}{}^{𝓜}\mathbf{=}𝒆𝓙^{𝝁𝓜}\mathbf{,}$$
(2.11)
where $`𝑩_{𝝁𝝂}{}_{}{}^{𝓜}\mathbf{:=}\mathbf{}_𝝁𝑩_{𝝂}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝓜}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}_𝝂𝑩_{𝝁}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝓜}`$ denotes the abelian field strength. This equation defines the vector fields up to the $`\mathbf{\left[}𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}^{\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟖}}`$ gauge transformations

$$𝑩_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝓜}\mathbf{}𝑩_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝓜}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}_𝝁𝚲^𝓜\mathbf{.}$$
(2.12)
In accordance with (2.1) these vector fields transform in the adjoint representation of rigid $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ and are singlets under local $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$. The supersymmetry transformations of the vector fields have not been given previously; they follow by “$`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ covariantization” of the supersymmetry variations of the 36 vector fields obtained by direct dimensional reduction of $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}`$ supergravity to three dimensions

$$𝜹𝑩_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝓜}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝓥^𝓜{}_{𝑰𝑱}{}^{}\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}_{}^{𝑰}𝝍_𝝁^𝑱\mathbf{+}𝐢𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑰𝓥^𝓜{}_{𝑨}{}^{}\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}_{}^{𝑰}𝜸_𝝁𝝌^{\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{.}$$
(2.13)
For consistency, this transformation must be compatible with the duality relation (2.11). To check this, it is convenient to rewrite the latter in terms of the supercovariant field strength

$`\widehat{𝑩}_{𝝁𝝂}^𝓜`$ $`\mathbf{:=}`$ $`𝑩_{𝝁𝝂}{}_{}{}^{𝓜}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝓥^𝓜{}_{𝑰𝑱}{}^{}\overline{𝝍}{}_{𝝁}{}^{𝑰}𝝍_{𝝂}^{𝑱}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝐢𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑰𝓥^𝓜{}_{𝑨}{}^{}\overline{𝝍}{}_{\mathbf{[}𝝁}{}^{𝑰}𝜸_{𝝂\mathbf{]}}^{}𝝌^{\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{,}`$
whose supercovariance is straightforwardly verified from (2.13). The duality relation (2.11) then takes the following supercovariant form

$$\mathit{ϵ}^{𝝁𝝂𝝆}\widehat{𝑩}_{𝝂𝝆}{}_{}{}^{𝓜}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒆𝓥^𝓜{}_{𝑨}{}^{}\widehat{𝑷}_{}^{𝝁𝑨}\mathbf{}\frac{𝐢}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒆𝓥^𝓜{}_{𝑰𝑱}{}^{}\overline{𝝌}𝜸^𝝁𝚪^{𝑰𝑱}𝝌\mathbf{.}$$
(2.14)
Equation (2.14) consistently defines the dual vector fields as nonlocal and nonlinear functions of the original 248 scalar fields (including the 120 gauge degrees of freedom associated with local $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$), provided the latter obey their equations of motion. We emphasize that in this way we can actually introduce as many vector fields as there are scalar fields, whereas the direct dimensional reduction of $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}`$ supergravity to three dimensions produces only 36 vector fields. The “$`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ covariantization” alluded to above simply consists in extending the relevant formulas from these 36 vectors to the full set of $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐦}𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟖}`$ vector fields in a way that respects the $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ structure of the theory. In the ungauged theory the vector fields have been introduced merely on-shell; there is no Lagrangian formulation that would comprise the scalar fields as well as their dual vector fields. However, we shall see that the gauged theory provides a natural off-shell framework which accommodates both the scalars and their dual vectors.

From (2.14) we can also extract the equation of motion of the dual vectors: acting on both sides with $`\mathit{ϵ}_{𝝆𝝁𝝂}\mathbf{}^𝝂`$ and making use of the integrability relations (2.4), we obtain

$`\mathbf{}_𝝂𝑩^{𝝁𝝂}^𝓜`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒆^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathit{ϵ}^{𝝁𝝂𝝆}𝓥^𝓜{}_{𝑰𝑱}{}^{}𝑸_{𝝂𝝆}^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{+}\text{fermionic terms}\mathbf{.}`$ (2.15)
Also the fermionic terms still depend on the original scalar fields. This is obvious from the fact that we need the scalar field matrix $`𝓥`$ to convert the $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ indices on the fermions into the $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ indices appropriate for the l.h.s. of this equation. (Let us note already here that in the gauged theory, the r.h.s. of this equation will acquire additional contributions containing $`𝑩_{𝝁𝝂}^𝓜`$ in order of the coupling constant). We recognize an important difference between the “dual formulations” of the theory: whereas the vectors disappear completely in the standard formulation of the theory, the vector equations of motion in general still depend on the dual scalar fields. It is only under very special circumstances, and for special subsets of the 248 vector fields, that one can completely eliminate the associated dual scalars. This is obviously the case for the version obtained by direct reduction of $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}`$ supergravity to three dimensions where only 92 bosonic degrees of freedom appear as scalar fields while 36 physical degrees of freedom appear as vector fields. As shown in , the latter are associated with the 36-dimensional maximal nilpotent commuting subalgebra of $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$, but there are further intermediate possibilities.

To conclude this section, we recall that the three dimensional Einstein-Hilbert term can be rewritten in Chern-Simons form as

$$\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}𝒆𝑹\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathit{ϵ}^{𝝁𝝂𝝆}𝒆_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝒂}𝑭_{𝝂𝝆𝒂}^{}\mathbf{,}$$
(2.16)
by means of the dual spin connection

$$𝑨_𝝁^𝒂\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathit{ϵ}^{𝒂𝒃𝒄}𝝎_{𝝁𝒃𝒄}\mathbf{,}$$

with field strength $`𝑭_{𝝁𝝂}^𝒂\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{[}𝝁}𝑨_{𝝂\mathbf{]}}^𝒂\mathbf{+}\mathit{ϵ}^𝒂{}_{𝒃𝒄}{}^{}𝑨_{𝝁}^{𝒃}𝑨_𝝂^𝒄`$. When gauging the theory the Minkowski background space-time will be deformed to an AdS3 spacetime characterized by

$$𝑹_{𝝁𝝂}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒈_{𝝁𝝂}\mathbf{,}$$
(2.17)
with (negative) cosmological constant $`𝚲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. The Lorentz-covariant derivative is accordingly modified to an AdS3 covariant derivative

$$𝓓_𝝁^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{:=}\mathbf{}_𝝁\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝐢𝜸_𝒂\mathbf{(}𝑨_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝒂}\mathbf{\pm }𝒎𝒆_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝒂}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(2.18)
with commutator

$$\mathbf{[}𝓓_𝝁^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{,}𝓓_𝝂^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{]}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝐢𝜸_𝒂\mathbf{(}𝑭_{𝝁𝝂}{}_{}{}^{𝒂}\mathbf{+}𝒎^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathit{ϵ}^{𝒂𝒃𝒄}𝒆_{𝝁𝒃}𝒆_{𝝂𝒄}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$

We will return to these formulas when discussing the conditions for $`\mathbf{(}𝒏_𝑳\mathbf{,}𝒏_𝑹\mathbf{)}`$ supersymmetry in AdS3 in Chapter 6.

## 3 Gauged $`𝑵\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ supergravity

The Lagrangian (2.6) is invariant under rigid $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ and local $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$. To gauge the theory, we now select a subgroup $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ which will be promoted to a local symmetry. The resulting theory will then be invariant under local $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$, such that (2.1) is replaced by

$$𝓥\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝒈_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}𝓥\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}𝒉^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒈_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝒉\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(3.1)
However, it should be kept in mind that the local symmetries are realized in different ways: as before, the local $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ is realized in terms of “composite” gauge connections, whereas the gauge fields associated with the local $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ symmetry are independent fields to begin with. Restricting to semisimple subgroups, $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is properly characterized by means of its embedding tensor $`𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}`$ which is the restriction of the Cartan-Killing form $`𝜼_{𝓜𝓝}`$ onto the associated algebra $`𝖌_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. The embedding tensor will have the form

$$𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}\mathbf{=}\underset{𝒋}{\mathbf{}}𝜺_𝒋𝜼_{𝓜𝓝}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}$$
(3.2)
where $`𝜼^{𝓜𝓝}𝜼_{𝓝𝓚}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}`$ project onto the simple subfactors of $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, and the numbers $`𝜺_𝒋`$ correspond to the relative coupling strengths. It will turn out that these coefficients are completely fixed by group theory, so there is only one overall gauge coupling constant $`𝒈`$. Owing to the symmetry of the projectors $`𝜼^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}`$ the embedding tensor is always symmetric:

$$𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}\mathbf{=}𝚯_{𝓝𝓜}\mathbf{.}$$
(3.3)
As discussed in the introduction we introduce a subset of $`𝝂\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐦}𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ vector fields, obtained from (2.14) by projection with $`𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}`$. For these we introduce special labels $`𝒎\mathbf{,}𝒏\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}`$, with the short hand notation

$$𝑩_{𝝁}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝒎}𝒕_𝒎\mathbf{}𝑩_{𝝁}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝓜}𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}𝒕^𝓝\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐞𝐭𝐜}\mathbf{.}$$
(3.4)
Note that we do not make any assumption about $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ at this point; in particular, our ansatz allows for compact as well as noncompact gauge groups. The possible choices for $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ will be determined in Chapter 5.

The first step is the covariantization of derivatives in (2.2) according to

$$𝓥^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}𝓓_𝝁𝓥\mathbf{}𝓥^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}_𝝁𝓥\mathbf{+}𝒈𝑩_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝒎}𝓥_{}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}𝒕_𝒎𝓥\mathbf{}𝓟_𝝁^𝑨𝒀^𝑨\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝓠_𝝁^{𝑰𝑱}𝑿^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{,}$$
(3.5)
with gauge coupling constant $`𝒈`$. The non-abelian field strength reads

$`𝓑_{𝝁𝝂}^𝒎`$ $`\mathbf{:=}`$ $`\mathbf{}_𝝁𝑩_𝝂{}_{}{}^{𝒎}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}_𝝂𝑩_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝒎}\mathbf{+}𝒈𝒇^𝒎{}_{𝒏𝒑}{}^{}𝑩_{𝝁}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝒏}𝑩_{𝝂}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝒑}\mathbf{.}`$ (3.6)
The integrability relations (2.4) are modified to

$`𝓠_{𝝁𝝂}^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝚪_{𝑨𝑩}^{𝑰𝑱}𝓟_𝝁^𝑨𝓟_𝝂^𝑩`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒈𝓑_{𝝁𝝂}{}_{}{}^{𝒎}𝚯_{𝒎𝒏}^{}𝓥^𝒏{}_{𝑰𝑱}{}^{}\mathbf{,}`$
$`\mathrm{𝟐}𝑫_{\mathbf{[}𝝁}^{}𝓟_{𝝂\mathbf{]}}^𝑨`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒈𝓑_{𝝁𝝂}{}_{}{}^{𝒎}𝚯_{𝒎𝒏}^{}𝓥^𝒏{}_{𝑨}{}^{}\mathbf{.}`$ (3.7)
With the hidden $`𝒈`$ dependent extra terms in the definition of the currents in (3.5), their supersymmetry variations become

$`𝜹𝓠_𝝁^{𝑰𝑱}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝚪^{𝑰𝑱}𝚪^𝑲\mathbf{)}_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}𝓟_𝝁^𝑨\overline{𝝌}^{\dot{𝑨}}\mathit{ϵ}^𝑲\mathbf{+}𝒈\mathbf{(}𝜹𝑩_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝒎}\mathbf{)}𝚯_{𝒎𝒏}𝓥^𝒏{}_{𝑰𝑱}{}^{}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝜹𝓟_𝝁^𝑨`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑰𝑫_𝝁\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝌}^{\dot{𝑨}}\mathit{ϵ}^𝑰\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒈\mathbf{(}𝜹𝑩_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝒎}\mathbf{)}𝚯_{𝒎𝒏}𝓥^𝒏{}_{𝑨}{}^{}\mathbf{,}`$ (3.8)
with the variation of the vector fields given in (2.13).

Both modifications violate the supersymmetry of the original Lagrangian. In order to restore local supersymmetry we follow the standard Noether procedure as in , modifying both the original Lagrangian as well as the transformation rules by $`𝒈`$-dependent terms. We will first state the results, and then explain their derivation and comment on the special and novel features of our construction.

The full Lagrangian can be represented in the form

$$𝓛\mathbf{=}𝓛^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝓛^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝓛^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝓛^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}$$
(3.9)
where $`𝓛^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}`$ is just the original Lagrangian (2.6), but with the modified currents defined in (3.5); thus $`𝓛^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝓛`$ differ by terms of order $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒈\mathbf{)}`$. The contributions $`𝓛^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝓛^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}`$ are likewise of order $`𝒈`$ and describe the Chern-Simons coupling of the vector fields and the Yukawa type couplings between scalars and fermions, respectively:

$`𝓛^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}𝒈\mathit{ϵ}^{𝝁𝝂𝝆}𝑩_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝒎}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}_𝝂𝑩_𝝆{}_{𝒎}{}^{}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}𝒈𝒇_{𝒎𝒏𝒑}𝑩_𝝂{}_{}{}^{𝒏}𝑩_{𝝆}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝒑}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$ (3.10)
$`𝓛^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒈𝒆𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}\overline{𝝍}{}_{𝝁}{}^{𝑰}𝜸_{}^{𝝁𝝂}𝝍_𝝂^𝑱\mathbf{+}𝐢𝒈𝒆𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}\overline{𝝌}{}_{}{}^{\dot{𝑨}}𝜸_{}^{𝝁}𝝍_𝝁^𝑰`$ (3.11)
$`\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒈𝒆𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}\overline{𝝌}{}_{}{}^{\dot{𝑨}}𝝌_{}^{\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{,}`$
where the tensors $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ are functions of the scalar matrix $`𝓥`$ which remain to be determined. At order $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, there is the scalar field potential $`𝑾\mathbf{(}𝓥\mathbf{)}`$:

$`𝓛^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒆𝑾\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟖}}𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒆\mathbf{\left(}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}`$ (3.12)
Besides the extra $`𝒈`$ dependent terms induced by the modified currents, the supersymmetry variations must be amended by the following $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒈\mathbf{)}`$ terms:

$$𝜹_𝒈𝝍_𝝁^𝑰\mathbf{=}𝐢𝒈𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}𝜸_𝝁\mathit{ϵ}^𝑱\mathbf{,}𝜹_𝒈𝝌^{\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{=}𝒈𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}\mathit{ϵ}^𝑰\mathbf{.}$$
(3.13)
Of course, the above modifications of the Lagrangian and the supersymmetry transformation rules have not been guessed “out of the blue”, but at this point simply constitute an ansatz that has been written down in analogy with known gauged supergravities, in particular the $`𝑵\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟖}`$ theory of . The consistency of this ansatz must now be established by explicit computation.

The $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ tensors $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ depending on the scalar fields $`𝓥`$ introduce Yukawa-type couplings between the scalars and the fermions beyond the derivative couplings generated by (2.2), as well as a potential for the scalar fields. As is evident from their definition, the tensors $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}`$ and $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}`$ are symmetric in their respective indices. Therefore, $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}`$ decomposes as $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟓}`$ under $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$,333Here and in the following, representations of $`SO(16)`$ are written with ordinary numbers, while representations of $`E_{8(8)}`$ are given in boldface numbers. viz.

$$𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{=}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}𝜹^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{+}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑨}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{,}$$
(3.14)
with $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑨}^{𝑱𝑱}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, while for $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}`$ we have the decomposition

$$𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{=}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}𝜹^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{+}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑨}_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{,}$$
(3.15)
where

$$\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑨}_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{!}}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟑}𝑰𝑱𝑲𝑳}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}}𝚪_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}^{𝑰𝑱𝑲𝑳}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{!}}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟑}𝑰_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑰_\mathrm{𝟖}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}𝚪_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}^{𝑰_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑰_\mathrm{𝟖}}\mathbf{.}$$

Therefore $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ can contain the representations $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟐𝟎}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟔𝟒𝟑𝟓}`$. However, we will see that the $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟒𝟑𝟓}`$ drops out. Due to the occurrence of the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟐𝟎}`$ in this decomposition, the tensor $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ cannot be expressed in terms of $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ unlike for $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓}`$. The independence of $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ is a new feature of the $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ gauged theory.

Several restrictions on the tensors $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ can already be derived by imposing closure of the supersymmetry algebra on various fields at order $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒈\mathbf{)}`$. Computing the commutator on the dreibein field we obtain an extra Lorentz rotation with parameter

$$𝚲_{𝜶𝜷}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒈𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝑰𝜸_{𝜶𝜷}\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝑱\mathbf{,}$$
(3.16)
while evaluation of the commutator on the vector fields and the scalar field matrix $`𝓥`$ yields an extra gauge transformation with parameter

$$𝚲^𝒎\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑰𝑱}{}^{}\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}{}_{\mathrm{𝟏}}{}^{𝑰}\mathit{ϵ}_{\mathrm{𝟐}}^{𝑱}\mathbf{+}𝐢𝑩_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝒎}\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}{}_{\mathrm{𝟏}}{}^{𝑰}𝜸_{}^{𝝁}\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝑰\mathbf{.}$$
(3.17)
The latter induces a further $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ rotation with parameter $`𝝎^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{=}𝒈𝚲_𝒎𝓥_{}^{𝒎}{}_{𝑰𝑱}{}^{}`$ on $`𝓥`$ (as well as the fermions which transform under $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$). For the derivation of this result we need the relations

$`𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑨}{}^{}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^{\mathbf{(}𝑰}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑱\mathbf{)}\dot{𝑨}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑰𝑲}{}^{}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{𝑱𝑲}\mathbf{+}𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑱𝑲}{}^{}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{𝑰𝑲}\mathbf{,}`$ (3.18)
$`𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^{\mathbf{[}𝑰}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑱\mathbf{]}\dot{𝑨}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝓥^𝓒{}_{𝑰𝑱}{}^{}𝚯_{𝓒𝓓}^{}𝓥^𝓓{}_{𝑨}{}^{}\mathbf{,}`$ (3.19)
which give the first restrictions on the tensors $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}`$. A peculiarity is that the closure of the superalgebra on $`𝑩_𝝁^𝒎`$ requires use of the duality equation, whereas the equations of motion are not needed to check closure on the remaining bosonic fields.

Tracing (3.18) over the indices $`𝑰`$ and $`𝑱`$ and using the symmetry of $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}`$ we immediately obtain

$$𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑰𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{.}$$
(3.20)
The tensor $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}`$ thus transforms as the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟗𝟐𝟎}}`$ (traceless vector spinor) representation of $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$.

To state the restrictions imposed on these tensors by the requirement of local supersymmetry more concisely, we now define the $`𝑻`$-tensor

$$𝑻_{𝓐\mathbf{|}𝓑}^{}\mathbf{:=}𝓥^𝓜{}_{𝓐}{}^{}𝓥_{}^{𝓝}{}_{𝓑}{}^{}𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}^{}\mathbf{.}$$
(3.21)
Clearly $`𝑻_{𝓐\mathbf{|}𝓑}\mathbf{=}𝑻_{𝓑\mathbf{|}𝓐}`$ by the symmetry of $`𝚯`$. Unlike the cubic expressions in  and , however, the $`𝑻`$-tensor is quadratic in $`𝓥`$ due to the equivalence of the fundamental and adjoint representations for $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$, see (A.7). The tensors $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ must be expressible in terms of $`𝑻`$ if the theory can be consistently gauged. The detailed properties of the $`𝑻`$-tensor will be the subject of the following chapter.

Let us next consider the consistency conditions for local supersymmetry of (3.9) step by step. All cancellations that are $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$-covariantizations of the corresponding terms in the ungauged theory will work as before, and for this reason we need only discuss those variations which have no counterpart in the ungauged theory. Variation of $`𝓛^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}`$ produces only the contribution

$$𝜹𝓛^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}𝒈\mathit{ϵ}^{𝝁𝝂𝝆}𝜹𝑩_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝒎}𝓑_{𝝂𝝆𝒎}^{}\mathbf{,}$$

because the CS term depends on no other fields but $`𝑩_𝝁^𝒎`$. Inserting (2.13) the above variation can be seen to cancel against the extra terms in the variation of $`𝓛^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}`$ arising in the integrability conditions, cf. (3.7)

A second set of $`𝒈`$-dependent terms is obtained by varying $`𝑩_𝝁^𝒎`$ in $`𝓠_𝝁`$ and $`𝓟_𝝁`$, cf. (3.8). Expressing the result by means of the $`𝑻`$-tensor, we obtain

$`𝒈\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑻_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{|}𝑲𝑳}^{}\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}^𝑰𝝍_𝝁^𝑱\mathbf{}𝐢𝑻_{𝑲𝑳\mathbf{|}𝑨}^{}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑩}}^𝑰\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}^𝑰𝜸_𝝁𝝌^{\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\overline{𝝍}_𝝂^𝑲𝜸^{𝝁𝝂𝝆}𝝍_𝝆^𝑳\mathbf{+}\frac{𝐢}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\overline{𝝌}𝜸^𝝁𝚪^{𝑲𝑳}𝝌\mathbf{\right)}`$
$`\mathbf{}𝒈\mathbf{\left(}𝑻_{𝑨\mathbf{|}𝑲𝑳}^{}\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}^𝑲𝝍_𝝁^𝑳\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝐢𝑻_{𝑨\mathbf{|}𝑩}^{}𝚪_{𝑩\dot{𝑩}}^𝑲\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}^𝑲𝜸_𝝁𝝌^{\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}𝓟^{𝝁𝑨}\mathbf{}\overline{𝝌}^{\dot{𝑨}}𝜸^𝝂𝜸^𝝁𝝍_𝝂^𝑰𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑰\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}`$
These terms combine with the variations of the fermionic fields from $`𝓛^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}`$ and the new variations (3.13) in $`𝓛^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}`$. Consideration of the $`\mathit{ϵ}𝝍𝓟`$ and $`\mathit{ϵ}𝝌𝓟`$ terms now reproduces (3.19), but in addition requires the differential relations

$`𝓓_𝝁𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝓟_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝑨}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^{\mathbf{(}𝑰}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑱\mathbf{)}\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝓓_𝝁𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝓟_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝑨}\mathbf{(}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑩}}^𝑰𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{+}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑱𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝓟_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝑨}𝚪_{𝑩\dot{𝑨}}^{𝑰}𝑻_{𝑨\mathbf{|}𝑩}^{}\mathbf{.}`$ (3.22)
Multiplying the second relation by $`𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑰`$ and invoking (3.20) yields

$$𝑻_{𝑨\mathbf{|}𝑩}^{}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right)}𝜹_{𝑨𝑩}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑰\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑨}_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}𝚪_{\dot{𝑩}𝑩}^𝑰\mathbf{.}$$
(3.23)
Since $`𝚪^𝑰𝚪^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}𝚪^𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ there is no $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟔𝟒𝟑𝟓}}`$ of $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ in $`𝑻_{𝑨\mathbf{|}𝑩}`$. However, the argument does not yet suffice to rule out such a contribution in $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}`$.

As in , the supersymmetry variation of the tensors $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ is obtained from (3.22) by replacing $`𝓟_𝝁^𝑨`$ by $`𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑰\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}^𝑰𝝌^{\dot{𝑨}}`$:

$`𝜹\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑨}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑩}}^𝑲\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}^𝑲𝝌^{\dot{𝑩}}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^{\mathbf{(}𝑰}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑱\mathbf{)}\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝜹𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑩}}^𝑲\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}^𝑲𝝌^{\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{\left(}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑪}}^𝑰𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑪}}\mathbf{+}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑱𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{}𝚪_{𝑩\dot{𝑨}}^𝑰𝑻_{𝑨\mathbf{|}𝑩}^{}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}`$ (3.24)
The tracelessness of $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}`$ in (3.20) in conjunction with (3.22) also implies that $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}`$ are constant. This is consistent with the fact that the trace parts drop out from the above variations. Observe that the supersymmetry variation of $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ does not yet enter at this point as it appears only at cubic order in the fermions.

At $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ we get two quadratic identities. The first multiplies the $`𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}𝝍\mathit{ϵ}`$ variations and is straightforwardly obtained

$`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑲}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑲𝑱}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑱\dot{𝑨}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}𝜹^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{\left(}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑲𝑳}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑲𝑳}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑲\dot{𝑨}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑲\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}`$ (3.25)
The second comes from the $`𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}𝝌\mathit{ϵ}`$ variations: performing the $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒈\mathbf{)}`$ variations in $`𝓛^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}`$ we obtain

$$𝜹_𝒈𝓛^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒆\overline{𝝌}^{\dot{𝑨}}\mathit{ϵ}^𝑰\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{+}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$

Varying $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ in the potential, on the other hand, and making use of the above formulas (3.24) together with (3.20), we arrive at:

$$\overline{𝝌}^{\dot{𝑨}}\mathit{ϵ}^𝑲\mathbf{(}𝚪^𝑲𝚪^𝑰\mathbf{)}_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑨}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑱\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑨}_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑩}\dot{𝑪}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑪}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$

By the tracelessness of $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}`$ we can drop the tildes in this expression, and thus obtain the second relation

$`\mathrm{𝟑}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑱\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑩}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}\mathbf{(}𝚪^𝑰𝚪^𝑱\mathbf{)}_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟑}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑱𝑲}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑲\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑱\dot{𝑪}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑩}\dot{𝑪}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$ (3.26)
which must be satisfied for local supersymmetry to hold.

Thus, at linear order in the fermions, supersymmetry requires the tensors $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ to satisfy the identities (3.18), (3.19), and (3.22)–(3.26). However, these do not yet constitute a complete set of restrictions. In marked contrast to the $`𝑫\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}`$ gauged supergravities, we get further and independent conditions at cubic order in the fermions. This special feature is again related to the algebraic independence of the third tensor $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}`$. Although the necessary calculations are quite tedious, we here refrain from giving details and simply state the results, as the relevant Fierz technology is (or should be) standard by now. Interested readers may find many relevant formulas in .

The analysis of the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝍}𝝍\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝍}\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{)}`$ terms gives

$$𝑻_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{|}𝑲𝑳}^{}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜹\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\hfill \\ _{}^{𝑰\mathbf{[}𝑲}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑳\mathbf{]}𝑱}\hfill \end{array}\mathbf{+}𝑻_{\mathbf{[}𝑰𝑱\mathbf{|}𝑲𝑳\mathbf{]}}^{}\mathbf{.}$$
(3.27)
The structure of the r.h.s. of this equation thus restricts $`𝑻_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{|}𝑲𝑳}`$ to the $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ components $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟓}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟐𝟎}`$. Demanding the cancellation of $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝌}𝝌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝍}\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{)}`$ terms yields three more constraints:

$`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟑}𝑰_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑰_\mathrm{𝟖}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝑻_{\mathbf{[}𝑰𝑱\mathbf{|}𝑲𝑳\mathbf{]}}^{}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑨}_{\mathrm{𝟑}𝑰𝑱𝑲𝑳}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}`$ (3.28)
such that with (3.19), (3.23), and (3.27) the $`𝑻`$-tensor (3.21) may entirely be expressed in terms of the tensors $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}`$:

$`𝑻_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{|}𝑲𝑳}^{}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝜹_{𝑲𝑳}^{𝑰𝑱}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜹\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\hfill \\ _{}^{𝑰\mathbf{[}𝑲}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑨}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑳\mathbf{]}𝑱}\hfill \end{array}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}2}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑨}_{\mathrm{𝟑}𝑰𝑱𝑲𝑳}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}`$ (3.31)
$`𝑻_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{|}𝑨}^{}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^{\mathbf{[}𝑰}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑱\mathbf{]}\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝑻_{𝑨\mathbf{|}𝑩}^{}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}𝜹_{𝑨𝑩}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{!}}𝚪_{𝑨𝑩}^{𝑰𝑱𝑲𝑳}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑨}_{\mathrm{𝟑}𝑰𝑱𝑲𝑳}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{.}`$ (3.32)
In particular, the two singlets and the two $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟐𝟎}`$ representations in $`𝑻_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{|}𝑲𝑳}`$ and $`𝑻_{𝑨\mathbf{|}𝑩}`$ coincide. Finally, the analysis of the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝌}𝝌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝌}\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{)}`$ terms yields

$$𝜹𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟑}𝑰𝑱𝑲𝑳}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}^𝑴𝝌^{\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{\left(}𝚪^𝑴𝚪^{\mathbf{[}𝑰𝑱𝑲}\mathbf{\right)}_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑳\mathbf{]}\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{.}$$
(3.33)
In order to derive this condition and to prove the vanishing of the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝌}𝝌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝌}\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{)}`$ terms, one needs the additional Fierz identity, which cannot be derived from the relations given in the Appendix of :

$`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝌}𝚪^{𝑲𝑳𝑴𝑵}𝝌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝌}^{\dot{𝑨}}\mathit{ϵ}^𝑰\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝚪^𝑰𝚪^{𝑲𝑳𝑴}\mathbf{)}_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑵\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{=}`$
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟔}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝌}𝜸_𝝁𝚪^{𝑰𝑱}𝝌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝌}^{\dot{𝑨}}𝜸^𝝁\mathit{ϵ}^𝑰\mathbf{)}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑱\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝌}𝜸_𝝁𝚪^{𝑲𝑳}𝝌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝌}^{\dot{𝑨}}𝜸^𝝁\mathit{ϵ}^𝑰\mathbf{)}𝚪_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}^{𝑲𝑳}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑩}}`$
$`\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟒𝟖}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝌}𝝌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝌}^{\dot{𝑨}}\mathit{ϵ}^𝑰\mathbf{)}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝌}𝜸_𝝁𝚪^{𝑲𝑳}𝝌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝌}^{\dot{𝑨}}𝜸^𝝁\mathit{ϵ}^𝑰\mathbf{)}𝚪_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}^{𝑰𝑲}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑳\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{,}`$
The tracelessness of $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}`$ is again crucial in obtaining this result.

Let us summarize our findings. The complete set of consistency conditions ensuring supersymmetry of the gauged Lagrangian (3.9) is given by the linear relations (3.32), the differential identities (3.22), (3.33), the relation (3.18), and the quadratic identities (3.25), (3.26). The tensors $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ can contain only the $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ representations $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟓}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟐𝟎}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟗𝟐𝟎}}`$. Equations (3.32) show that likewise the $`𝑻`$-tensor may contain only these representations. The remarkable fact – which eventually allows the resolution of all identities – is that these $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ representations combine into representations of $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$. More specifically, we have

$$\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟓}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟐𝟎}\mathbf{+}\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟗𝟐𝟎}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑𝟖𝟕𝟓}\mathbf{,}$$
(3.34)
while the first relation from (3.28) ensures that the two $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ singlets originate from one singlet of $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$, such that the full $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ content of the tensors $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ is contained in the $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ representations $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑𝟖𝟕𝟓}`$. Apart from the occurrence of an extra singlet, this fusion of tensors into representations of the hidden global $`𝑬_{𝒅\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}`$ takes place already in dimensions $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓}`$, where the Yukawa couplings are given by tensors transforming in the $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟏𝟐}`$ of $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{)}}`$  and in the $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟓𝟏}`$ of $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}}`$ , respectively. We shall come back to this point in the next chapter.

Perhaps the most unexpected feature of our construction is the fact that the vector fields appear via a CS term (3.10) in order $`𝒈`$, rather than the standard Yang-Mills term. This has no analog in higher dimensions, where the vector fields appear already in the ungauged theory via an abelian kinetic term. In hindsight this coupling of the vector fields turns out to be the only consistent way to bring in the dual vector fields without introducing new propagating degrees of freedom, and thereby to preserve the balance of bosonic and fermionic physical degrees of freedom.

The emergence of non-abelian CS terms in the maximally supersymmetric theories naturally leads to a non-abelian extension of the duality relation (2.14)

$$\mathit{ϵ}^{𝝁𝝂𝝆}\widehat{𝓑}_{𝝁𝝂}{}_{}{}^{𝒎}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒆𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑨}{}^{}\widehat{𝓟}_{}^{𝝆𝑨}\mathbf{}\frac{𝐢}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒆𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑰𝑱}{}^{}\overline{𝝌}𝜸^𝝆𝚪^{𝑰𝑱}𝝌\mathbf{,}$$
(3.35)
which consistently reduces to (2.14) in the limit $`𝒈\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. However, in this limit, the vector fields drop from the Lagrangian such that the duality relation (2.14) no longer follows from a variational principle in the ungauged theory but rather must be imposed by hand. This can be viewed as a very mild form of the gauge discontinuity encountered for gauged supergravities in odd dimensions . In contrast to those models however, the Lagrangian (3.9) has a perfectly smooth limit as $`𝒈\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

Because of the explicit appearance of the gauge fields on the r.h.s. of the non-abelian duality relation it is no longer possible to trade the vector fields for scalar fields and thereby eliminate them, unlike in . Vice versa, the explicit appearance of the scalar fields in the potential of (3.9) also excludes the possibility to eliminate some of these fields by replacing them by vector fields. In contrast to the ungauged theory which allows for different equivalent formulations related by duality, the gauged theory apparently comes in a unique form which requires the maximal number of scalar fields together with the dual vectors corresponding to the gauge group $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

Note that unlike in (2.14), the nonabelian duality relation (3.35) may be imposed only for those vector fields which belong to the gauge group $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Having gauged the theory, we can no longer introduce additional vector fields as was the case for the ungauged theory. This is because additional vector fields transforming nontrivially under the gauge group $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ would acquire mass terms in the gauged theory, entailing a mismatch between bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom. As a consequence, (3.35) does not imply the full set of bosonic equations of motion, but just their projection onto the subgroup $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. However, just as in (2.15) we may deduce the equations of motion for the vector fields from (3.35) by acting on both sides with $`\mathit{ϵ}_{𝝆𝝁𝝂}𝓓^𝝂`$ and making use of (3.7):

$`𝓓_𝝂𝓑^{𝝁𝝂}^𝒎`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒈𝒆^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathit{ϵ}^{𝝁𝝂𝝆}\mathbf{(}𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑨}{}^{}𝓥_{}^{𝒏}{}_{𝑨}{}^{}\mathbf{+}𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑰𝑱}{}^{}𝓥_{}^{𝒏}{}_{𝑰𝑱}{}^{}\mathbf{)}𝚯_{𝒏𝒌}𝓑_{𝝂𝝆}^𝒌`$ (3.36)
$`\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒆^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathit{ϵ}^{𝝁𝝂𝝆}𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑰𝑱}{}^{}𝓠_{𝝂𝝆}^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{+}\text{fermionic terms}`$
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒈\mathbf{(}𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑩}{}^{}𝑻_{𝑩\mathbf{|}𝑨}^{}\mathbf{+}𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑰𝑱}{}^{}𝑻_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{|}𝑨}^{}\mathbf{)}𝓟^𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝑨}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒆^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathit{ϵ}^{𝝁𝝂𝝆}𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑰𝑱}{}^{}𝓠_{𝝂𝝆}^{𝑰𝑱}`$
$`\mathbf{+}\text{fermionic terms}\mathbf{.}`$
## 4 $`𝑻`$-identities

In the foregoing chapter we have derived the consistency conditions which must be satisfied by the tensors $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ and the $`𝑻`$-tensor in order to ensure the full supersymmetry of the gauged action (3.9). It remains to show that these conditions admit nontrivial solutions $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{(}𝓥\mathbf{)}`$. This will single out the possible gauge groups $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$. Recall that in the three dimensional model the choice of gauge group is less restricted than in higher dimensions where the gauge group $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑮`$ is essentially determined by the fact that a maximal subset of the vector fields of the theory must transform in its adjoint representation.

Up to this point, we have made no assumptions on the gauge group $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$, which is characterized by its embedding tensor $`𝚯_{𝓐𝓑}`$, cf. (3.2). We will now show that all the consistency conditions derived in the previous section may be encoded into a single algebraic equation for the embedding tensor.

According to (3.3), $`𝚯_{𝓐𝓑}`$ transforms in the symmetric tensor product

$$\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟖}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟖}\mathbf{)}_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐦}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑𝟖𝟕𝟓}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐𝟕𝟎𝟎𝟎}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.1)
The explicit projectors of this decomposition have been computed in

$`\mathbf{(}_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}_{𝓜𝓝}^{𝓚𝓛}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟖}}𝜼_{𝓜𝓝}𝜼^{𝓚𝓛}\mathbf{,}`$
$`\mathbf{(}_{\mathrm{𝟑𝟖𝟕𝟓}}\mathbf{)}_{𝓜𝓝}^{𝓚𝓛}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟕}}𝜹_{\mathbf{(}𝓜}^𝓚𝜹_{𝓝\mathbf{)}}^𝓛\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}}𝜼_{𝓜𝓝}𝜼^{𝓚𝓛}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}}𝒇^𝓟{}_{𝓜}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathbf{(}𝓚}𝒇_{𝓟𝓝}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝓛\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}`$
$`\mathbf{(}_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕𝟎𝟎𝟎}}\mathbf{)}_{𝓜𝓝}^{𝓚𝓛}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟔}}{\mathrm{𝟕}}𝜹_{\mathbf{(}𝓜}^𝓚𝜹_{𝓝\mathbf{)}}^𝓛\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟏𝟕}}𝜼_{𝓜𝓝}𝜼^{𝓚𝓛}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}}𝒇^𝓟{}_{𝓜}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathbf{(}𝓚}𝒇_{𝓟𝓝}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝓛\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{.}`$ (4.2)
Accordingly, $`𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}`$ may be decomposed as

$$𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}\mathbf{=}𝜽𝜼_{𝓜𝓝}\mathbf{+}𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}^{\mathrm{𝟑𝟖𝟕𝟓}}\mathbf{+}𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}^{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕𝟎𝟎𝟎}}\mathbf{,}$$
(4.3)
with

$$𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}^{\mathrm{𝟑𝟖𝟕𝟓}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}_{\mathrm{𝟑𝟖𝟕𝟓}}\mathbf{)}_{𝓜𝓝}{}_{}{}^{𝓚𝓛}𝚯_{𝓚𝓛}^{}\mathbf{,}𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}^{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕𝟎𝟎𝟎}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕𝟎𝟎𝟎}}\mathbf{)}_{𝓜𝓝}{}_{}{}^{𝓚𝓛}𝚯_{𝓚𝓛}^{}\mathbf{.}$$

The $`𝑻`$-tensor as it has been defined in (3.21) is given by a rotation of $`𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}`$ by the matrix $`𝓥`$. It may likewise be decomposed

$$𝑻_{𝓐\mathbf{|}𝓑}^{}\mathbf{=}𝑻_{𝓐\mathbf{|}𝓑}^{\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\mathbf{+}𝑻_{𝓐\mathbf{|}𝓑}^{\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}3875}}\mathbf{+}𝑻_{𝓐\mathbf{|}𝓑}^{\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}27000}}\mathbf{,}$$
(4.4)
with

$$𝑻_{𝓐\mathbf{|}𝓑}^{\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}3875}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}_{\mathrm{𝟑𝟖𝟕𝟓}}\mathbf{)}_{𝓐𝓑}{}_{}{}^{𝓒𝓓}𝑻_{𝓒\mathbf{|}𝓓}^{}\mathbf{=}𝓥^𝓜{}_{𝓐}{}^{}𝓥_{}^{𝓝}{}_{𝓑}{}^{}𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}^{\mathrm{𝟑𝟖𝟕𝟓}}\mathbf{,}\text{etc.}$$

where the second equality is due to invariance of the projectors under $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$. Analogous tensors have been defined in  and  for the maximally gauged models in $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓}`$, respectively. Unlike those $`𝑻`$-tensors, however, the $`𝑻`$-tensor here is quadratic in $`𝓥`$, as already emphasized before.

### 4.1 The constraint for the embedding tensor

We have seen that supersymmetry of the gauged Lagrangian in particular implies the set of relations (3.32) for the $`𝑻`$-tensor. As discussed above, these relations show that $`𝑻`$ may only contain the $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ representations contained in the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑𝟖𝟕𝟓}`$ of $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$. It follows that equations (3.32) can be solved for $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ if and only if

$$𝑻_{𝓐\mathbf{|}𝓑}^{\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}27000}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝚯_{𝓐𝓑}^{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕𝟎𝟎𝟎}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.5)
This is a set of linear algebraic equations for the embedding tensor $`𝚯_{𝓐𝓑}`$. We stress once more the remarkable fact that the equations (3.32) combine into an $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ covariant condition for the $`𝑻`$-tensor which makes it possible to translate these equations into a condition for the constant tensor $`𝚯`$. In particular, each single equation from (3.32) yields an $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ covariant restriction on the $`𝑻`$-tensor (3.21) which already implies the full set of relations (3.32), if it is to be satisfied for all $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ valued matrices $`𝓥`$.

We shall show in the following sections that (4.5) not only reproduces the linear equations (3.32) but indeed implies the complete set of consistency conditions (including the differential and quadratic ones) identified in the last chapter444Let us stress once more that in addition to (4.5), $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ must project onto a subgroup. If that condition is dropped, further solutions to (4.5) can be found, but the $`T`$-tensor would then fail to satisfy the quadratic identities of section 4.4..

### 4.2 Linear identities

Making use of the explicit form of the projectors (4.2), equation (4.5) takes the form

$`𝚯_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{,}𝑲𝑳}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟕}}𝜹\begin{array}{c}_{𝑰\mathbf{[}𝑲}𝚯_{𝑳\mathbf{]}𝑴\mathbf{,}𝑴𝑱}\hfill \\ \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\hfill \end{array}\mathbf{+}𝚯_{\mathbf{[}𝑰𝑱\mathbf{,}𝑲𝑳\mathbf{]}}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}{\mathrm{𝟕}}𝜽𝜹_{𝑲𝑳}^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{,}`$ (4.8)
$`𝚯_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{,}𝑨}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟕}}\mathbf{(}𝚪\begin{array}{c}_𝑰𝚪^𝑳\mathbf{)}_{𝑨𝑩}𝚯_{𝑩\mathbf{,}𝑳𝑱}\hfill \\ \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\hfill \end{array}\mathbf{,}`$ (4.11)
$`𝚯_{𝑨\mathbf{,}𝑩}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟗𝟔}}𝚪_{𝑨𝑩}^{𝑰𝑱𝑲𝑳}𝚯_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{,}𝑲𝑳}\mathbf{+}𝜽𝜹_{𝑨𝑩}\mathbf{,}`$ (4.12)
and likewise for $`𝑻`$. These equations contain the complete set of linear identities among different components of the $`𝑻`$-tensor. Once they are satisfied, the $`𝑻`$-tensor may entirely be expressed in terms of the tensors $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ as found in (3.32) above:

$`𝑻_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{|}𝑲𝑳}^{}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝜹\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\hfill \\ _{}^{𝑰\mathbf{[}𝑲}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑳\mathbf{]}𝑱}\hfill \end{array}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔𝟒}}𝚪_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}^{𝑰𝑱𝑲𝑳}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{,}`$ (4.15)
$`𝑻_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{|}𝑨}^{}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^{\mathbf{[}𝑰}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑱\mathbf{]}\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝑻_{𝑨\mathbf{|}𝑩}^{}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔𝟏𝟒𝟒}}𝚪_{𝑨𝑩}^{𝑰𝑱𝑲𝑳}𝚪_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}^{𝑰𝑱𝑲𝑳}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{+}𝜽𝜹_{𝑨𝑩}\mathbf{.}`$ (4.16)
These equations may be inverted and give the solution for the tensors $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ in terms of the $`𝑻`$-tensor:

$`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟖}}{\mathrm{𝟕}}𝜽𝜹_{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟕}}𝑻_{𝑰𝑲\mathbf{|}𝑱𝑲}^{}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟕}}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑱𝑻_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{|}𝑨}^{}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽𝜹_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒𝟖}}𝚪_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}^{𝑰𝑱𝑲𝑳}𝑻_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{|}𝑲𝑳}^{}\mathbf{.}`$ (4.17)
### 4.3 Differential identities

With the linear identities derived in the last section we may now compute the variation of the tensors $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ when $`𝓥`$ is varied. Since the matrix $`𝓥`$ lives in the adjoint representation, its variation along an invariant vector field $`𝚺^𝑨`$ is given by

$$\frac{𝜹𝓥^𝓜_𝓑^{}}{𝜹𝚺^𝑨}\mathbf{=}𝒇_𝓑{}_{}{}^{𝓒𝑨}𝓥_{}^{𝓜}{}_{𝓒}{}^{}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\{}\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{𝜹𝓥^𝓜_{𝑰𝑱}^{}}{𝜹𝚺^𝑨}& \mathbf{=}& \mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝚪_{𝑨𝑩}^{𝑰𝑱}𝓥^𝓜_𝑩^{}\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{𝜹𝓥^𝓜_𝑩^{}}{𝜹𝚺^𝑨}& \mathbf{=}& \mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}𝚪_{𝑨𝑩}^{𝑰𝑱}𝓥^𝓜_{𝑰𝑱}^{}\hfill \end{array}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.18)
From (4.17) we then obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝜹𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}}{𝜹𝚺^𝑨}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}}\mathbf{\left(}𝚪_{𝑨𝑩}^{𝑰𝑲}𝑻_{𝑲𝑱\mathbf{|}𝑩}^{}\mathbf{+}𝚪_{𝑨𝑩}^{𝑱𝑲}𝑻_{𝑲𝑰\mathbf{|}𝑩}^{}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝜹𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}}{𝜹𝚺^𝑨}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}}𝚪_{𝑩\dot{𝑨}}^𝑱\mathbf{\left(}𝚪_{𝑨𝑪}^{𝑰𝑱}𝑻_{𝑩\mathbf{|}𝑪}^{}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝚪_{𝑨𝑩}^{𝑴𝑵}𝑻_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{|}𝑴𝑵}^{}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝜹𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}}{𝜹𝚺^𝑨}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒𝟖}}𝚪_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}^{𝑰𝑱𝑲𝑳}𝚪_{𝑨𝑩}^{𝑲𝑳}𝑻_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{|}𝑩}^{}\mathbf{.}`$
Rewriting the expressions on the r.h.s. in terms of the tensors $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ by means of (4.16) we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝜹𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}}{𝜹𝚺^𝑨}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^{\mathbf{(}𝑰}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑱\mathbf{)}\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{,}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝜹𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}}{𝜹𝚺^𝑨}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left(}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑴𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑴}\mathbf{+}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑩}}^𝑰𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{}𝚪_{𝑩\dot{𝑨}}^𝑰𝑻_{𝑨\mathbf{|}𝑩}^{}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝜹𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}}{𝜹𝚺^𝑨}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒𝟖}}𝚪_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}^{𝑰𝑲𝑴𝑵}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑪}}^{𝑲𝑴𝑵}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑪}}\mathbf{.}`$ (4.19)
This reproduces equations (3.24) and (3.33) from the last chapter. In particular, we obtain the covariant derivatives of the tensors $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$

$`𝓓_𝝁𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^{\mathbf{(}𝑰}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑱\mathbf{)}\dot{𝑨}}𝓟_𝝁^𝑨\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝓓_𝝁𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left(}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑴𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑴}\mathbf{+}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑩}}^𝑰𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{}𝚪_{𝑩\dot{𝑨}}^𝑰𝑻_{𝑨\mathbf{|}𝑩}^{}\mathbf{\right)}𝓟_𝝁^𝑨\mathbf{,}`$ (4.20)
which coincide with equations (3.22) found before. The variation (4.19) further allows to compute the variation of the scalar potential (3.12)

$$\frac{𝜹}{𝜹𝚺^𝑨}\mathbf{\left(}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑴\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟑}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑴𝑵}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑵\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑴\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}$$

which has also been used in the last chapter. Together with the quadratic identity (4.29) to be derived below, this yields the condition for stationary points of the potential

$$\frac{𝜹𝑾}{𝜹𝚺^𝑨}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑴}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑴\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{=}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.21)
Obviously, a sufficient condition for stationarity is $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ .

### 4.4 Quadratic identities

So far, we have exploited the projector condition (4.5) to derive linear identities in $`𝑻_{𝓐\mathbf{|}𝓑}^{}`$. However, additional information stems from the fact that the tensor $`𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}`$ is built from projectors onto subgroups, cf. (3.2). This can be used to derive further identities quadratic in the tensors $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}`$. As we have seen in the previous chapter, identities of this type are also needed to ensure supersymmetry of the gauged theory.

Since $`𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}`$ projects onto a subgroup $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑮`$, it satisfies:

$$𝚯_{𝓚\mathbf{(}𝓜}𝒇_{𝓝\mathbf{)}}{}_{}{}^{𝓚𝓛}𝚯_{𝓛𝓟}^{}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}$$
(4.22)
which follow from closure of $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and the antisymmetry of the structure constants. Invariance of the structure constants then implies

$$𝚯_{𝒎𝒏}𝓥^𝒏{}_{𝓒}{}^{}𝒇_{}^{𝓒𝓓}{}_{\mathbf{(}𝓐}{}^{}𝑻_{𝓑\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝓓}^{}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.23)
Evaluate this expression for $`\mathbf{(}𝓐\mathbf{,}𝓑\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{[}𝑰𝑴\mathbf{]}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{[}𝑲𝑴\mathbf{]}\mathbf{)}`$:

$$\mathrm{𝟒}𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑵\mathbf{(}𝑰}{}^{}𝑻_{𝑲\mathbf{)}𝑴\mathbf{|}𝑴𝑵}^{}\mathbf{+}𝚪_{𝑨𝑩}^{𝑰𝑴}𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑨}{}^{}𝑻_{𝑲𝑴\mathbf{|}𝑩}^{}\mathbf{+}𝚪_{𝑨𝑩}^{𝑲𝑴}𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑨}{}^{}𝑻_{𝑰𝑴\mathbf{|}𝑩}^{}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}$$

where the index $`𝒎`$ is projected onto the subalgebra $`𝖌_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Inserting (4.16) yields

$$𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑨}{}^{}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^{\mathbf{(}𝑰}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑲\mathbf{)}\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{=}𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑰𝑴}{}^{}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{𝑴𝑲}\mathbf{+}𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑲𝑴}{}^{}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{𝑴𝑰}\mathbf{,}$$
(4.24)
and thus the identity (3.18), required above for closure of the supersymmetry algebra in the gauged theory. If we contract this equation with $`𝓥^𝒏{}_{𝑱𝑲}{}^{}𝚯_{𝒎𝒏}^{}`$, symmetrize in $`\mathbf{(}𝑰𝑱\mathbf{)}`$ and once more insert (4.16), we obtain

$$𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑲}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑲𝑱}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑱\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}𝜹^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{\left(}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑲𝑳}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑲𝑳}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑲\dot{𝑨}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑲\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.25)
This gives already the quadratic identity (3.25). If on the other hand we contract (4.24) with $`𝚪_{𝑩\dot{𝑨}}^𝑲𝓥^𝒏{}_{𝑩}{}^{}𝚯_{𝒎𝒏}^{}`$, we obtain after inserting (4.16)

$`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔𝟒}}𝚪_{\dot{𝑪}\dot{𝑫}}^{𝑰𝑲𝑴𝑵}𝚪_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}^{𝑴𝑵}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑲\dot{𝑩}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑪}\dot{𝑫}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑵}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑵\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝚪^𝑰𝚪^𝑲\mathbf{)}_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑲𝑵}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑵\dot{𝑩}}`$ (4.26)
$`\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑩}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝚪^𝑰𝚪^𝑲\mathbf{)}_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑲\dot{𝑪}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑩}\dot{𝑪}}`$
$`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝜽𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{.}`$
Evaluating (4.23) for $`\mathbf{(}𝓐\mathbf{,}𝓑\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{[}𝑰𝑱\mathbf{]}\mathbf{,}𝑨\mathbf{)}`$ and contracting with $`𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑱`$ leads to

$`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔}}\mathbf{(}𝚪^𝑱𝚪^{𝑴𝑵𝑲𝑳}\mathbf{)}_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑨}{}^{}𝑻_{𝑴𝑵\mathbf{|}𝑲𝑳}^{}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝚪^{𝑴𝑵𝑲𝑳}𝚪^𝑱\mathbf{)}_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑨}{}^{}𝑻_{𝑴𝑵\mathbf{|}𝑲𝑳}^{}\mathbf{=}`$ (4.27)
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathrm{𝟕}}\mathbf{(}𝚪^𝑲𝚪^{𝑴𝑵}\mathbf{)}_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑴𝑵}{}^{}𝑻_{𝑱𝑲\mathbf{|}𝑨}^{}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}{\mathrm{𝟕}}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑲𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑱𝑴}{}^{}𝑻_{𝑴𝑲\mathbf{|}𝑨}^{}`$
$`\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟖}}{\mathrm{𝟕}}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑲𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑨}{}^{}𝑻_{𝑱𝑴\mathbf{|}𝑴𝑲}^{}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}}𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑱𝓥^𝒎{}_{𝑨}{}^{}𝑻_{𝑴𝑵\mathbf{|}𝑴𝑵}^{}\mathbf{,}`$
again, if the index $`𝒎`$ is projected onto the subalgebra $`𝖌_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. To obtain the desired identity, we contract this equation with $`𝓥^𝒏{}_{𝑰𝑱}{}^{}𝚯_{𝒎𝒏}^{}`$ and insert (4.16). After some calculation we arrive at

$`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔𝟒}}𝚪_{\dot{𝑪}\dot{𝑫}}^{𝑰𝑲𝑴𝑵}𝚪_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}^{𝑴𝑵}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑲\dot{𝑩}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑪}\dot{𝑫}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟒}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑵}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑵\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{(}𝚪^𝑰𝚪^𝑲\mathbf{)}_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑲𝑵}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑵\dot{𝑩}}`$ (4.28)
$`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑩}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝚪^𝑰𝚪^𝑲\mathbf{)}_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑲\dot{𝑪}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑩}\dot{𝑪}}`$
$`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝜽𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{.}`$
Equating (4.26) and (4.28), we finally obtain

$$\mathrm{𝟑}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑱\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑩}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}\mathbf{(}𝚪^𝑰𝚪^𝑱\mathbf{)}_{\dot{𝑨}\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟑}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑱𝑲}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑲\dot{𝑩}}\mathbf{}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑱\dot{𝑪}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟑}^{\dot{𝑩}\dot{𝑪}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.29)
We have thus shown that the condition (4.5) together with the fact that $`𝚯_{𝓐𝓑}`$ projects onto a subalgebra implies the quadratic identities (4.25) and (4.29) which coincide with (3.25), (3.26) found above. Altogether, we recover in this fashion all the identities required in Chapter 3 from the single projector condition (4.5) for the embedding tensor $`𝚯_{𝓐𝓑}`$ .

## 5 Admissible gauge groups $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$

Having reduced the consistency conditions required by local supersymmetry to a set of algebraic conditions (4.5) for the embedding tensor of the gauge group $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑮`$, we must now ascertain that this condition admits non-trivial solutions and classify them. This is the objective of the present section. As we will see the variety of solutions of (4.5), each of which gives rise to a maximally supersymmetric gauged supergravity, is far richer than in dimensions $`𝑫\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}`$.

The power of equation (4.5) is based on its formulation as a single projector condition in the tensor product decomposition (4.1). This permits the construction of solutions by purely group theoretical means. To demonstrate that these methods also clarify the structure of the $`𝑻`$-identities in $`𝑫\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}`$, we derive the analog of (4.5) to re-obtain the results of  and . Group theoretical arguments then show immediately that the gauge groups $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$, respectively, solve the relevant equations. In particular, this provides a unifying argument for the consistency of all the noncompact gaugings found subsequently in .

The analysis for three dimensions turns out to be more involved, but extending the above arguments we arrive at a variety of admissible gauge groups. There is a regular series of gauge groups $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}`$ including the maximal compact $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}`$, and several exceptional noncompact gauge groups, summarized in Table II below. Still this is not a complete classification of admissible gauge groups, as we restrict the analysis of compact and noncompact gauge groups to the maximal subgroups of $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$, respectively. We leave the exploration of smaller rank gauge groups to future work.

### 5.1 $`𝑻`$-identities and gauge groups in higher dimensions

As a “warm-up” let us first apply our techniques to the gauged maximal supergravities in $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟓}`$. This will allow us to shortcut the derivation of the (linear) $`𝑻`$-identities given in the original work.

#### 5.1.1 $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒}`$

Like (4.4), the $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒}`$ $`𝑻`$-tensor is obtained from a constant $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$-invariant tensor $`𝚯`$ by a field dependent rotation with the matrix $`𝓥\mathbf{}𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{)}}`$ in the fundamental representation. The constant tensor $`𝚯`$ there transforms in the product of the adjoint and the fundamental representation

$$\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟗𝟏𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟔𝟒𝟖𝟎}\mathbf{,}$$
(5.1)
of $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{)}}`$,555It is only for $`E_{8(8)}`$ that the fundamental representation coincides with the adjoint representation and the tensor $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ hence coincides with the embedding tensor of the group $`G_0`$. such that $`𝑻`$ is cubic rather than quadratic in the matrix entries of $`𝓥`$. Computations similar to those presented in the last chapter then show that full supersymmetry of the gauged Lagrangian is equivalent to

$$𝑻\mathbf{=}𝑻^{\mathrm{𝟗𝟏𝟐}}\mathbf{}𝚯\mathbf{=}𝚯^{\mathrm{𝟗𝟏𝟐}}\mathbf{,}$$
(5.2)
providing the analogue of (4.5). It is now straightforward to see that $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}`$ indeed gives a solution to (5.2): consider the decomposition of (5.1) under $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}`$: 666LiE  has been very helpful to quickly determine these decompositions.

$`\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}\mathbf{,}`$
$`\mathrm{𝟗𝟏𝟐}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_𝒗\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_𝒔\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_𝒄\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}`$
$`\mathrm{𝟔𝟒𝟖𝟎}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_𝒗\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_𝒔\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_𝒄\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{.}`$ (5.3)
As the singlets appear only in the $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟏𝟐}`$, any $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}`$ invariant tensor in (5.1) automatically satisfies (5.2). The same argument proves the consistency of the noncompact $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}`$ gaugings found in . As shown in  equation (5.2) indeed contains no other solutions than those found in .

#### 5.1.2 $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓}`$

For $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓}`$, the constant tensor $`𝚯`$ transforms in the product of the adjoint and the fundamental representation

$$\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑𝟓𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟖}\mathbf{,}$$
(5.4)
of $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}}`$. Rotation by $`𝓥`$ in the fundamental representation of $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}}`$ converts $`𝚯`$ into the $`𝑻`$-tensor, cubic in the matrix entries of $`𝓥`$. Supersymmetry of the gauged Lagrangian then is shown to be equivalent to

$$𝑻\mathbf{=}𝑻^{\mathrm{𝟑𝟓𝟏}}\mathbf{}𝚯\mathbf{=}𝚯^{\mathrm{𝟑𝟓𝟏}}\mathbf{,}$$
(5.5)
in analogy with (4.5) and (5.2). Again, it is straightforward to see that $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ yields a solution to (5.5): under $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$, (5.4) decomposes as

$`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}\mathbf{,}`$
$`\mathrm{𝟑𝟓𝟏}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}`$
$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟖}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟗}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{.}`$ (5.6)
Now the singlet appears only in the $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟓𝟏}`$, hence there is just one $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ invariant tensor in (5.4) which automatically satisfies (5.5). As before, this argument generalizes to all the noncompact gauge groups found in .

### 5.2 Compact gauge groups

Let us now come back to (4.5). We will first consider compact gauge groups $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$. Their embedding tensors satisfy

$$𝚯_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{,}𝑨}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝚯_{𝑨\mathbf{,}𝑩}\mathbf{;}$$
(5.7)
the only nonvanishing component is $`𝚯_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{,}𝑲𝑳}`$ which under $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ decomposes as

$$𝚯_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{,}𝑲𝑳}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟓}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟐𝟎}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟓𝟑𝟎𝟒}\mathbf{.}$$
(5.8)
According to (3.34), the $`\mathrm{𝟓𝟑𝟎𝟒}`$ is part of the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕𝟎𝟎𝟎}`$ and must vanish for (4.5) to be satisfied. From (4.12) it further follows that the 1 and the 1820 coincide with the corresponding parts in $`𝚯_{𝑨\mathbf{,}𝑩}`$ and thus must vanish due to (5.7). Hence, for compact $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, only the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟓}`$ representation survives, and the condition (4.5) reduces to

$$𝚯_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{,}𝑲𝑳}\mathbf{=}𝜹\begin{array}{c}_{𝑰\mathbf{[}𝑲}𝚵_{𝑳\mathbf{]}𝑱}\hfill \\ \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\hfill \end{array}\mathbf{,}\text{with}𝚵_{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟕}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝚯_{𝑰𝑲\mathbf{,}𝑱𝑲}\mathbf{,}𝚵_{𝑰𝑰}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{.}$$
(5.9)
The tracelessness of $`𝚯`$ in particular rules out any simple compact gauge group.

In principle, the elementary form of the constraint (5.9) should allow a complete classification of the possible compact gauge groups; however, in the following, we restrict attention to the maximal subgroups of $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$. They are

$`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟗}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑼𝑺𝒑\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$
$`\text{and}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\text{for}𝒑\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{.}`$ (5.10)
A necessary condition for a compact gauge group to be admissible immediately follows from (5.9): there must exist a $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$-invariant tensor $`𝚵_{𝑰𝑱}`$ in the 135 of $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$. In other words, there must be a singlet in the decomposition of 135 w.r.t. $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. From the maximal subgroups (5.10) this already rules out the first three. It remains to study the $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}`$. These groups have a unique invariant tensor in the 135:

$$𝚵_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}𝜹_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{,}𝚵_{\overline{𝒊}\overline{𝒋}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝒑𝜹_{\overline{𝒊}\overline{𝒋}}\mathbf{,}$$
(5.11)
where $`𝒊\mathbf{,}𝒋\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}𝒑`$ and $`\overline{𝒊}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝒋}\mathbf{=}𝒑\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ denote the splitting of the $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ vector indices $`𝑰`$, and the relative factor between $`𝚵_{𝒊𝒋}`$ and $`𝚵_{\overline{𝒊}\overline{𝒋}}`$ is determined from tracelessness. By (5.9), the tensor $`𝚯_{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{,}𝑲𝑳}`$ satisfying (4.5) is

$$𝚯_{𝒊𝒋\mathbf{,}𝒌𝒍}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}𝜹_{𝒌𝒍}^{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{,}𝚯_{\overline{𝒊}\overline{𝒋}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝒌}\overline{𝒍}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝒑𝜹_{\overline{𝒌}\overline{𝒍}}^{\overline{𝒊}\overline{𝒋}}\mathbf{,}𝚯_{𝒊\overline{𝒋}\mathbf{,}𝒌\overline{𝒍}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}𝜹_{𝒊𝒌}𝜹_{\overline{𝒋𝒍}}\mathbf{.}$$

However, due to the nonvanishing mixed components $`𝚯_{𝒊\overline{𝒋}\mathbf{,}𝒌\overline{𝒍}}`$, this tensor coincides with the embedding tensor of $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}`$ if and only if $`𝒑\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟖}`$. Hence we have shown that the only maximal subgroup of $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ whose embedding tensor satisfies the condition (4.5) is

$$𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(5.12)
where the ratio of coupling constants of the two factors is $`𝒈_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒈_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$; in particular the trace part $`𝜽`$ of $`𝚯_{𝓐𝓑}`$ vanishes. Combining this with the results of the previous chapters, we have thus shown the existence of a maximally supersymmetric gauged supergravity with compact gauge group $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}`$. Under $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, the scalar degrees of freedom decompose as

$$\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}_𝒔\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟖}_𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}_𝒗\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟖}_𝒗\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}_𝒄\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟖}_𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(5.13)
while the spinors split into

$$\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟖}_𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}_𝒔\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}_𝒗\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟖}_𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}_𝒄\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟖}_𝒗\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(5.14)
Amongst other things we here recognize the standard decomposition of the on-shell IIA supergravity multiplets in terms of left and right moving string states.

### 5.3 Regular noncompact gauge groups

In order to identify the allowed noncompact gauge groups, we first recall that for the maximal gauged supergravity in $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒}`$, several noncompact gaugings were found by analytic continuation . The noncompact gauge groups are thus alternative real form of the complexified gauge group $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{)}`$, and the consistency of the noncompact gaugings was basically a consequence of the consistency of the original theory  with compact gauge group. The results of the last section suggest that analogous gaugings should exist for the different real forms of (5.12).

The complexification of (5.12) is $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{)}`$. Its real forms which are also contained in $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ are given by

$$𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}\text{for}𝒑\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{.}$$
(5.15)
They are embedded in $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ via the maximal noncompact subgroup $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}`$. Therefore the latter group is the analogue of the subgroups $`𝑺𝑳\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{)}}`$ in $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`𝑺𝑳\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑳\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}}`$ in $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓}`$. To further illustrate the embedding, we have denoted the two factors of $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ by superscripts $`\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\right)}`$, $`\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}`$ whereas we denote the two factors of (5.12) by subscripts $`𝑳\mathbf{,}𝑹`$. The maximal compact subgroup of (5.15) is given by

$`𝑯_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝑯^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\times }𝑯^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}`$ (5.16)
$`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{\left(}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{)}_𝑳^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}_𝑹^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{\left(}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{)}_𝑹^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}_𝑳^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$
with

$`𝑯^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}`$ $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{)}_𝑳^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}_𝑳^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}_𝑳\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝑯^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}`$ $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{)}_𝑹^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}_𝑹^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}_𝑹\mathbf{.}`$
The embedding of $`𝑯_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ into $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}_𝑳\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}_𝑹`$ is the standard one, without any triality rotation. In other words, the $`\mathrm{𝟖}_𝒗`$ of $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}_𝑳`$ decomposes into $`\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}`$ under $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{)}_𝑳^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}_𝑳^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}`$, etc.

Consistency of the gauged theories with noncompact gauge groups (5.15) could in principle be shown in analogy with  by the method of analytic continuation. Alternatively, their consistency follows from an algebraic argument along the lines of the last section by use of our form of the consistency condition (4.5). This gives the analogue of the noncompact gaugings found in higher dimensions .

### 5.4 Exceptional noncompact gauge groups

Next, we discuss noncompact gauge groups, which unlike the groups identified in (5.15) do not share the complexification with any compact subgroup contained in $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$. Their existence is again a consequence of the absence of any a priori restriction on the number of vector fields in three dimesnions.

These noncompact solutions to (4.5) may be found by a purely group theoretical argument. As an example, consider the maximal subgroup $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\times }𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}}`$. Under $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ the adjoint representation of $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ decomposes as

$$\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟖}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟓𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐𝟔}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(5.17)
Accordingly, the symmetric tensor product (4.1) contains three singlets under $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, and the Cartan-Killing form of $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ decomposes into three $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$-invariant tensors:

$$𝜼_{𝓜𝓝}\mathbf{=}𝜼_{𝓜𝓝}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝜼_{𝓜𝓝}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟓𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝜼_{𝓜𝓝}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐𝟔}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{.}$$
(5.18)
More precisely, each of the three terms on the r.h.s. of (4.1) contains exactly one singlet under $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ . Consequently, there is a linear combination

$$𝜶_\mathrm{𝟏}𝜼_{𝓜𝓝}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝜶_\mathrm{𝟐}𝜼_{𝓜𝓝}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟓𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝜶_\mathrm{𝟑}𝜼_{𝓜𝓝}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐𝟔}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}$$

which lies entirely in the $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟖𝟕𝟓}`$. Subtracting a proper multiple of the $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ singlet (5.18), we find that

$$𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝜶_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜶_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}𝜼_{𝓜𝓝}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝜶_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝜶_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}𝜼_{𝓜𝓝}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟓𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}$$
(5.19)
satisfies (4.5). This is the embedding tensor of $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\times }𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}}`$ with a fixed ratio of coupling constants between the two factors, which solves (4.5) and (4.22). The results of the last chapter then prove the existence of a maximally supersymmetric gauged theory with gauge group $`𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\times }𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}}`$.

The same argument may be applied to other noncompact subgroups of $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$. A closer inspection of the above proof reveals that only two ingredients were needed, namely ($`𝒊`$) that the gauge group $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ consists of two simple factors and ($`𝒊𝒊`$) that the $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ representations $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟖𝟕𝟓}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕𝟎𝟎𝟎}`$ each contain precisely one singlet in the decomposition under $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. As it turns out, this requirement is also met by the noncompact groups $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑳\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑳\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$, and all their real forms which are contained in $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$. The list of exceptional noncompact subgroups passing this test, together with their maximal compact subgroups is displayed in Table II.

There are also real forms of these exceptional gauge groups — the compact forms of $`𝑬_𝒅`$ for $`𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟖}`$, and the real forms $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟓}\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟔}\mathbf{)}}`$ — which are not contained in $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ and thus do not appear in this list. However, every real form that may be embedded in $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ gives rise to a maximally supersymmetric gauged supergravity. The “extremal” noncompact solution to (4.5) is given by the group $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ itself, in which case $`𝚯_{𝓐𝓑}`$ reduces to the Cartan-Killing form $`𝜼_{𝓐𝓑}`$.

To complete the construction of the theories with gauge groups given in Table II, it remains to compute the ratio of coupling constants between the two factors of $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ which came out to be fixed to a specific value in (5.19). To this end, let us consider the general situation of a gauge group with two simple factors $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝑮^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\times }𝑮^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}`$, such that its maximal compact subgroup likewise factors as $`𝑯_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝑯^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\times }𝑯^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}`$. Denote the embedding tensor of $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ by

$$𝒈𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}\mathbf{=}𝒈_\mathrm{𝟏}𝜼_{𝓜𝓝}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝒈_\mathrm{𝟐}𝜼_{𝓜𝓝}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}$$
(5.20)
where $`𝜼^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}`$ are the embedding tensors of $`𝑮^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}`$, respectively, and assume that (5.20) satisfies (4.5). Equation (5.19) was a particular case satisfying these assumptions. Contracting (5.20) with $`𝜼^{𝓜𝓝}`$ yields

$$𝒈𝜽\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐦}𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝒈_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐦}𝑮^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝒈_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐦}𝑮^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{.}$$

where the l.h.s. follows from (4.3). On the other hand, contracting (5.20) with $`𝜼^{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{,}𝑲𝑳}`$ over the compact part of $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ gives

$$𝒈𝜽\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐦}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒈_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐦}𝑯^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝒈_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐦}𝑯^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}$$

where the l.h.s. here follows from (4.12) — and is a consequence of the fact that due to (4.5) the only $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ singlet in $`𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}`$ is given by the first term in (4.3).

From the last two equations one may extract the coupling constants $`𝒈_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝒈_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ of the two factors of the gauge group. Their ratio is

$$\frac{𝒈_\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒈_\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐦}𝑮^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟏}\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐦}𝑯^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐦}𝑮^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟏}\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐦}𝑯^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{.}$$
(5.21)
With the gauge groups and their compact subgroups given in Table II we then immediately obtain the ratios of coupling constants for all these groups. In particular, no degeneration occurs where this ratio would vanish or diverge. In Table I displayed in the introduction, we have presented a list of all the noncompact admissible subgroups $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ , together with their ratio of coupling constants. Remarkably, the ratios as determined by (5.21) come out to be independent of the particular real form for each of these exceptional noncompact groups. This suggests that the theories whose gauge groups are different real forms of the same complexified group may be related by analytic continuation, in a similar fashion as the $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}`$ gaugings of the $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒}`$ theory are related via $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{)}`$ . Here, the analytic continuation would have to pass through the complex group $`𝑬_\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{)}`$.

This concludes our discussion of admissible gauge groups. We note that in addition to the groups identified in this chapter there should also exist non-semisimple gaugings analogous to the theories constructed in . We leave their exploration and complete classification for future study.

## 6 Stationary points with maximal supersymmetry

The point of vanishing scalar fields, i.e. $`𝓥\mathbf{=}𝑰`$, plays a distinguished role: it is a stationary point with maximal supersymmetry for all the theories we have constructed. Recall that the condition for stationarity was already spelled out in (4.21). At $`𝓥\mathbf{=}𝑰`$, the gauge group $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is broken to its maximal compact subgroup $`𝑯_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. For the compact gauge group (5.12), the tensor $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}`$ vanishes at this point, since $`𝚯`$ has no contribution in the noncompact directions, cf. (4.17) and (5.7). Hence, (4.21) is satisfied; the compact gauged theory has a $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ invariant stationary point at $`𝓥\mathbf{=}𝑰`$. For the noncompact real forms (5.15), the decomposition (5.14) implies that there is no $`𝑯_\mathrm{𝟎}`$-invariant tensor in the tensor product $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{\times }\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}}`$; hence, $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}`$ vanishes also in these theories at $`𝓥\mathbf{=}𝑰`$. The same argument works also for the exceptional noncompact gauge groups from Table I. In summary, all the three-dimensional theories we have constructed share the stationary point $`𝓥\mathbf{=}𝑰`$.

If we denote by $`𝝂\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐦}𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝜿\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐦}𝑯_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ the dimension of the gauge group and its maximal compact subgroup, respectively, the field equations (3.35) imply that for $`𝓥\mathbf{=}𝑰`$ the vector fields split into $`𝝂\mathbf{}𝜿`$ massive self-dual vectors and a $`𝑯_\mathrm{𝟎}`$-Chern-Simons theory of $`𝜿`$ vector fields which do not carry propagating degrees of freedom. In this way, the erstwhile topological vector fields corresponding to the noncompact directions in $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ acquire a mass term by a Brout-Englert-Higgs like effect as observed in . Dropping the massive vector fields as well as the matter fermions, the theory then reduces to a $`𝑯_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ CS theory, coupled to supergravity. Since the AdS3 (super-)gravity itself allows the formulation as a CS theory of the AdS group $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ , the resulting theory is a CS theory with connection on a superextension of $`𝑯_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$. We shall determine these supergroups in the following.

In order to analyze the residual supersymmetries at the stationary point $`𝓥\mathbf{=}𝑰`$ in a little more detail, we consider the Killing spinor equations, derived from (2), (3.13) in absence of the vector fields:

$`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`\stackrel{\mathbf{!}}{\mathbf{=}}`$ $`\mathbf{}_𝝁^{}\mathit{ϵ}^𝑰\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝐢𝜸_𝒂\mathbf{\left(}𝑨_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝒂}𝜹_{}^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒈𝒆_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝒂}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{\right)}\mathit{ϵ}^𝑱\mathbf{,}`$ (6.1)
$`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`\stackrel{\mathbf{!}}{\mathbf{=}}`$ $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}\mathit{ϵ}^𝑰\mathbf{.}`$ (6.2)
Adapting the arguments of  to the present case, it may be shown that (6.1) in fact implies (6.2). Namely, comparing (6.1) to (2.18) we find that every solution to (6.1) corresponds to the product of an AdS3 Killing spinor and an eigenvector $`\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟎}^𝑰`$ of the real symmetric matrix $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}`$; the eigenvalue $`𝜶_𝒊`$ of $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}`$ is related to the AdS radius by

$$\mathrm{𝟐}𝒈\mathbf{|}𝜶_𝒊\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}𝒎\mathbf{.}$$
(6.3)
On the other hand, the Einstein field equations derived from (3.9) imply that

$$𝑹_{𝝁𝝂}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑾_\mathrm{𝟎}𝒈_{𝝁𝝂}\mathbf{,}$$
(6.4)
where $`𝑾_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is the value of the potential (3.12) at the critical point. From (2.17) we infer the relation $`𝒎^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑾_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Given the eigenvector $`\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟎}^𝑰`$ of $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}`$ with eigenvalue $`𝜶_𝒊`$, we contract (3.25) with $`\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟎}^𝑰`$ to obtain

$$\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶_𝒊^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑾_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\right)}\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟎}^𝑰\mathbf{=}𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑱\dot{𝑨}}\mathit{ϵ}_\mathrm{𝟎}^𝑱\mathbf{.}$$
(6.5)
If $`𝜶_𝒊`$ satisfies (6.3), this equation indeed implies (6.2). As in higher dimensions, the number of residual supersymmetries therefore corresponds to the number of eigenvalues $`𝜶_𝒊`$ of $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}`$ satisfying (6.3). Conversely, equation (6.5) shows that $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑰\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is a sufficient condition for a maximally supersymmetric ground state: all eigenvalues of the tensor $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑰𝑱}`$ then satisfy (6.3), splitting into $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{=}𝒏_𝑳\mathbf{+}𝒏_𝑹`$ with positive and negative sign, respectively. Altogether, we have thus shown that all the theories with noncompact gauge groups from (5.15) and Table I possess a maximally supersymmetric ground state at $`𝓥\mathbf{=}𝑰`$. This is in marked contrast to the higher-dimensional models, where several of the noncompact gaugings do not even admit any stationary points .

Not unexpectedly, the background isometries of these groundstates are superextensions of the three-dimensional AdS group $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$. Since $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}_𝑳\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}_𝑹`$ is not simple, they are in general direct products of two simple supergroups $`𝑮_𝑳\mathbf{\times }𝑮_𝑹`$. Accordingly, the sixteen supersymmetry generators split into $`𝑵\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝒏_𝑳\mathbf{,}𝒏_𝑹\mathbf{)}`$, such that the groups $`𝑮_{𝑳\mathbf{,}𝑹}`$ are $`𝒏_{𝑳\mathbf{,}𝑹}`$ superextensions of the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}_{𝑳\mathbf{,}𝑹}`$ with bosonic subgroups

$$𝑮_{𝑳\mathbf{,}𝑹}\mathbf{}𝑯_{𝑳\mathbf{,}𝑹}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}_{𝑳\mathbf{,}𝑹}\mathbf{.}$$
(6.6)
A list of possible factors $`𝑮_{𝑳\mathbf{,}𝑹}`$ based on the classification  is given in .

To determine the AdS supergroups $`𝑮_𝑳\mathbf{\times }𝑮_𝑹`$ corresponding to the maximally supersymmetric ground state of the theory with gauge group $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, one must identify the groups $`𝑯_{𝑳\mathbf{,}𝑹}`$ among the simple factors of its maximally compact subgroup $`𝑯_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, such that $`𝑯_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝑯_𝑳\mathbf{\times }𝑯_𝑹`$. This basically follows from the decomposition of the sixteen supercharges under $`𝑯_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Note that $`𝑯_𝑳`$ is not necessarily entirely contained in one of the two factors of the semisimple gauge group $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Rather we find that in the two factorizations

$$𝑯^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\times }𝑯^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝑯_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝑯_𝑳\mathbf{\times }𝑯_𝑹\mathbf{,}$$
(6.7)
the various subfactors are distributed in different ways among the two factors. This has been made explicit in (5.16) and Table II, respectively, by designating the simple factors of $`𝑯_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ with the corresponding sub- and superscripts. In fact, the only gauge groups for which the two factorizations (6.7) coincide are the compact group (5.12), the group $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\times }𝑭_{\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}\mathbf{)}}`$ from Table II, and the gauge group $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ itself. For the noncompact gauge groups $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑳\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑳\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, and $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$, we find $`𝑯_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝑯_𝑳`$, i.e. $`𝑮_𝑹`$ reduces to its purely bosonic AdS part $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}_𝑹`$. Another particular situation arises for the noncompact gauge group $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}`$, where the supergroups $`𝑮_{𝑳\mathbf{,}𝑹}`$ themselves are not simple but direct products of two supergroups, respectively.

The complete list is given in Table III, where we have summarized the background isometries of the maximally supersymmetric stationary point $`𝓥\mathbf{=}𝑰`$ for all the three-dimensional gauged maximal supergravities constructed in this article.

Let us emphasize that this table presumably represents only the tip of the iceberg as we expect there to be a wealth of stationary points with partially broken supersymmetry for “small” gauge groups $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$. On the other hand, for “large” gauge groups stationary points will be more scarce. As a special example, consider the extremal theory with noncompact gauge group $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$, for which the potential becomes just a (cosmological) constant, and does not exhibit any stationary points besides the trivial one. In this case $`𝓥\mathbf{=}𝑰`$ may always be achieved by gauge fixing the local $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ symmetry. Even after this gauge fixing, by which the scalar fields have been eliminated altogether, there still remains the “composite” local $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ invariance rendering 120 vectors out of the 248 vector fields unphysical. Accordingly, the theory in this gauge may be interpreted as an $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ Chern-Simons theory coupled to 128 massive selfdual vector fields, each of which represents one physical degree of freedom. In other words, with respect to the ungauged theory, the propagating degrees of freedom have been shifted from the scalar fields to massive selfdual vectors. This is in fact an extremal case of the mechanism required for gauging higher dimensional supergravities in odd dimensions  whereby massless $`𝒌\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ forms in a $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝒌\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ dimensional space-time upon gauging turn into massive selfdual $`𝒌`$-forms. As discussed above, truncating the massive vector fields together with the matter fermions, the theory reduces to the $`𝑶𝑺𝒑\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{)}`$ theory of  and reproduces its $`\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ supersymmetric ground state.

It will be most interesting to study the boundary theories associated with the gauged supergravities. The background isometries given in Table III determine the superconformal symmetries of the theories on the AdS3 boundary. The chiral algebras are obtained by Hamiltonian reduction of the current algebras based on the AdS3 supergroups $`𝑮_𝑳`$ and $`𝑮_𝑹`$, respectively (see  for a discussion and a translation table). For instance, the boundary theory of the superextended Chern-Simons theories  is described by a super-Liouville action with $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒏\mathbf{)}`$ extended superconformal symmetry . The maximal gauged supergravities (3.9) then introduce additional scalar and massive vector degrees of freedom, respectively, which propagate in the bulk.

## 7 Outlook: a higher dimensional ancestor?

As already pointed out in the introduction there appears to be no way to obtain the gauged models constructed in this paper by means of a conventional Kaluza Klein compactification, because the latter would give rise to a standard Yang-Mills-type Lagrangian with a kinetic term for the vector fields, instead of the CS term that was required here. Moreover, $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}`$ supergravity does not admit maximally supersymmetric groundstates of the type AdS$`{}_{\mathrm{𝟑}}{}^{}\mathbf{\times }𝓜_\mathrm{𝟖}`$ (see e.g. ), and even if it did, there simply are no 8-manifolds $`𝓜_\mathrm{𝟖}`$ whose isometry groups would coincide with the gauge groups $`𝑮_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ that we have found (since there are no 7-manifolds with these isometries either, the arguments a fortiori also excludes type-IIB theory as a possible ancestor). Nonetheless all these gauged models constitute continuous deformations of the original $`𝑵\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ theory of , which itself is derivable by a torus reduction of $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}`$ supergravity. The situation is therefore quite different from the one in dimensions $`𝑫\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}`$ where the gauged theories do emerge via sphere compactifications of $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}`$ supergravity.777For the AdS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times S^7`$ compactification this was rigorously shown in , while for the AdS$`{}_{7}{}^{}\times S^4`$ a complete proof was given more recently . By contrast, the full consistency of the AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$ truncation of IIB supergravity remains an open problem despite much supporting evidence, see  and references therein. This raises the question whether there exists a higher-dimensional ancestor theory that would give rise to these theories, and if so, what it might be. While we have no answer to this question at the moment, we would like here to offer some hints.

Obviously, a crucial step in our construction was the introduction “by hand” of up to 248 vector fields $`𝑩_𝝁^𝓜`$ subject to the transformation rules

$$𝜹𝑩_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝓜}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝓥^𝓜{}_{𝑰𝑱}{}^{}\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}_{}^{𝑰}𝝍_𝝁^𝑰\mathbf{+}𝐢𝚪_{𝑨\dot{𝑨}}^𝑰𝓥^𝓜{}_{𝑨}{}^{}\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}_{}^{𝑰}𝜸_𝝁𝝌^{\dot{𝑨}}\mathbf{.}$$

As mentioned before, for the 36 vector fields associated with the 36 commuting nilpotent directions in the $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ Lie algebra, this formula can be derived directly from eleven dimensions . Owing to the on-shell equivalence of vectors and scalars, vector fields can be added with impunity in three dimensions, but in extrapolating this step to eleven dimensions we seem to run into an obstacle, because extra vector fields would normally introduce new and unwanted propagating degrees of freedom. Nevertheless, the evidence for a generalized vielbein in eleven dimensions presented in , and the fact that a consistent gauging in three dimensions based on this extrapolation does exist, prompt us to conjecture that all 248 vector fields introduced here have an eleven-dimensional origin. In  it was observed that the physical bosonic degrees of freedom can be assembled into a 248-bein, which is just the lift of the $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ matrix $`𝓥`$ to eleven dimensions. Assuming that there are indeed 248 vector fields, all bosonic fields would thus naturally fit into a (3+248)-bein

$$\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{cc}𝒆_𝝁^𝜶& 𝑩_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝓜}𝓥_{𝓜}^{}^𝓐\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& 𝓥_𝓜^𝓐\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}$$

which would also incorporate the three-form degrees of freedom and would replace the original elfbein of $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}`$ supergravity

$$\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{cc}𝒆_𝝁^𝜶& 𝑩_𝝁{}_{}{}^{𝒎}𝒆_{𝒎}^{}^𝒂\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& 𝒆_𝒎^𝒂\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$

The latter is just an element of the coset space $`𝑮𝑳\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ in a special gauge where the tangent space symmetry is broken to $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}`$. However, an analogous interpretation of the above (3+248)-bein remains to be found. Amongst other things, it would require replacing the action of the global $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ on the 248-bein $`𝓥_𝓜^𝓐`$ by some new type of general coordinate transformations, in the same way as $`𝑮𝑳\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ is replaced by diffeomorphisms in the vielbein description of Einstein’s theory . The gauge groups found in the compactification to three dimensions would then emerge as “isometry groups” in a suitable sense. We also note that for the tangent space group we have the embedding $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑶𝑺𝒑\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, but there is no simple group generalizing $`𝑮𝑳\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ that would contain $`𝑮𝑳\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ and yield the right number of (bosonic) physical degrees of freedom upon division by $`𝑶𝑺𝒑\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ (see, however,  for an alternative ansatz based on the embedding $`𝑶𝑺𝒑\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑶𝑺𝒑\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔𝟒}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$).

The challenge is therefore to find a reformulation of $`𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}`$ supergravity in terms of the above (3+248)-bein and an action, which must still describe no more than 128 massless bosonic physical degrees of freedom, despite the presence of new field components in eleven dimensions. The only way to achieve this appears to be via a CS-like action in eleven dimensions that would encompass all degrees of freedom, and thus unify the Einstein-Hilbert and three-form actions of the original theory888We are aware that the idea of reformulating $`D=11`$ supergravity as a CS theory is not entirely new. However, the present ansatz is evidently very different from previous attempts in this direction.. In making these speculations we are encouraged by the fact that, at least in three dimensions, the dreibein $`𝒆_𝝁^𝜶`$, the gravitinos $`𝝍_𝝁^𝑰`$ and the vector fields are all governed by CS-type actions.

## Appendix Appendix A: $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ conventions

The $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ generators $`𝒕^𝓐`$ are split into 120 compact ones $`𝑿^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝑿^{𝑱𝑰}`$ and 128 noncompact ones $`𝒀^𝑨`$, with $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ vector indices $`𝑰\mathbf{,}𝑱\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\underset{\mathbf{¯}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$ , spinor indices $`𝑨\mathbf{,}𝑩\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\underset{\mathbf{¯}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}}`$, and the collective labels $`𝓐\mathbf{,}𝓑\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{[}𝑰𝑱\mathbf{]}\mathbf{,}𝑨\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}`$. The conjugate $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ spinors are labeled by dotted indices $`\dot{𝑨}\mathbf{,}\dot{𝑩}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}`$. In this $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ basis the totally antisymmetric $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ structure constants $`𝒇^{𝓐𝓑𝓒}`$ possess the non-vanishing components

$$𝒇^{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{,}𝑲𝑳\mathbf{,}𝑴𝑵}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}𝜹\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\hfill \\ ^{𝑰\mathbf{[}𝑲}_{}𝜹_{𝑴𝑵}^{𝑳\mathbf{]}𝑱}\hfill \end{array}\mathbf{,}𝒇^{𝑰𝑱\mathbf{,}𝑨\mathbf{,}𝑩}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝚪_{𝑨𝑩}^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{.}$$
(A.1)
$`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ indices are raised and lowered by means of the Cartan-Killing metric

$$𝜼^{𝓐𝓑}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}}\mathrm{𝐓𝐫}𝒕^𝓐𝒕^𝓑\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}}𝒇^𝓐{}_{𝓒𝓓}{}^{}𝒇_{}^{𝓑𝓒𝓓}\mathbf{,}$$
(A.2)
with components $`𝜼^{𝑨𝑩}\mathbf{=}𝜹^{𝑨𝑩}`$ and $`𝜼^{𝑰𝑱𝑲𝑳}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜹_{𝑲𝑳}^{𝑰𝑱}`$. When summing over antisymmetrized index pairs $`\mathbf{[}𝑰𝑱\mathbf{]}`$, an extra factor of $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ is always understood. Explicitly, the commutators are

$`\mathbf{[}𝑿^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{,}𝑿^{𝑲𝑳}\mathbf{]}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟒}𝜹\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\hfill \\ ^{𝑰\mathbf{[}𝑲}𝑿^{𝑳\mathbf{]}𝑱}\hfill \end{array}\mathbf{,}`$ (A.5)
$`\mathbf{[}𝑿^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{,}𝒀^𝑨\mathbf{]}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝚪_{𝑨𝑩}^{𝑰𝑱}𝒀^𝑩\mathbf{,}`$
$`\mathbf{[}𝒀^𝑨\mathbf{,}𝒀^𝑩\mathbf{]}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}𝚪_{𝑨𝑩}^{𝑰𝑱}𝑿^{𝑰𝑱}\mathbf{.}`$ (A.6)
The equivalence of the fundamental and the adjoint representations of $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ plays an important role in our considerations; it is expressed by the relation

$$𝓥^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}𝒕^𝓜𝓥\mathbf{=}𝓥_{}^{𝓜}{}_{𝓐}{}^{}𝒕^𝓐\mathbf{}𝓥_{}^{𝓜}{}_{𝓐}{}^{}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}}\mathrm{𝐓𝐫}\mathbf{\left(}𝒕^𝓜𝓥𝒕_𝓐𝓥^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$
(A.7)
Further formulas concerning the $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ Lie algebra, which will be used in this paper can be found in .

Let us finally point out that in the main text we use collective labels $`𝓐\mathbf{,}𝓑\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}`$ and $`𝓜\mathbf{,}𝓝\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}`$ for the $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ matrix $`𝓥^𝓜_𝓐^{}`$ defined in (A.7), to distinguish the transformation of these indices under the left and right action of $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$, respectively, according to (2.1). Likewise, $`𝚯_{𝓜𝓝}`$ is an $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}}`$ tensor whereas $`𝑻_{𝓐\mathbf{|}𝓑}`$ transforms under the local $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$, cf. (3.21).