format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The principal importance of supersymmetric integrable systems from the point of view of theoretical physics is rooted in their intimate relevance for (multi-)matrix models in non-perturbative superstring theory ?. Accordingly, from purely mathematical point of view, the subject of supersymmetrization of Kadomtsev-Petviashvili (KP) integrable hierarchy of “soliton”-like evolution equations and its various reductions ?,?,? similarly attracted a lot of interest, especially, the supersymmetric generalizations of the inverse scattering method, bi-Hamiltonian structures, tau-functions and Sato Grassmannian approach, and the Drinfeld-Sokolov scheme.

An important role in the theory of integrable systems is being played by the notion of additional (non-isospectral) symmetries ? (for detailed reviews of the latter subject, see refs.?). Additional symmetries, by definition, consist of the set of all flows on the space of the Lax operators of the pertinent integrable hierarchy which commute with the ordinary isospectral flows, the latter being generated by the complete set of commuting integrals of motion. One of the most significant manifestations of additional symmetries is the interpretation of the crucial Virasoro (and $`𝐖_{\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{}}`$) constraints on partition functions of (multi-)matrix models of string theory as invariance of the $`\tau `$-functions (i.e., the string partition functions) under the Borel subalgebra of the Virasoro algebra of additional non-isospectral symmetries in the underlying integrable hierarchies (similarly for the $`𝐖_{\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{}}`$ constraints).

Furthermore, the notion of additional symmetries allows to provide an alternative formulation of matrix (multi-component) KP hierarchies as ordinary scalar KP hierarchy supplemented with appropiate sets of mutually commuting additional symmetry flows (see refs.?,?). In particular, one obtains an alternative formulation of various physically relevant nonlinear evolution equations in two- and higher-dimensional space-time (e.g., Davey-Stewartson and $`N`$-wave resonant systems, as well as Wess-Zumino-Novikov-Witten models of group-coset-valued fields) as additional-symmetry flows on ordinary (reduced) KP hierarchies (see refs.?,?,?,?).

Finally, additional non-isospectral symmetries are expected to play an important role in the quantization of integrable systems (since the quantum state space must carry representations of the underlying additional symmetry algebra).

The first main topic of the present Letter is the study of additional non-isospectral symmetries of constrained (reduced) $`N=2`$ supersymmetric KP integrable hierarchies. This is an extension of our study in ref.? of additional symmetries of $`N=1`$ super-KP hierarchies. These symmetries are shown to form an infinite-dimensional non-Abelian superloop superalgebra. The second main topic is the study of general Darboux-Bäcklund (DB) transformations (including adjoint-DB and binary DB) of $`N=2`$ super-KP hierarchies preserving (most of) the additional symmetries. The main result here is the derivation of the explicit form of the general DB ($`N=2`$ “super-soliton”-like) solutions in the form of generalized Wronskian-like super-determinants. An extended exposition of the present results, including detailed proofs and further developments, will appear elsewhere.

## 2 Superspace Formulation of General N=2 Super-KP Hierarchy

We shall use throughout the $`N=2`$ super-pseudo-differential operator calculus as in ref.? with the following notations:

$$\frac{}{x},𝒟_\pm =\frac{}{\theta _\pm }+\theta _\pm \frac{}{x};𝒟_\pm ^2=,\{𝒟_+,𝒟_{}\}=0$$
(1)
where $`(x,\theta _+,\theta _{})`$ denote $`N=2`$ superspace coordinates. For any $`N=2`$ super-pseudo-differential operator $`𝒜`$ :

$$𝒜=𝒜_++𝒜_{},𝒜_\pm \underset{j0}{}(a_{\pm j}^{(0)}+a_{\pm j}^{(+)}𝒟_++a_{\pm j}^{()}𝒟_{}+a_{\pm j}^{(1)}𝒟_+𝒟_{})^{\pm j}$$
(2)
the subscripts $`(\pm )`$ denote its purely differential or purely pseudo-differential parts, respectively. The rules of conjugation within the super-pseudo-differential formalism are as follows (cf. first ref.?): $`(𝒜)^{}=(1)^{|A||B|}^{}𝒜^{}`$ for any two elements with Grassmann parities $`|A|`$ and $`|B|`$; $`\left(^k\right)^{}=(1)^k^k,\left(𝒟_\pm ^k\right)^{}=(1)^{k(k+1)/2}𝒟_\pm ^k`$ and $`u^{}=u`$ for any coefficient superfield. Also, in order to avoid confusion we shall also employ the following notations: for any super-(pseudo-)differential operator $`𝒜`$ and a superfield function $`f`$, the symbol $`𝒜(f)`$ or $`(𝒜f)`$ will indicate application (action) of $`𝒜`$ on $`f`$, whereas the symbol $`𝒜f`$ without brackets will denote just operator product of $`𝒜`$ with the zero-order (multiplication) operator $`f`$.

The general unconstrained $`N=2`$ supersymmetric KP hierarchy is given by a fermionic $`N=2`$ super-pseudo-differential Lax operator $``$ in terms of the bosonic $`N=2`$ superspace dressing operator $`𝒲`$ ? :

$$=𝒲𝒟_{}𝒲^1,𝒲1+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(w_k^{(0)}+w_k^{(+)}𝒟_++w_k^{()}𝒟_{}+w_k^{(1)}𝒟_+𝒟_{})^k$$
(3)
obeying bosonic and fermionic evolution (isospectral) Sato equationsIn fact, as shown in ?, there exist two additional bosonic and two additional fermionic sets of flows such that the $`N=2`$ super-KP hierarchy exibits $`N=4`$ supersymmetry. :

$$\frac{}{t_l}=[\left(^{2l}\right)_+,],D_n^{}=\{\left(^{2n1}\right)_{},\},D_n^+=\{\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2n1}\right)_+,\}$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=𝒲𝒟_+𝒲^1`$. The fermionic isospectral flows $`D_n^\pm `$ in Eqs.(4) possess natural realization in terms of two infinite sets of fermionic “evolution” parameters $`\left\{\rho _n^\pm \right\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and span $`N=2`$ supersymmetry algebra :

$$D_n^\pm =\frac{}{\rho _n^\pm }\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\rho _k^\pm \frac{}{t_{n+k1}},\{D_n^\pm ,D_m^\pm \}=2\frac{}{t_{n+m1}},\{D_n^\pm ,D_m^{}\}=0$$
(5)
the rest of flow commutators being zero.

The super-Baker-Akhiezer (super-BA) and the adjoint super-BA wave functions are defined as $`\psi _{BA}=𝒲(\stackrel{(0)}{\psi }{}_{BA}{}^{})`$ and $`\psi _{BA}^{}=𝒲_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\stackrel{(0)}{\psi ^{}}{}_{BA}{}^{})`$ in terms of the “free” super-BA functions (with $`\eta _\pm `$ being fermionic “spectral” parameters):

$$\stackrel{(0)}{\psi }{}_{BA}{}^{}(t,\theta _\pm ,\rho ^\pm ;\lambda ,\eta _\pm )=e^{\xi (t,\theta _\pm ,\rho ^\pm ;\lambda ,\eta _\pm )},\stackrel{(0)}{\psi ^{}}{}_{BA}{}^{}(t,\theta _\pm ,\rho ^\pm ;\lambda ,\eta _\pm )=e^{\xi (t,\theta _\pm ,\rho ^\pm ;\lambda ,\eta _\pm )}$$
(6)
$$\xi (t,\theta _\pm ,\rho ^\pm ;\lambda ,\eta _\pm )\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^lt_l+\underset{\pm }{}\left\{\eta _\pm \theta _\pm +(\eta _\pm \lambda \theta _\pm )\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{n1}\rho _n^\pm \right\}$$
(7)
for which it holds:

$$\frac{}{t_k}\stackrel{(0)}{\psi }{}_{BA}{}^{}=^k\stackrel{(0)}{\psi }{}_{BA}{}^{},D_n^\pm \stackrel{(0)}{\psi }{}_{BA}{}^{}=𝒟_\pm ^{2n1}\stackrel{(0)}{\psi }{}_{BA}{}^{}=_x^{n1}𝒟_\pm \stackrel{(0)}{\psi }_{BA}$$
(8)
In Eqs.(6)–(7) and in what follows we employ the short-hand notions $`(t)(t_1x,t_2,`$
$`t_3,\mathrm{})`$ and $`(\rho ^\pm )(\rho _1^\pm ,\rho _2^\pm ,\rho _3^\pm ,\mathrm{})`$. Accordingly, (adjoint) super-BA wave functions satisfy:

$`\left(^2\right)^{()}\psi _{BA}^{()}=\lambda \psi _{BA}^{()},{\displaystyle \frac{}{t_l}}\psi _{BA}^{()}=\pm \left(^{2l}\right)_+^{()}(\psi _{BA}^{()})`$
$$D_n^{}\psi _{BA}^{()}=\pm \left(^{2n1}\right)_+^{()}(\psi _{BA}^{()}),D_n^+\psi _{BA}^{()}=\pm \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2n1}\right)_+^{()}(\psi _{BA}^{()})$$
(9)
Another important object in the present formalism is the notion of $`N=2`$ super-eigenfunctions (SEF’s) obeying the following defining equations:

$$\frac{}{t_l}\mathrm{\Phi }=_+^{2l}(\mathrm{\Phi }),D_n^{}\mathrm{\Phi }=_+^{2n1}(\mathrm{\Phi }),D_n^+\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^{2n1}(\mathrm{\Phi })$$
(10)
$$\frac{}{t_l}\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(^{2l}\right)_+^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }),D_n^{}\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(^{2n1}\right)_+^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }),D_n^+\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2n1}\right)_+^{}(\mathrm{\Psi })$$
(11)
Any (adjoint) SEF possesses unique $`N=2`$ supersymmetric “spectral” representation in terms of the (adjoint) super-BA function similar to the purely bosonic and $`N=1`$ supersymmetric cases ?,?:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\theta _\pm ,\rho ^\pm )={\displaystyle 𝑑\lambda 𝑑\eta _+𝑑\eta _{}\phi (\lambda ,\eta _\pm )\psi _{BA}(t,\theta _\pm ,\rho ^\pm ;\lambda ,\eta _\pm )}`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }(t,\theta _\pm ,\rho ^\pm )={\displaystyle 𝑑\lambda 𝑑\eta _+𝑑\eta _{}\phi ^{}(\lambda ,\eta _\pm )\psi _{BA}^{}(t,\theta _\pm ,\rho ^\pm ;\lambda ,\eta _\pm )}`$
## 3 Constrained N=2 Super-KP Hierarchies

We are now interested in consistent reductions of the general (unconstrained) $`N=2`$ super-KP hierarchy (3)–(4). In ref.? the authors proposed a novel class of constrained $`N=2`$ super-KP hierarchies defined by $`N=2`$ super-Lax operators of the form $`=𝒟_{}+\mathrm{\Phi }𝒟_+^1\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi }`$ being in general matrix-valued superfunctions. On the other hand, we can use the same logic of the construction of constrained super-KP hierarchies in ref.? to extend it from $`N=1`$ to $`N=2`$ super-KP case. In this way we obtain the following general class $`\mathrm{𝑆𝐾𝑃}_{(M_B,M_F)}^{N=2}`$ of constrained (reduced) $`N=2`$ super-KP hierarchies defined by $`N=2`$ super-Lax operators:

$$_{(M_B,M_F)}=𝒟_{}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i𝒟_+^1\mathrm{\Psi }_i$$
(13)
Here $`MM_B+M_F`$ with $`M_{B,F}`$ being the number of bosonic/fermionic superfunctions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i,\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$. Also, for convenience the order of indices $`i=1,\mathrm{},M`$ in (13) is chosen such that the (adjoint) SEF’s $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_i,\mathrm{\Psi }_i\}_{i=1}^{M_B}`$ are bosonic whereas the rest $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_B+i},\mathrm{\Psi }_{M_B+i}\}_{i=1}^{M_F}`$ are fermionic.

For later use let us also write down the explicit expression of $`\left(^K\right)_{}`$ for arbitrary integer power $`K`$ of $``$ (13) ?,?:

$$\left(^{2k}\right)_{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\underset{s=0}{\overset{2k1}{}}(1)^{s|i|}^{2k1s}(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)𝒟_+^1\left(^s\right)^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_i)$$
(14)
$`\left(^{2k+1}\right)_{}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{2k}{}}}(1)^{s|i|}^{2ks}(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)𝒟_+^1\left(^s\right)^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_i)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{2k1}{}}}(1)^{s|i|+s+|i|}^{2k1s}(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)𝒟_+^1𝒟_{}\left(^s\right)^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_i)`$ (15)
As in the case of $`N=1`$ constrained super-KP hierarchies ?, consistency of the action of isospectral flows with the constrained form (13) of $`\mathrm{𝑆𝐾𝑃}_{(M_B,M_F)}^{N=2}`$ super-Lax operators requires nontrivial modification of the fermionic $`D_n^{}`$ flows (4). The corresponding Sato evolution equations for (13) become:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t_l}}=[\left(^{2l}\right)_+,],D_n^+=\{\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2n1}\right)_+,\}`$
$`D_n^{}=\{\left(^{2n1}\right)_{}X_{2n1},\}`$ (16)
where (cf. Eq.(15)):

$$\left(^{2n1}\right)_{}X_{2n1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\underset{s=0}{\overset{2n2}{}}(1)^{s(|i|+1)}^{2n2s}(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)𝒟_+^1\left(^s\right)^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_i)$$
(17)
Accordingly, the superfunctions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ entering the pseudo-differential art of $``$ (13) are (adjoint) SEF’s (10)–(11) obeying modified defining $`D_n^{}`$-flow equations:

$$D_n^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_i=\left(_+^{2n1}+X_{2n1}\right)(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)2^{2n1}(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)$$
(18)
$$D_n^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_i=\left(\left(^{2n1}\right)_+^{}+X_{2n1}^{}\right)(\mathrm{\Psi }_i)+2\left(^{2n1}\right)^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)$$
(19)
Let us point out that, similarly to the $`N=1`$ supersymmetric case, constrained $`N=2`$ super-KP hierarchies (13),(16) contain among themselves $`N=2`$ supersymmetric extensions of various basic bosonic integrable hierarchies such as (modified) Korteveg-de Vries, nonlinear Schrödinger (AKNS hierachies, in general), Yajima-Oikawa, coupled Boussinesq-type equations etc..

All solutions of (constrained) $`N=2`$ super-KP hierarchies are expressed through a single $`N=2`$ super-tau function $`\tau =\tau (t,\theta _\pm ,\rho ^\pm )`$ which is related to the coefficients of the pertinent $`N=2`$ super-Lax operator $``$ (13) and its associate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as follows:

$`\left(^{2k}\right)_{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{}{t_k}}𝒟_+\mathrm{ln}\tau ,\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2n1}\right)_{(1)}=D_n^+𝒟_+\mathrm{ln}\tau `$
$`\left(^{2n1}X_{2n1}\right)_{(1)}=D_n^{}𝒟_+\mathrm{ln}\tau `$ (20)
where the subscript $`(1)`$ indicates taking the coefficient in front of $`𝒟_+^1`$ in the expansion of the corresponding super-pseudo-differential operator. The validity of Eqs.(20) follows directly from the $`N=2`$ superspace Zakharov-Shabat “zero-curvature” equations, i.e., the compatibility conditions among the isospectral Sato evolution equations (16) respecting the (anti-)commutation isospectral flow algebra (5).

## 4 Superloop Superalgebra Symmetries of Constrained N=2 Super-KP Hierarchies

In the study ? of additional non-isospectral symmetries of $`N=1`$ supersymmetric integrable hierarchies we encountered superloop superalgebras $`\widehat{GL}(N_1,N_2)`$. The latter are infinite-dimensional super-Lie algebras with half-integer loop grading $`0,\pm \frac{1}{2},\pm 1,\pm \frac{3}{2},\mathrm{}`$ :

$$\widehat{GL}(N_1,N_2)=_{\mathrm{}\text{}}GL^{(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2})}(N_1,N_2)$$
(21)
whose $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}`$-grade subspaces consist of super-matrices of the following form:

$$GL^{(n)}(N_1,N_2)=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}A^{(n)}& B^{(n)}\\ C^{(n)}& D^{(n)}\end{array}\right)Mat(N_1,N_2)\right\}$$
(22)
$$GL^{(n\frac{1}{2})}(N_1,N_2)=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}B^{(n\frac{1}{2})}& A^{(n\frac{1}{2})}\\ D^{(n\frac{1}{2})}& C^{(n\frac{1}{2})}\end{array}\right)\stackrel{~}{Mat}(N_1,N_2)\right\}$$
(23)
In Eq.(22) $`Mat(N_1,N_2)`$ denotes the space of all $`(N_1,N_2)\times (N_1,N_2)`$ supermatrices defined in the standard Berezin block form (i.e., diagonal blocks are bosonic and off-diagonal blocks are fermionic), whereas the symbol $`\stackrel{~}{Mat}(N_1,N_2)`$ in Eq.(23) indicates the space of $`(N_1,N_2)\times (N_1,N_2)`$ supermatrices given in a nonstandard block format with diagonal blocks being fermionic while the off-diagonal blocks are bosonic (for a detailed discussion of non-standard formats of super-Lie algebras, see ref.?). Below we will show that the same type of superloop superalgebras serve as algebras of additional symmetry flows of $`N=2`$ super-KP hierarchies.

Borrowing from the construction in ref.? let us consider the following infinite sets of bosonic and fermionic super-pseudo-differential operators:

$$_𝒜^{(\mathrm{}/2)}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{M}{}}𝒜_{ij}^{(\mathrm{}/2)}\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}1}{}}(1)^{s(|j|+\mathrm{})}^{\mathrm{}1s}(\mathrm{\Phi }_j)𝒟_+^1\left(^s\right)^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_i)$$
(24)
$$_{}^{(\mathrm{}/2)}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{M}{}}_{ij}^{(\mathrm{}/2)}\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}1}{}}(1)^{s(|j|+\mathrm{})}^{\mathrm{}1s}(\mathrm{\Phi }_j)𝒟_+^1\left(^s\right)^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_i)$$
(25)
where $`\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_i,\mathrm{\Psi }_i\}`$ are the same SEF’s entering the pseudo-differential part of $``$ (13). The associated flows generated by (24)–(25) on the $`N=2`$ constrained super-KP hierarchies (13) read:

$$\delta _𝒜^{(\mathrm{}/2)}=[_𝒜^{(\mathrm{}/2)},],\delta _{}^{(\mathrm{}/2)}=\{_{}^{(\mathrm{}/2)},\}$$
(26)
or, equivalently, $`\delta _{𝒜,}^{(\mathrm{}/2)}𝒲=_{𝒜,}^{(\mathrm{}/2)}𝒲`$. In Eqs.(24)–(25) $`𝒜^{(\mathrm{}/2)}`$ and $`^{(\mathrm{}/2)}`$ are constant supermatrices belonging to the superloop superalgebra $`\widehat{GL}(M_B,M_F)`$ (cf. definition (21)–(23)) of the following types:

(a) For $`\mathrm{}=2n`$ $`𝒜^{(n)}`$ and $`^{(n)}`$ are purely bosonic and purely fermionic elements, respectively:

$$𝒜^{(n)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A^{(n)}& 0\\ 0& D^{(n)}\end{array}\right),^{(n)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& B^{(n)}\\ C^{(n)}& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(27)
Here the block matrices $`A^{(n)},B^{(n)},C^{(n)}`$ and $`D^{(n)}`$ are of sizes $`M_B\times M_B`$, $`M_B\times M_F`$, $`M_F\times M_B`$ and $`M_F\times M_F`$, respectively.

(b) For $`\mathrm{}=2n1`$ the supermatrices $`𝒜^{(n\frac{1}{2})}`$ and $`^{(n\frac{1}{2})}`$ are purely bosonic and purely fermionic elements in the “twisted” non-standard format:

$$^{(n\frac{1}{2})}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}B^{(n\frac{1}{2})}& 0\\ 0& C^{(n\frac{1}{2})}\end{array}\right),𝒜^{(n\frac{1}{2})}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& A^{(n\frac{1}{2})}\\ D^{(n\frac{1}{2})}& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(28)
In this case the sizes of the block matrices $`A^{(n\frac{1}{2})},B^{(n\frac{1}{2})},C^{(n\frac{1}{2})}`$ and $`D^{(n\frac{1}{2})}`$ are $`M_B\times M_F`$, $`M_B\times M_B`$, $`M_F\times M_F`$ and $`M_F\times M_B`$, respectively.

Note from Eq.(24) that for $`\mathrm{}=2n`$ :

$$_{𝒜=\text{1}\text{l}}^{(n)}\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}\underset{s=0}{\overset{2n1}{}}(1)^{s|j|}^{2n1s}(\mathrm{\Phi }_j)𝒟_+^1\left(^s\right)^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_j)=\left(^{2n}\right)_{}$$
(29)
whereas for $`\mathrm{}=2n1`$ Eq.(25) implies:

$$_{=\text{1}\text{l}}^{(n\frac{1}{2})}\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}\underset{s=0}{\overset{2n2}{}}(1)^{s(|j|+1)}^{2n2s}(\mathrm{\Phi }_j)𝒟_+^1\left(^s\right)^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_j)=\left(^{2n1}\right)_{}X_{2n1}$$
(30)
with $`X_{2n1}`$ the same as in Eq.(17).

Since all superfunctions entering the operators $`_{𝒜,}^{(\mathrm{}/2)}`$ are SEF’s of the constrained $`N=2`$ super-KP hierarchies (13), it is straightforward to show that the flows $`\delta _{𝒜,}^{(\mathrm{}/2)}`$ (26) commute with the bosonic isospectral flows $`\frac{}{t_l}`$ (4), thus, identifying (26) as additional non-isospectral symmetries of the latter hierarchies. Furthermore, $`\delta _{𝒜,}^{(\mathrm{}/2)}`$-flows (anti-)commute with the second set of fermionic isospectral flows $`D_n^+`$ (4), whereas the first set of fermionic isospectral flows $`D_n^{}`$ (4) become nontrivial elements of an infinite-dimensional superloop superalgebra (cf. (41) and (42) below).

In checking the above properties we make use of the following super-pseudo-differential operator identities (cf. refs.?,?):

$$𝒵_{(i,j)}𝒵_{(k,l)}=𝒵_{(i,j)}(\mathrm{\Phi }_k)𝒟_+^1\mathrm{\Psi }_l+(1)^{|j|(|k|+|l|+1)}\mathrm{\Phi }_i𝒟_+^1𝒵_{(k,l)}^{}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_j\right)$$
(31)
where $`𝒵_{(i,j)}\mathrm{\Phi }_i𝒟_+^1\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ and similarly for $`𝒵_{(k,l)}`$.

Consistency of the flow actions (26) with the constrained form of the $`N=2`$ super-Lax operator (13) implies, using identities (31), the following actions of $`\delta _{𝒜,}^{\mathrm{}/2}`$-flows on the constituent (adjoint) SEF’s:

$$\delta _𝒜^{(\mathrm{}/2)}\mathrm{\Phi }_i=_𝒜^{(\mathrm{}/2)}(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}𝒜_{ij}^{(\mathrm{}/2)}^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_j)$$
(32)
$$\delta _𝒜^{(\mathrm{}/2)}\mathrm{\Psi }_i=\left(_𝒜^{(\mathrm{}/2)}\right)^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_i)+\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}(1)^{\mathrm{}|j|}𝒜_{ji}^{(\mathrm{}/2)}\left(^{\mathrm{}}\right)^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_j)$$
(33)
$$\delta _{}^{(\mathrm{}/2)}\mathrm{\Phi }_i=_{}^{(\mathrm{}/2)}(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)+\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}_{ij}^{(\mathrm{}/2)}^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_j)$$
(34)
$$\delta _{}^{(\mathrm{}/2)}\mathrm{\Psi }_i=\left(_{}^{(\mathrm{}/2)}\right)^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_i)\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}(1)^{(\mathrm{}+1)|j|}_{ji}^{(\mathrm{}/2)}\left(^{\mathrm{}}\right)^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_j)$$
(35)
Furthermore, employing again identities (31), we obtain:

$$\delta _{𝒜_1}^{(\mathrm{}/2)}_{𝒜_2}^{(m/2)}\delta _{𝒜_2}^{(m/2)}_{𝒜_1}^{(\mathrm{}/2)}[_{𝒜_1}^{(\mathrm{}/2)},_{𝒜_2}^{(m/2)}]=_{[𝒜_1,𝒜_2]}^{((\mathrm{}+m)/2)}$$
(36)
$$\delta _𝒜^{(\mathrm{}/2)}_{}^{(m/2)}\delta _{}^{(m/2)}_𝒜^{(\mathrm{}/2)}[_𝒜^{(\mathrm{}/2)},_{}^{(m/2)}]=\{\begin{array}{cc}_{[𝒜,]}^{((\mathrm{}+m)/2)}\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{for}\mathrm{}=even\\ _{\{𝒜,\}}^{((\mathrm{}+m)/2)}\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{for}\mathrm{}=odd\end{array}$$
(37)
$`\delta __1^{(\mathrm{}/2)}__2^{(m/2)}+\delta __2^{(m/2)}__1^{(\mathrm{}/2)}\{__1^{(\mathrm{}/2)},__2^{(m/2)}\}=`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\pm _{\{_1,_2\}}^{((\mathrm{}+m)/2)}\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{for}(\mathrm{},m)=(odd,odd)/(even,even)\\ \pm _{[_1,_2]}^{((\mathrm{}+m)/2)}\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{for}(\mathrm{},m)=(odd,even)/(even,odd)\end{array}`$ (40)
The super-pseudo-differential operator relations (36)–(40), which constitute the compatibility conditions for the additional symmetry flows (26), imply that the latter obey the following infinite-dimensional algebra (here $`\mathrm{},m1`$) :

$`[\delta _{𝒜_1}^{(\mathrm{}/2)},\delta _{𝒜_2}^{(m/2)}]=\delta _{[𝒜_1,𝒜_2]}^{((\mathrm{}+m)/2)},[\delta _𝒜^{(\mathrm{}/2)},\delta _{}^{(m/2)}]=\delta _{[𝒜,]}^{((\mathrm{}+m)/2)}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{}=\mathrm{even}`$
$`[\delta _𝒜^{(\mathrm{}/2)},\delta _{}^{(m/2)}]=\delta _{\{𝒜,\}}^{((\mathrm{}+m)/2)}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{}=\mathrm{odd}`$
$`\{\delta __1^{(\mathrm{}/2)},\delta __2^{(m/2)}\}=\pm \delta _{\{_1,_2\}}^{((\mathrm{}+m)/2)}\mathrm{for}(\mathrm{},m)=(odd,odd)/(even,even)`$
$`\{\delta __1^{(\mathrm{}/2)},\delta __2^{(m/2)}\}=\pm \delta _{[_1,_2]}^{((\mathrm{}+m)/2)}\mathrm{for}(\mathrm{},m)=(odd,even)/(even,odd)`$ (41)
The algebra (41) is isomorphic to the positive-grade subalgebra of the superloop superalgebra $`\widehat{GL}(M_B,M_F)`$. In particular, from (29)–(30) we find that:

$$\delta _{𝒜=\text{1}\text{l}}^{(n)}=\frac{}{t_n},\delta _{=\text{1}\text{l}}^{(n\frac{1}{2})}=D_n^{}$$
(42)
are, upto an overall minus sign, isospectral flows of the corresponding $`\mathrm{𝑆𝐾𝑃}_{(M_B,M_F)}^{N=2}`$
hierarchy (13).

## 5 Darboux-Bäcklund (N=2 “Super-Soliton”) Solutions

In refs.?,? we have discussed in detail Darboux-Bäcklund (DB) transformations and DB solutions (i.e., soliton-like solutions) of bosonic and $`N=1`$ supersymmetric constrained KP hierarchies preserving the additional non-isospectral symmetries of the latter. Employing the same approach we are lead to consider the following DB and ajoint-DB transformations of $`N=2`$ constrained super-KP hierarchies $`\mathrm{𝑆𝐾𝑃}_{(M_B,M_F)}^{N=2}`$ (13) :

$`\stackrel{~}{}=𝒯_\varphi 𝒯_\varphi ^1,𝒯_\varphi \varphi 𝒟_+\varphi ^1,\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }_{i_0}`$ (43)
$`\widehat{}=\left(𝒯_\psi ^1\right)^{}𝒯_\psi ^{},𝒯_\psi \psi 𝒟_+\psi ^1,\psi \mathrm{\Psi }_{i_0}`$ (44)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i_0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{i_0}`$ are some fixed bosonic (adjoint) SEF’s entering the pseudo-differential part of the $`N=2`$ super-Lax operator (13). The (adjoint) DB-transformed super-Lax operator is of the same form as the initial one:

$$\stackrel{~}{}=𝒟_{}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i𝒟_+^1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i,\widehat{}=𝒟_{}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i𝒟_+^1\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i$$
(45)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{i_0}=𝒯_\varphi \left((\mathrm{\Phi }_{i_0})\right),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{i_0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{i_0}}};\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{i_0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{i_0}}},\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{i_0}=𝒯_\psi \left(^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_{i_0})\right)`$ (46)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i=𝒯_\varphi (\mathrm{\Phi }_i),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i=(1)^{|i|}\left(𝒯_\varphi ^1\right)^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_i)\mathrm{for}ii_0`$ (47)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i=(1)^{|i|}\left(𝒯_\psi ^1\right)^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }_i),\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i=𝒯_\psi (\mathrm{\Psi }_i)\mathrm{for}ii_0`$ (48)
(recall $`\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }_{i_0},\psi \mathrm{\Psi }_{i_0}`$). Note that the (adjoint) DB-transformed SEF’s for all $`ii_0`$ possess opposite Grassmann parities w.r.t. the initial SEF’s. Further we can show, following the method of ref.?, that the super-DB transformations (43)–(48) preserve (upto an overall sign change of the fermionic flows) the subalgebra $`\left(\widehat{GL}(M_B1,M_F)\right)_+`$ of the additional symmetry algebra $`\left(\widehat{GL}(M_B,M_F)\right)_+`$ (41).

Using relations (20) we deduce the following (adjoint) DB transformations for the pertinent $`N=2`$ super-tau function:

$$\tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }=\frac{\varphi }{\tau },\tau \widehat{\tau }=\frac{1}{\psi \tau }$$
(49)
Relations (49) are similar to those in the $`N=1`$ super-KP case ?,? and have to be contrasted with their counterparts in the ordinary “bosonic” case where $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\varphi \tau ,\widehat{\tau }=\psi \tau `$.

Arbitrary iterations of any number of successive DB and adjoint-DB transformations, i.e., general DB orbits of $`N=1`$ constrained super-KP hierarchies have been worked out in detail in ref.?. The current $`N=2`$ super-DB transformations (45)–(48) and (49) have a structure analogous to their counterparts in the $`N=1`$ super-KP case, with the following simple modifications: (i) the $`N=1`$ super-derivative operator $`𝒟=/\theta +\theta `$ is replaced by the first $`N=2`$ super-derivative operator $`𝒟_+`$; (ii) the $`N=1`$ super-Lax operator is replaced by the $`N=2`$ super-Lax operator containing the second $`N=2`$ super-derivative operator $`𝒟_{}`$ in its positive differential part (cf. (13)). Therefore, we can easily generalize the results in ? to obtain for the general DB-orbit of the $`N=2`$ super-tau function the following Berezinian (super-determinant) expressions:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^{(0;0)}}{\tau ^{(n+2m;n)}}}=(1)^{mn+n(n1)/2}\times `$
(50)
$`\mathrm{Ber}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{W}_{n+m,n+m}^{(n+m;m)}\left[\{\phi \}\right|\{\psi \}]& |& \stackrel{~}{W}_{m,n+m}^{(m;n)}\left[\{\phi _{(\frac{1}{2})}\}\right|\{\psi \}]\\ & |& \\ W_{n+m,m}[𝒟_+\phi _0,\mathrm{},𝒟_+\phi _{n+m1}]& |& W_{m,m}[𝒟_+\phi _{\frac{1}{2}},\mathrm{},𝒟_+\phi _{m\frac{1}{2}}]\end{array}\right)`$ (54)
$`\tau ^{(n+2m+1;n)}\tau ^{(0;0)}=(1)^{mn+n(n1)/2}\times `$
(55)
$`\mathrm{Ber}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{W}_{n+m+1,n+m+1}^{(n+m+1;n)}[\{\phi \},\phi _{n+m}|\{\psi \}]& |& \stackrel{~}{W}_{m,n+m+1}^{(m;n)}\left[\{\phi _{(\frac{1}{2})}\}\right|\{\psi \}]\\ & |& \\ W_{n+m+1,m}[𝒟_+\phi _0,\mathrm{},𝒟_+\phi _{n+m}]& |& W_{m,m}[𝒟_+\phi _{\frac{1}{2}},\mathrm{},𝒟_+\phi _{m\frac{1}{2}}]\end{array}\right)`$ (59)
In Eqs.(50)–(55) the notations used are as follows. The superscript $`(k;l)`$ of the super-tau function $`\tau ^{(k;l)}`$ indicates $`k`$ steps of DB transformations plus $`l`$ steps of adjoint-DB transformations according to (45)–(48) and (49). The block matrices entering the Berezinians in (50)–(55) possess the following special generalized Wronskian-like $`k\times (m+n)`$ matrix form:

$`\stackrel{~}{W}_{k,m+n}^{(k;n)}\left[\{\phi \}\right|\{\psi \}]\stackrel{~}{W}_{k,m+n}^{(k;n)}[\phi _0,\mathrm{},\phi _{k1}|\psi _{\frac{1}{2}},\mathrm{},\psi _{n\frac{1}{2}}]=`$
$`=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\phi _0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \phi _{k1}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ ^{m1}\phi _0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& ^{m1}\phi _{k1}\\ 𝒟_+^1(\phi _0\psi _{\frac{1}{2}})& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 𝒟_+^1(\phi _{k1}\psi _{\frac{1}{2}})\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 𝒟_+^1(\phi _0\psi _{n\frac{1}{2}})& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 𝒟_+^1(\phi _{k1}\psi _{n\frac{1}{2}})\end{array}\right)`$ (66)
where $`\{\phi \}\{\phi _0,\mathrm{},\phi _{k1}\}`$ is a set of $`k`$ bosonic or fermionic superfunctions whereas $`\{\psi \}\{\psi _{\frac{1}{2}},\mathrm{},\psi _{n\frac{1}{2}}\}`$ is a set of $`n`$ fermionic superfunctions. The generalized Wronskian-like matrix (66) is the $`N=2`$ supersymmetric generalization of the Wronskian-like block matrices entering the general Darboux-Bäcklund determinant solutions for the tau-functions of ordinary “bosonic” constrained KP hierarchies ?,?. In the special case of $`n=0`$ (66) reduces to the rectangular $`k\times m`$ Wronskian matrix:

$$W_{k,m}[\phi _0,\mathrm{},\phi _{k1}]=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\phi _0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \phi _{k1}\\ \phi _0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \phi _{k1}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ ^{m1}\phi _0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& ^{m1}\phi _{k1}\end{array}\right)$$
(67)
Accordingly, the sets of superfunctions entering the Wronskian-like matrix blocks in the Berezinians (50)–(55) are bosonic SEF’s ($`\{\phi \}\{\phi _0,\mathrm{},\phi _{n+m1}\}`$), fermionic SEF’s ($`\{\phi _{(\frac{1}{2})}\}\{\phi _{\frac{1}{2}},\mathrm{},\phi _{m\frac{1}{2}}\}`$) and fermionic adjoint SEF’s ($`\{\psi \}\{\psi _{\frac{1}{2}},\mathrm{},`$ $`\psi _{n\frac{1}{2}}\}`$), respectively, which are expressed in terms of the constituent (adjoint) SEF’s $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_i,\mathrm{\Psi }_i\}_{i=1}^M`$ entering the pseudo-differential part of the super-Lax operator (13) in the following way:

$`\{\phi \}=(\left\{^{2p_k}(\mathrm{\Phi }_k)\right\}_{k=1,\mathrm{},M_B}^{p_k=0,1,\mathrm{}},\left\{^{2q_l+1}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_B+l})\right\}_{l=1,\mathrm{},M_F}^{q_l=0,1,\mathrm{}})`$ (68)
$`\{\phi _{(\frac{1}{2})}\}=(\left\{^{2r_k}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_B+k})\right\}_{k=1,\mathrm{},M_F}^{r_k=0,1,\mathrm{}},\left\{^{2s_l+1}(\mathrm{\Phi }_l)\right\}_{l=1,\mathrm{},M_B}^{s_l=0,1,\mathrm{}})`$ (69)
$`\{\psi \}=(\left\{\left(^{2r_k}\right)^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_{M_B+k})\right\}_{k=1,\mathrm{},M_F}^{r_k=0,1,\mathrm{}},\left\{\left(^{2s_l+1}\right)^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_l)\right\}_{l=1,\mathrm{},M_B}^{s_l=0,1,\mathrm{}})`$ (70)
(recall that $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_i,\mathrm{\Psi }_i\}_{i=1}^{M_B}`$ are bosonic, whereas $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_B+i},\mathrm{\Psi }_{M_B+i}\}_{i=1}^{M_F}`$ are fermionic).

In conclusion let us write down explicitly the general DB-solution for the $`N=2`$ super-tau function (50)–(55) of the simplest member of constrained $`N=2`$ super-KP hierarchies’ class (13) with $`M=1`$, i.e., $`=𝒟_{}+\mathrm{\Phi }𝒟_+^1\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with “free” initial super-Lax operator $`^{(0;0)}=𝒟_{}`$. It turns out that the latter solutions coincide with the DB-solutions previously obtained in refs.?,?.

Indeed, in this case one can show, taking into account (68)–(69), that the Berezinian expressions (50)–(55) reduce to In this simplest case of $`N=2`$ super-KP hierarchy, similarly to its bosonic and $`N=1`$ super-KP counterparts, adjoint-DB transformations correspond simply to a backward shift on th DB orbit.:

$$\left(\tau ^{(2m;0)}\right)^1=$$
(71)
$`\mathrm{Ber}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}W_{m,m}[\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\mathrm{},^{m1}\mathrm{\Phi }_0]& |& W_{m,m}[𝒟_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\mathrm{},𝒟_{}^{m1}\mathrm{\Phi }_0]\\ & |& \\ W_{m,m}[𝒟_+\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\mathrm{},𝒟_+^{m1}\mathrm{\Phi }_0]& |& W_{m,m}[𝒟_+𝒟_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\mathrm{},𝒟_+𝒟_{}^{m1}\mathrm{\Phi }_0]\end{array}\right)`$ (75)
$$\tau ^{(2m+1;0)}=$$
(76)
$`\mathrm{Ber}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}W_{m+1,m+1}[\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\mathrm{},^m\mathrm{\Phi }_0]& |& W_{m,m+1}[𝒟_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\mathrm{},𝒟_{}^{m1}\mathrm{\Phi }_0]\\ & |& \\ W_{m+1,m}[𝒟_+\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\mathrm{},𝒟_+^m\mathrm{\Phi }_0]& |& W_{m,m}[𝒟_+𝒟_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\mathrm{},𝒟_+𝒟_{}^{m1}\mathrm{\Phi }_0]\end{array}\right)`$ (80)
where notation (67) for the pertinent Wronskian matrix blocks has been used. In Eqs.(71)–(76) $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ denotes the “free” SEF (cf. (12) and (7)) :

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t,\theta _\pm ,\rho ^\pm )={\displaystyle 𝑑\lambda 𝑑\eta _\pm \varphi _0(\lambda ,\eta _\pm )e^{\xi (t,\theta _\pm ,\pm \rho ^\pm ;\lambda ,\eta _\pm )}}`$ (81)
$`\varphi _0(\lambda ,\eta _\pm )=\varphi _B^{(1)}(\lambda )+\eta _+\varphi _F^{(1)}(\lambda )+\eta _{}\left(\varphi _F^{(2)}(\lambda )+\eta _+\varphi _B^{(2)}(\lambda )\right)`$ (82)
with an arbitrary $`N=2`$ superspace “density” (82). As in the bosonic and $`N=1`$ cases, supersymmetric “soliton”-like solutions for the $`N=2`$ super-tau function (71)–(76) are obtained by choosing delta-function form for the components of the $`N=2`$ superspace “density” (82) :

$$\varphi _B^{(1,2)}=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N_B}{}}c_a^{(1,2)}\delta (\lambda \lambda _a),\varphi _F^{(1,2)}=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N_F}{}}\epsilon _a^{(1,2)}\delta (\lambda \lambda _a)$$
(83)
with arbitrary bosonic $`\{c_a^{(1,2)},\lambda _a\}`$ and fermionic $`\left\{\epsilon _a^{(1,2)}\right\}`$ constant parameters, and $`N_{B,F}`$ being arbitrary integers.

Outlook

The present results open a number of interesting problems for further research, in particular:

(i) Search for a negative-grade counterpart of the positive-grade superloop superalgebra $`\left(\widehat{GL}(M_B,M_F)\right)_+`$ (41) of additional symmetries of $`N=2`$ (constrained) super-KP hierarchies (13), as it is the case for bosonic and $`N=1`$ super-KP hierarchies ?,?,?.

(ii) Search for Virasoro (conformal) and super-Virasoro additional symmetries of $`N=2`$ super-KP hierarchies (13) (for the derivation of Virasoro additional symmetries of constrained bosonic and $`N=1`$ super-KP hierarchies, see refs.?,?).

(iiI) Detailed study of extended $`N=2`$ super-KP hierarchies, obtained from the $`\mathrm{𝑆𝐾𝑃}_{(M_B,M_F)}^{N=2}`$ hierarchies (13) by adding to the set of original isospectral flows $`\frac{}{t_l},D_n^\pm `$, additional Manin-Radul-type subsets of (anti-)commuting additional symmetry flows, as it has been done in the $`N=1`$ super-KP case ?. Similarly to the bosonic and $`N=1`$ super-KP cases (see refs.?,?,?) we can view the above extended $`N=2`$ super-KP hierarchies as matrix generalizations of the original scalar $`\mathrm{𝑆𝐾𝑃}_{(M_B,M_F)}^{N=2}`$ hierarchies (13). Furthermore, as in the $`N=1`$ super-KP case we can look for $`N=2`$ supersymmetric generalizations of various interesting higher-dimensional nonlinear evolution equations (such as Davey-Stewartson nonlinear system) which are contained in the extended (matrix) $`N=2`$ super-KP hierarchies.

(iv) Detailed study of the properties and possible physical significance of the very broad class of Darboux-Bäcklund solutions (50)–(55), in particular (71)–(76).

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge support from U.S. National Science Foundation grant INT-9724747. We thank Prof. H. Aratyn and the Physics Department of University of Illinois at Chicago for hospitality during the initial stage of the project. This work is also partially supported by Bulgarian NSF grant F-904/99.

References


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In an interesting paper of Cornalba and Schiappa , they calculated the n-point functions for open strings ending on a D-brane in a NS-NS $`B`$ field background with $`H0`$. From the correlation functions they tried to extract information about the algebra of functions on the D-brane worldvolume. They found that Kontsevich’s formal expression for the $``$-product can be used to reproduce the correlation functions. However, this product is nonassociative because $`B`$ is not symplectic when $`H0`$.

On the other hand, in an earlier paper , we derived an associative algebra for the D-brane worldvolume by quantizing open strings ending on a D-brane in curved space with a nontrivial B field background. The question is whether our algebra can also reproduce the correlation functions.

When one tries to extract the algebra of functions on the D-brane from the correlation functions, the answer is not unique, because the correlation functions are just numbers, which we want to interpret as the integrals of functions on a noncommutative space. Since we only have information about the integrals of functions, instead of the functions themselves, we can not directly obtain the algebra without ambiguity. It is possible to have many different algebras that reproduce the same correlation functions after integration.

On the other hand, if we try to derive the algebra of functions by quantizing an open string on the D-brane, the result is always an associative algebra. We should just interpret the algebra of the endpoint coordinates $`X`$ and momentum $`P`$ as the algebra of functions and derivatives on the D-brane.

It is well known that for a constant $`B`$ field background, quantization of open string coordinates  and calculation of correlation functions  give the same noncommutativity of D-brane worldvolume. It would be nice to have this kind of agreement for a generic background.

In this paper, we show that the algebra of  can also reproduce the open string n-point functions, but it has the merit of being associative. The novel property of this algebra is that the algebra of functions and the algebra of derivatives are mixed up. The functions do not form a closed algebra by themselves. This makes it hard to formulate a gauge theory on such noncommutative spaces. In the end of this paper we propose a way to generalize the notion of gauge transformations for such noncommutative spaces. It naturally includes a description of global symmetries, and is reminiscent of the situation in matrix compactifications.

## 2 The Non-Associative Algebra

It is well known that the noncommutative algebra

$$[x^a,x^b]=iþ^{ab}$$
(1)
for a constant anti-symmetric tensor $`þ`$ can be realized on classical commutative functions by the $``$-product

$$fg=fg+\frac{i}{2}þ^{ab}(_af)(_bg)\frac{1}{8}þ^{ac}þ^{bd}(_a_bf)(_c_dg)+𝒪(þ^3).$$
(2)
For a generic Poisson structure $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }(x)`$, the Kontsevich formula  gives

$`fg`$ $`=`$ $`fg+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{ab}(_af)(_bg){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{ac}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{bd}(_a_bf)(_c_dg)`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{ad}(_d\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{bc})\left((_a_bf)(_cg)(_bf)(_a_cg)\right)+𝒪(\stackrel{~}{\theta }^3).`$
When the field strength

$$H_{abc}=(_a\stackrel{~}{B}_{bc})+(_b\stackrel{~}{B}_{ca})+(_c\stackrel{~}{B}_{ab})$$
(4)
for the NS-NS $`B`$ field background $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ vanishes, $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ defines a symplectic structure on the D-brane and its inverse gives the Poisson structure

$$\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\stackrel{~}{B}^1$$
(5)
which defines via (3) the noncommutativity of the D-brane worldvolume in the zero slope limit of Seiberg and Witten .

For a more general matrix of functions $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ which is not a Poisson structure, correpsonding to the case $`H0`$, the algebra defined by the Kontsevich formula is not associative. The nonassociativity is

$$(fg)hf(gh)=\frac{1}{6}K^{abc}(_af)(_bg)(_ch)+\mathrm{},$$
(6)
where

$$K^{abc}=\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{ad}(_d\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{bc})=\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{ad}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{be}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{cf}H_{def}.$$
(7)
Throughout this paper we will only keep terms up to the first order of $`K`$ and to the 2nd order of $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$.

For simplicity, let us consider the case

$$\stackrel{~}{B}_{ab}=B_{ab}+\frac{1}{3}H_{abc}x^c+\mathrm{},$$
(8)
where $`B`$ and $`H`$ are constant anti-symmetric tensors. This is the same case considered in . We refer to  for discussions on the effect of nonzero $`H`$ on the curvature, as well as many of our conventions and notations.

The last term in the Kontsevich formula (3) vanishes for the choice (8) because its coefficient is proportional to the anti-symmetric tensor $`K^{abc}`$, whose indices are contracted with derivatives on $`f`$ or $`g`$. The formula (3) is simplified to

$`fg`$ $`=`$ $`fg+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{ab}(_af)(_bg){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{ac}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{bd}(_a_bf)(_c_dg)+\mathrm{}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`fg{\displaystyle \frac{i}{6}}K^{abc}y_c(_af)(_bg)+\mathrm{},`$
where

$$y_a=B_{ab}x^b,$$
(10)
and the $``$-product is defined by (2) for $`þ=B^1`$. In deriving (9) we used the relation

$$\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{ab}=þ^{ab}\frac{1}{3}K^{abc}y_c+\mathrm{}$$
(11)
which follows from (5) and (8). Note that the last term in (9) can also be written as

$$\frac{i}{6}K^{abc}(_af)(_bg)y_c$$
(12)
because

$`y_af`$ $`=`$ $`y_af+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(_af),`$ (13)
$`fy_a`$ $`=`$ $`y_af{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(_af),`$ (14)
and $`K`$ is totally antisymmetric.

From (9) it is straightforward to calculate

$$(\mathrm{}((f_1f_2)f_3)\mathrm{}f_n)=f_1f_2\mathrm{}f_n+\underset{i<j}{}V_{ij},$$
(16)
where

$$V_{ij}=\frac{i}{6}K^{abc}y_cf_1\mathrm{}(_af_i)\mathrm{}(_bf_j)\mathrm{}f_n.$$
(17)
Similarly,

$$f_1(f_2\mathrm{}(f_{n1}f_n)\mathrm{})=f_1f_2\mathrm{}f_n+\underset{i<j}{}V_{ij}^{},$$
(18)
where

$$V_{ij}^{}=\frac{i}{6}K^{abc}f_1\mathrm{}(_af_i)\mathrm{}(_bf_j)\mathrm{}f_ny_c.$$
(19)
It was shown in  that for open strings ending on a D-brane in this $`B`$ field background, the 2-point function is given by

$$fg+\frac{1}{3}B_{bc}K^{abc}y_afg+\mathrm{}.$$
(20)
The last term is the contribution from contracting two fields in the interaction term of the open string action, and it has the same form

$$\frac{1}{3}B_{bc}K^{abc}y_af_1f_2\mathrm{}f_n$$
(21)
for $`n`$-point functions. They can be taken care of by a modification of the measure for all correlation functions

$$F(1+\frac{1}{3}B_{bc}K^{abc}y_a)F,$$
(22)
so we will ignore such terms from now on.

The 3-point correlation function (up to a term of the form (21)) is reproduced by the integral

$$(fg)h=f(gh).$$
(23)
The nonassociativity of the $``$-product does not affect the 3-point function.

More generally, we have

$`{\displaystyle (\mathrm{}(f_1f_2)\mathrm{}f_n)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle (f_1\mathrm{}(f_{n1}f_n)\mathrm{})}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle (f_1\mathrm{}f_n+\underset{i<j}{}V_{ij})}.`$
However, for $`n`$-point functions with $`n>3`$ one has to use a linear combination of the $``$-products with various orderings, weighed by coefficients depending on the modules.

## 3 The Associative Algebra

In , the symplectic structure for the endpoint coordinates of an open string ending on a D-brane in a background with nonvanishing $`H`$ is derived in the low energy limit. Inverting the sympletic two-form for $`X`$ and $`(_\sigma X)`$, we find the Poisson brackets for the coordinates $`x`$ at $`\sigma =0`$ and the momentum density at $`\sigma =0`$ times $`\pi `$ (which is the same as the total momentum in our approximation)

$$p_a=\pi \stackrel{~}{\theta }_{ab}^1X_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}+\mathrm{}$$
(25)
as

$`(x^a,x^b)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}K^{abc}p_c+\mathrm{},`$ (26)
$`(x^a,p_b)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _b^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{bc}^1K^{acd}p_d+\mathrm{},`$ (27)
$`(p_a,p_b)`$ $`=`$ $`0+\mathrm{},`$ (28)
where we denote $`\widehat{}^1`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ and keep only terms up to the first order in $`K`$. ($`K`$ is defined in (7).) One can check that all Jacobi identities are satisfied up to our approximation.

A peculiar property of this algebra is that the commutator of two functions of $`x`$ is not a function of $`x`$ only, but a function of both $`x`$ and $`p`$. Another interesting charater of this algebra is that it is impossible to realize $`p`$ by a function $`f`$ of $`x`$ such that $`(p,x)=(f,x)`$. That is, the derivative $`p`$ is not an “inner derivative”. These properties are the algebraic manifestations of the fact that $`H0`$.

Poisson brackets turn into commutation relations upon quantization

$$[f,g]=i(f,g)+\mathrm{}.$$
(29)
The idea about $``$-product is that the quantum algebra can be realized on commutative functions by defining a new product

$$fg=fg+\frac{i}{2}(f,g)+\mathrm{}.$$
(30)
If $`F=0`$, $`\widehat{}`$ is just the $`B`$ field background in the Seiberg-Witten limit . Consider the case $`\widehat{}=\stackrel{~}{B}`$ given by (8) in the previous section. We find that (26) differs from what we get from (3) by the term linear in $`p`$. Thus we should define a new product

$$fg=fg\frac{i}{6}K^{abc}(_af)(_bg)p_c+\mathrm{}$$
(31)
to account for the last term in (26). This new term that modifies the $``$-product is precisely what is needed to make it associative

$$(fg)h=f(gh).$$
(32)
Note that here we choose to use $`p`$ as a c-number, and $`p`$ is a derivative in the sense that $`x^ap_bp_bx^ai\delta _b^a+\mathrm{}`$.

Now we have to check that this new product generates the same 2-point function after integration. But how do we integrate the terms involving derivatives? Consider the space of all functions of $`x`$ as the Hilbert space of a one-particle system. Any state in the Hilbert space can be obtained by acting a function of $`x`$ on the “vacuum” $``$, which corresponds to the constant function. The action of $`p`$ on a state is determined by the commutation relations between $`p`$ and $`x`$, in addition to the action of $`p`$ on $``$ give by

$$p_a=0.$$
(33)
Now we define the integration of $`f(x,p)`$ by $`f(x,p)`$, where $``$ is the Hermitian conjugate of $``$. In our notation, the inner product $`f|g=f^{}g`$, and so $`f(x)=1|f(x)`$, which is just the integration of $`f(x)`$ when $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=0`$.

The translational invariance of the integration is guaranteed by (33). To calculate the integral, one simply commutes $`p`$ to the right to annihilate $``$, so that it turns into an integration of a pure function of $`x`$. This kind of definition for integrals on noncommutative spaces has been used in many occasions .

One can check that

$$fg=fg,$$
(34)
and so the new product is consistent with the 2-point function.

For the 3-point function, we find

$$fgh=f(gh)\frac{i}{6}K^{abc}[(_af)(_bg)h+(_af)g(_bh)+f(_ag)(_bh)]p_c+\mathrm{},$$
(35)
and so

$$fgh=f(gh).$$
(36)
Thus we check that the new $``$-product also reproduces the 3-point function correctly. What we gained by the modification to the $``$-product is that our algebra is now associative.

Denote the insertion coordinates at the boundary of the open string by $`\tau _i`$. The 4-point function depends on the module $`m`$ which is the cross ratio

$$m=(\tau _4\tau _3)(\tau _2\tau _1)(\tau _4\tau _2)^1(\tau _3\tau _1)^1.$$
(37)
The integral

$$f_1\mathrm{}f_4=\left(f_1\mathrm{}f_4+\underset{i<j}{}V_{ij}\right)$$
(38)
properly reproduces the 4-point function  except the term depending on the module

$$\frac{1}{6}L(m)K^{abc}f_1(_af_2)(_bf_3)(_cf_4),$$
(39)
where $`L(m)`$ is a function ranging between $`0`$ and $`1`$ . One should integrate over $`m`$ to make connection with the D-brane action. This term can be taken care of separately by a term of the form

$$K^{abc}f_1(_af_2)(_bf_3)(_cf_4).$$
(40)
In general,

$$f_1\mathrm{}f_n=(f_1\mathrm{}f_n+\underset{i<j}{}V_{ij}).$$
(41)
To take care of the module dependent terms of the $`n`$-point functions, one has to superpose $``$-products of various orderings . For the $``$-product, one has to take care of these terms separately. Since we do not have to use more $``$-products to write down an $`n`$-point function, the $``$-product is as good as the $``$-product for the purpose of generating correlation functions. It is also possible that we do not have to worry about the 4-point functions because the quartic terms in the low energy D-brane action may be uniquely determined by gauge symmetry after the quadratic and cubic terms are given. The benefit of using the $``$-product is of course that it is associative, and so one can use it to formulate algebraic structures of the theory such as symmetries.

## 4 Noncommutative Gauge Theory

In this section we discuss how to construct a gauge theory on the noncommutative space defined by (26)-(28). This noncommutative space is quite different from the cases with $`H=0`$ in that the functions of $`x`$ do not form a closed subalgebra. When one makes a gauge transformation on a field $`\varphi (x)`$ in the adjoint representation

$$\varphi \varphi ^{}=U\varphi U^{},$$
(42)
the result $`\varphi ^{}`$ is generically not a function of $`x`$ although $`\varphi `$ and $`U`$ are functions of $`x`$ only. This poses a serious problem in constructing a gauge field theory.

We propose that the natural notion of gauge transformations here is to restrict $`U`$ to be functions of $`x`$ and $`p`$ such that $`\varphi ^{}`$ will be a function of $`x`$ for any $`\varphi `$. From the viewpoint of the matrix model, both $`x`$ and $`p`$ have the same origin as (infinite dimensional) matrices. Note that in the classical case this notion of gauge symmetry does not completely coincide with the usual definition. We shall further restrict the symmetry so that it has the correct classical limit when $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }0`$. In fact, the notion of gauge symmetry has already been generalized for compactified matrix theory . It has been pointed out that both global symmetries and gauge symmetries for the theory after compactification come from gauge symmetries of the original matrix theory . For example, the quotient condition for the matrix model compactified on a torus  is

$$U_j^{}X_iU_j=X_i+2\pi \delta _{ij}R_j.$$
(43)
For the dual theory in which $`X_i`$ is identified with the covariant derivative,

$$X_iu^{}X_iu$$
(44)
is a gauge transformation if $`uU_i=U_iu`$. It is a global (translational) symmetry if $`uU_i=q_iU_iu`$ for some phase factor $`q_i`$ . The symmetries of the compactified theory are given by any unitary transformation that commutes with the quotient conditions. Our proposal is in the same spirit.

For a field $`\varphi (x)`$ in the adjoint representation, an infinitesimal gauge transformation by $`\lambda `$ is

$$\delta \varphi (x)=[\lambda ,\varphi (x)].$$
(45)
For $`\lambda `$ to make a valid transformation, we require that $`\delta \varphi `$ is a function of $`x`$ for any function $`\varphi (x)`$. Expanding $`\lambda (x,p)`$ in powers of $`p`$

$$\lambda =\lambda _0(x)+\lambda _1^a(x)p_a+\lambda _2^{ab}(x)p_ap_b+\mathrm{},$$
(46)
where $`\lambda _2^{ab}=\lambda _2^{ba}`$, we find that the requirement is matched if

$`\lambda _1^a`$ $`=`$ $`2þ^{ab}(_b\lambda _0)+þ^{ab}\zeta _b,`$ (47)
$`\lambda _2^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`þ^{ac}þ^{bd}((_c_d\lambda _0)+\xi _{cd}),`$ (48)
where $`\zeta `$ satisfies

$$(_a\zeta _b)(_b\zeta _a)=\frac{1}{3}H_{abc}þ^{cd}\zeta _d,$$
(49)
and $`\xi `$ is defined by

$$\xi _{ab}=\frac{1}{4}((_a\zeta _b)+(_b\zeta _a)).$$
(50)
It follows from this that

$$\delta \varphi =iþ^{ab}(_a\lambda _0)(_b\varphi )+iþ^{ab}\zeta _a(_b\varphi )+\mathrm{}$$
(51)
is a function of $`x`$ only.

It is interesting to note that $`\zeta `$ defines the Killing vector for $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$. Eq. (49) is precisely the constraint for the coordinate transformations

$$\delta x^a=þ^{ab}\zeta _b$$
(52)
which keep $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ invariant at $`x=0`$, and the contribution of $`\zeta `$ to $`\delta \varphi `$ in (51) is exactly this coordinate transformation. This means that the degrees of freedom in $`\zeta `$ correspond to global symmetries, and those in $`\lambda (x)`$ correspond to gauge transformations. As we mentioned earlier, this is in close analogy with the situation in matrix compactifications.

For the gauge potential $`A`$, we can define its gauge transformation via the covariant derivative. If we define the covariant derivative by $`D=p+A(x)`$, we will find that it is not of the same form after a gauge transformation. One simple way out is to define it by $`D=x+A`$, which appears naturally in the context of matrix model . Requiring $`D`$ to transform in the adjoint representation determines the gauge transformation of $`A`$

$$\delta A^a=[\lambda ,D^a].$$
(53)
For a field $`\psi (x)`$ in the fundamental representation, we can define its gauge transformation ($`\zeta =0`$) for $`\psi `$ as

$`\delta \psi `$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \psi `$ (54)
$`=`$ $`(\lambda _0\psi {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}þ^{ab}(_a\lambda _0)(_b\psi ))+\mathrm{}.`$
If we consider $`\lambda \psi `$ without acting on $``$, there will also be terms depending on $`p`$. Thus when trying to write down a gauge invariant action, we can have terms like $`\psi ^{}\psi `$, but not terms like $`(\psi ^{}\psi )^2`$.

## Acknowledgment

The author thanks Miao Li and Hyun Seok Yang for helpful discussions. This work is supported in part by the National Science Council, Taiwan, R.O.C. the Center for Theoretical Physics at National Taiwan University, and the CosPA project of the Ministry of Education, Taiwan.