text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It has been known for a long time that in quantum field and string theories besides totally symmetric tensor and tensor–spinor fields also second–rank antisymmetric tensor fields play an important role. As a significant example, the Green–Schwarz anomaly cancellation mechanism  underlies, among others, a coupling of a two–form gauge potential with a Chern–Simons form.

All the known couplings in Minkowski space–time involving antisymmetric tensor fields may be put into two categories. Depending on whether they transform as gauge or as matter fields, one distinguishes
(i) tensor gauge couplings,

$`S_{\mathrm{gauge}}`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}d^4x(^a\stackrel{~}{B}_{ac})(_b\stackrel{~}{B}^{bc}),\stackrel{~}{B}_{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}ϵ_{abcd}B^{cd},\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{B}}_{ab}=B_{ab},`$ (1)
(ii) (conform invariant) tensor matter couplings,
$`S_{\mathrm{matter}}`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}d^4x(^a\phi _{ac})(_b\phi ^{bc})^{},\phi _{ab}=T_{ab}+i\stackrel{~}{T}_{ab},`$ (2)
where $`\phi _{ab}`$ is an antisymmetric complex tensor field involving the tensor matter field $`T_{ab}`$ and satisfying the complex self–duality condition $`\phi _{ab}=i\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{ab}`$.

In the first case, the action (1) possesses a first–stage reducible gauge symmetry $`\delta _GB_{ab}=_{[a}\omega _{b]}`$ . Such antisymmetric tensor gauge fields appear quite naturally in extended supergravity theories  and in effective low–energy tensor gauge theories derived from string models , e.g., the axion/dilaton complex in Calabi–Yau compactifications of type–II superstrings .

In the second case, gauge symmetry is lost, but the action (2) exhibits an invariance under the (global) chiral symmetry $`\delta _CT_{ab}=\alpha \stackrel{~}{T}_{ab}`$, i.e., $`T_{ab}`$ transforms as an ordinary matter field. Antisymmetric tensor matter fields arise in extended conformal supergravity theories  and in 2D conformal quantum field theories (CQFT’s) .

Besides of this, there is a renewed interest in antisymmetric tensor fields due to their connection to a large class of Schwarz type topological models, namely the BF–models , which are exactly solvable QFT’s. Generally, topological quantum field theories (TQFT’s)  are characterized by observables depending only on the global features of the manifold on which they are defined and provide novel representations of certain topological invariants. The most familar examples, which have been widely studied during the last years, are the Donaldson–Witten theory , the Chern–Simons gauge theory  in $`D=3`$ and the topological sigma models  in $`D=2`$, which constitute quantum field theoretic representations of the theory of Donaldson invariants , of knot and link invariants  and of Gromov invariants , respectively. Moreover, TQFT’s have significantly enhanced our understanding of CQFT’s in $`D=2`$ and they promised new insights into string theories .

In the Schwarz type topological models the antisymmetric tensor fields appear always as gauge fields. The aim of the present paper is to construct, rather differently, Witten type topological models which include antisymmetric tensors fields as matter fields. More precisely, we consider extensions of the 4D, $`N_T=1`$ Donaldson–Witten (DW) theory, the $`N_T=1`$ super–BF model  and the $`N_T=2`$ topological B–model, constructed by Marcus , respectively, which involve a coupling of the gauge field $`A_\mu `$ to the (anti)self–dual parts $`T_{\mu \nu }^\pm `$ of a second–rank antisymmetric matter field $`T_{\mu \nu }`$. These models allow, in principle, also the inclusion of a quartic tensor self–interaction term. Both types of interaction terms, when put on a general curved 4–dimensional gravitational background with Euclidean signature, may be regarded as a non–abelian generalization and $`N_T1`$ supersymmetric extension of the abelian axial gauge model for antisymmetric tensor matter fields in Minkowski space–time introduced by Avdeev and Chizhov .

The search for a new type of topological matter action is motivated as follows:

One of the possible constructions of DW theory consists in twisting the action of Euclidean $`N=2`$ super Yang–Mills (SYM) theory with global automorphism group $`Sp(2)U(1)`$ ($`R`$–symmetry) and Euclidean rotation group $`SO(4)SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ by replacing $`SU(2)_L`$ through the diagonal subgroup of $`SU(2)_LSp(2)`$ and coupling the theory to Euclidean gravity . Due to its independence on the gauge coupling constant $`e`$ there exists the possibility to study the observables of the theory from both the perturbative and non–perturbative point of view, i.e., either in the weak or in the strong coupling limit, $`e0`$ or $`e\mathrm{}`$, respectively. Perhaps the most important outcome of both approaches is the existence of a totally unexpected relation between two different moduli spaces in 4D topology, one defined by the anti–selfdual instanton equations  and another one defined by the abelian Seiberg–Witten monopol equations . These moduli problems can be naturally generalized including also spinor fields, namely by twisting the $`N=2`$ SYM coupled to $`N=2`$ matter hypermultiplets in various representations of the gauge group . Since the global $`R`$–symmetry group of $`N=2`$ supersymmetric gauge theories is at most $`U(2)Sp(2)U(1)`$, the twist in these more general cases is essentially unique. The moduli space associated to that generalized DW theory is determined by the non–abelian monopol equations.

To construct fundamentally different, $`N_T>1`$ topological theories, one needs at least $`N=4`$ Euclidean SYM. Since the $`R`$–symmetry group of $`N=4`$ supersymmetric gauge theories is $`SU(4)`$ there exist three non–equivalent ways of twisting the Euclidean rotation group with the $`R`$–symmetry group. One of them, the $`N_T=2`$ topological A–model, constructed by Yamron , was studied by Vafa and Witten in order to perform a strong coupling test of S–duality . Another one, the $`N_T=2`$ topological B–model leads to a theory whose moduli space is dominated by flat complexified gauge fields $`A_\mu \pm iV_\mu `$; it can be regarded as a deformation of the $`N_T=1`$ super–BF model . The remaining one, also constructed by Yamron , is the $`N_T=1`$ half–twisted theory which provides another example of a DW theory with matter, now for the particular case when the spinor fields are in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. The latter theory bears a strong resemblance to the non–abelian generalization of the Seiberg–Witten monopol theory. However, twisted $`N=4`$ SYM does not lead to a topological matter action having a $`N_T=2`$ supersymmetry. This is due to the fact that $`N=4`$ SYM cannot be coupled to a $`N=4`$ matter hypermultiplet.

In continuing earlier studies  of topological gauge theories we pursued further the idea of constructing TQFT’s with matter leading, in particular, to a new topological tensor matter action with extended, $`N_T=2`$, supersymmetry.

The outline of the paper is as follows: In Sect. 2 we briefly review the DW theory and then we construct a tensor matter action with $`N_T=1`$ topological supersymmetry; it is shown that its tensorial structure is uniquely fixed by gauge and local Weyl invariance. In Sect. 3 we generalize the previous construction for complexified gauge fields, $`A_\mu \pm iV_\mu `$, and pass to the $`N_T=1`$ super–BF model with matter. In Sect. 4, by a suitable deformation of the super–BF model, in the version of , we arrive at the $`N_T=2`$ topological B–model with matter and underlying complexified supersymmetry $`Q\pm i\overline{Q}`$. In the Appendix it is proven, in accordance with  and contrary to some statement in , that the on–shell conditions in the formulation of the B–model cannot be completely lifted by using an appropiate set of auxiliary fields.

Throughout the paper we use the following conventions: Greek letters $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ denote world indices and lower case latin letters $`a,b,\mathrm{}`$ are flat $`SO(4)`$ tangent space indices.

## 2 Donaldson–Witten theory coupled to tensor matter fields

Let us first consider the DW theory whose moduli space is the space of anti–selfdual instantons. In order to complete the construction of that theory — which has been described in the Introduction — we must specify its configuration space. It consists of the gauge potential $`A_\mu `$, the Grassmann–odd self–dual tensor, vector and scalar fields $`\chi _{\mu \nu }`$, $`\psi _\mu `$ and $`\eta `$, respectively, and the Grassmann–even scalar fields $`\varphi `$ and $`\overline{\varphi }`$. For the closure of the topological superalgebra it is necessary to introduce the bosonic auxiliary self–dual tensor field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$. All the fields are in the adjoint representation, i.e., taking their values in the Lie algebra $`Lie(G)`$ of some compact (semisimple) gauge group $`G`$. Throughout this paper we adopt the convention to choose the generators $`T^iLie(G)`$ always anti–Hermitean.

The action of DW theory, with a $`N_T=1`$ off–shell equivariantly nilpotent topological supersymmetry $`Q`$, adopting the notation of Ref. , can be cast into the $`Q`$–exact form

$$S_{\mathrm{DW}}=Q\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{DW}},$$
(3)
with the gauge fermion (see, also, footnote 3 below)

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{DW}}=\frac{i}{e^2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\mathrm{tr}\{\frac{1}{2}\chi ^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+\frac{i}{4}\chi ^{\mu \nu }B_{\mu \nu }\psi ^\mu D_\mu \overline{\varphi }+\frac{i}{2}\eta [\overline{\varphi },\varphi ]\},$$
(4)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=_{[\mu }A_{\nu ]}+[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$ and $`D_\mu =_\mu +[A_\mu ,]`$ are the field strenght and the covariant derivative in the adjoint representation, respectively; $`e`$ is the usual YM coupling constant.

In (4) the gauge fermion has been chosen in a Feynman type gauge, thereby the first term enforces the localization into the moduli space and the third term ensures that pure gauge degrees of freedom are projected out; the remaining terms belong to the non–minimal sector and could be droped (getting a Landau type gauge).

The off–shell equivariantly nilpotent $`Q`$–transformations take the form

$`Qg_{\mu \nu }=0,`$ $`Q\varphi =0,`$
$`QA_\mu =\psi _\mu ,`$ $`Q\psi _\mu =D_\mu \varphi ,`$
$`Q\overline{\varphi }=\eta ,`$ $`Q\eta =[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ],`$
$`Q\chi _{\mu \nu }=B_{\mu \nu },`$ $`QB_{\mu \nu }=[\chi _{\mu \nu },\varphi ].`$ (5)
Therefore, the topological supercharge $`Q`$ squares to zero only modulo field–dependent gauge transformations,

$$Q^2=\delta _G(\varphi ),$$
(6)
which are defined by $`\delta _G(\omega )A_\mu =D_\mu \omega `$ and $`\delta _G(\omega )X=[X,\omega ]`$ for all the other fields. Hence, all the local symmetries of the action, apart from the ordinary gauge invariance, have been fixed.

Spelling out the action (3) explicitly one obtains, recalling that $`\chi _{\mu \nu }`$ and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ are self–dual, 333The various factors of $`i`$ are due to some subleties in the formulation of topological gauge theories (see, the remarks at the end of Sect. 3). Formally, they can be avoided completely when the fields $`\chi _{\mu \nu }`$, $`\overline{\varphi }`$, $`\eta `$ and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ in the DW theory and, later on, $`\overline{\eta }`$ and $`Y`$ in the super–BF and the B–model (see, Sects. 3 and 4), are redefined by multiplying them with $`i`$. Then, the ghost number symmetry group changes into $`SO(2)`$ instead of being $`SO(1,1)`$. The Euclideanized amplitudes are defined, as usual, by $`\mathrm{exp}(S)`$.

$`S_{\mathrm{DW}}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{e^2}}{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}\mathrm{tr}\{`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\chi ^{\mu \nu }D_\mu \psi _\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}B^{\mu \nu }B_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\varphi \{\chi ^{\mu \nu },\chi _{\mu \nu }\}`$
$`D^\mu \overline{\varphi }D_\mu \varphi +\overline{\varphi }\{\psi ^\mu ,\psi _\mu \}+\psi ^\mu D_\mu \eta +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ]^2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\varphi \{\eta ,\eta \}\}.`$ (7)
The $`Q`$–exactness of the action (3) is common to all Witten type topological theories and has striking consequences on the general features of cohomological gauge theories. It means that the physical observables, in particular the partition functions themself, have no dependence on the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and on the coupling constant $`e`$.

Now, we describe the inclusion of a new type of interaction into topological gauge theories involving antisymmetric tensor matter fields. The way of constructing such tensor interactions is governed by the following strategy:

First, we generalize the coupling (2) such that it might be interpreted as a $`\phi ^4`$–type theory for antisymmetric tensor matter fields leading to the non–abelian extension  of the Avdeev–Chizhov (AC) model  in Minkowski space–time:

$$S_{\mathrm{AC}}(\alpha )=_Md^4x\{(D^a\phi _{ac})(D_b\phi ^{bc})^{}+\alpha (\phi _{ac}\phi ^{bc})(\phi ^{ad}\phi _{bd}^{})\}.$$
(8)
Here, $`D^a\phi _{ab}=^a\phi _{ab}\phi _{ab}A^a`$ is the covariant derivative of $`\phi _{ab}`$ which belongs to some finite (complex) representation of $`Lie(G)`$. Remind that the gauge potential $`A_a`$ is anti–Hermitean. For notational simplicity we also droped the group index of the matter fields. $`\alpha `$ is the coupling constant of the quartic self–interaction.

The action (8) is invariant under the following gauge transformations,

$$\delta _G(\omega )A_\mu =D_\mu \omega ,\delta _G(\omega )\phi _{ab}=\phi _{ab}\omega ,\delta _G(\omega )\phi _{ab}^{}=\omega \phi _{ab}^{},$$

where the choice of a complex representation allows for a non–trivial mixing between the chiral components $`(T_{ab},\stackrel{~}{T}_{ab})`$ of the complex tensor field $`\phi _{ab}=T_{ab}+i\stackrel{~}{T}_{ab}`$ . Let us recall that Minkowski space–time does not allow for self–dual fields $`\phi _{ab}\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{ab}(i/2)ϵ_{abcd}\phi ^{cd}`$ due to $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}_{ab}=\phi _{ab}`$.

Second, we perform in (8) a Wick rotation to the Euclidean space as a result of which $`\phi _{ab}`$ becomes two times the anti–selfdual part of $`T_{ab}`$. Then, after appropriate rescaling of $`e`$ and $`\alpha `$, we put the resulting action, denoted by $`S(\alpha )`$, on a general Riemannian 4–manifold endowed with a vierbein $`e_\mu ^a`$ and a spin connection $`\omega _\mu ^{ab}`$,

$$S(\alpha )=\frac{1}{e^2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\{(^\mu T_{\mu \rho }^{})(_\nu T_+^{\nu \rho })+\alpha (T_{\mu \rho }^{}T_+^{\nu \rho })(T_{}^{\mu \sigma }T_{\nu \sigma }^+)\},$$
(9)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }^\pm `$ are the (anti)self–dual parts of the tensor matter field $`T_{\mu \nu }`$,

$$T_{\mu \nu }^\pm =\frac{1}{2}(T_{\mu \nu }\pm \stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }),\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }T^{\rho \sigma },\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{T}}_{\mu \nu }=T_{\mu \nu },$$

with the Levi–Civita tensor density being normalized as

$$\sqrt{g}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ^{abcd}=e_{[\mu }^a\mathrm{}e_{\sigma ]}^d,e_\mu ^ae_\nu ^bg^{\mu \nu }=\delta ^{ab},e_\mu ^ae_\nu ^b\delta _{ab}=g_{\mu \nu }.$$

As usual, the gauge and metric covariant derivative of $`A_\mu `$ is defined by

$$_\mu =D_\mu +\frac{1}{2}\omega _\mu ^{ab}\sigma _{ab},\omega _\mu ^{ab}=(_\mu e_\nu ^a\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\rho e_\rho ^a)e^{\nu b},_{[\mu }e_{\nu ]}^a+\omega _{[\mu }^{ab}e_{\nu ]b}=0,$$

with $`\sigma _{ab}`$ being the generators of the holonomy group $`SO(4)`$; the Levi–Civita connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\rho `$ is determined, as usual, by requiring covariant constancy of the metric and absence of torsion. With these definitions one gets

$$^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}D^\mu (\sqrt{g}T_{\mu \nu }^\pm ),D^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^{}=^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^{}T_{\mu \nu }^{}A^\mu ,D^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^+=^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^++A^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^+,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\nu =_\mu \mathrm{ln}\sqrt{g}`$ has been taken into account. Now, it is easy to verify that the action (9) is invariant under the following gauge transformations:

$$\delta _G(\omega )A_\mu =D_\mu \omega ,\delta _G(\omega )T_{\mu \nu }^{}=T_{\mu \nu }^{}\omega ,\delta _G(\omega )T_{\mu \nu }^+=\omega T_{\mu \nu }^+.$$
(10)
Besides the gauge symmetry, the action (9) possesses also a discrete symmetry under Hermitean conjugation, steming from the CP invariance of the original Avdeev–Chizhov action. Under this conjugation $`A_\mu `$ and $`T_{\mu \nu }^\pm `$ transform into $`A_\mu `$ and $`T_{\mu \nu }^{}`$.

Although, for non–trivial $`A_\mu 0`$ and without any restriction of the holonomy group of the underlying 4–manifold, the coupling in (9) is no more conformally, the action (9) exhibits still an invariance under the following local rescalings of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and the tensor matter fields $`T_{\mu \nu }^\pm `$,

$$\delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )A_\mu =0,\delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )g_{\mu \nu }=2\sigma g_{\mu \nu },\delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )T_{\mu \nu }^\pm =\sigma T_{\mu \nu }^\pm ,$$
(11)
with $`\delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )\sqrt{g}=(\sqrt{g}/2)g^{\mu \nu }\delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )g_{\mu \nu }=4\sigma \sqrt{g}`$. Hence, this action satisfies, by construction, one of the important properties of cohomological gauge theories, namely local scale (or Weyl) invariance.

Third, without spoiling its gauge and local scale invariance, a $`N_T=1`$ supersymmetric extension of the action (9) is obtained by introducing Grassmann–odd (anti)self–dual tensor fields$`\lambda _{\mu \nu }^\pm `$ and vector fields $`\xi _\nu ^\pm `$ as the superpartners of $`T_{\mu \nu }^\pm `$ and $`^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^\pm `$, respectively, and the Grass-mann–even symmetric tensor field $`\zeta _\mu ^\nu `$ as the superpartner of the gauge invariant expression $`T_{\mu \rho }^{}T_+^{\nu \rho }`$. For the closure of the topological superalgebra it is necessary to introduce the bosonic auxiliary vector and symmetric tensor fields $`Y_\mu ^\pm `$ and $`G_\mu ^\nu `$, respectively. This supersymmetric action, denoted by $`S_\mathrm{T}(\alpha )`$, can be cast, analogous to (3), in a $`Q`$–exact form,

$$S_\mathrm{T}(\alpha )=Q\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{T}(\alpha ),$$
(12)
with the following gauge and locally scale invariant matter fermion (cf., Eqs. (19)),

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{T}(\alpha )=\frac{1}{2e^2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\{\xi _{}^\nu (^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^+Y_\nu ^+)+(_\mu T_{}^{\mu \nu }Y_{}^\nu )\xi _\nu ^++\alpha \zeta _\nu ^\mu (T_{\mu \rho }^{}T_+^{\nu \rho }G_\mu ^\nu )\}.$$
(13)
The off–shell equivariantly nilpotent $`Q`$–transformations of the matter fields are given by

$`QT_{\mu \nu }^{}=\lambda _{\mu \nu }^{},`$ $`Q\lambda _{\mu \nu }^{}=T_{\mu \nu }^{}\varphi ,`$
$`Q\xi _\nu ^{}=^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^{}+Y_\nu ^{},`$ $`QY_\nu ^{}=\xi _\nu ^{}\varphi ^\mu \lambda _{\mu \nu }^{}+T_{\mu \nu }^{}\psi ^\mu ,`$
$`QT_{\mu \nu }^+=\lambda _{\mu \nu }^+,`$ $`Q\lambda _{\mu \nu }^+=\varphi T_{\mu \nu }^+,`$
$`Q\xi _\nu ^+=^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^++Y_\nu ^+,`$ $`QY_\nu ^+=\varphi \xi _\nu ^+^\mu \lambda _{\mu \nu }^+\psi ^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^+,`$
$`Q\zeta _\mu ^\nu =T_{\mu \rho }^{}T_+^{\nu \rho }+G_\mu ^\nu ,`$ $`QG_\mu ^\nu =\lambda _{\mu \rho }^{}T_+^{\nu \rho }T_{\mu \rho }^{}\lambda _+^{\nu \rho },`$ (14)
with $`Q`$ satisfying the topological superalgebra (6). The gauge transformations of $`\lambda _{\mu \nu }^\pm ,\xi _\mu ^\pm `$ and $`Y_\mu ^\pm `$ agree with those of $`T_{\mu \nu }^\pm `$ (c.f., Eqs. (10)), and $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\zeta _{\mu \nu }`$ are gauge invariant.

Performing the $`Q`$–transformation, thereby making use of Eqs. (2) and (2), the action (12) becomes

$`S_\mathrm{T}(\alpha )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2}}{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}\{`$ $`(^\mu T_{\mu \rho }^{})(_\nu T_+^{\nu \rho })Y_\mu ^{}Y_+^\mu `$
$`+(^\mu \lambda _{\mu \nu }^{}T_{\mu \nu }^{}\psi ^\mu )\xi _+^\nu \xi _\nu ^{}\varphi \xi _+^\nu \xi _\nu ^{}(_\mu \lambda _+^{\mu \nu }+\psi _\mu T_+^{\mu \nu })`$
$`+\alpha ((T_{\mu \rho }^{}T_+^{\nu \rho })(T_{}^{\mu \sigma }T_{\nu \sigma }^+)\zeta _\nu ^\mu (\lambda _{\mu \rho }^{}T_+^{\nu \rho }T_{\mu \rho }^{}\lambda _+^{\nu \rho }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu })\}.`$ (15)
It should be stressed that, unlike the DW theory, the $`Q`$–transformations (2) are not obtained from a $`N=2`$ supersymmetric tensor matter action via a topological twist. Let us shortly comment on why such a ‘detour’, if possible at all, was actually not necessary. This is simply due to the fact that the scalar field $`\varphi `$, entering into the DW theory, is $`Q`$–inert. Therefore, by choosing a suitable gauge and locally scale invariant fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{T}(\alpha )`$ and off–shell equivariantly nilpotent transformation rules for the matter fields the resulting action $`S_\mathrm{T}(\alpha )`$ is very alike the action $`S_{\mathrm{DW}}`$. However, this is no longer the case for $`N_T=2`$ topological matter, whose construction is rather involved and, obviously, quite special (see, Sect. 4 below).

The action (8) of the non-abelian Avdeev–Chizhov model has several remarkable features  most of which may be proven also for the action (9). Above all, it is worth notifying that its tensorial structure is completely fixed. Namely, due to the following purely algebraic relations,

$$g^{\rho \sigma }T_{\mu \rho }^{}F^{\mu \nu }T_{\nu \sigma }^+=0,T_{\mu \rho }^{}(C^{\mu \rho \nu \sigma }+g^{\rho \sigma }R^{\mu \nu })T_{\nu \sigma }^+=0$$
(16)
and

$$(T_{\mu \nu }^{}T_{\rho \sigma }^+)(T_{}^{\mu \nu }T_+^{\rho \sigma })=4(T_{\mu \rho }^{}T_+^{\mu \sigma })(T_{}^{\nu \rho }T_{\nu \sigma }^+)=4(T_{\mu \rho }^{}T_+^{\mu \sigma })(T_{\nu \sigma }^{}T_+^{\nu \rho }),$$
(17)
an unique gauge and local scale invariant kinetic and quartic self–interaction term is singlet out (this explains why the action (9) deserves our interest). In addition, these relations forbid the existence of mass and cubic self–interacting terms.

The equivalence of the three possible self–interaction terms (17) can simply be proven by using the identity $`e_d^\sigma \sqrt{g}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ^{abcd}=e_{[\mu }^ae_\nu ^be_{\rho ]}^c`$. In the same way one verifies the relation

$$g^{\rho \sigma }T_{\mu \rho }^{}[^\mu ,^\nu ]T_{\nu \sigma }^+=0,$$

which guarantees the uniqueness of the kinetic term. From this relation one derives

$$g^{\rho \sigma }T_{\mu \rho }^{}F^{\mu \nu }T_{\nu \sigma }^+=0,T_{\mu \rho }^{}(R^{\mu \rho \nu \sigma }g^{\rho \sigma }R^{\mu \nu })T_{\nu \sigma }^+=0,g^{\mu \nu }g^{\rho \sigma }T_{\mu \rho }^{}RT_{\nu \sigma }^+=0,$$
(18)
where $`R_{\mu \nu }=g^{\rho \sigma }R_{\mu \rho \nu \sigma }`$ and $`R=g^{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }`$ are the Ricci tensor and the Ricci scalar, respectively, $`R_{\rho \nu \sigma }^\mu =_{[\nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma ]\rho }^\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda [\nu }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma ]\rho }^\lambda `$ being the Riemannian curvature tensor. Decomposing $`R_{\mu \rho \nu \sigma }`$ into its irreducible parts,

$$R_{\mu \rho \nu \sigma }=C_{\mu \rho \nu \sigma }\frac{1}{6}R(g_{\mu \nu }g_{\rho \sigma }g_{\mu \sigma }g_{\nu \rho })+\frac{1}{2}(g_{\mu \nu }R_{\rho \sigma }g_{\mu \sigma }R_{\nu \rho }g_{\nu \rho }R_{\mu \sigma }+g_{\rho \sigma }R_{\mu \nu }),$$

where the conformal Weyl tensor $`C_{\mu \rho \nu \sigma }`$ is completely traceless, from (18) one obtains immediatly the relations (16). The fact, that $`C_{\mu \rho \nu \sigma }`$ appears in (16) only in combination with $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ is not surprising if one remembers the definition of the Euler number,

$$\chi =\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\{C^{\mu \rho \nu \sigma }C_{\mu \rho \nu \sigma }2R^{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }+\frac{2}{3}R^2\},$$

and, in addition, takes into account the last of the relations (18).

Let us remark that the second of Eqs. (18) along with our choice of the matter fermion (13) ensures also that a coupling of DW theory to tensorial matter does not spoil the local scale invariance. Indeed, it is simple to check that the actions (2) and (2) are left invariant by the following local Weyl symmetry,

$$\delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )g_{\mu \nu }=2\sigma g_{\mu \nu },$$

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}& \delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )\overline{\varphi }=2\sigma \overline{\varphi },\hfill & & \delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )T_{\mu \nu }^\pm =\sigma T_{\mu \nu }^\pm ,\hfill & & \delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )Y_\mu ^\pm =\sigma Y_\mu ^\pm ,\hfill \\ & \delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )\eta =2\sigma \eta ,\hfill & & \delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )\lambda _{\mu \nu }^\pm =\sigma \lambda _{\mu \nu }^\pm ,\hfill & & \delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )\xi _\mu ^\pm =\sigma \xi _\mu ^\pm ,\hfill \end{array}$$

where we have only written down the non–trivial scale transformations. Obviously, this symmetry commutes with the topological supersymmetry $`Q`$, i.e., it holds $`[\delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma ),Q]=0`$.

Since the total action, $`S_{\mathrm{DW}}+S_\mathrm{T}(\alpha )`$, is $`Q`$–exact, and because $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is $`Q`$–inert, it follows immediately that the metric variation of that action is also $`Q`$–exact. Therefore, the full stress tensor $`𝐓_{\mu \nu }(\alpha )`$ derived from this action is $`Q`$–exact, as well, which is sufficient to ensure that physical observables have no dependence on the metric of the underlying manifold. Since this action is locally scale invariant, the trace of the stress tensor becomes, on–shell, the divergence of a current,

$$g^{\mu \nu }𝐓_{\mu \nu }(\alpha )=\frac{2g^{\mu \nu }}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}\left(S_{\mathrm{DW}}+S_\mathrm{T}(\alpha )\right)_\mu j^\mu (\alpha ).$$

Moreover, since topological gauge theories should not involve arbitrary parameters — at least, as long as they do not enter into the $`Q`$–transformations — physical observables should also not depend on the coupling constant $`\alpha `$ of the self–interaction term. Indeed, the $`Q`$–exactness of the action (12) — which, as already emphasized above, has far–reaching consequences — makes it possible to use field–theoretical arguments to conclude that the $`\alpha `$–dependent term in (2) is irrelevant and can be omitted. Therefore, in the following considerations we shall take into account only the kinetic term of the tensor matter action.

## 3 $`N_T=1`$ super–BF model with tensor matter

In the previous section we extended the DW theory to a topological model with tensor matter. Its moduli space remains to be dominated by instantons. But, the evaluation of the partition function in the weak coupling limit, which is expected to go still through as in Ref. , will now receive contributions to the ratios of determinants of the kinetic operators from the even and odd integer spin fields ($`A_\mu `$, $`\chi _{\mu \nu }`$, $`\psi _\mu `$) of the gauge multiplet as well as from the even and odd integer spin fields ($`T_{\mu \nu }^\pm `$, $`\lambda _{\mu \nu }^\pm `$, $`\xi _\mu ^\pm `$) of the matter multiplet.

Now, as a preliminary stage, we will generalize the previous construction for the $`N_T=1`$ super–BF model whose moduli space is the space of flat complexified gauge fields $`A_\mu \pm iV_\mu `$. The idea behind of this intention is that, in principle, such an generalization allows also for introducing an extended, $`N_T=2`$, supersymmetry. For that purpose, we have to assume that, apart from the complexified gauge field, all the Grassmann–odd fields are complexified ones, as well. In Sect. 4, when turning to the $`B`$–model, it will become obvious that such an extension, roughly speaking, amounts to introduce an extended, $`N_T=2`$, complexified supersymmetry $`Q\pm i\overline{Q}`$. Usually, extended supersymmetries arise when $`N_T=1`$ theories are formulated on manifolds with reduced holonomy groups, e.g., DW theory on Kähler manifolds. Therefore, the complexified supersymmetry $`Q\pm i\overline{Q}`$ which we encounter here is of a different kind as both, $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$, must have the same ghost number.

The $`N_T=1`$ super–BF model was described in detail in  using the Batalin–Vilkovsky formalism. However, due to some redundancy in that description it is possible to find a more simpler formulation of the model with a reduced field content . It consists of the gauge field $`A_\mu `$, the vector field $`V_\mu `$, the complex Grassmann–odd tensor, vector and scalar fields $`\chi _{\mu \nu }`$, $`\psi _\mu `$, $`\overline{\psi }_\mu `$ and $`\eta `$, $`\overline{\eta }`$, respectively, and the Grassmann–even scalar fields $`\varphi `$ and $`\overline{\varphi }`$. Moreover, in order to ensure off–shell equivariantly nilpotency of the topological supersymmetry $`Q`$, $`Q^2=\delta _G(\varphi )`$, it is necessary to introduce the bosonic auxiliary tensor and scalar fields $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`Y`$. (Let us point out that $`\chi _{\mu \nu }`$ and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ are not self–dual.)

Adopting that formulation, the action of the model can be written in a $`Q`$–exact form,

$$S_{\mathrm{BF}}=Q\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{BF}},$$
(19)
where the gauge fermion (again choosen in a Feynman type gauge) is given by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{BF}}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{e^2}}{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}\mathrm{tr}\{`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\chi ^{\mu \nu }B_{\mu \nu }+\chi ^{\mu \nu }D_\mu V_\nu `$
$`\psi ^\mu D_\mu \overline{\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\eta [\overline{\varphi },\varphi ]+V^\mu D_\mu \overline{\eta }+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\eta }Y\},`$ (20)
and the supersymmetry transformations $`Q`$ are defined as follows:

$`Qg_{\mu \nu }=0,`$ $`Q\varphi =0,`$
$`QA_\mu =\psi _\mu ,`$ $`Q\psi _\mu =D_\mu \varphi ,`$
$`QV_\mu =\overline{\psi }_\mu ,`$ $`Q\overline{\psi }_\mu =[V_\mu ,\varphi ],`$
$`Q\overline{\varphi }=\eta ,`$ $`Q\eta =[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ],`$
$`Q\overline{\eta }=Y,`$ $`QY=[\overline{\eta },\varphi ],`$
$`Q\chi _{\mu \nu }=B_{\mu \nu },`$ $`QB_{\mu \nu }=[\chi _{\mu \nu },\varphi ].`$ (21)
The reduced configuration space of the model suggests the existence of a discrete symmetry under Hermitean conjugation, namely 444This symmetry is identical with the Hermitean conjugation introduced in Ref.  after an appropriate redefinition of the original fields through complexified ones (see also remarks at the end of this Section).

$`(A_\mu ,\psi _\mu ,\overline{\psi }_\mu ,\varphi ,V_\mu ,\overline{\varphi },\eta ,\overline{\eta },Y,\chi _{\mu \nu },B_{\mu \nu })`$ $`(A_\mu ,i\overline{\psi }_\mu ,i\psi _\mu ,\varphi ,V_\mu ,\overline{\varphi },i\overline{\eta },i\eta ,Y,i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\mu \nu },B_{\mu \nu }),`$
$`ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma },`$ (22)
so that one could expect the occurrence of an extended, $`N_T=2`$, topological supersymmetry $`Q\pm i\overline{Q}`$. However, carring out in (19) the $`Q`$–transformation explicitly, which yields

$`S_{\mathrm{BF}}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{e^2}}{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}\mathrm{tr}\{`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{B}^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+B^{\mu \nu }D_\mu V_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}B^{\mu \nu }B_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\varphi \{\chi ^{\mu \nu },\chi _{\mu \nu }\}`$
$`D^\mu \overline{\varphi }D_\mu \varphi +\overline{\varphi }\{\psi ^\mu ,\psi _\mu \}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{\mu \nu }D_\mu \psi _\nu +\psi ^\mu D_\mu \eta `$
$`\chi ^{\mu \nu }D_\mu \overline{\psi }_\nu +\overline{\psi }^\mu D_\mu \overline{\eta }\chi ^{\mu \nu }[V_\mu ,\psi _\nu ]\psi ^\mu [V_\mu ,\overline{\eta }]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\varphi \{\overline{\eta },\overline{\eta }\}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ]^2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\varphi \{\eta ,\eta \}+V^\mu D_\mu Y+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}Y^2\},`$ (23)
it is easily seen that this is only partly the case. Therefore, this action possesses really only a simple, $`N_T=1`$, topological supersymmetry.

Let us now turn to the construction of the matter action. For that purpose we incorporate into (9) the vector field $`V_\mu `$ in such a way that the invariance under Hermitean conjugation is preserved. This is simply achieved by replacing in $`^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^\pm `$ the gauge field $`A_\mu `$ through $`A_\mu iV_\mu `$, respectively. The $`\alpha `$–independent part of the resulting action, denoted by $`S_\mathrm{C}`$ (C standing for ‘complexified’), takes the form

$$S_\mathrm{C}=\frac{1}{e^2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\{(^\mu T_{\mu \rho }^{}iT_{\mu \rho }^{}V^\mu )(_\nu T_+^{\nu \rho }iV_\nu T_+^{\nu \rho })\},$$
(24)
and is, in fact, invariant under Hermitean conjugation $`(A_\mu ,V_\mu ,T_{\mu \nu }^\pm )(A_\mu ,V_\mu ,T_{\mu \nu }^{})`$.

In order to get the $`N_T=1`$ supersymmetric extension of (24) we make the ansatz

$$S_{\mathrm{CT}}=Q\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{CT}},$$
(25)
and choose the following gauge and locally scale invariant matter fermion

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{CT}}=\frac{1}{2e^2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\{\xi _{}^\nu (^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^+iV^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^+Y_\nu ^+)+(^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^{}iT_{\mu \nu }^{}V^\mu Y_\nu ^{})\xi _+^\nu \},$$
(26)
where the $`Q`$–transformations are given by

$`QT_{\mu \nu }^{}=\lambda _{\mu \nu }^{},`$
$`Q\lambda _{\mu \nu }^{}=T_{\mu \nu }^{}\varphi ,`$
$`Q\xi _\nu ^{}=^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^{}iT_{\mu \nu }^{}V^\mu +Y_\nu ^{},`$
$`QY_\nu ^{}=\xi _\nu ^{}\varphi ^\mu \lambda _{\mu \nu }^{}+i\lambda _{\mu \nu }^{}V^\mu +T_{\mu \nu }^{}(\psi ^\mu +i\overline{\psi }^\mu ),`$
$`QT_{\mu \nu }^+=\lambda _{\mu \nu }^+,`$
$`Q\lambda _{\mu \nu }^+=\varphi T_{\mu \nu }^+,`$
$`Q\xi _\nu ^+=^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^+iV^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^++Y_\nu ^+,`$
$`QY_\nu ^+=\varphi \xi _\nu ^+^\mu \lambda _{\mu \nu }^++iV^\mu \lambda _{\mu \nu }^+(\psi ^\mu i\overline{\psi }^\mu )T_{\mu \nu }^+.`$ (27)
With that choice the action (25) takes the form

$`S_{\mathrm{CT}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2}}{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}\{`$ $`(^\mu T_{\mu \rho }^{}iT_{\mu \rho }^{}V^\mu )(_\nu T_+^{\nu \rho }iV_\nu T_+^{\nu \rho })Y_\mu ^{}Y_+^\mu `$
$`+(^\mu \lambda _{\mu \nu }^{}i\lambda _{\mu \nu }^{}V^\mu )\xi _+^\nu \xi _\nu ^{}(_\mu \lambda _+^{\mu \nu }iV_\mu \lambda _+^{\mu \nu })`$
$`T_{\mu \nu }^{}(\psi ^\mu +i\overline{\psi }^\mu )\xi _+^\nu \xi _\nu ^{}\varphi \xi _+^\nu \xi _\nu ^{}(\psi _\mu i\overline{\psi }_\mu )T_+^{\mu \nu }\},`$ (28)
and one can easily verify that, as promised, this action exhibits a discrete symmetry under Hermitean conjugation, namely

$$(A_\mu ,\psi _\mu ,\overline{\psi }_\mu ,\varphi ,V_\mu ,T_{\mu \nu }^\pm ,\lambda _{\mu \nu }^\pm ,Y_\mu ^\pm ,\xi _\mu ^\pm )(A_\mu ,i\overline{\psi }_\mu ,i\psi _\mu ,\varphi ,V_\mu ,T_{\mu \nu }^{},\lambda _{\mu \nu }^{},Y_\mu ^{},\xi _\mu ^{}),$$
(29)
which is clearly compatible with (3). Also this symmetry suggests the presence of a hidden $`N_T=2`$ supersymmetry $`Q\pm i\overline{Q}`$. However, in order to expose such a second supersymmetry $`\overline{Q}`$ the action (3) must be deformed by adding further terms to the gauge fermion (3) so that its partly discrete symmetry under Hermitean conjugation (3) becomes completely manifest. This will be the subject of the next section.

Finally, there are several points worth to note about the appearence of some ‘wrong’ signs in the symmetry (3): First, because all of the (real parts of the) fields of the BF–model are represented by anti–Hermitean matrices, there is an extra minus sign in these transformations, e.g., $`A_\mu \pm iV_\mu (A_\mu iV_\mu )`$. Second, in order to ensure that the transformation $`\chi _{\mu \nu }\pm i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\mu \nu }i(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\mu \nu }\pm i\chi _{\mu \nu })`$ of the complexified tensor fields agrees, formally, with that of the complexified vector fields, $`\psi _\mu \pm i\overline{\psi }_\mu i(\overline{\psi }_\mu \pm i\psi _\mu )`$, it is necessary that Hermitean conjugation is combined with a simultaneous replacement $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$, which reverses the orientation of the 4–manifold. Third, the transformations $`\overline{\varphi }\overline{\varphi }`$, $`\eta \pm i\overline{\eta }i(\overline{\eta }\pm i\eta )`$ and $`YY`$ have apparently a wrong sign. These extra sign changes can be traced back to some subtleties in the formulation of cohomological gauge theories. The DW theory was originally derived from the Wick–rotated $`N=2`$ SYM with compact $`R`$–symmetry group $`U(2)Sp(2)U(1)`$, with $`U(1)SO(2)`$ being the ghost number symmetry . But, in this approach, the sign of the kinetic term of one of the two original scalars, $`\varphi `$ and $`\overline{\varphi }`$, must be changed, so that the twisted theory has an $`SO(1,1)`$ ghost number symmetry . One can simply overcome this difficulty if the ‘problematic’ scalar field $`\varphi `$ is replaced by $`\varphi i\varphi `$. Therefore, under Hermitean conjugation the scalars $`\varphi `$ and $`\overline{\varphi }`$ transform like a real and a purely imaginary field, respectively. The situation is quite similar for the super–BF model. Recently, it has been shown that one can completely sidestep this problem by twisting directly the Euclidean $`N=2`$ SYM with non–compact $`R`$–symmetry group $`Sp(2)SO(1,1)`$ instead of $`Sp(2)SO(2)`$ .

## 4  $`N_T=2`$ topological B–model with tensor matter

The purpose of this Section is to deform the action (3) of the super–BF model — according to the proposal  of Blau and Thompson — to that of the B–model and to reveal the second topological supersymmetry $`\overline{Q}`$ of the matter action (3). We begin by shortly reviewing the structure of the B–model . This model is obtained by a certain twist of $`N=4`$ SYM, namely breaking down the $`R`$–symmetry group $`SU(4)`$ to $`SO(4)Sp(2)_ASp(2)_BU(1)`$ and by changing the action of the rotation group $`SO(4)SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ of the Euclidean space by replacing $`SU(2)_L`$ and $`SU(2)_R`$ through the diagonal subgroup of $`SU(2)_LSp(2)_A`$ and of $`SU(2)_RSp(2)_B`$, respectively.

The $`N=4`$ SYM is believed to be exactly finite and conformal invariant, even non–perturba-tively . Furthermore, it is believed that the S–duality  in $`N=4`$ SYM, which includes a discrete $`Z_2`$ symmetry corresponding to an interchange of electric and magnetic charges along with an interchange of weak and strong coupling, $`e1/e`$, is exact. (It is natural to conjecture that the twisted theory has also an S–duality symmetry.)

For $`N=4`$ SYM it is possible to introduce a further coupling constant $`\theta `$ by adding to the YM action a topological term (owing to the absence of a chiral anomaly in $`N=4`$ SYM it is impossible to shift away the $`\theta `$–term by means of a chiral rotation). In the presence of a non–zero $`\theta `$–angle the original $`Z_2`$ symmetry $`e1/e`$ is extended to a full $`SL(2,Z)`$ symmetry acting on $`\tau =\theta /2\pi +4\pi i/e^2`$. Thereby, one expects that under an inversion $`\tau 1/\tau `$ of this coupling the gauge group $`G`$ is exchanged with its dual group $`Dual(G)`$. Moreover, as pointed out by ’t Hooft , one can consider topological non–trivial gauge transformations of $`G/Center(G)`$ with discrete magnetic ’t Hooft flux through certain two–cycles of the 4–manifold.

The action of the B–model in the presence of a non–zero $`\theta `$–term can be cast into the form

$$S_{\mathrm{BT}}(\theta )=Q\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{BT}}i\theta k=\overline{Q}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mathrm{BT}}i\theta k,k=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\mathrm{tr}\{\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\},$$
(30)
where $`k`$ is the instanton number, i.e., its $`\theta `$–independent part is $`Q`$– and $`\overline{Q}`$–exact, but not $`Q\overline{Q}`$–exact, $`S_{\mathrm{BT}}(0)Q\overline{Q}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{BT}}`$ (notice that under the Hermitean conjugation, Eqs. (3), $`k`$ transforms into $`k`$ whereas $`\theta `$ remains inert).

The gauge fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{BT}}`$ in (30) is an appropiate extension of the gauge choice (3),

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{BT}}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{e^2}}{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}\mathrm{tr}\{`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{\mu \nu }(F_{\mu \nu }[V_\mu ,V_\nu ])+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\chi ^{\mu \nu }(B_{\mu \nu }iD_{[\mu }V_{\nu ]})`$
$`\psi ^\mu D_\mu \overline{\varphi }\overline{\psi }^\mu [V_\mu ,\overline{\varphi }]+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\eta [\overline{\varphi },\varphi ]+V^\mu D_\mu \overline{\eta }+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\eta }Y\},`$ (31)
whereas

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mathrm{BT}}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{e^2}}{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}\mathrm{tr}\{`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi ^{\mu \nu }(F_{\mu \nu }[V_\mu ,V_\nu ])+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{\mu \nu }(B_{\mu \nu }iD_{[\mu }V_{\nu ]})`$
$`\overline{\psi }^\mu D_\mu \overline{\varphi }+\psi ^\mu [V_\mu ,\overline{\varphi }]+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\eta }[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ]V^\mu D_\mu \eta {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\eta Y\},`$ (32)
is obtained from (4) by applying the following discrete $`Z_2`$ symmetry of the B–model  (see Eq. (4) below),

$$(A_\mu ,\psi _\mu ,\overline{\psi }_\mu ,\varphi ,V_\mu ,\overline{\varphi },\eta ,\overline{\eta },Y,\chi _{\mu \nu },B_{\mu \nu })(A_\mu ,\overline{\psi }_\mu ,\psi _\mu ,\varphi ,V_\mu ,\overline{\varphi },\overline{\eta },\eta ,Y,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\mu \nu },B_{\mu \nu }).$$
(33)
The on–shell equivariantly nilpotent $`Q`$– and $`\overline{Q}`$–transformations, being interchanged by the $`Z_2`$ symmetry (33), are the following:

$`Q\varphi =0,`$ $`\overline{Q}\varphi =0,`$
$`QA_\mu =\psi _\mu ,`$ $`\overline{Q}A_\mu =\overline{\psi }_\mu ,`$
$`Q\psi _\mu =D_\mu \varphi ,`$ $`\overline{Q}\overline{\psi }_\mu =D_\mu \varphi ,`$
$`QV_\mu =\overline{\psi }_\mu ,`$ $`\overline{Q}V_\mu =\psi _\mu ,`$
$`Q\overline{\psi }_\mu =[V_\mu ,\varphi ],`$ $`\overline{Q}\psi _\mu =[V_\mu ,\varphi ],`$
$`Q\overline{\varphi }=\eta ,`$ $`\overline{Q}\overline{\varphi }=\overline{\eta },`$
$`Q\eta =[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ],`$ $`\overline{Q}\overline{\eta }=[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ],`$
$`Q\overline{\eta }=Y,`$ $`\overline{Q}\eta =Y,`$
$`QY=[\overline{\eta },\varphi ],`$ $`\overline{Q}Y=[\eta ,\varphi ],`$
$`Q\chi _{\mu \nu }=B_{\mu \nu }+iD_{[\mu }V_{\nu ]},`$ $`\overline{Q}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\mu \nu }=B_{\mu \nu }iD_{[\mu }V_{\nu ]},`$
$`QB_{\mu \nu }=[\chi _{\mu \nu },\varphi ]iD_{[\mu }\overline{\psi }_{\nu ]}i[\psi _{[\mu },V_{\nu ]}],`$ $`\overline{Q}B_{\mu \nu }=[\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\mu \nu },\varphi ]iD_{[\mu }\psi _{\nu ]}+i[\overline{\psi }_{[\mu },V_{\nu ]}].`$ (34)
Here, both operators $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ square to zero modulo field–dependent gauge transformations $`\delta _G(\varphi )`$ but anticommute only on–shell on $`\chi _{\mu \nu }`$ and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$,

$$Q^2=\delta _G(\varphi ),\{Q,\overline{Q}\}0,\overline{Q}^2=\delta _G(\varphi ).$$
(35)
In the Appendix we reanalyse in detail a statement of Lozano , namely that the action of the B–model in the presence of a non–zero $`\theta `$–term can also be cast into the following form:

$$S_\mathrm{L}(\tau )=Q\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{L}+2\pi i\tau k=\overline{Q}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{L}+2\pi i\overline{\tau }k,\tau =\frac{\theta }{2\pi }+\frac{4\pi i}{e^2},$$
(36)
$`\overline{\tau }`$ being the complex conjugate of $`\tau `$, with $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ satisfying the superalgebra (35) off–shell. We have not been able to confirm that result. A closer analysis (see Appendix) shows that, on the one hand, it is always possible to introduce off–shell equivariantly nilpotent $`Q`$– and $`\overline{Q}`$–transformations, but then $`S_\mathrm{L}(\tau )`$ cannot be cast into the form (36). On the other hand, it is always possible to express $`S_\mathrm{L}(\tau )`$ in the form (36), but then the $`Q`$– and $`\overline{Q}`$–transformations close only on–shell.

In the Feynman type gauge (4) the $`\theta `$–independent part of the action (30) reads

$`S_{\mathrm{BT}}(0)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{e^2}}{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}\mathrm{tr}\{`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{B}^{\mu \nu }(F_{\mu \nu }[V_\mu ,V_\nu ])+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}D^{[\mu }V^{\nu ]}D_{[\mu }V_{\nu ]}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}B^{\mu \nu }B_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\varphi \{\chi ^{\mu \nu },\chi _{\mu \nu }\}D^\mu \overline{\varphi }D_\mu \varphi `$
$`+\overline{\varphi }\{\overline{\psi }^\mu ,\overline{\psi }_\mu \}[V^\mu ,\overline{\varphi }][V_\mu ,\varphi ]+\overline{\varphi }\{\psi ^\mu ,\psi _\mu \}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{\mu \nu }D_\mu \psi _\nu +\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{\mu \nu }[V_\mu ,\overline{\psi }_\nu ]+\psi ^\mu D_\mu \eta \psi ^\mu [V_\mu ,\overline{\eta }]`$
$`\chi ^{\mu \nu }D_\mu \overline{\psi }_\nu \chi ^{\mu \nu }[V_\mu ,\psi _\nu ]+\overline{\psi }^\mu D_\mu \overline{\eta }+\overline{\psi }^\mu [V_\mu ,\eta ]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\varphi \{\overline{\eta },\overline{\eta }\}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ]^2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\varphi \{\eta ,\eta \}+V^\mu D_\mu Y+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}Y^2\}.`$ (37)
By construction, this action is invariant under Hermitean conjugation (3) and may be regarded, formally, as deformation of the action (3) of the $`N_T=1`$ super–BF model. By choosing the Landau type gauge this action and the supersymmetry transformations (4) coincide precisely with those of Ref. .

After having deformed the action of the super–BF model to a point in the deformation space where it possesses an extended, $`N_T=2`$, supersymmetry, let us now show that at this point the matter action (25) can be cast also into a $`\overline{Q}`$–exact form,

$$S_{\mathrm{CT}}=\overline{Q}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mathrm{CT}},$$
(38)
with the following choice of the matter fermion,

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mathrm{CT}}=\frac{i}{2e^2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\{\xi _{}^\nu (^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^+iV^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^+Y_\nu ^+)(^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^{}iT_{\mu \nu }^{}V^\mu Y_\nu ^{})\xi _+^\nu \}.$$
(39)
Indeed, introducing the $`\overline{Q}`$–transformations of the matter fields according to

$`\overline{Q}T_{\mu \nu }^{}=i\lambda _{\mu \nu }^{},`$
$`\overline{Q}\lambda _{\mu \nu }^{}=iT_{\mu \nu }^{}\varphi ,`$
$`\overline{Q}\xi _\nu ^{}=i^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^{}+T_{\mu \nu }^{}V^\mu +iY_\nu ^{},`$
$`\overline{Q}Y_\nu ^{}=i\xi _\nu ^{}\varphi +i^\mu \lambda _{\mu \nu }^{}+\lambda _{\mu \nu }^{}V^\mu +T_{\mu \nu }^{}(\overline{\psi }^\mu i\psi ^\mu ),`$
$`\overline{Q}T_{\mu \nu }^+=i\lambda _{\mu \nu }^+,`$
$`\overline{Q}\lambda _{\mu \nu }^+=i\varphi T_{\mu \nu }^+,`$
$`\overline{Q}\xi _\nu ^+=i^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^+V^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^+iY_\nu ^+,`$
$`\overline{Q}Y_\nu ^+=i\varphi \xi _\nu ^+i^\mu \lambda _{\mu \nu }^+V^\mu \lambda _{\mu \nu }^+(\overline{\psi }^\mu +i\psi ^\mu )T_{\mu \nu }^+,`$ (40)
it is easily seen that they are equivariantly nilpotent and anticommute with the $`Q`$–transforma-tions (3), i.e., $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ obey the topological superalgebra (35) off–shell. Then, spelling out (38) in detail, one recovers precisely the orginal action (3), namely

$`S_{\mathrm{CT}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2}}{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}\{`$ $`(^\mu T_{\mu \rho }^{}iT_{\mu \rho }^{}V^\mu )(_\nu T_+^{\nu \rho }iV_\nu T_+^{\nu \rho })Y_\mu ^{}Y_+^\mu `$
$`+(^\mu \lambda _{\mu \nu }^{}i\lambda _{\mu \nu }^{}V^\mu )\xi _+^\nu \xi _\nu ^{}(_\mu \lambda _+^{\mu \nu }iV_\mu \lambda _+^{\mu \nu })`$
$`T_{\mu \nu }^{}(\psi ^\mu +i\overline{\psi }^\mu )\xi _+^\nu \xi _\nu ^{}\varphi \xi _+^\nu \xi _\nu ^{}(\psi _\mu i\overline{\psi }_\mu )T_+^{\mu \nu }\}.`$
Furthermore, it is simple to verify that the actions (4) and (3) are invariant under a local rescaling of the metric $`\delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )g_{\mu \nu }=2\sigma g_{\mu \nu }`$ and local Weyl transformations of the fields. The latter are given by

$`\delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )\overline{\varphi }=2\sigma \overline{\varphi },`$ $`\delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )T_{\mu \nu }^\pm =\sigma T_{\mu \nu }^\pm ,`$
$`\delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )\eta =2\sigma \eta ,`$ $`\delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )\lambda _{\mu \nu }^\pm =\sigma \lambda _{\mu \nu }^\pm ,`$
$`\delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )Y=2\sigma Y,`$ $`\delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )Y_\mu ^\pm =\sigma Y_\mu ^\pm ,`$
$`\delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )\overline{\eta }=2\sigma \overline{\eta },`$ $`\delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma )\xi _\mu ^\pm =\sigma \xi _\mu ^\pm ,`$
with the properties $`[\delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma ),Q]=0=[\delta _\mathrm{W}(\sigma ),\overline{Q}]`$, where again we have only written down the non–trivial transformations.

This finishes our construction of the topological B–model involving antisymmetric tensor matter fields.

In this context, let us mention that recently a fourth, conformal twist of $`N=4`$ SYM has been proposed leading to a conformal invariant deformation of the B–model whose action is local scale invariant and has two Weyl invariant topological supersymmetries, $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$, . Moreover, it has been conjectured that this model could have a dual holographic description in the 5–dimensional de Sitter space. We suppose that it should be possible to couple this model to antisymmetric tensor matter fields, too.

## 5 Concluding remarks

Motivated by the question whether, at least from a purely algebraic point of view, a topological model with matter having $`N_T=2`$ supersymmetry can be constructed, we have proposed a new type of matter interactions involving antisymmetric tensor fields. These interactions may be regarded as supersymmetric extensions of a $`\phi ^4`$–type theory for antisymmetric tensor matter fields, firstly considered in , on a general, curved 4–dimensional Euclidean gravitational background. Such tensorial matter interactions have been explicitly worked out for the DW theory, the $`N_T=1`$ super–BF model and the $`N_T=2`$ topological B–model.

In that paper we have focused primarily on the algebraic aspects of how topological gauge theories involving tensor matter fields can be constructed. Many other aspects remain still to be clarified. Among the interesting questions which deserve further investigations let us only mention the following:
(i) What are the unitarity properties of the independent propagating degrees of freedom associated with antisymmetric tensor matter fields in Euclidean space?
(ii) What are the relevant equations of the moduli problem in the presence of tensor matter fields?
(iii) Are there new topological observables associated with tensor matter fields?
(iv) Does, analogous to the DW theory with matter hypermultiplet, the ghost–number anomaly of the topological B–model change when the tensor matter multiplet is coupled?
(v) How behave antisymmetric tensor matter fields in topological gauge theories under renormalization?
(vi) Is it possible to couple tensorial matter also to the $`N_T=2`$ topological A–model whose underlying supersymmetries, $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$, have different ghost numbers and therefore different cohomologies?
(vii) Is it possible to construct a $`N=2`$ — or even a $`N=4`$ — supersymmetric extension of the (non–abelian) Avdeev–Chizhov model from which tensor matter interactions, like the ones introduced in this paper, could be obtained via a topological twist?
(viii) Recently, Berhadsky, Sadov and Vafa  have shown that all the topologically twisted $`N=4`$ gauge theories appear quite naturally as world–volume theories of Dirichlet $`p`$–brane instantons in string theory. With respect to this the perhaps most interesting question is whether topological tensor matter interactions could also appear in some low–energy effective tensor gauge theories derived from string models.

## Appendix A Lozano’s formulation of the B–model

In this Appendix it will be shown that in Lozano’s action (36) (see, Ref. , Eq. (7.17)),

$$S_\mathrm{L}(\tau )=Q\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{L}+2\pi i\tau k=\overline{Q}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{L}+2\pi i\overline{\tau }kS_\mathrm{L}(\theta =0)+i\theta k,$$
(A.1)
the topological supercharges $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ do not provide an off–shell formulation of the B–model. First of all, to be in line with the convention used here, let us perform the following redefinitions of Lozano’s fields (denoted by a subscript L):

$`[Q]_\mathrm{L}=Q,`$ $`[A_\mu ]_\mathrm{L}=iA_\mu ,`$ $`[B]_\mathrm{L}=i\sqrt{2}\overline{\varphi },`$
$`[\overline{Q}]_\mathrm{L}=\overline{Q},`$ $`[V_\mu ]_\mathrm{L}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}V_\mu ,`$ $`[C]_\mathrm{L}=i\sqrt{2}\varphi ,`$
$`[\chi _{\mu \nu }^\pm ]_\mathrm{L}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\chi _{\mu \nu }^\pm ,`$ $`[\psi _\mu ]_\mathrm{L}=i\psi _\mu ,`$ $`[\eta ]_\mathrm{L}=2i\eta ,`$
$`[P]_\mathrm{L}=4iY,`$ $`[\overline{\psi }_\mu ]_\mathrm{L}=i\overline{\psi }_\mu ,`$ $`[\overline{\eta }]_\mathrm{L}=2i\overline{\eta },[N_{\mu \nu }^\pm ]_\mathrm{L}=iB_{\mu \nu }^\pm ,`$
where the overall factor of $`i`$ is due to the different choice of the group generators, $`[T^i]_\mathrm{L}=iT^i`$.

After carrying out these redefinitions in Eqs. (7.11) and (7.16) of Ref.  and coupling the resulting action $`S_\mathrm{L}(\theta =0)+i\theta k`$ to Euclidean gravity, which requires a non–minimal $`R_{\mu \nu }`$–dependent term $`R^{\mu \nu }V_\mu V_\nu `$, for the $`\theta `$–independent part one obtains

$`S_\mathrm{L}(\theta =0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2}}{\displaystyle d^4x}`$ $`\sqrt{g}\mathrm{tr}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(F^{\mu \nu }[V^\mu ,V^\nu ])(F_{\mu \nu }[V_\mu ,V_\nu ])+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}D^{[\mu }V^{\nu ]}D_{[\mu }V_{\nu ]}`$
$`2\chi _+^{\mu \nu }D_\mu \psi _\nu +2\chi _+^{\mu \nu }[V_\mu ,\overline{\psi }_\nu ]2\psi ^\mu D_\mu \eta 2\overline{\psi }^\mu [V_\mu ,\eta ]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi \{\chi _+^{\mu \nu },\chi _{\mu \nu }^+\}2\overline{\varphi }\{\psi ^\mu ,\psi _\mu \}+2\varphi \{\eta ,\eta \}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_+^{\mu \nu }B_{\mu \nu }^+`$
$`2\chi _{}^{\mu \nu }D_\mu \overline{\psi }_\nu 2\chi _{}^{\mu \nu }[V_\mu ,\psi _\nu ]2\overline{\psi }^\mu D_\mu \overline{\eta }+2\psi ^\mu [V_\mu ,\overline{\eta }]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi \{\chi _{}^{\mu \nu },\chi _{\mu \nu }^{}\}2\overline{\varphi }\{\overline{\psi }^\mu ,\overline{\psi }_\mu \}+2\varphi \{\overline{\eta },\overline{\eta }\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_{}^{\mu \nu }B_{\mu \nu }^{}`$
$`+2D^\mu \overline{\varphi }D_\mu \varphi +2[V^\mu ,\overline{\varphi }][V_\mu ,\varphi ]2[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ]^22V^\mu D_\mu Y2Y^2\},`$ (A.2)
where the $`R_{\mu \nu }`$–dependence is cancelled by the $`Y`$–dependent terms.

Obviously, the action $`S_\mathrm{L}(\theta =0)+i\theta k`$ is invariant under a discrete $`Z_2`$ symmetry acting on both the fields and the coupling constants ,

$`(A_\mu ,\psi _\mu ,\overline{\psi }_\mu ,\varphi ,V_\mu ,\overline{\varphi },\eta ,\overline{\eta },Y,\chi _{\mu \nu }^\pm ,B_{\mu \nu }^\pm )`$ $`(A_\mu ,\overline{\psi }_\mu ,\psi _\mu ,\varphi ,V_\mu ,\overline{\varphi },\overline{\eta },\eta ,Y,\chi _{\mu \nu }^{},B_{\mu \nu }^{})`$
$`(ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma },\theta )`$ $`(ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma },\theta ).`$ (A.3)
Now, decomposing $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ into its self–dual and anti–selfdual parts, then the action $`S_\mathrm{L}(\theta =0)`$ can be expressed either as a $`Q`$–exact or as a $`\overline{Q}`$–exact term, in both cases modulo a term depending only on the instanton number $`k`$,

$$S_\mathrm{L}(\theta =0)=Q\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{L}\frac{8\pi ^2k}{e^2}=\overline{Q}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{L}+\frac{8\pi ^2k}{e^2}.$$
(A.4)
Here the gauge fermions are given by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{L}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2}}{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}\mathrm{tr}\{`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi _+^{\mu \nu }(F_{\mu \nu }^+[V_\mu ,V_\nu ]^+B_{\mu \nu }^+)+2\psi ^\mu D_\mu \overline{\varphi }+2\overline{\psi }^\mu [V_\mu ,\overline{\varphi }]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi _{}^{\mu \nu }((D_{[\mu }V_{\nu ]})^{}B_{\mu \nu }^{})2\eta [\overline{\varphi },\varphi ]+V^\mu D_\mu \overline{\eta }2\overline{\eta }Y\},`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{L}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2}}{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}\mathrm{tr}\{`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi _{}^{\mu \nu }(F_{\mu \nu }^{}[V_\mu ,V_\nu ]^{}+B_{\mu \nu }^{})+2\overline{\psi }^\mu D_\mu \overline{\varphi }2\psi ^\mu [V_\mu ,\overline{\varphi }]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi _+^{\mu \nu }((D_{[\mu }V_{\nu ]})^+B_{\mu \nu }^+)2\overline{\eta }[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ]V^\mu D_\mu \eta +2\eta Y\}.`$
Then, recasting within the full action $`S_\mathrm{L}(\theta =0)+i\theta k`$ the topological part in terms of the modular coupling $`\tau =\theta /2\pi +4\pi i/e^2`$ one gets directly the action (A.1) with a topological term depending only upon $`\tau `$.

The $`Q`$– and $`\overline{Q}`$–transformations, being interchanged by the $`Z_2`$ symmetry (A.3), $`Q\overline{Q}`$, are given by

$`Q\varphi =0,`$ $`\overline{Q}\varphi =0,`$
$`QA_\mu =\psi _\mu ,`$ $`\overline{Q}A_\mu =\overline{\psi }_\mu ,`$
$`Q\psi _\mu =D_\mu \varphi ,`$ $`\overline{Q}\overline{\psi }_\mu =D_\mu \varphi ,`$
$`QV_\mu =\overline{\psi }_\mu ,`$ $`\overline{Q}V_\mu =\psi _\mu ,`$
$`Q\overline{\psi }_\mu =[V_\mu ,\varphi ],`$ $`\overline{Q}\psi _\mu =[V_\mu ,\varphi ],`$
$`Q\overline{\varphi }=\eta ,`$ $`\overline{Q}\overline{\varphi }=\overline{\eta },`$
$`Q\eta =[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ],`$ $`\overline{Q}\overline{\eta }=[\overline{\varphi },\varphi ],`$
$`Q\overline{\eta }=Y,`$ $`\overline{Q}\eta =Y,`$
$`QY=[\overline{\eta },\varphi ],`$ $`\overline{Q}Y=[\eta ,\varphi ],`$
$`Q\chi _{\mu \nu }^+=F_{\mu \nu }^+[V_\mu ,V_\nu ]^++B_{\mu \nu }^+,`$ $`\overline{Q}\chi _{\mu \nu }^{}=F_{\mu \nu }^{}[V_\mu ,V_\nu ]^{}B_{\mu \nu }^{},`$
$`QB_{\mu \nu }^+=[\chi _{\mu \nu }^+,\varphi ](D_{[\mu }\psi _{\nu ]}[\overline{\psi }_{[\mu },V_{\nu ]}])^+,`$ $`\overline{Q}B_{\mu \nu }^{}=[\chi _{\mu \nu }^{},\varphi ]+(D_{[\mu }\overline{\psi }_{\nu ]}+[\psi _{[\mu },V_{\nu ]}])^{},`$
$`Q\chi _{\mu \nu }^{}=(D_{[\mu }V_{\nu ]})^{}+B_{\mu \nu }^{},`$ $`\overline{Q}\chi _{\mu \nu }^+=(D_{[\mu }V_{\nu ]})^+B_{\mu \nu }^+,`$
$`QB_{\mu \nu }^{}=[\chi _{\mu \nu }^{},\varphi ](D_{[\mu }\overline{\psi }_{\nu ]}+[\psi _{[\mu },V_{\nu ]}])^{},`$ $`\overline{Q}B_{\mu \nu }^+=[\chi _{\mu \nu }^+,\varphi ]+(D_{[\mu }\psi _{\nu ]}[\overline{\psi }_{[\mu },V_{\nu ]}])^+.`$ (A.5)
Here, the operators $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ are both equivariantly nilpotent and anticommute on–shell for $`\chi _{\mu \nu }^\pm `$ and $`B_{\mu \nu }^\pm `$ and off–shell for all the other fields, i.e., unlike to the claim of Ref. , they do not provide an off–shell realization of the topological superalgebra,

$$Q^2=\delta _G(\varphi ),\{Q,\overline{Q}\}0,\overline{Q}^2=\delta _G(\varphi ).$$
(A.6)
Here, some remarks are in order: First, in the case under consideration it is impossible to cast $`S_\mathrm{L}(\theta =0)`$ into the $`Q`$– and $`\overline{Q}`$–exact form $`Q\overline{Q}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{L}`$ for some gauge boson $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{L}`$. Second, whenever $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ are interchanged by a $`Z_2`$ symmetry the action $`S_\mathrm{L}(\theta =0)`$ can be cast into the form (A.4). In the present case this is only possible when $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ anticommute on–shell. Third, it is impossible to replace in (A.4) $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ by off–shell equivariantly nilpotent operators because such a replacement would come into conflict with the $`Z_2`$ symmetry (A.3). Indeed, if we replace in (A.5) the $`\overline{Q}`$–transformations for $`\chi _{\mu \nu }^\pm `$ and $`B_{\mu \nu }^\pm `$ according to

$`\overline{Q}\chi _{\mu \nu }^{}=F_{\mu \nu }^{}[V_\mu ,V_\nu ]^{}iB_{\mu \nu }^{},`$
$`\overline{Q}B_{\mu \nu }^{}=i[\chi _{\mu \nu }^{},\varphi ]i(D_{[\mu }\overline{\psi }_{\nu ]}+[\psi _{[\mu },V_{\nu ]}])^{},`$
$`\overline{Q}\chi _{\mu \nu }^+=(D_{[\mu }V_{\nu ]})^+iB_{\mu \nu }^+,`$
$`\overline{Q}B_{\mu \nu }^+=i[\chi _{\mu \nu }^+,\varphi ]i(D_{[\mu }\psi _{\nu ]}[\overline{\psi }_{[\mu },V_{\nu ]}])^+,`$
leaving all the other transformations unaltered, it is easily seen that the modified $`Q`$– and $`\overline{Q}`$–transformations provide an off–shell realization of the superalgebra (A.6). However, the old $`Q`$– and the new $`\overline{Q}`$–transformations are no longer related to each other through a $`Z_2`$ symmetry and, therefore, the modified $`\overline{Q}`$–transformations are not any more a symmetry of $`S_\mathrm{L}(\theta =0)`$!

Finally, to close our analysis, let us state the relation between the action and the supersymmetry transformations given in Sect. 4 and those presented above. After integrating out in (4) and (A.2) the auxiliary field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ and redefining the Blau–Thompson’s fields (denoted by a subscript BT) according to:

$`[Q]_{\mathrm{BT}}=\zeta (Q\overline{Q}),`$ $`[A_\mu ]_{\mathrm{BT}}=A_\mu ,`$ $`[\varphi ]_{\mathrm{BT}}=i\varphi ,`$
$`[\overline{Q}]_{\mathrm{BT}}=\zeta (Q+\overline{Q}),`$ $`[V_\mu ]_{\mathrm{BT}}=V_\mu ,`$ $`[\overline{\varphi }]_{\mathrm{BT}}=2\overline{\varphi },`$
$`[\chi _{\mu \nu }]_{\mathrm{BT}}=2\zeta \chi _{\mu \nu },`$ $`[\psi _\mu ]_{\mathrm{BT}}=\zeta (\psi _\mu \overline{\psi }_\mu ),`$ $`[\eta ]_{\mathrm{BT}}=2\zeta (\eta \overline{\eta }),`$
$`[Y]_{\mathrm{BT}}=2iY,`$ $`[\overline{\psi }_\mu ]_{\mathrm{BT}}=\zeta (\psi _\mu +\overline{\psi }_\mu ),`$ $`[\overline{\eta }]_{\mathrm{BT}}=2\zeta (\eta +\overline{\eta }),`$
with the abbreviation $`\zeta =(1i)/2`$, one finds that $`S_{\mathrm{BT}}(\theta =0)=S_\mathrm{L}(\theta =0)`$. Furthermore, one verifies that the transformations (4) match precisely those given in (A.5). Hence, the formulations of the B–model proposed by Blau and Thompson  and by Lozano  are equivalent on–shell, but they differ from each other after introducing of $`B_{\mu \nu }`$. But, in neither cases the on–shell condition (A.6) can be completely lifted by introducing off–shell formulations for the topological supersymmetries $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ using auxiliary fields.


format: text

text:
# Reconstructing a Simple Polytope from its Graph

## 1 Introduction

The *face lattice* $`L_P`$ of a (convex) polytope $`P`$ is any lattice that is isomorphic to the lattice formed by the set of all faces of $`P`$ (including $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`P`$ itself), ordered by inclusion. It is well-known to be determined by the *vertex-facet incidences* of $`P`$, i.e., by any graph that is isomorphic to the bipartite graph whose nodes are the vertices and the facets of $`P`$, where the edges are defined by the pairs $`\{v,f\}`$ of vertices $`v`$ and facets $`f`$ with $`vf`$. In lattice theoretic terms, $`L_P`$ is a ranked, atomic, and coatomic lattice, and thus, the sub-poset formed by its atoms and coatoms already determines the whole lattice. Actually, one can compute $`L_P`$ from the vertex-facet incidences of $`P`$ in $`𝒪\left(\eta \alpha \lambda \right)`$ time, where $`\eta `$ is the minimum of the number of vertices and the number of facets, $`\alpha `$ is the number of vertex-facet incidences, and $`\lambda `$ is the total number of faces of $`P`$ .

The *graph* $`G_P=(V_P,E_P)`$ of a polytope $`P`$ is any graph that is isomorphic to the graph whose nodes are the vertices of $`P`$, where two nodes are adjacent if and only if the convex hull of the corresponding two vertices is a one-dimensional face of $`P`$. Phrased differently, $`G_P`$ is the graph defined on the rank one elements of $`L_P`$, where two rank one elements are adjacent if and only if they are below a common rank two element. While the vertex-facet incidences completely determine the face-lattice of any polytope, the graph of a polytope in general does not encode the entire combinatorial structure. This can be seen, e.g., from the examples of the cut polytope associated with the complete graph on $`n`$ nodes and the $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)`$-dimensional cyclic polytope with $`2^{n1}`$ vertices, which both have complete graphs. Another example is the four-dimensional polytope shown in Fig. 1 whose graph is isomorphic to the graph of the five-dimensional cube.

Actually, in all dimensions less than four such ambiguities cannot occur. For one- or two dimensional polytopes this is obvious, and for three-dimensional polytopes it follows from Whitney’s theorem  saying that every $`3`$-connected planar graph has a unique (up to reflection) plane embedding.

A $`d`$-dimensional polytope $`P`$ is *simple* if every vertex of $`P`$ is contained in precisely $`d`$ facets, which is equivalent to $`G_P`$ being $`d`$-regular (the polytope is non-degenerate in terms of Linear Programming). Every face of a simple polytope is simple as well. None of the examples showing that it is, in general, impossible to reconstruct the face lattice of a polytope from its graph, is simple.

In fact, Blind and Mani  proved in 1987 that the face lattice of a simple polytope is determined by its graph. Their proof (which we sketch in Sect. 2) is not constructive and crucially relies on the topological concept of homology. In 1988, Kalai  found a short and elegant proof (reviewed in Sect. 3) that does only use elementary geometric and combinatorial reasoning with the main advantage of being algorithmic. However, the running time of the method that can be devised from it is exponential in the size of the graph.

Perles conjectured in the 1970’s (see ) that for a $`d`$-dimensional simple polytope $`P`$ every subset $`FV_P`$ that induces a $`(d1)`$-regular, connected, and non-separating subgraph of $`G_P`$ corresponds to the vertex set of a facet of $`P`$. A proof of this conjecture would have lead immediately to a polynomial time algorithm that, given the graph $`G_P=(V_P,E_P)`$ of a simple polytope $`P`$, decides for a set of subsets of $`V_P`$ if it corresponds to the set of vertex sets of facets of $`P`$. However, Haase and Ziegler  recently disproved Perles’ conjecture. They found a four-dimensional simple polytope whose graph has a $`3`$-regular, non-separating, and even $`3`$-connected induced subgraph that does not correspond to any facet.

Refining ideas from Kalai’s proof (Sect. 4), we show that the problem of reconstructing the vertex-facet incidences of a simple polytope $`P`$ from its graph $`G_P`$ can be formulated as a combinatorial optimization problem that has a well-stated strongly dual problem (Sect. 5). The optimal solutions to this dual problem are certain orientations of $`G_P`$ (induced by “abstract objective functions”) that are important also in different contexts. In particular, we provide short certificates for both the vertex-facet incidences of a simple polytope and for the abstract objective functions in terms of $`G_P`$. We conclude with some remarks on the complexity status of the problem to decide whether a claimed solution to the reconstruction problem indeed are the vertex-facet incidences of the respective polytope in Sect. 6.

The material presented here has evolved from joint work with Michael Joswig and Friederike Körner . The basic ideas and results are the same in both papers. However, the concept of a “facoidal system of walks” is newly introduced here. It differs from the corresponding notion of a “$`2`$-system” (introduced in ) with the main effect that one knows how to compute efficiently some facoidal system of walks from the graph $`G_P`$ of a simple polytope $`P`$ (see Proposition 3), while it is unclear how to find a $`2`$-system from $`G_P`$ efficiently. Furthermore, the proof of Theorem 4.1 we give here is different from the corresponding proof in . Finally, the complexity theoretic statement of Corollary 5 does not appear in .

For all notions from the theory of polytopes that we use without (sufficient) explanations, we refer to Ziegler’s book . We use the terms *$`d`$-polytope* and *$`k`$-face* for $`d`$-dimensional polytopes and $`k`$-dimensional faces, respectively. Often we will identify a face $`F`$ of a simple polytope $`P`$ with the subset of nodes of $`G_P`$ that corresponds to the vertex set of $`F`$. Whenever we talk about “polynomial time” or “efficient” this refers to the size of the graph $`G_P`$ of the respective (simple) polytope $`P`$.

## 2 The Theorem of Blind and Mani

Blind and Mani  proved their theorem in the dual setting, i.e., for simplicial rather than for simple polytopes. Nevertheless, we sketch parts of their proof in terms of simple polytopes here. The starting point is the observation that, while a priori it is by no means clear if the graph $`G_P=(V_P,E_P)`$ of a simple polytope $`P`$ determines the face lattice of $`P`$, it is easy to see that the $`2`$-faces of $`P`$ (as subsets of $`V_P`$) carry the entire information on the combinatorial structure of $`P`$.

Let $`P`$ be a simple polytope. For a node $`vV_P`$ of $`G_P`$ denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(v\right)V_P`$ the subset of nodes that are adjacent to $`v`$ (the *neighbors* of $`v`$). For any $`k`$-element subset $`S\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(v\right)`$ there is a $`k`$-face of $`P`$ that contains the vertices that correspond to $`S\{v\}`$ (and no vertex that corresponds to a node in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(v\right)S`$). We call the subset $`F\left(S\{v\}\right)V_P`$ of nodes corresponding to the vertices of that face the *$`k`$-face spanned by $`S\{v\}`$*.

For an edge $`e=\{v,w\}E_P`$ let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(v,w)}:\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(v\right)\{w\}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(w\right)\{v\}`$ be the map that assigns to each subset $`S\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(v\right)\{w\}`$ the subset $`T\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(w\right)\{v\}`$ with $`F\left(S\{v,w\}\right)=F\left(T\{w,v\}\right)`$. The maps $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(v,w)}`$ are cardinality preserving bijections, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(w,v)}`$ is the inverse of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(v,w)}`$.

###### Proposition 1

Let $`P`$ be a simple polytope. For each $`e=\{v,w\}E_P`$ and $`S\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(v\right)\{w\}`$ we have

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{(v,w)}(S)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }_{(v,w)}(\overline{S})}$$

(where $`\overline{U}`$ is the respective complement of the set $`U`$).

###### Proof

This follows from the fact that we have $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(v,w)}(S_1S_2)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{(v,w)}(S_1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{(v,w)}(S_2)`$ for all $`S_1,S_2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(v\right)\{w\}`$.

With the notations of Proposition 1 denote by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(v,w)}^k`$ the restriction of the map $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(v,w)}^k`$ to the $`(k1)`$-element subsets of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(v\right)\{w\}`$. There are quite obvious algorithms that compute from the maps $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(v,w)}^k`$, $`\{v,w\}E_P`$, the $`k`$-faces of $`P`$ (as subsets of $`V_P`$), and vice versa, in polynomial time in the number $`f_k(P)`$ of $`k`$-faces of the simple $`d`$-polytope $`P`$. Since both $`f_2(P)`$ as well as $`f_{d1}(P)`$ are bounded polynomially in the size of $`G_P`$, the following result follows.

###### Corollary 1

There are polynomial time algorithms that, given the graph $`G_P`$ of a simple $`d`$-polytope $`P`$, compute the set of facets of $`P`$ from the set of $`2`$-faces of $`P`$ (both viewed as sets of subsets of $`V_P`$), and vice versa.

For the rest of this section let $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ be two simple polytopes, and let $`g:V_{P_1}V_{P_2}`$ be an isomorphism of the graphs $`G_{P_1}=(V_{P_1},E_{P_1})`$ and $`G_{P_2}=(V_{P_2},E_{P_2})`$ of $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$, respectively (i.e., $`g`$ is an in both directions edge preserving bijection).

The core of Blind and Mani’s paper  is the following result.

###### Proposition 2

The graph isomorphism $`g`$ maps every cycle in $`G_{P_1}`$ that corresponds to a $`2`$-face of $`P_1`$ to a cycle in $`G_{P_2}`$ that corresponds to a $`2`$-face of $`P_2`$.

Blind and Mani’s proof proceeds in the dual setting, i.e., in terms of the boundary complexes $`P_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ and $`P_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ of the simplicial dual polytopes $`P_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ and $`P_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ of $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$, respectively. The strategy is to show that, if some cycle in $`G_{P_1}`$ corresponding to a $`2`$-face of $`P_1`$ was mapped to some cycle in $`G_{P_2}`$ that does not correspond to any $`2`$-face of $`P_2`$, then a certain sub-complex of $`P_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ would have a certain non-vanishing (reduced) homology group. They complete their proof of Proposition 2 by showing that the respective homology group, however, is zero. The key ingredient they use to prove this is the following. For each face $`F`$ of $`P_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ there is a *shelling order* of the facets of $`P_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ (i.e., an ordering satisfying certain convenient topological properties, which, however, can be expressed completely combinatorially, see Sect. 3) in which the facets containing $`F`$ come first.

From Proposition 2 one can deduce that the graph isomorphism $`g`$ actually induces a bijection between the cycles in $`G_{P_1}`$ that correspond to $`2`$-faces of $`P_1`$ and the cycles in $`G_{P_2}`$ that correspond to $`2`$-faces of $`P_2`$. Once this is established, Proposition 1 yields the following result.

###### Theorem 2.1 (Blind & Mani )

Every isomorphism between the graphs $`G_{P_1}`$ and $`G_{P_2}`$ of two simple polytopes $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$, respectively, induces an isomorphism between the vertex-facet incidences of $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$. In particular, the graph of a simple polytope determines its entire face lattice.

## 3 Kalai’s Constructive Proof

Kalai realized that the existence of shelling orders as exploited by Blind and Mani can be used directly in order to devise a simple proof which does not rely on any topological notions like homology . He formulated his proof in the original setting, i.e., for simple polytopes, where the notion corresponding to “shelling” is called “abstract objective function.”

From now on, let $`P`$ be a simple $`d`$-polytope with $`n`$ vertices. For simplicity of notation, we will identify each face of $`P`$ not only with the corresponding subset of $`V_P`$, but also with the corresponding induced subgraph of $`G_P`$. Furthermore, by saying that $`wWV_P`$ is a sink of $`W`$ we mean that $`w`$ is a sink of the orientation induced on the subgraph of $`G_P`$ that is induced by $`W`$.

###### Definition 1

Every bijection $`\phi :V_P\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ induces an acyclic orientation $`𝒪_\phi `$ of the graph $`G_P`$ of $`P`$, where an edge is directed from its larger end-node to its smaller end-node (with respect to $`\phi `$). The map $`\phi `$ is called an *abstract objective function* (*AOF*) if $`𝒪_\phi `$ has a unique sink in every non-empty face of $`P`$ (including $`P`$ itself). Such an orientation of $`G_P`$ is called an *AOF-orientation*.

The inverse orientation of an AOF-orientation is an AOF-orientation as well (this follows, e.g., from Theorem 4.1). Thus, every AOF-orientation also has a unique source in every non-empty face.

From the fact that the simplex algorithm works correctly (on every face) one easily derives that every linear function that assigns pairwise different values to the vertices of $`P`$ induces an AOF-orientation (this is a consequence of the convexity of the faces). From this observation, the following fact follows (which is dual to the existence of the shelling orders required in Blind and Mani’s proof).

###### Lemma 1

Let $`WV_P`$ be any face of $`P`$. There is an AOF-orientation of $`G_P`$ for which $`W`$ is *terminal*, i.e., no edge in the cut defined by $`W`$ is directed from $`W`$ to $`V_PW`$.

In a sense, this statement can be reversed.

###### Lemma 2

Let $`WV_P`$ be a set of nodes inducing a $`k`$-regular connected subgraph of $`G_P`$, and let $`𝒪`$ be an AOF-orientation for which $`W`$ is terminal. Then $`W`$ is a $`k`$-face of $`P`$.

###### Proof

Since $`𝒪`$ is acyclic, it has a source $`s`$ in $`W`$. Let $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_kW`$ be the neighbors of $`s`$ in $`W`$, and let $`F:=F\left(\{t,w_1,\mathrm{},w_k\}\right)V_P`$ be the $`k`$-face of $`P`$ that is spanned by $`t,w_1,\mathrm{},w_k`$. Since $`𝒪`$ has unique sources on non-empty faces, $`sWF`$ must be the unique source of $`F`$. By the acyclicity of $`𝒪`$ there hence is a monotone path from $`s`$ to every node in $`F`$. Since $`W`$ is terminal this implies $`FW`$. Because both $`F`$ and $`W`$ induce $`k`$-regular connected subgraphs of $`G_P`$, $`F=W`$ follows.

Lemma 1 and Lemma 2 imply that one can compute the vertex-facet incidences of $`P`$, provided that one knows all AOF-orientations of $`G_P`$. Kalai’s crucial discovery is that one can compute the AOF-orientations just from $`G_P`$ (i.e., without explicitly knowing the faces of $`P`$).

###### Definition 2

For an orientation $`𝒪`$ of $`G_P`$ let $`h_k(𝒪)`$ be the number of nodes with in-degree $`k`$. The number

$$\left(𝒪\right):=\underset{k=0}{\overset{d}{}}h_k(𝒪)2^k$$

is called the *$``$-sum* of $`𝒪`$.

Since every subset of neighbors of a vertex $`v`$ of $`P`$ together with $`v`$ span a face of $`P`$ containing no other neighbors of $`v`$, one finds (by double-counting) that

$$\left(𝒪\right)=\underset{F\text{ face of }P}{}(\mathrm{\#}\text{ sinks of }𝒪\text{ in }F\text{)}$$
(1)
is the total number of sinks induced by $`𝒪`$ on faces of $`P`$. Consequently, since every acyclic orientation has at least one sink in every non-empty face, we have the following characterization.

###### Lemma 3

An orientation $`𝒪`$ of $`G_P`$ is an AOF-orientation if and only if it is acyclic and has minimal $``$-sum among all acyclic orientations of $`G_P`$ (which then equals the number of non-empty faces of $`P`$).

Thus, by enumerating all $`2^{\frac{dn}{2}}=\sqrt{2}^{dn}`$ orientations of $`G_P`$ one can find all AOF-orientations of $`G_P`$.

###### Theorem 3.1 (Kalai )

There is an algorithm that computes the vertex-facet incidences of a simple $`d`$-polytope with $`n`$ vertices from its graph in $`𝒪\left(\sqrt{2}^{dn}\right)`$ steps.

## 4 Walks and Orientations

In this section, we refine the ideas of Kalai’s proof and combine them with the observation (exploited by Blind and Mani) that it suffices to identify the $`2`$-faces from the graph of a simple polytope, even with respect to the question for polynomial time reconstruction algorithms (see Corollary 1). Let us start with a result that emphasizes the importance of the $`2`$-faces even more. The result was known for cubes ; for three-dimensional simple polytopes it was independently proved by Develin ). For general simple polytopes it seems that it was assumed to be false (see \[19, Ex. 8.12 (iv)\]).

###### Theorem 4.1

An acyclic orientation $`𝒪`$ of the graph $`G_P`$ of a simple polytope $`P`$ is an AOF-orientation if and only if it has a unique sink on every $`2`$-face of $`P`$.

###### Proof

The “only if” part is clear by definition. For the “if” part, let $`\phi :V_P\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ be a bijection inducing an acyclic orientation $`𝒪=𝒪_\phi `$ that has a unique sink in every $`2`$-face of $`P`$. Suppose there is a face $`F`$ of $`P`$ in which $`𝒪`$ has two sinks $`t_1,t_2F`$ ($`t_1t_2`$). We might assume $`F=P`$ (because $`F`$ itself is a simple polytope with every $`2`$-face of $`F`$ being a $`2`$-face of $`P`$).

Since $`G_P`$ is connected, there is a path in $`G_P`$ connecting $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{}`$ be the set of all these paths. For every $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }`$ we denote by $`\mu (\pi )`$ the maximal $`\phi `$-value of any node in $`\pi `$. Let $`\pi _{\mathrm{min}}\mathrm{\Pi }`$ be a path with minimal $`\mu `$-value among all paths in $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, where $`vV_P`$ is the node in $`\pi _{\mathrm{min}}`$ with $`\phi (v)=\mu (\pi _{\mathrm{min}})`$ (see Fig. 2).

Obviously, $`v`$ is a source in the path $`\pi _{\mathrm{min}}`$ (in particular, $`v\{t_1,t_2\}`$). Let $`C`$ be the $`2`$-face spanned by $`v`$ and its two neighbors $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ in $`\pi _{\mathrm{min}}`$. Since $`v`$ is the unique source of $`𝒪`$ in $`C`$, $`v`$ has the largest $`\phi `$-value among all nodes in the union $`U`$ of $`C`$ and $`\pi _{\mathrm{min}}`$. But $`U\{v\}`$ induces a connected subgraph of $`G_P`$ containing both $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$, which contradicts the minimality of $`\mu (\pi _{min})`$.

From now on let, again, $`P`$ be a simple polytope. The ultimate goal is to find the system of cycles in the graph $`G_P`$ that corresponds to the set of $`2`$-faces of $`P`$. However, we even do not know how to *prove* or *disprove* efficiently that a given system of cycles actually is the one we are searching for. We now define more general systems having the property that one can at least generate one of them in polynomial time (which in general, of course, will not be the desired one), and among which the one corresponding to the set of $`2`$-faces of $`P`$ can be characterized using AOF-orientations.

###### Definition 3

1. A sequence $`W=(w_0,\mathrm{},w_{l1})`$ (with $`l3`$) of nodes in $`G_P`$ is called a *closed smooth walk* in $`G_P`$, if $`\{w_i,w_{i+1}\}`$ is an edge of $`G_P`$ and $`w_{i1}w_{i+1}`$ for all $`i`$ (where, as in the following, all indices are taken modulo $`l`$). Note that the $`w_i`$ need not be pairwise disjoint. We will identify two closed smooth walks if they differ only by a cyclic shift and/or a “reflection” of their node sequences.
2. A set $`𝒲`$ of closed smooth walks in $`G_P`$ is a *facoidal system of walks* if for every triple $`v,v_1,v_2V_P`$ ($`v_1v_2`$) such that both $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ are neighbors of $`v`$ there is a *unique* closed smooth walk $`(w_0,\mathrm{},w_{l1})𝒲`$ with $`(w_{i1},w_i,w_{i+1})\{(v_1,v,v_2),(v_2,v,v_1)\}`$ for some $`i`$, which is also required to be unique.

The system of $`2`$-faces of $`P`$ yields a uniquely determined (recall the identifications mentioned in part 1 of the definition) facoidal system of walks in $`G_P`$, which is denoted by $`𝒞_P`$. In general, there are many other facoidal systems of walks (see Fig. 3).

For each path $`\lambda `$ in $`G_P`$ of length two denote by $`v(\lambda )`$ the inner node of $`\lambda `$. Let $`G_P^{}`$ be the graph defined on the paths of length two in $`G_P`$, where two paths $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are adjacent if and only if they share a common edge and $`v(\lambda _1)v(\lambda _2)`$ holds (see Fig. 4).

A *$`2`$-factor* in a graph $`G`$ is a set of (not self-intersecting) cycles in $`G`$ such that every node is contained in a unique cycle. Checking whether a graph has a $`2`$-factor and finding one (if it exists) can be reduced (by a procedure due to Tutte ) to searching for a perfect matching in a related graph (which can be performed in polynomial time by Edmonds’ algorithm ).

###### Proposition 3

For simple polytopes $`P`$,

1. there is a (polynomial time computable) bijection between the facoidal systems of walks in $`G_P`$ and the $`2`$-factors of $`G_P^{}`$,
2. checking whether a given set of node-sequences in $`G_P`$ is a facoidal system of walks can be done in polynomial time, and
3. one can find a facoidal system of walks in $`G_P`$ in polynomial time.

###### Proof

Part 2 is obvious, part 3 follows from part 1 by Tutte’s reduction  and Edmonds algorithm , and part 1 is readily obtained from the definitions.

Proposition 3 shows that facoidal systems of walks have quite convenient algorithmic properties. However, they become useful only due to the fact that the system $`𝒞_P`$ corresponding to the $`2`$-faces of $`P`$ can be well-characterized among them, as we will demonstrate next.

###### Definition 4

Let $`𝒪`$ be any orientation of $`G_P`$.

1. The *$`_2`$-sum* of $`𝒪`$ is defined as

$$_2\left(𝒪\right):=\underset{k=0}{\overset{d}{}}h_k(𝒪)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{2}\right).$$
2. A closed smooth walk $`(w_0,\mathrm{},w_{l1})`$ in $`G_P`$ has a *sink* (*source*, respectively) at position $`i`$ (with respect to the orientation $`𝒪`$), if the edges $`\{w_i,w_{i1}\}`$ and $`\{w_i,w_{i+1}\}`$ both are directed towards (away from, respectively) $`w_i`$.

The following follows immediately from the definitions.

###### Lemma 4

For every orientation $`𝒪`$ of $`G_P`$ the sum $`_2\left(𝒪\right)`$ equals the total number of sinks (with respect to $`𝒪`$) in *every* facoidal system of walks in $`G_P`$.

Now we can formulate and prove the main result of this section (where $`f_2(P)`$ denotes the number of $`2`$-faces of $`P`$).

###### Theorem 4.2

Let $`P`$ be a simple polytope, $`𝒲`$ a facoidal system of walks in $`G_P`$, and $`𝒪`$ an acyclic orientation of $`G_P`$. Then

$$\mathrm{\#}𝒲f_2(P)_2\left(𝒪\right)$$
(2)
holds.

1. The first inequality holds with equality if and only if $`𝒲=𝒞_P`$ (i.e., $`𝒲`$ “is” the set of $`2`$-faces of $`P`$).
2. The second inequality holds with equality if and only if $`𝒪`$ is an AOF-orientation of $`G_P`$.

###### Proof

Since $`𝒪`$ is acyclic, every closed smooth walk in $`G_P`$ must have at least one sink with respect to $`𝒪`$. Thus, Lemma 4 implies

$$\mathrm{\#}𝒲_2\left(𝒪\right),$$
(3)
yielding

$$f_2(P)=\mathrm{\#}𝒞_P_2\left(𝒪\right),$$
(4)
where by Theorem 4.1 equality holds in (4) if and only if $`𝒪`$ is an AOF-orientation. Because $`G_P`$ has an AOF-orientation $`𝒪_0`$ (see Lemma 1), inequality (3) gives $`\mathrm{\#}𝒲_2\left(𝒪_0\right)=f_2(P)`$.

Hence, it remains to prove that $`\mathrm{\#}𝒲=\mathrm{\#}𝒞_P`$ implies $`𝒲=𝒞_P`$. Suppose, that $`\mathrm{\#}𝒲=\mathrm{\#}𝒞_P`$ holds. It thus suffices to show $`𝒞_P𝒲`$ (since we know already $`\mathrm{\#}𝒞_P\mathrm{\#}𝒲`$). Let $`C𝒞_P`$ be any closed smooth walk corresponding to a $`2`$-face of $`P`$. By Lemma 2 there is an AOF-orientation $`𝒪_C`$ of $`G_P`$ such that $`C`$ is terminal with respect to $`𝒪_C`$. Let $`w_1V_P`$ be the unique source in $`C`$ (with respect to $`𝒪_C`$), and let $`w_0`$ and $`w_2`$ be the two neighbors of $`w_1`$ in $`C`$. By definition, there is a (unique) $`W=(w_0,w_1,w_2,\mathrm{},w_{l1})𝒲`$. Because of $`\mathrm{\#}𝒲=\mathrm{\#}𝒞_P=_2\left(𝒪_C\right)`$ the closed smooth walk $`W`$ has a unique sink at some position $`j`$ and its unique source at position $`1`$. Thus, the two paths $`(w_1,w_2,\mathrm{},w_j)`$ and $`(w_1,w_0,\mathrm{},w_j)`$ both are monotone. Since $`C`$ is terminal, this implies that these two paths are contained in $`C`$. Therefore we have $`C=W𝒲`$.

## 5 Good Characterizations

Theorem 4.2 immediately yields characterizations of sets of $`2`$-faces and of AOF-orientations that are similar to Kalai’s characterization of AOF-orientations (see Lemma 3).

###### Corollary 2

Let $`P`$ be a simple polytope.

1. A facoidal system of walks in $`G_P`$ is the system $`𝒞_P`$ of $`2`$-faces of $`P`$ if and only if it has maximal cardinality among all facoidal systems of walks in $`G_P`$.
2. An acyclic orientation of $`G_P`$ is an AOF-orientation if and only if it has minimal $`_2`$-sum among all acyclic orientations of $`G_P`$.

Unfortunately, for arbitrary graphs the problem of finding a $`2`$-factor with as many cycles as possible is $`𝒩𝒫`$-hard. This follows from the fact that the question whether a graph can be partitioned into triangles is $`𝒩𝒫`$-complete \[7, Prob. GT11\].

With respect to algorithmic questions, the following *good characterizations* (in the sense of Edmonds ) of the set of $`2`$-faces (and thus, by Proposition 1 of the vertex-facet incidences) as well as of AOF-orientations may be more valuable than those in Corollary 2.

###### Corollary 3

Let $`P`$ be a simple polytope.

1. Let $`𝒲`$ be a facoidal system of walks in $`G_P`$. Either there is an acyclic orientation of $`G_P`$ having a unique sink in every walk of $`𝒲`$, or there is a facoidal system of walks in $`G_P`$ of larger cardinality than $`\mathrm{\#}𝒲`$. In the first case, $`𝒲=𝒞_P`$ “is” the set of $`2`$-faces of $`P`$, in the second, it is not.
2. Let $`𝒪`$ be an acyclic orientation of $`G_P`$. Either there is a facoidal system $`𝒲`$ of walks in $`G_P`$ such that $`𝒪`$ has a unique sink in every walk in $`𝒲`$, or there is an acyclic orientation of $`G_P`$ with smaller $`_2`$-sum than $`_2\left(𝒪\right)`$. In the first case, $`𝒪`$ is an AOF-orientation, in the second, it is not.

For graphs $`G`$ of simple polytopes let us define *Problem (A)* as

$$\mathrm{max}\mathrm{\#}𝒲\text{subject to}𝒲\text{ facoidal system of walks in }G$$

and *Problem (B)* as

$$\mathrm{min}_2\left(𝒪\right)\text{subject to}𝒪\text{ acyclic orientation of }G.$$

A third consequence of Theorem 4.2 is the following result.

###### Corollary 4

The Problems (A) and (B) form a pair of strongly dual combinatorial optimization problems. The optimal solution of Problem (A) yields the $`2`$-faces of the respective polytope (and thus its vertex-facet incidences, see Proposition 1). Every optimal solution to Problem (B) is an AOF-orientation of the graph.

Thus, the answer to Perles’ original question whether the vertex-facet incidences of a simple polytope are at all determined by its graph, is not only “yes” (as proved by Blind and Mani), or “yes, and they can be computed” (as shown by Kalai), but at least “yes, and they can be computed by solving a combinatorial optimization problem that has a well-stated strongly dual problem.”

## 6 Remarks

Corollary 4 suggests to design a primal-dual algorithm for the problem of reconstructing (the vertex-facet incidences of) a simple polytope from its graph. Such an algorithm would start by computing an arbitrary facoidal system $`𝒲`$ of walks in the given graph (see Proposition 3) and any acyclic orientation $`𝒪`$. Then it would check for $`\mathrm{\#}𝒲=_2\left(𝒪\right)`$. If equality holds then by Theorem 4.2 one is done. Otherwise, the algorithm would try to improve either $`𝒲`$ or $`𝒪`$ by exploiting the reasons for $`\mathrm{\#}𝒲_2\left(𝒪\right)`$. For a concise treatment of different classical and recent applications of the primal-dual method in Combinatorial Optimization see .

Such a (polynomial time) primal-dual algorithm would in particular yield polynomial time algorithms for the problem to determine an (arbitrary) AOF-orientation from the graph $`G_P`$ of a simple polytope $`P`$ and the set of $`2`$-faces of $`P`$, as well as for the problem to determine the $`2`$-faces of $`P`$ from $`G_P`$ and an AOF-orientation. As for the first of these two problems it is worth to mention that no polynomial time method is known that would find any AOF-orientation even if the input is the entire face lattice of $`P`$. For the second problem no polynomial time algorithm is known as well.

Let (C) be the problem to decide for the graph $`G_P`$ of a simple polytope $`P`$ and a set $`𝒞`$ of subsets of nodes of $`G_P`$ if $`𝒞`$ is the set of the subsets of nodes of $`G_P`$ that correspond to the $`2`$-faces of $`P`$. Let (D) be the problem to decide for the graph $`G_P`$ of a simple polytope $`P`$ and an orientation $`𝒪`$ of $`G_P`$ if $`𝒪`$ is an AOF-orientation. The good characterizations in Corollary 3 may tempt one to conjecture that these two problems can be solved in polynomial time.

Unfortunately, from the complexity theoretic point of view, Corollary 3 does not provide us with any evidence for that. In particular, it does *not* imply that problems (C) and (D) are contained in $`𝒩𝒫\text{co}𝒩𝒫`$. The reason is that the problem (G) to decide for a given graph if there is any simple polytope $`P`$ such that $`G`$ is isomorphic to the graph of $`P`$ is neither known to be in $`𝒩𝒫`$ nor in $`\text{co}𝒩𝒫`$. Corollary 3 only shows that both problems (C) and (D) are in $`𝒩𝒫\text{co}𝒩𝒫`$, if one restricts them to any class of graphs for which problem (G) is in $`𝒩𝒫\text{co}𝒩𝒫`$.

The problem (S) to decide for a given lattice $`L`$ if there is a simple polytope $`P`$ such that the face lattice $`L_P`$ of $`P`$ is isomorphic to $`L`$ is known as the *Steinitz problem for simple polytopes*.

###### Corollary 5

If problem (G) is contained in $`𝒩𝒫`$ or $`\text{co}𝒩𝒫`$, then problem (S) is contained in $`𝒩𝒫`$ or $`\text{co}𝒩𝒫`$, respectively.

###### Proof

The face lattice $`L_P`$ of a polytope $`P`$ is ranked. The graph $`G`$ having the rank one elements of $`L_P`$ as its nodes, where two rank one elements are adjacent if and only if they are below a common rank two element, is isomorphic to the graph of $`P`$. It can be computed from $`L_P`$ in polynomial time. Corollary 1 shows that one can compute the vertex-facet incidences (and thus the entire face lattice $`L_P`$, see the first paragraph of the introduction) of a simple polytope $`P`$ in polynomial time (in the size of $`L_P`$) from the poset that is induced by the elements of rank one (corresponding to the vertices), rank two (corresponding to the $`1`$-faces), and rank three (corresponding to the $`2`$-faces). Together with the first part of Corollary 3 this proves the claim.

Extending results of Mnëv  by using techniques described in  one finds (see \[1, Cor. 9.5.11\]) that there is a polynomial (Karp-)reduction of the problem to decide whether a system of linear inequalities has an integral solution to problem (S). Thus, problem (S) (and therefore, by Corollary 5, problem (G)) is not contained in $`\text{co}𝒩𝒫`$, unless $`𝒩𝒫=\text{co}𝒩𝒫`$. Furthermore, there are rational simple polytopes $`P`$ with the property that every rational simple polytope $`Q`$ whose graph is isomorphic to the graph of $`P`$ has vertices with super-polynomial coding lengths in the size of the graphs (this follows from Theorem B in ). Thus, it seems also unlikely that problem (G) is contained in $`𝒩𝒫`$.

The results presented in Sect. 4 hence do neither lead to efficient algorithms nor to new examples of problems in $`𝒩𝒫\text{co}𝒩𝒫`$ not (yet) known to be solvable in polynomial time. Nevertheless, they show that the problem to reconstruct a simple polytope from its graph can be modeled as a combinatorial optimization problem with a strongly dual problem. We hope that this is an appearance of Combinatorial Optimization Jack Edmonds is pleased to see in this volume dedicated to him.

## 7 Acknowledgements

I thank Günter M. Ziegler for valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.