text:
# Generalized Superfield Lagrangian Quantization

## 1. Introduction

Much attention has been paid recently to setting up a superspace framework for gauge theory quantization (see, e.g., ). The inspiration for these studies is provided by the interpretation of the BRST  and antiBRST  symmetries in terms of superspace translations, first realized for theories with a gauge group .

In the papers , a superfield Lagrangian formalism for arbitrary gauge theories was proposed. Namely,  provides a superfield description of the BV formalism , based on the BRST symmetry, while  is a superfield form of the Sp(2) covariant scheme , based on the extended BRST symmetry (including BRST and antiBRST transformations).

The superspace framework  is based on a choice of gauge-fixing that allows one to combine the variables of the quantum theory into supervariables. These supervariables are applied to introduce superspace counterparts of the basic ingredients of the original schemes , i.e. the antibracket and its generating operator. Along with these ingredients, a crucial role in the superfield formalism belongs to a set of operators that generate the transformations of supervariables related to superspace translations. The (extended) BRST symmetry is realized as the transformations generated by these new operators, accompanied by the transformations induced by the antibracket.

Because the supervariables contain an extended set of field components, in comparison with the set of field-antifield variables , they can be used to construct different algebraic structures similar to the antibracket. This raises a natural question of a possible ambiguity in a superfield description of the quantization rules  along the lines of . This question is related to generalizations of the superfield approach , respecting the principle of the gauge-independence of the S-matrix.

In reference with such generalizations, it is relevant to take into account an extension of the original BV and Sp(2) covariant schemes proposed in . Namely, it was demonstrated that a possible way of extending the BV formalism and the Sp(2) covariant approach, in a manner respecting the gauge-independence of the S-matrix, is to impose the gauge with the help of a special generating equation for the action of gauge-fixing.

In this paper, we generalize the superfield approach  along the lines of , taking into account the possible ambiguity in the choice of the superfield antibracket, respecting the superalgebra satisfied by the operators generating the antibracket and superspace translations . We demonstrate that the form of the antibracket is fixed by the superalgebra , with allowance for the requirement of (extended) BRST symmetry, encoding the gauge-independence of the S-matrix. The compatible form of the antibracket is limited to its representations found in .

The resulting quantization formalism provides an extension of the gauge-fixing procedures used in the original BV and Sp(2) covariant schemes , which is exemplified by a generalized form of the Ward identities. At the same time, the present generalization of the approach  can be regarded as a superfield description of the studies .

The paper is organized as follows. In Sections 2, 3, we present the generalization of the superfield formalism  and discuss the corresponding transformations of (extended) BRST symmetry. In Section 4, we use these transformations to derive the Ward identities and prove the gauge independence of the S-matrix. In Section 5, we discuss the relation of the generalized superfield formalism to the quantization schemes .

We apply the conventions used in . Integration over supervariables is assumed as integration over their components. Derivatives with respect to (super)fields are taken from the right (unless otherwise specified), while those with respect to (super)antifields and supersources are taken from the left. At the classical level, we consider an arbitrary gauge theory, implying the well-known structure of the space of fields $`\varphi ^A`$, $`\epsilon (\varphi ^A)=\epsilon _A`$, given by .

## 2. Generalized Superfield BRST Quantization

In this section, we shall generalize the procedure of superfield BRST quantization . We begin by introducing a superspace $`(x^\mu ,\theta )`$, where $`x^\mu `$ are space-time coordinates, and $`\theta `$ is an anticommuting coordinate. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ be a set of superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$, associated with a set of the corresponding super-antifields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )`$, with the Grassmann parities $`\epsilon (\mathrm{\Phi }^A)\epsilon _A,\epsilon (\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{})=\epsilon _A+1`$, and satisfying the boundary condition

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )|_{\theta =0}=\varphi ^A.`$ (2.1)
Define the vacuum functional $`Z`$ as the following path integral:

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\rho (\mathrm{\Phi }^{})\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left[W(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{})+X(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{})+S_0(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{})\right]\right\}},`$ (2.2)
where $`W=W(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$ is the quantum action determined by the generating equation

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}W\right\}=0`$ (2.3)
and $`X=X(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$ is a Bosonic gauge-fixing functional satisfying the equation

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}X\right\}=0.`$ (2.4)
In (2.2), we have used a functional $`\rho (\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$, which defines the weight of integration over the super-antifields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )`$ and has the form of a functional $`\delta `$-function:

$`\rho (\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \left({\displaystyle 𝑑\theta \mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\theta )}\right).`$ (2.5)
Besides, we have introduces the functional

$`S_0(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{})=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta \mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}.`$ (2.6)
Notice that integration over the anticommuting coordinate $`\theta `$ is defined as follows:

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta }=0,{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta \theta }=1,`$
which implies that any function $`f(\theta )`$

$$f(\theta )=f_0+\theta f_1$$

admits the representation

$`f(\theta )={\displaystyle 𝑑\theta ^{^{}}\delta (\theta ^{^{}}\theta )f(\theta ^{^{}})},\delta (\theta ^{^{}}\theta )=\theta ^{^{}}\theta `$
and satisfies the identity

$$𝑑\theta \frac{f(\theta )}{\theta }=0,$$

with the consequent property of integration by parts

$$𝑑\theta \frac{f(\theta )}{\theta }g(\theta )=(1)^{\epsilon (f)}𝑑\theta f(\theta )\frac{g(\theta )}{\theta },$$

where derivatives with respect to $`\theta `$ are taken from the left.

In (2.3), (2.4), we have used the notations $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ for Fermionic operators of the form

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}V,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}U,`$ (2.7)
where $`U`$, $`V`$ are first-order differential operators, assumed to have the properties of nilpotency and anticommutativity

$`U^2=0,V^2=0,UV+VU=0,`$ (2.8)
whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a second-order differential operator subject to the algebraic conditions

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=0,\mathrm{\Delta }U+U\mathrm{\Delta }=0,\mathrm{\Delta }V+V\mathrm{\Delta }=0.`$ (2.9)
With allowance for (2.7), equations (2.3), (2.4) can be recast in the equivalent form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(W,W)+VW`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }W,`$ (2.10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(X,X)UX`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }X,`$ (2.11)
where $`(,)`$ denotes an antibracket defined by the action of the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on the product of arbitrary functionals $`F`$, $`G`$

$`(F,G)=(1)^{\epsilon (F)}\mathrm{\Delta }(FG)(1)^{\epsilon (F)}(\mathrm{\Delta }F)GF(\mathrm{\Delta }G).`$ (2.12)
The antibracket possesses the properties

$`\epsilon ((F,G))=\epsilon (F)+\epsilon (G)+1,`$
$`(F,G)=(1)^{(\epsilon (F)+1)(\epsilon (G)+1)}(G,F),`$
$`D(F,G)=(DF,G)(F,DG)(1)^{\epsilon (F)},`$ (2.13)
$`(F,GH)=(F,G)H+(F,H)G(1)^{\epsilon (G)\epsilon (H)},`$ (2.14)
$`((F,G),H)(1)^{(\epsilon (F)+1)(\epsilon (H)+1)}+\mathrm{cycle}(F,G,H)0,`$ (2.15)
where $`D=(\mathrm{\Delta },U,V)`$.

Notice that (2.) is a consequence of (2.9) and (2.12). The property (2.14) follows from the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in (2.12) is a second-order differential operator, while the Jacobi identity (2.15) follows from (2.9)–(2.14).

With allowance for (2.8), (2.9), (2.), the operators $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, defined by (2.7), possess the properties

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2=0,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2=0,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=0`$
and

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(F,G)`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}F,G)(F,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}G)(1)^{\epsilon (F)},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(F,G)`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}F,G)(F,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}G(1)^{\epsilon (F)}.`$
To find a manifest realization of equations (2.3), (2.4), or, equivalently, (2.10), (2.11), we shall assume that $`U`$ and $`V`$ are identified with the operators which generate the transformations of supervariables induced by the translations $`\theta \theta +\mu `$ with respect to the anticommuting coordinate:

$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}{\theta }}=\mu U\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta ),`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )}{\theta }}=\mu V\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta ).`$
The generators $`U`$ and $`V`$ are first-order differential operators, having the form of $`\theta `$-local functionals

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}{\theta }\frac{\delta _l}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}},`$
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )}{\theta }\frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )}},`$ (2.16)
where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _l\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^B(\theta ^{^{}})}}=(1)^{\epsilon _A}\delta (\theta ^{^{}}\theta )\delta _B^A=(1)^{\epsilon _A}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^B(\theta ^{^{}})}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}(\theta ^{^{}})}}=(1)^{\epsilon _A+1}\delta (\theta ^{^{}}\theta )\delta _A^B.`$
As a consequence, the manifest form (2.16) implies the required algebraic properties (2.8).

Let us now construct an operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfying the conditions (2.9). For this purpose, we consider the class of Fermionic differential operators of second-order, such that the entire dependence on the components of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )`$ enters through the functional derivatives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}},{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )}}.`$ (2.17)
Consider the subclass of $`\theta `$-local functionals with the integrands constructed from various combinations of $`\theta `$, $`\frac{}{\theta }`$, and the derivatives (2.17), where summation over the indices $`A`$ is assumed. Notice that the analysis of such expressions is simplified with the help of integration by parts and the use of the anticommutator $`\{\theta ,\frac{}{\theta }\}=1`$. The specified subclass contains only one linearly independent operator satisfying the conditions (2.9) imposed on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This operator can be chosen in the form

$`\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle 𝑑\theta (1)^{\epsilon _A}\frac{\delta _l}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}\frac{}{\theta }\frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )}},`$ (2.18)
which generates the corresponding antibracket

$`(F,G)={\displaystyle }d\theta \{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta G}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )}}(1)^{\epsilon _A+1}(1)^{(\epsilon (F)+1)(\epsilon (G)+1)}(FG)\}.`$ (2.19)
From the set of generating equations (2.10), (2.11), given in terms of the manifestly specified ingredients $`U`$, $`V`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`(,)`$, it follows that the integrand in the vacuum functional (2.2) is invariant under the transformations of global supersymmetry

$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )=\mu U\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )+(\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta ),XW)\mu ,`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )=\mu V\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )+(\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta ),XW)\mu ,`$ (2.20)
with an anticommuting parameter $`\mu `$.

Let us analyse the variation of the integrand in the vacuum functional (2.2) with respect to the transformations (2.). To examine the change of the exponential in (2.2), we notice that

$`\delta (W+X+S_0)=\mu \left((W,W)(X,X)+(U+V)(W+X)+(S_0,WX)\right).`$ (2.21)
To examine the change of the integration measure in (2.2), we observe that the weight functional $`\rho (\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$ (2.5) is invariant under the transformations (2.), $`\delta \rho (\mathrm{\Phi }^{})=0`$, while the corresponding Jacobian $`J`$ has the form

$`J=\mathrm{exp}(2\mu \mathrm{\Delta }W2\mu \mathrm{\Delta }X).`$ (2.22)
Denote by $`I`$ the integrand in (2.2). Then, with allowance for (2.10), (2.11), (2.21) and (2.22), its variation $`\delta I`$ with respect to the transformations (2.) is given by

$`\delta I=i\mathrm{}^1\mu I\left((UV)(WX)+(S_0,WX)\right).`$ (2.23)
Taking into account the explicit form of the operators $`U`$, $`V`$ and the antibracket $`(,)`$, given by (2.16), (2.19), we observe the identity

$$(S_0,F)=(VU)F,$$

where $`F`$ is an arbitrary functional. Therefore, according to (2.23), we find $`\delta I=0`$, and the integrand in (2.2) is actually left invariant by the transformations (2.). The transformations (2.) are the transformations of BRST symmetry in the superfield formalism with the gauge fixed by a solution of the generating equation (2.11).

## 3. Generalized Superfield BRST–antiBRST Quantization

Consider now a generalization of the superfield BRST-antiBRST quantization . To this end, we shall introduce a superspace with coordinates $`(x^\mu ,\theta ^a)`$, where $`x^\mu `$ are space-time coordinates, and $`\theta ^a(a=1,2)`$ are anticommuting coordinates. Let us consider superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$, $`\epsilon (\mathrm{\Phi }^A)=\epsilon _A`$, subject to the boundary condition (2.1), and supersources $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )`$ possessing the same Grassmann parity, $`\epsilon (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A)=\epsilon _A`$. Let us define the vacuum functional $`Z`$ as the following path integral:

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }𝑑\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\rho (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left[W(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})+X(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})+S_0(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})\right]\right\}},`$ (3.1)
were $`W=W(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ is the quantum action determined by the generating equations

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^a\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}W\right\}=0`$ (3.2)
and $`X=X(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ is a Bosonic gauge-fixing functional satisfying the equations

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^a\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}X\right\}=0.`$ (3.3)
In (3.1), we have introduced functionals $`\rho (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ and $`S_0(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }},\mathrm{\Phi })`$, given by

$`\rho (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \left({\displaystyle d^2\theta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\theta )}\right),`$ (3.4)
$`S_0(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }},\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle d^2\theta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}.`$ (3.5)
Notice that integration over the anticommuting coordinates $`\theta ^a`$ is defined as follows:

$$d^2\theta =0,d^2\theta \theta ^a=0,d^2\theta \theta _a\theta ^b=\delta _a^b,$$

where raising and lowering the Sp(2) indices is carried out by the rule $`\theta ^a=\epsilon ^{ab}\theta _b`$, $`\theta _a=\epsilon _{ab}\theta ^b`$, with $`\epsilon ^{ab}`$ being a constant antisymmetric tensor, $`\epsilon ^{12}=1`$. The above definitions imply that any function $`f(\theta )`$

$$f(\theta )=f_0+\theta ^af_a+\theta ^2f_3,\theta ^2\frac{1}{2}\theta _a\theta ^a$$

admits the representation

$$f(\theta )=d^2\theta ^{}\delta (\theta ^{}\theta )f(\theta ^{}),\delta (\theta ^{}\theta )=(\theta ^{}\theta )^2$$

and satisfies the identity

$$d^2\theta \frac{f(\theta )}{\theta ^a}=0,$$

with the consequent property of integration by parts

$$d^2\theta \frac{f(\theta )}{\theta ^a}g(\theta )=d^2\theta (1)^{\epsilon (f)}f(\theta )\frac{g(\theta )}{\theta ^a},$$

where derivatives with respect to $`\theta ^a`$ are taken from the left.

In (3.2), (3.3), we have used the notations $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^a`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^a`$ for doublets of Fermionic operators of the form

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^a=\mathrm{\Delta }^a+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}V^a,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^a=\mathrm{\Delta }^a{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}U^a,`$ (3.6)
where $`U^a`$, $`V^a`$ are first-order differential operators, assumed to have the properties of nilpotency and anticommutativity

$`U^{\{a}U^{b\}}=0,V^{\{a}V^{b\}}=0,V^aU^b+U^bV^a=0,`$ (3.7)
while $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ is a doublet of second-order differential operators subject to

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\{a}\mathrm{\Delta }^{b\}}=0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\{a}V^{b\}}+V^{\{a}\mathrm{\Delta }^{b\}}=0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\{a}U^{b\}}+U^{\{a}\mathrm{\Delta }^{b\}}=0,`$ (3.8)
with symmetrization over Sp(2) indices in (3.7), (3.) introduced according to $`A^{\{a}B^{b\}}=A^aB^b+A^bB^a`$.

With allowance for (3.6), the generating equations (3.2), (3.3) can be recast in the equivalent form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(W,W)^a+V^aW`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }^aW,`$ (3.9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(X,X)^aU^aX`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }^aX,`$ (3.10)
where $`(,)^a`$ denotes an extended antibracket defined by the action of the operator doublet $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ on the product of arbitrary functionals $`F`$, $`G`$

$`(F,G)^a=(1)^{\epsilon (F)}\mathrm{\Delta }^a(FG)(1)^{\epsilon (F)}(\mathrm{\Delta }^aF)GF(\mathrm{\Delta }^aG).`$ (3.11)
The extended antibracket possesses the properties111These relations are analogous to the properties (2.)–(2.15) of the previous section.

$`\epsilon ((F,G)^a)=\epsilon (F)+\epsilon (G)+1,`$
$`(F,G)^a=(1)^{(\epsilon (F)+1)(\epsilon (G)+1)}(G,F)^a,`$
$`D^{\{a}(F,G)^{b\}}=(D^{\{a}F,G)^{b\}}(F,D^{\{a}G)^{b\}}(1)^{\epsilon (F)},`$ (3.12)
$`(F,GH)^a=(F,G)^aH+(F,H)^aG(1)^{\epsilon (G)\epsilon (H)},`$
$`((F,G)^{\{a},H)^{b\}}(1)^{(\epsilon (F)+1)(\epsilon (H)+1)}+\mathrm{cycle}(F,G,H)0,`$
where $`D^a=(\mathrm{\Delta }^a,U^a,V^a)`$.

With allowance for (3.7), (3.), (3.), the operators $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^a`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^a`$, defined by (3.6), possess the properties

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{b\}}=0,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{b\}}=0,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{b\}}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{b\}}=0,`$
and

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}(F,G)^{b\}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}F,G)^{b\}}(F,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}G)^{b\}}(1)^{\epsilon (F)},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}(F,G)^{b\}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}F,G)^{b\}}(F,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\{a}G)^{b\}}(1)^{\epsilon (F)}.`$
To find a manifest realization of equations (3.2), (3.3), or, equivalently, (3.9), (3.10), we shall assume that $`U^a`$ and $`V^a`$ are identified with the operators which generate the transformations of supervariables induced by the translations $`\theta ^a\theta ^a+\mu ^a`$ with respect to the anticommuting coordinates:

$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _a{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}{\theta _a}}=\mu _aU^a\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta ),`$
$`\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _a{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}{\theta _a}}=\mu _aV^a\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta ).`$
The generators $`U^a`$ and $`V^a`$ are first-order differential operators, having the form of $`\theta `$-local functionals

$`U^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\theta \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}{\theta _a}\frac{\delta _l}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}},`$
$`V^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\theta \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}{\theta _a}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}},`$ (3.13)
where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _l\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^B(\theta ^{^{}})}}=\delta (\theta ^{^{}}\theta )\delta _B^A={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^B(\theta ^{^{}})}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_B(\theta ^{^{}})}}=\delta (\theta ^{^{}}\theta )\delta _A^B.`$
As a consequence, the manifest form (3.) implies the required algebraic properties (3.7).

An explicit form of the extended operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ with the properties (3.) is not unique. Consider the class of Fermionic second-order differential operators such that the entire dependence on the components of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )`$ enters through the functional derivatives

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )},\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}.$$

In the specified class, there exist only two linearly independent Sp(2) doublets having the form of $`\theta `$-local functionals222We consider integrands constructed from different combinations of $`\theta ^a`$, $`\frac{}{\theta ^a}`$, and the functional derivatives $`\frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}`$, $`\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}`$, assuming summation over the indices $`A`$. Notice that the analysis of such expressions is simplified with the help of integration by parts and the use of the anticommutator $`\{\theta ^a,\frac{}{\theta ^b}\}=\delta _b^a`$. and possessing the algebraic properties (3.) of the extended delta-operator. Because of an additional property of anticommutativity with each other, these operators span a two-dimensional linear space of operators possessing the properties of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$. The basis elements $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^a`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^a`$ of this space can be presented in the form

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^a={\displaystyle d^2\theta \frac{\delta _l}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}\frac{}{\theta _a}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}},`$ (3.14)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^a={\displaystyle d^2\theta \frac{\delta _l}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}\frac{^2}{\theta ^2}\left(\theta ^a\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}\right)},`$ (3.15)
where

$$\frac{^2}{\theta ^2}\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{ab}\frac{}{\theta ^b}\frac{}{\theta ^a}.$$

The extended delta-operators (3.14) and (LABEL:DeltaaExSQ2) generate the corresponding extended antibrackets

$`(F,G)_1^a={\displaystyle }d^2\theta \{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta G}{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}}(1)^{\epsilon _A+1}(1)^{(\epsilon (F)+1)(\epsilon (G)+1)}(FG)\}`$ (3.16)
and

$`(F,G)_2^a={\displaystyle }d^2\theta \{\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\theta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )}}\right)\theta ^a{\displaystyle \frac{\delta G}{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}}(1)^{\epsilon _A}(1)^{(\epsilon (F)+1)(\epsilon (G)+1)}(FG)\}.`$ (3.17)
We define the transformations of extended BRST symmetry as the following transformations of global supersymmetry:

$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )=\mu _aU^a\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )+(\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta ),XW)^a\mu _a,`$
$`\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )=\mu _aV^a\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )+(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta ),XW)^a\mu _a,`$ (3.18)
providing a straightforward generalization of BRST transformations (2.), given in the previous section. Before the introduction of transformations (3.), the manifest form of the extended antibracket (3.16) has no obvious advantage over (3.17). It can be shown, nevertheless, that (3.16) is compatible with the given form of extended BRST symmetry, while (3.17) is not.

Let us examine the variation of the integrand in the vacuum functional (3.1) with respect to the transformations (3.). To this end, notice that in both cases of the antibracket realization, (3.16), (3.17), we have

$`\delta (W+X+S_0)=\mu _a\left((W,W)^a(X,X)^a+(U^a+V^a)(W+X)+(S_0,WX)^a\right),`$ (3.19)
while the weight functional $`\rho (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ (3.4) is invariant under these transformations, $`\delta \rho (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})=0`$, and the Jacobian $`J`$ has the form

$`J=\mathrm{exp}(2\mu _a\mathrm{\Delta }^aW2\mu _a\mathrm{\Delta }^aX),`$ (3.20)
where the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ corresponds to the choice of the antibracket.

Denote by $`I`$ the integrand in the vacuum functional (3.1). Then, with allowance for (3.9), (3.10), (3.19) and (3.20), its variation $`\delta I`$ with respect to (3.) is given by

$`\delta I=i\mathrm{}^1\mu _aI\left((U^aV^a)(WX)+(S_0,WX)^a\right).`$ (3.21)
The invariance of the integrand depends on a manifest choice of the extended antibracket. Thus, in the case of the antibracket (3.16) the condition $`\delta I=0`$ is satisfied in accordance with the identity

$$(S_0,F)^a=(V^aU^a)F,$$

where $`F`$ is an arbitrary functional. At the same time, in the case of the antibracket (3.17) we have

$$(S_0,F)^a(V^aU^a)F,$$

and therefore, according to (3.21), the integrand in (3.1) is not invariant under the transformations (3.) without imposing additional restrictions on the functionals $`W`$ and $`X`$.

## 4. Gauge Independence and Ward Identities

In this section, we shall investigate the consequences implied by the transformations of (extended) BRST symmetry (2.), (3.). Namely, we shall apply these transformations to obtain the corresponding Ward identities and prove the gauge-independence of the S-matrix in the framework of the generalized superfield quantization.

The study of gauge-dependence is based on the equivalence theorem  stating that the gauge-independence of the S-matrix is ensured by the independence of the vacuum functional under small gauge variations. Let us examine the gauge-dependence of the vacuum functional $`Z`$ (2.2). Note, first of all, that any admissible variation $`\delta X`$ of the gauge-fixing functional $`X`$ should satisfy the equation

$`(X,\delta X)U\delta X=i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }\delta X,`$
which can be recast in the form

$`\widehat{Q}(X)\delta X=0.`$ (4.1)
In (4.1), we have introduced a nilpotent operator $`\widehat{Q}(X)`$,

$`\widehat{Q}(X)=\widehat{}(X)i\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }},\widehat{Q}^2(X)=0.`$
Here, $`\widehat{}(X)`$ stands for an operator acting by the rule

$`(X,F)\widehat{}(X)F`$
and possessing the property

$`\widehat{}^2(X)=\widehat{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(X,X)\right).`$
The nilpotency of the operator $`\widehat{Q}(X)`$ implies that any functional of the form

$`\delta X=\widehat{Q}(X)\delta \mathrm{\Psi },`$
with $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }`$ being an arbitrary Fermionic functional, obeys equation (4.1). Furthermore, by analogy with the theorems proved in , one can establish the fact that any solution of (4.1), vanishing when all the variables entering $`\delta X`$ are equal to zero, has the form (4.) with a certain Fermionic functional $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }`$.

Let $`Z_XZ`$ be the vacuum functional (2.2) corresponding to the gauge condition chosen as the functional $`X`$. In the vacuum functional $`Z_{X+\delta X}`$ we shall perform the change of variables (2.) with $`\mu =\mu (\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$, accompanied by an additional change,

$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A=(\mathrm{\Phi }^A,\delta Y),\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}=(\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{},\delta Y),\epsilon (\delta Y)=1,`$
where $`\delta Y=i\mathrm{}\mu (\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$. We have

$`Z_{X+\delta X}={\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\rho (\mathrm{\Phi }^{})\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left(W+X+\delta X+\delta X_1+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\right\}}.`$ (4.2)
In (4.2), we have denoted

$`\delta X_1=2\left((X,\delta Y)U\delta Yi\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }\delta Y\right)=2\widehat{Q}(X)\delta Y.`$
Let the functional $`\delta Y`$ be chosen in the form (notice that $`\delta X=\widehat{Q}(X)\delta \mathrm{\Psi }`$)

$`\delta Y={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{Q}(X)\delta \mathrm{\Psi }.`$
Then we find

$`Z_{X+\delta X}=Z_X,`$
which means that the vacuum functional and the S-matrix in the generalized superfield BRST formalism do not depend on the gauge.

To derive the Ward identities related to the BRST transformations (2.), we shall introduce a superfield generating functional of Green’s functions, $`Z(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$, defined as the following path integral:

$`Z(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})={\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }^{}𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\rho (\mathrm{\Phi }^{})\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left[W(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi }^{})+X(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi }^{})+(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{})\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\right]\right\}},`$ (4.3)
which is identical with the vacuum functional (2.2) in the case of vanishing super-antifields, $`Z(0)=Z`$.

In (4.3), we shall make a change of the integration variables in the form of the BRST transformations (2.). Then, using integration by parts in (4.3), we obtain the following Ward identities:

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )}{\theta }\frac{\delta X}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )}+\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )Z(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})}=0,`$ (4.4)
where $`F(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$ stands for the expectation value

$$F(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi }^{})Z(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})=𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }^{}𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\rho (\mathrm{\Phi }^{})F(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi }^{})\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[W(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi }^{})+X(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi }^{})+(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{})\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]\}$$

of an arbitrary functional $`F(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$. The Ward identities (4.4) can be recast in the form

$`VZ(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )}{\theta }\frac{\delta X}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )}Z(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})}.`$ (4.5)
We now generalize the above considerations to the case of extended BRST symmetry. Let us examine the gauge-dependence of the vacuum functional $`Z`$ (3.1), using the antibracket (3.16) and the corresponding delta-operator (3.14), which provide the invariance of the integrand (3.1) under the transformations of extended BRST symmetry (3.).

Notice that any admissible variation $`\delta X`$ of the gauge functional $`X`$ must satisfy the equation

$$(X,\delta X)^aU^a\delta X=i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }^a\delta X,$$

which can be recast in the form

$`\widehat{Q}^a(X)\delta X=0.`$ (4.6)
In (4.6), we have introduced an operator $`\widehat{Q}^a(X)`$ possessing the property of generalized nilpotency,

$`\widehat{Q}^a(X)=\widehat{}^a(X)i\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^a,\widehat{Q}^{\{a}(X)\widehat{Q}^{b\}}(X)=0,`$ (4.7)
where $`\widehat{}^a(X)`$ stands for an operator acting by the rule

$$(X,F)^a\widehat{}^a(X)F$$

and possessing the property

$$\widehat{}^{\{a}(X)\widehat{}^{b\}}(X)=\widehat{}^{\{a}(\frac{1}{2}(X,X)^{b\}}).$$

With allowance for the operator $`\widehat{Q}^a(X)`$ in (4.7), any functional

$`\delta X={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon _{ab}\widehat{Q}^a(X)\widehat{Q}^b(X)\delta F,`$ (4.8)
parameterized by an arbitrary Boson $`\delta F`$, satisfies (4.6). By analogy with the theorems proved in , one can establish the fact that any solution of (4.6), vanishing when all the variables entering the functional $`\delta X`$ are equal to zero, has the form (4.8) with a certain Bosonic functional $`\delta F`$.

Denote by $`Z_XZ`$ the vacuum functional (3.1) corresponding to the choice of gauge conditions in the form of the functional $`X`$. In the vacuum functional $`Z_{X+\delta X}`$ we first perform the change of variables (3.), with $`\mu _a=\mu _a(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$, and then the additional change of variables

$$\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A=(\mathrm{\Phi }^A,\delta Y_a)^a,\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A=(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A,\delta Y_a)^a,\epsilon (\delta Y_a)=1,$$

with $`\delta Y_a=i\mathrm{}\mu _a(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$. We have

$$Z_{X+\delta X}=𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }𝑑\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\rho (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left(W+X+\delta X+\delta X_1+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\},$$

where

$$\delta X_1=2\left((X,\delta Y_a)^aU^a\delta Y_ai\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }^a\delta Y_a\right)=2\widehat{Q}^a(X)\delta Y_a.$$

Having in mind (4.8), we choose the functional $`\delta Y_a`$ in the form

$$\delta Y_a=\frac{1}{4}\epsilon _{ab}\widehat{Q}^b(X)\delta F.$$

Then we find that $`\delta X+\delta X_1=0`$ and conclude that the relation $`Z_{X+\delta X}=Z_X`$ holds true. Therefore, the vacuum functional and the S-matrix in the generalized superfield BRST-antiBRST quantization do not depend on the gauge.

To derive the Ward identities corresponding to the extended BRST symmetry transformations (3.), we shall introduce a generating functional of Green’s functions, $`Z(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$, defined as the path integral

$`Z(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})={\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }^{}𝑑\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}\rho (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{})\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left[W(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{})+X(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{})+(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\right]\right\}},`$ (4.9)
identical with the vacuum functional (3.1) in the case of vanishing supersources, $`Z(0)=Z`$.

In (4.9), we shall make a change of the integration variables in the form of extended BRST transformations (3.). Then, using integration by parts in (4.9), we obtain the following Ward identities:

$`{\displaystyle d^2\theta \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}{\theta ^a}\frac{\delta X}{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A^{}(\theta )}+\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )Z(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})}=0,`$
which can be represented in the form

$`V^aZ(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle d^2\theta \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )}{\theta ^a}\frac{\delta X}{\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A^{}(\theta )}Z(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})},`$ (4.10)
where $`F(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{})`$ stands for the expectation value

$$F(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{})Z(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})=𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }^{}𝑑\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}\rho (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{})F(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{})\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[W(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{})+X(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{})+(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]\}$$

of an arbitrary functional $`F(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{})`$.

## 5. Discussion

In this paper, we have presented a generalization of the superfield Lagrangian formalism  for arbitrary gauge theories on the basis of fixing the gauge with the help of special generating equations, (2.11), (3.10).

The present approach takes into account the possible ambiguity in the form of the superfield antibracket, respecting the algebraic properties of its generating operator (2.9), (3.). In the case of BRST symmetry (Section 2), the antibracket is fixed (2.19) by the properties (2.9), which leads to the BRST transformations (2.). In the case of extended BRST symmetry (Section 3), the antibracket is fixed (3.16) by the properties (3.), with allowance for the requirement of extended BRST symmetry (3.), being a straightforward generalization of (2.). In this respect, we should emphasize the remarkable similarity between the relations of Sections 2 and 3, with the formal difference in most of the cases concerning only the presence of Sp(2) indices.

The formalism given in Section 2 provides an extension of the superfield BRST quantization  in the part of gauge-fixing. Indeed, the operators $`U`$, $`V`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the antibracket $`(,)`$, given by (2.16), (2.18), (2.19), coincide with the corresponding ingredients of the approach . At the same time, any functional

$$X(\mathrm{\Phi })=U\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Phi }),$$

parameterized by an arbitrary Fermion, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Phi })`$, satisfies the generating equation (2.11). This solution coincides with the action of gauge-fixing used in .

Let us analyse the component form of the superfield prescription given in Section 2, with the purpose of establishing its relation to other quantization schemes. The component form of the superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ and super-antifields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )=\varphi ^A+\lambda ^A\theta ,\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}(\theta )=\varphi _A^{}\theta J_A,$$

$$\epsilon (\varphi ^A)=\epsilon (J_A)=\epsilon _A,\epsilon (\varphi _A^{})=\epsilon (\lambda ^A)=\epsilon _A+1.$$

In terms of the components, the antibracket (2.19) and delta-operator (2.18)

$$(F,G)=\frac{\delta F}{\delta \varphi ^A}\frac{\delta G}{\delta \varphi _A^{}}(1)^{(\epsilon (F)+1)(\epsilon (G)+1)}(FG),$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=(1)^{\epsilon _A}\frac{\delta _l}{\delta \varphi ^A}\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _A^{}}$$
(5.1)
coincide with the corresponding ingredients of the BV formalism. The operators $`U`$, $`V`$ in (2.16) are given by

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{\epsilon _A}\lambda ^A{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _l}{\delta \varphi ^A}},`$
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`J_A{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _A^{}}}.`$ (5.2)
Taking into account the component form of the integration measure in (2.2)

$`d\mathrm{\Phi }d\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\rho (\mathrm{\Phi }^{})=d\varphi d\varphi ^{}d\lambda dJ\delta (J),`$
and the functional $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in (2.6)

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi _A^{}\lambda ^AJ_A\varphi ^A,`$
we represent the vacuum functional (4.3) as the following path integral:

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi 𝑑\varphi ^{}𝑑\lambda \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left[W(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\lambda )+X(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\lambda )+\varphi _A^{}\lambda ^A\right]\right\}},`$ (5.3)
where integration over $`J_A`$ has been carried out, which places the functionals $`W`$, $`X`$ on the surface $`J_A=0`$. The functionals $`W=W(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\lambda )`$, $`X=X(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\lambda )`$ satisfy their respective generating equations (2.10), (2.11), restricted to $`J_A=0`$. The given restriction does not affect the form of (2.11), whereas (2.10) simplifies to the equation that determines the quantum action in the BV approach,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(W,W)=i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }W,`$ (5.4)
since the operator $`V`$ in (5.2) vanishes on the surface $`J_A=0`$.

The generating functional of Green’s functions (4.3), corresponding to the vacuum functional (5.3), is given by

$`Z(J,\varphi ^{})={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi ^{}𝑑\varphi ^{}𝑑\lambda ^{}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[W(\varphi ^{},\varphi ^{},\lambda ^{})+X(\varphi ^{},\varphi ^{},\lambda ^{})+(\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{})\lambda ^{}+J\varphi ^{}]\right\}},`$ (5.5)
where the variables $`J_A`$ acquire the meaning of sources to the fields $`\varphi ^A`$. The functional $`Z=Z(J,\varphi ^{})`$ satisfies the Ward identities (4.5), having the component representation

$`J_A{\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta \varphi _A^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}J_A{\displaystyle \frac{\delta X}{\delta \varphi _A^{^{}}}}Z.`$ (5.6)
Taking into account the antibracket and delta-operator (5.1), entering equation (5.4), one can restrict the consideration to functionals $`W`$ independent of $`\lambda ^A`$, thus supposing $`W=W(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})`$. Then the vacuum functional (5.3) simplifies to

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi 𝑑\varphi ^{}𝑑\lambda \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left[W(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})+X(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\lambda )+\varphi _A^{}\lambda ^A\right]\right\}}.`$ (5.7)
There is a close connection between the above path integral and the vacuum functional  proposed to modify the gauge-fixing procedure within the BV formalism. In , it was shown that if the quantum action $`W`$ and the action of gauge-fixing $`X`$ in the vacuum functional

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi 𝑑\varphi ^{}𝑑\lambda \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left[W(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})+X(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\lambda )\right]\right\}}`$ (5.8)
satisfy the generating equation (5.4) of the BV formalism, then (5.8) does not depend of $`X`$. By virtue of (5.4) and the component form (5.2) of the operator $`U`$, one can see that the functional $`X^{}=X\varphi _A^{}\lambda ^A`$ satisfies the generating equation (2.11), and therefore in terms of $`X^{}`$, the path integral (5.7) coincides with the vacuum functional (5.8). This implies that the quantization scheme of Section 2 can be considered as a superfield form of the prescription (5.8) proposed in .

Let us demonstrate that the vacuum functional (5.7), equivalent to (5.8), provides an extension of the BV formalism in terms of gauge-fixing. Indeed, the quantum action $`W=W(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})`$ satisfies the generating equations (5.4) of the BV formalism. At the same time, as we have mentioned above, the gauge functional $`X(\mathrm{\Phi })=U\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ satisfies (2.11). Owing to the component form (5.2) of the operator $`U`$, with the functional $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ chosen to be independent of the variables $`\lambda ^A`$, the functional

$`X(\varphi ,\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi )}{\delta \varphi ^A}}\lambda ^A`$
coincides with the action of gauge-fixing applied by the BV formalism in the case of gauge conditions depending on the fields $`\varphi ^A`$, whereas the variables $`\lambda ^A`$ acquire the meaning of Lagrange multipliers introducing the gauge. In the particular case of the gauge-fixing functional $`X=X(\varphi ,\lambda )`$, the Ward identities (5.6) for the corresponding generating functional of Green’s functions $`Z=Z(J,\varphi ^{})`$, given by (5.5), are reduced to

$`J_A{\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta \varphi _A^{}}}=0.`$ (5.9)
As is well-known, the form of the Ward identities (5.9) in the BV approach is not sensitive to the choice of gauge-fixing and its dependence on the field-antifield variables $`(\varphi ^A,\varphi _A^{})`$. By comparison of (5.6) and (5.9), we can see that fixing the gauge by equation (2.11) actually introduces an extension of the gauge-fixing procedure used in the BV formalism.

The approach of Section 3 provides a generalization of the superfield BRST-antiBRST quantization  in the part of gauge-fixing. Indeed, the operators $`U^a`$, $`V^a`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ and the extended antibracket $`(,)^a`$, given by (3.), (3.14), (3.16), are identical with the corresponding ingredients of the formalism . At the same time, any functional

$`X(\mathrm{\Phi })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon _{ab}U^aU^bF(\mathrm{\Phi }),`$
parameterized by an arbitrary Boson $`F=F(\mathrm{\Phi })`$, satisfies the generating equation (3.10). This solution coincides with the action of gauge-fixing used in .

Let us analyse the component form of the superfield prescription given in Section 3 with the purpose of establishing its relation to other quantization schemes. The component form of the superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )`$ and supersources $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\theta )=\varphi ^A+\pi ^{Aa}\theta _a+\lambda ^A\theta ^2,\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A(\theta )=\overline{\varphi }_A\theta ^a\varphi _{Aa}^{}\theta ^2J_A,$$

$$\epsilon (\varphi ^A)=\epsilon (\lambda ^A)=\epsilon (\overline{\varphi }_A)=\epsilon (J_A)=\epsilon _A,\epsilon (\pi ^{Aa})=\epsilon (\varphi _{Aa}^{})=\epsilon _A+1.$$

In the component notations, the extended antibrackets (3.16), (3.17) have the form

$`(F,G)_1^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{\delta \varphi ^A}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta G}{\delta \varphi _{Aa}^{}}}+\epsilon ^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{\delta \pi ^{Ab}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta G}{\delta \overline{\varphi }_A}}(1)^{(\epsilon (F)+1)(\epsilon (G)+1)}(FG),`$ (5.10)
$`(F,G)_2^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{\delta \varphi ^A}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta G}{\delta \varphi _{Aa}^{}}}(1)^{(\epsilon (F)+1)(\epsilon (G)+1)}(FG)`$ (5.11)
and the corresponding delta-operators (3.14), (LABEL:DeltaaExSQ2) are given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^a`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{\epsilon _A}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _l}{\delta \varphi ^A}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _{Aa}^{}}}+(1)^{\epsilon _A+1}\epsilon ^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _l}{\delta \pi ^{Ab}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\varphi }_A}},`$ (5.12)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^a`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{\epsilon _A}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _l}{\delta \varphi ^A}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _{Aa}^{}}}.`$ (5.13)
The antibracket and delta-operator (5.10), (5.12) coincide with the corresponding ingredients of the (modified) triplectic formalism , while (5.11), (5.13) are identical with those of the Sp(2) covariant approach . The operators $`U^a`$, $`V^a`$ in (3.) have the representation

$`U^a`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{\epsilon _A}\epsilon ^{ab}\lambda ^A{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _l}{\delta \pi ^{Ab}}}(1)^{\epsilon _A}\pi ^{Aa}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _l}{\delta \varphi ^A}},`$
$`V^a`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon ^{ab}\varphi _{Ab}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\varphi }_A}}J_A{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _{Aa}^{}}}.`$ (5.14)
Taking into account the component form of the integration measure in (3.1)

$`d\mathrm{\Phi }d\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\rho (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})=d\varphi d\varphi ^{}d\pi d\overline{\varphi }d\lambda dJ\delta (J)`$
and the functional $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in (3.5)

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }=\overline{\varphi }_A\lambda ^A+\varphi _{Aa}^{}\pi ^{Aa}J_A\varphi ^A,`$
we represent the vacuum functional (3.2) as the following path integral:

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi 𝑑\varphi ^{}𝑑\overline{\varphi }𝑑\pi 𝑑\lambda \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[W(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\overline{\varphi },\pi ,\lambda )+X(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\overline{\varphi },\pi ,\lambda )+\varphi _{Aa}^{}\pi ^{Aa}+\overline{\varphi }_A\lambda ^A]\right\}},`$ (5.15)
where integration over $`J_A`$ has been carried out, thus placing the functionals $`W`$, $`X`$ on the surface $`J_A=0`$. The functionals $`W=W(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\overline{\varphi },\pi ,\lambda )`$, $`X=X(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\overline{\varphi },\pi ,\lambda )`$ satisfy the generating equations (3.9), (3.10), restricted to $`J_A=0`$, where it has been assumed that the corresponding antibracket and delta-operator are chosen in the form (5.10), (5.12), which guarantees the gauge-independence of the S-matrix. The restriction $`J_A=0`$ does not affect the form of (3.10), whereas (3.9) is transformed to a similar equation with the operator $`V^a`$ (5.14) replaced by a truncated one,

$`V^a=\epsilon ^{ab}\varphi _{Ab}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\varphi }_A}}.`$ (5.16)
The generating functional of Green’s functions (4.9), corresponding to the vacuum functional (5.15), is given by

$`Z(J,\varphi ^{},\overline{\varphi })={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi ^{}𝑑\varphi ^{}𝑑\overline{\varphi }^{}𝑑\pi ^{}𝑑\lambda ^{}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[W+X+(\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{})\pi ^{}+(\overline{\varphi }^{}\overline{\varphi })\lambda ^{}+J\varphi ^{}]\right\}},`$ (5.17)
where $`W`$, $`X`$ depend on the integration variables. The functional $`Z=Z(J,\varphi ^{},\overline{\varphi })`$ satisfies the Ward identities (4.10), having the component form

$`J_A{\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta \varphi _{Aa}^{}}}\epsilon ^{ab}\varphi _{Ab}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta \overline{\varphi }_A}}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}J_A{\displaystyle \frac{\delta X}{\delta \varphi _{Aa}^{}}}Z{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\epsilon ^{ab}\varphi _{Ab}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta X}{\delta \overline{\varphi }_A^{}}}Z.`$ (5.18)
Taking into account the antibracket (5.10), the delta-operator (5.12), and the truncated operator $`V^a`$ (5.16), entering the equation that determines the quantum action in (5.15), one can restrict the consideration to functionals $`W`$ independent of $`\lambda ^A`$, thus supposing $`W=W(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\overline{\varphi },\pi )`$. Then the vacuum functional (5.15) simplifies to

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi 𝑑\varphi ^{}𝑑\overline{\varphi }𝑑\pi 𝑑\lambda \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[W(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\overline{\varphi },\pi )+X(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\overline{\varphi },\pi ,\lambda )+\varphi _{Aa}^{}\pi ^{Aa}+\overline{\varphi }_A\lambda ^A]\right\}},`$ (5.19)
There is a close connection between the above path integral and the vacuum functional of the modified triplectic approach

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi 𝑑\varphi ^{}𝑑\pi 𝑑\overline{\varphi }𝑑\lambda \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left[W(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\overline{\varphi },\pi )+X(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\overline{\varphi },\pi ,\lambda )+\varphi _{Aa}^{}\pi ^{Aa}\right]\right\}},`$ (5.20)
proposed to extend the gauge-fixing procedure of the Sp(2) covariant formalism . In (5.20), $`W`$ obeys the same equation that is satisfied by the quantum action in (5.19), while $`X`$ is a gauge-fixing functional satisfying (3.10), with $`U^a`$ in (5.14) replaced by the truncated operator (corresponding to $`\lambda ^A=0`$)

$`U^a=(1)^{\epsilon _A}\pi ^{Aa}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _l}{\delta \varphi ^A}}.`$ (5.21)
In , it was demonstrated that the vacuum functional (5.20) does not depend on the choice of $`X`$. It is easy to see that the functional $`X^{}=X\overline{\varphi }_A\lambda ^A`$ obeys the generating equation (3.10), with the complete operator $`U^a`$ (5.14), and therefore in terms of $`X^{}`$, the path integral (5.19) is identical with the vacuum functional (5.20). This means that the quantization scheme of Section 3 can be considered as a superfield form of the prescription (5.20) proposed in

Let us show that the vacuum functional (5.19), equivalent to (5.20), provides an extension of the gauge-fixing procedure used in the Sp(2) covariant formalism . For this purpose, we restrict the consideration to the subclass of functionals $`W`$ in (5.19) chosen to be independent of the variables $`\pi ^{Aa}`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W}{\delta \pi ^{Aa}}}=0,`$ (5.22)
thus supposing $`W=W(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\overline{\varphi })`$, where the set of variables $`(\varphi ^A,\varphi _{Aa}^{},\overline{\varphi }_A)`$ is identical with the field-antifield variables of the Sp(2) covariant formalism. The restriction (5.22) simplifies the corresponding equation for $`W`$. Namely, in (3.9) one replaces the antibracket and delta-operator by (5.11), (5.13), respectively. Taking into account the truncated operator $`V^a`$ (5.16), substituted into (3.9) in the given case, we find that the equation for $`W=W(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\overline{\varphi })`$ coincides with the equation that determines the quantum action in the Sp(2) covariant formalism. The vacuum functional (5.19) simplifies to

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi 𝑑\varphi ^{}𝑑\overline{\varphi }𝑑\pi 𝑑\lambda \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[W(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\overline{\varphi })+X(\varphi ,\varphi ^{},\overline{\varphi },\pi ,\lambda )+\varphi _{Aa}^{}\pi ^{Aa}+\overline{\varphi }_A\lambda ^A]\right\}}.`$ (5.23)
As mentioned above, the gauge functional $`X(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{ab}U^aU^bF(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ satisfies (3.10). Owing to the component form (5.14) of the operator $`U^a`$, with the functional $`F`$ chosen to be independent of the variables $`(\pi ^{Aa},\lambda ^A)`$, the functional

$`X(\varphi ,\pi ,\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{\delta \varphi ^A}}\lambda ^A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon _{ab}\pi ^{Aa}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2F}{\delta \varphi ^A\delta \varphi ^B}}\pi ^{Bb}`$
coincides with the action of gauge-fixing applied by the Sp(2) covariant formalism in the case of gauge conditions depending on the fields $`\varphi ^A`$, where $`(\pi ^{Aa},\lambda ^A)`$ acquire the meaning of auxiliary gauge-fixing variables. In the specified case of the gauge-fixing functional $`X=X(\varphi ,\pi ,\lambda )`$, the Ward identities (5.18) for the corresponding generating functional of Green’s functions $`Z=Z(J,\varphi ^{},\overline{\varphi })`$, given by (5.17), are reduced to

$`J_A{\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta \varphi _{Aa}^{}}}\epsilon ^{ab}\varphi _{Ab}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta \overline{\varphi }_A}}=0.`$ (5.24)
Notice that the form of the Ward identities (5.24) in the Sp(2) covariant approach is not sensitive to the choice of gauge-fixing and its dependence on the field-antifield variables $`(\varphi ^A,\varphi _{Aa}^{},\overline{\varphi }_A)`$. By comparison of (5.18) and (5.24), we can see that fixing the gauge by equation (3.10) actually introduces an extension of the gauge-fixing procedure used in the Sp(2) covariant approach.

### Acknowledgement

The work was partially supported by the Russian Ministry of Education (Fundamental Sciences Grant E00-3.3-461). The work of P.M.L. was also supported by INTAS, grant 99-0590. P.Yu.M. is grateful to FAPESP, grant 02/00423-4.


format: text

text:
# PP Wave Limit and Enhanced Supersymmetry in Gauge Theories

## 1 Introduction

According to the AdS/CFT conjecture , the chiral operators of the $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory are in one-to-one correspondence with the modes of type IIB supergravity on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. The massive string modes, however, correspond to operators in long multiplets whose dimensions diverge for large ‘t Hooft coupling as $`(g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N)^{1/4}`$. For this reason, the precise map between massive string modes and gauge invariant operators has been difficult to construct at strong coupling. Recently, however, major progress in this direction has been made by Berenstein, Maldacena and Nastase (BMN) . Their proposal is to consider states with very large angular momentum along the great circle of $`S^5`$, $`J\sqrt{N}`$. The metric felt by such states is the Penrose limit of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, which is  the pp wave

$$ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}(dx_i)^2\mu ^2(dx^+)^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}x_i^2$$
(1)
supported by the 5-form RR field strength

$$F_{+1234}=F_{+5678}\mu .$$
(2)
The 5-form breaks the $`SO(8)`$ symmetry of the metric down to $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$. The pp wave limit preserves 32 supercharges, as many as the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background .

This string background is remarkable in that the string theory is exactly sovable in spite of the presence of the RR 5-form field strength. As shown by Metsaev  (see also ), in the light-cone gauge the 8 world sheet fields describing the transverse coordinates, and their fermionic superpartners, all acquire the same mass $`\mu `$. Therefore, the light-cone Hamiltonian for a single string assumes the form

$$p^{}=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}N_n\sqrt{\mu ^2+\frac{n^2}{(\alpha ^{}p^+)^2}},$$
(3)
where $`N_n`$ is the excitation number of the $`n`$-th oscillator.

BMN combined this formula with the AdS/CFT duality to construct the following relation between the dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the R-charge $`J`$ of the corresponding gauge theory operator :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }J=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}N_n\sqrt{1+\frac{4\pi g_sNn^2}{J^2}}.$$
(4)
This formula is valid for $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }J}{J}1`$. In an ingenious construction, BMN identified the set of single-trace operators which they argued have these dimensions and R-charges. They suggested that this class of single-trace operators is in one-to-one correspondence with the single string spectrum in the pp wave background (1).

This remarkable result raises many interesting questions. The questions we would like to ask are: Is the maximally supersymmetric gauge theory necessary for reconstructing the full string spectrum? Can an analogous construction be carried out with a gauge theory that has reduced supersymmetry or no supersymmetry at all? In fact, in  it was pointed out that the Penrose limit of the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric orbifold $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_2`$ is a $`Z_2`$ orbifold of the pp wave under $`x_ix_i`$, $`i=5,6,7,8`$. In section 4 we consider the matching of string states in this background with the single-trace operators of the $`𝒩=2`$ $`SU(N)\times SU(N)`$ orbifold gauge theory .

Furthermore, we study the Penrose limits of spaces $`AdS_5\times T^{p,q}`$ which preserve $`𝒩=1`$ superconformal symmetry for $`p=q`$. We will primarily consider the basic case $`p=q=1`$ which is dual to an $`𝒩=1`$ superconformal $`SU(N)\times SU(N)`$ gauge theory . For $`p=q>1`$ we find a $`Z_p`$ orbifold of this gauge theory: an $`𝒩=1`$ superconformal $`SU(N)^{2p}`$ gauge theory which we will not discuss here in any detail. For $`pq`$ the supergravity background is non-supersymmetric and is, actually, unstable . Remarkably, for $`p=q`$ the Penrose limit is the maximally supersymmetric pp wave background (1).222For $`pq`$ we find a more general pp wave metric which gives, in the light-cone gauge, different masses for the oscillators in the $`1234`$, $`56`$ and $`78`$ directions. This is rather puzzling since the gauge theory of  has only 1/4 of the maximal supersymmetry. The only logical possibility seems to be that the operators surviving in the appropriate limit of large R-charge form a subsector with enhanced supersymmetry. While this is difficult to prove, we will provide evidence that this is indeed the case.

Our construction of the string states largely parallels the BMN construction. It will be very important for us that in addition to the $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry the gauge theory possesses $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ global symmetry. The correct quantum number for classifying the string states (the analogue of $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ of ) turns out to be

$$H=\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{J}{2}+J_3+J_3^{},$$
(5)
where $`J`$ is the R-charge while $`J_3`$ and $`J_3^{}`$ are the $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(2)^{}`$ quantum numbers. We find a family of $`H=0`$ operators: $`\mathrm{Tr}(A_2B_2)^J`$.333There also exist dibaryon operators  carrying $`H=0`$: $`\mathrm{det}A_2`$ and $`\mathrm{det}B_2`$. These operators are of no concern to our paper since they carry $`J=N`$, much greater than in the BMN scaling for closed strings. These operators instead correspond to wrapped D3-branes . Such operators and their excitations may therefore be relevant to generalization of the BMN construction to D-branes and open strings . The insertion operators corresponding to the 8 transverse bosons and fermions carry $`H=1`$ and are presented in section 3.

It is interesting that some of the operators we have to use are not chiral. For $`J=0`$ they have protected dimensions due to the presence of the $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ global symmetry. For $`J>0`$ it is likely that the dimensions are not protected. However, we are able to use the AdS/CFT correspondence to show that these operators have $`H=1`$ in the limit of very large $`g_sN`$. This is in accord with the expectation that there is a subsector of the gauge theory that has enhanced symmetry in the appropriate limit of large quantum numbers and large $`g_sN`$.

## 2 From $`𝒩=1`$ to $`𝒩=4`$ via the Penrose limit

In this section we show that the Penrose limit of $`AdS_5\times M^5`$ is the same as for $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ (that is, (1)) provided that $`M^5`$ is a Sasaki-Einstein 5-manifold with a certain asymptotic behavior for the Kähler potential. We apply this to $`AdS_5\times T^{11}`$.

An $`AdS_5\times M^5`$ compactification of type IIB string theory, with smooth $`M^5`$, preserves some supersymmetry if and only if $`M^5`$ is a Sasaki-Einstein 5-manifold . This is equivalent to saying that it is the base of a 6-dimensional cone $`M^6`$ with metric

$$ds_{M^6}^2=dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{M_{SE}^5}^2,$$
(6)
where $`M^6`$ is Kähler and Ricci-flat, in other words a Calabi-Yau space.

In turn, a Sasaki-Einstein 5-manifold $`M_{SE}^5`$ is a $`U(1)`$ fibration over a 4-dimensional Kähler-Einstein space $`M_{KE}^4`$. Under the assumption that $`M_{SE}^5`$ is smooth, its metric can be written as follows :

$$ds_{M_{SE}^5}^2=(d\beta +\frac{i}{2}(K,_idz^iK,_{\overline{i}}d\overline{z}^i))^2+K,_{i\overline{j}}dz^id\overline{z}^j,$$
(7)
where $`K(z,\overline{z})`$ is the Kähler potential of $`M_{KE}^4`$.

We introduce a constant $`R`$ and scale the coordinates $`z^i,\overline{z}^i`$ so that the Kähler potential $`K`$ depends only on $`(\frac{z^i}{R},\frac{\overline{z}^i}{R})`$. For the Penrose limit, we are interested in the behavior of the metric when $`R\mathrm{}`$. Requiring that in this limit the Kähler potential goes like

$$K(z,\overline{z})\frac{z\overline{z}}{R^2},$$
(8)
one finds that

$$\frac{i}{2}(K,_idz^iK,_{\overline{i}}d\overline{z}^i)\frac{i}{2R^2}(\overline{z}^idz^iz^id\overline{z}^i).$$
(9)
Consider now the full metric of $`AdS_5\times M_{SE}^5`$

$$\frac{ds^2}{R^2}=dt^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho +d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+(d\beta +\frac{i}{2}(K,_idz^iK,_{\overline{i}}d\overline{z}^i))^2+K_{,i\overline{j}}dz^id\overline{z}^j.$$

With the geometry defined in these terms, the Penrose limit is obtained by scaling the AdS coordinate $`\rho =r/R`$ and then simply taking $`R\mathrm{}`$, dropping all terms that vanish in this limit. The metric above then becomes

$$ds^2=R^2dt^2+dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+R^2d\beta ^2+id\beta (\overline{z}^idz^iz^id\overline{z}^i)+dz^id\overline{z}^i.$$
(10)
Replacing

$$z^ie^{i\beta }z^i,$$
(11)
and defining

$$x^+=\frac{1}{2}(t+\beta ),x^{}=\frac{1}{2}R^2(t\beta ),$$
(12)
the metric is brought to the form

$$ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}(\stackrel{}{r}^2+z^i\overline{z}^i)(dx^+)^2+d\stackrel{}{r}^2+dz^id\overline{z}^i,$$
(13)
which is identical to Eq.(1).

In the remainder of the paper we shall mainly focus on a special case of a Sasaki-Einstein 5-manifold: $`T^{1,1}`$, the base of the conifold, whose metric can be written as

$$ds_{T^{1,1}}^2=\frac{1}{9}(d\psi +\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\varphi _1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _2d\varphi _2)^2+\frac{1}{6}(d\theta _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1d\varphi _1^2+d\theta _2^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2d\varphi _2^2).$$
(14)
This metric can be written in the general Sasaki-Einstein form Eq.(7) by choosing the Kähler potential of the 4-dimensional base $`P^1\times P^1`$ to be

$$K(z^i,\overline{z}^i)=\frac{2}{3}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{3}{2}\frac{z^i\overline{z}^i}{R^2}\right).$$
(15)
Since Eq.(8) holds for this choice of the Kähler potential it follows from the discussion above that the Penrose limit of $`AdS_5\times T^{1,1}`$ is the same as the Penrose limit of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. Recalling that the original compactification breaks $`\frac{3}{4}`$ of the supersymmetries of type IIB, we see that in the Penrose limit this supersymmetry breaking becomes invisible, and maximal supersymmetry is restored. As we will see shortly, this has interesting consequences for the relationship between the field theory and its dual string.

In light of the enhancement of supersymmetry in the Penrose limit one might suspect that SUSY is not required all. Starting with a general non-supersymmetric $`AdS_5\times M^5`$ and taking the Penrose limit, would one still end up with Eq.(1)? To show that this is not the case, we consider $`AdS_5\times T^{pq}`$. The metric is

$$ds^2=a^2(d\psi +p\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\varphi _1+q\mathrm{cos}\theta _2d\varphi _2)^2+b^2(d\theta _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1d\varphi _1^2)+c^2(d\theta _2^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2d\varphi _2^2),$$

where $`a,b`$ and $`c`$ are determined by $`p,q`$ and the $`AdS_5`$ radius of curvature. The precise relation between $`a,b,c`$ and $`p,q`$ and $`R`$ is not important for us and can be found, for example, in . $`\psi `$ has periodicity $`4\pi `$ and $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2`$ have periodicity $`2\pi `$.

To take the Penrose limit it is useful to find a convenient null geodesic. This can be done by defining

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }=\psi +p\varphi _1+q\varphi _2,x^+=\frac{1}{2}(t+a\stackrel{~}{\psi }),x^{}=\frac{R^2}{2}(ta\stackrel{~}{\psi }).$$
(16)
We expand for small $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$:

$$b\theta _1=r_1/R,c\theta _2=r_2/R,$$
(17)
and take the $`R\mathrm{}`$ limit. After shifting the angular coordinates,

$$\phi _1=\varphi _1\frac{ap}{2b^2}\left(x^+\frac{x^{}}{R^2}\right),\phi _2=\varphi _2\frac{aq}{2c^2}\left(x^+\frac{x^{}}{R^2}\right),$$
(18)
we find the following pp wave metric:

$`ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}dx_i^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}(dr_i^2+r_i^2d\phi _i^2)`$
$`(dx^+){}_{}{}^{2}({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}x_i^2+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2p^2}{4b^4}}r_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2q^2}{4c^4}}r_2^2).`$ (19)
For $`p=q=1`$, we have $`a=1/3`$, $`b^2=c^2=1/6`$, so that we recover the metric (13).

For $`pq`$, not all the bosons have the same mass in the light-cone gauge, but the solution still has the general pp wave form discussed in . Thus, it preserves at least 16 supersymmetries.444We are grateful to Nakwoo Kim, Neil Constable and Jose Figueroa-O’Farrill for pointing out an erroneous statement about supersymmetry for $`pq`$ in an earlier version of this paper. The tachyons present in the $`AdS_5\times T^{pq}`$ compactification  did not survive the pp wave limit, in agreement with the supersymmetry of the solution. Since the fermion masses in the light-cone gauge are determined solely by the 5-form, they are the same as in the supersymmetric case. Therefore, some of the fermion masses do not match bosons and the pp wave is not maximally supersymmetric .

## 3 Field theory description of enhanced SUSY

In the previous section we saw that the Penrose limit of $`AdS_5\times T^{11}`$ is identical to the Penrose limit of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. The AdS/CFT duality implies that this should have non-trivial consequences for the dual field theories.

As was explained beautifully by BMN, from the dual field theory point of view taking the Penrose limit means focusing on a particular sector of single-trace operators of the $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory while taking the ’t Hooft coupling to infinity. To be more precise we need to focus on “almost BPS” operators with large R-charge, $`J`$, which scales like the square-root of the ’t Hooft coupling:

$$\lambda =g_{YM}^2N\mathrm{},\frac{J^2}{\lambda }=\text{finite},\mathrm{\Delta }J=\text{finite}.$$
(20)
These operators are the ones relevant for describing strings propagating in the pp wave background. The demand that $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ remains finite follows from keeping the light-cone Hamiltonian finite. For example, the light-cone vacuum is identified with $`\mathrm{Tr}Z^J`$, where $`Z=\varphi _1+i\varphi _2`$ carries R-charge $`1`$ ($`\varphi _a`$ are the 6 adjoint scalars fields of the $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory). For a given $`J`$ this is the unique state with $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=0`$. The 8 transverse oscillations of the string correspond to inserting $`\varphi _a`$, $`a=3,4,5,6`$ and $`D_kZ`$, $`k=1,2,3,4`$, into the trace. The $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory also has 4 doublets of adjoint Weyl fermions; the 8 fermionic oscillators correspond to inserting them into the trace. It is important that the above exhausts the list of operators whose single insertion into the trace produces an operator with $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=1`$. By studying their multiple insertions, BMN argued that the resulting single-trace operators are in one-to-one correspondence with the single string spectrum in the pp wave background (1).

The result of the previous section implies that, even though the field theory dual to string theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ is not the same as the field theory dual to $`AdS_5\times T^{11}`$, that particular sector must be equivalent. The aim of this section is to explain how this comes about from the point of view of the field theory dual to $`AdS_5\times T^{11}`$ which has only $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry. The $`𝒩=1`$ superconformal field theory on the worldvolume of $`N`$ D3-branes at a conifold singularity was first constructed in Ref.  and has been extensively studied in subsequent works. We briefly review the essential features of this theory here. For details, the reader is referred to Ref..

The theory has a gauge group $`SU(N)\times SU(N)`$, along with bi-fundamental superfields $`A_1,A_2`$ and $`B_1,B_2`$. The superfields are doublets of the first and second factors, respectively, of a global $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ symmetry. There is a $`U(1)_R`$-symmetry under which the chiral multiplet all have charge $`+\frac{1}{2}`$, and a quartic superpotential

$$W=\lambda ϵ^{ik}ϵ^{jl}A_iB_jA_kB_l.$$
(21)
This superpotential is marginal at the conformal fixed point by virtue of the fact that the $`A_i,B_i`$ acquire anomalous dimensions. Thus, in the CFT each of these fundamental fields has dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{3}{4}`$.

The first step toward finding the relevant sector in the theory which is dual to the pp wave is to determine the light-cone Hamiltonian, $`i_{x^+}`$, in terms of the field theory generators 555The factor of $`2`$ in $`J`$ is due to the periodicity of $`\psi `$ being $`4\pi `$.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=i_t,J=2i_\psi ,J_3=i_{\varphi _1},J_3^{}=i_{\varphi _2}.$$
(22)
Here $`J`$ is the $`U(1)_R`$ charge, and $`J_3,J_3^{}`$ are the diagonal generators of the two factors in the global symmetry group $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$. We write

$$_{x^+}=\frac{t}{x^+}_t+\frac{\psi }{x^+}_\psi +\frac{\varphi _i}{x^+}_{\varphi _i}.$$
(23)
Using the relation between the original $`T^{1,1}`$ coordinates in (14) and the coordinates where the metric assumes the pp wave form (2),

$$t=x^++\frac{x^{}}{R^2},\psi =x^+\frac{x^{}}{R^2}\phi _1\phi _2,$$

$$\varphi _i=\phi _i+x^+\frac{x^{}}{R^2},$$
(24)
we find the light-cone Hamiltonian given in (5), i.e.

$$2P^{}=H=\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{1}{2}J+J_3+J_3^{}.$$
(25)
Analogously, we find

$$2P^+=\frac{1}{R^2}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{1}{2}JJ_3J_3^{}\right).$$
(26)
In Tables 1 and 2, we make a list of the $`H`$ values of the various fundamental fields in the SCFT. Then we will construct some gauge-invariant operators and explain how they are to be identified with the theory of strings on a pp wave background.

In Table 1, $`A_i,B_i`$ refer to the scalar components of the chiral superfields described above, and $`\chi _{A_i},\chi _{B_i}`$ are their fermionic partners. $`\psi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ are the gauginos of the two gauge groups. Table 2 has the dimensions and charges of the complex conjugate fields.

From the tables, we see that the unique operator that should be identified with the light-cone vacuum is $`\mathrm{Tr}(A_2B_2)^J`$ which has $`H=0`$. These operators are analogous to $`\mathrm{Tr}Z^J`$ in the maximally supersymmetric theory of Ref. . Next, we turn to operators with $`H=1`$. Let us first consider the case $`J=1`$. The large $`J`$ case will be discussed shortly. From the table we find the following bosonic chiral operators: $`\mathrm{Tr}A_1B_2,\mathrm{Tr}A_2B_1,_k(\mathrm{Tr}A_2B_2)`$, $`k=1,2,3,4`$. These are 6 of the necessary operators, which means that we are missing two bosonic operators.

For the fermionic operators, we find: $`\mathrm{Tr}\chi _{A_2}B_2,\mathrm{Tr}A_2\chi _{B_2}`$ with $`J=1`$. As the $`\chi `$ are 2-component Weyl fermions, these make 4 operators altogether. However, only two of them are the superpartners of a bosonic operator, namely the combination $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(\chi _{A_2}B_2+A_2\chi _{B_2}\right)`$. This is the variation of $`\mathrm{Tr}A_2B_2`$.

So far, we have found 6 chiral bosons and 2 chiral fermions with $`H=1`$. However, for the correspondence with the universal pp wave to work, we must find 2 additional bosons and 6 additional fermions. It turns out that there are precisely two non-chiral bosonic operators with $`J=0`$ that have $`H=1`$. The fact that the operators are non-chiral should not come as a surprise. This is also the case with the $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory when viewed as a $`𝒩=1`$ theory with three chiral superfields . Consider, for example, the operators

$$Z^JV,Z^J\overline{V},$$
(27)
where $`Z=\varphi ^1+i\varphi ^2`$ and $`V=\varphi ^3+i\varphi ^4`$. From the $`𝒩=4`$ point of view both are chiral with protected dimensions. However only the first one is chiral in the $`𝒩=1`$ language.

Indeed, much like in (27) the two extra operators with $`H=1`$ involve the complex conjugate components of the scalars, and can be written as

$$\mathrm{Tr}A_2\overline{A}_1,\mathrm{Tr}B_2\overline{B}_1.$$
(28)
Unlike in (27) we do not have $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetry at our disposal to fix their dimension. The total dimension of these operators is not the naive sum of the dimensions of the constituents. In general we would not know how to compute their dimensions, but it turns out  that they belong to the same supermultiplet as the currents generating the global $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ symmetry. Therefore, their dimension is equal to its free-field value, namely $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2`$.666The argument goes as follows. The global symmetry requires that there is an $`SU(2)`$ triplet of conserved currents of dimension 3. The $`J_3=1`$ component of this triplet is $`A_2_\mu \overline{A}_1(_\mu A_2)\overline{A}_1+\mathrm{fermions}.`$ The scalar $`A_2\overline{A}_1`$ is related by the supersymmetry generators to this current and hence has dimension $`2`$. Using the assignment of R-charge and the other global charges for the conjugate fields, which can be found in Table 2, we see that indeed these operators have $`H=1`$.

Let us turn now to the fermionic operators. The bosonic operators we described above have fermionic counterparts, whose dimension is correspondingly protected. These are $`\mathrm{Tr}\overline{\chi }_{A_1}A_2`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}\overline{\chi }_{B_1}B_2`$, which provide us 4 additional fermionic operators. So we are still missing 2 more fermionic operators to complete the set of 8. These can be constructed by making use of the gauginos. Acccording to the analysis of Ref. , the operators $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(\psi (A_2B_2)^J+\stackrel{~}{\psi }(B_2A_2)^J\right)`$ lie in short multiplets. Moreover, from Table 1, we see that they have $`H=1`$. Just as for the fermions in the chiral multiplets, here also we keep only the symmetric combination (under the interchange of the two gauge group factors) which is a protected operator. Thus, we have found the last 2 fermionic operators of $`H=1`$, making up the collection of 8 operators that we propose to identify with the fermionic oscillators of the light-cone superstring in the pp wave background.

In light of this counting it is very natural to propose that the following 8 bosonic and 8 fermionic operators,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Bosonic}:\hfill & \mathrm{Tr}A_1B_2(A_2B_2)^J,\mathrm{Tr}A_2B_1(A_2B_2)^J,\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Tr}A_2\overline{A}_1(A_2B_2)^J,\mathrm{Tr}B_2\overline{B}_1(B_2A_2)^J\hfill \\ & _i\mathrm{Tr}(A_2B_2)^J,\hfill \\ \mathrm{Fermionic}:\hfill & \mathrm{Tr}(\chi _{A_2}B_2+A_2\chi _{B_2})(A_2B_2)^J,\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Tr}\overline{\chi }_{A_1}A_2(B_2A_2)^J,\mathrm{Tr}\overline{\chi }_{B_1}B_2(A_2B_2)^J,\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Tr}\left(\psi (A_2B_2)^J+\stackrel{~}{\psi }(B_2A_2)^J\right),\hfill \end{array}.$$
(29)
are the relevant ones to describe the BMN sector. To establish this one needs to show that these operators have $`H=1`$ for all $`J`$. This follows immediately for the chiral operators. However, as far as we can see, there is no field theory argument that protects the non-chiral operators. That is, the argument used above for operators (28) cannot be generalized to $`J>0`$. Since the Penrose limit involves sending the ’t Hooft coupling to infinity, it is sufficient for us to show that the operator of the form

$$O_k=\mathrm{Tr}A_2\overline{A}_1(A_2B_2)^k,$$
(30)
has $`H=1`$ in the region where the SUGRA approximation is valid. The quantum numbers of $`O_k`$ are $`J=k`$, $`𝐉=1+(k/2)`$, $`𝐉^{}=k/2`$ (by $`𝐉`$ we denote the angular momentum of $`SU(2)`$ and analogously for the $`SU(2)^{}`$). According to the AdS/CFT correspondence,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=2+\sqrt{4+(mL)^2},(mL)^2=\lambda +168\sqrt{\lambda +4},$$
(31)
where

$$\lambda =6[𝐉(𝐉+1)+𝐉^{}(𝐉^{}+1)J^2/8],$$
(32)
is the value of the Laplacian on $`T^{1,1}`$. For the operator $`O_k`$ we find

$$(mL)^2=(3k/2)^24,$$
(33)
so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2+3k/2`$, which in turn implies $`H=1`$.

The fact that there is no apparent field theory argument to protect the dimension of these operators suggests that there are non-trivial $`\alpha ^{^{}}`$ corrections away from the supergravity approximation. This fits with the fact that the symmetry should be enhanced only in the strict Penrose limit.

## 4 $`S^5/Z_2`$ Theory: Operator Spectrum and Strings on Orbifolded PP Waves

The compactification of type IIB string theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_2`$ is an example where the compact 5-manifold is not smooth, but has a singular $`S^1`$ submanifold. This compactification is dual to the theory on D3-branes transverse to a $`Z_2`$ ALE singularity, and the world-volume theory is an $`𝒩=2`$ SCFT.

The pp wave limit of this geometry can be obtained very simply and one finds that the metric is the universal one, as given in Eq. (13) above. However, the coordinates $`z_a`$, $`i=1,2`$, are identified under the $`Z_2`$ action $`z^iz^i`$, and so there is an ALE singularity that survives in the transverse space. We believe, however, that in the pp wave case there is little physical difference between the untwisted and twisted sectors. This is because the untwisted states have have no continuous transverse momenta; they are essentially localized near the orbifold plane by the metric so that transverse excitations have gaps. The same is true for the twisted sector states. We will see that the gauge theory operators dual to the untwisted and twisted states are also very similar.

Although the field content of the $`𝒩=2`$ $`Z_2`$ orbifold gauge theory is similar to that for $`AdS_5\times T^{1,1}`$ (and the two field theories are related by a massive perturbation, as argued in Ref. ), the theory is closer to the maximally supersymmetric one in an important aspect: the fundamental fields have no anomalous dimensions, so we have scalars and fermions of canonical dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1,\frac{3}{2}`$ respectively. The R-symmetry group is $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$. The gauge group is $`SU(N)\times SU(N)`$, and each gauge multiplet contains a complex adjoint scalar, which we denote $`\varphi ,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$. In addition there are bi-fundamental fields which can be represented as $`𝒩=1`$ chiral multiplets $`A_i`$, $`B_i`$, though in $`𝒩=2`$ they of course combine into hypermultiplets.

In this theory the adjoint scalars $`\varphi ,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ are associated with positions of the (fractional) D3-branes within the orbifold fixed sixplane. We choose the $`U(1)`$ subgroup of R-symmetry to act only on these fields, but not on the hypermultiplets. Hence we can form gauge-invariant operators $`\mathrm{Tr}\varphi ^J`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^J`$ which have $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=0`$. Each of these appears to be independently analogous to the operators $`\mathrm{Tr}Z^J`$ of Ref. , which at large $`J`$ are identified with the vacuum state of the string. Thus we seem to have two distinct candidates for the string vacuum. However, note that these two operators are exchanged by the $`Z_2`$ that exchanges the two gauge group factors. This is the same group as the orbifold $`Z_2`$, and it is therefore natural to associate the symmetric combination $`\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^J+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^J)`$ with the ground state in the untwisted sector of the string, while the antisymmetric combination $`\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^J\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^J)`$ is associated with the ground state in the twisted sector. More precisely, the operator $`\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^J+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^J)`$ corresponds to a graviton moving with longitudinal momentum $`J`$ while the operator $`\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^J\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^J)`$ describes a member of the six-dimensional tensor multiplet moving with longitudinal momentum $`J`$. More generally, we define the operator $`P`$ which interchanges the two gauge groups, and interchanges $`\varphi `$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$, and $`A_i`$ with $`B_i`$, $`i=1,2`$. Then, given any operator $`O`$, $`O+PO`$ and $`OPO`$ belong to the untwisted and twisted sectors respectively.

The operators $`\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^J\pm \stackrel{~}{\varphi }^J)`$ are rotated by the $`U(1)`$ factor in the R-symmetry group $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$. The R-symmetry does not act on the $`A_i,B_j`$, so each of these fields has $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=1`$. The new feature, with respect to the maximally supersymmetric case, is that we cannot form gauge-invariant operators out of $`A_i`$ or $`B_j`$ alone since they are bi-fundamentals. Nevertheless, we can write down the following set of ‘excited’ operators where these operators appear in pairs:

$`O_{ij}^n={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{J}{}}}e^{\pi inl/J}\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^lA_i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{Jl}B_j),`$
$`\overline{O}_{ij}^n={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{J}{}}}e^{\pi inl/J}\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^l\overline{B}_i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{Jl}\overline{A}_j),`$
$`O_{Aij}^n={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{J}{}}}e^{\pi inl/J}\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^lA_i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{Jl}\overline{A}_j),`$ (34)
$`O_{Bij}^n={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{J}{}}}e^{\pi inl/J}\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^l\overline{B}_i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{Jl}B_j).`$
We may form their untwisted and twisted combinations, which are, respectively, symmetric and antisymmetric under the $`Z_2`$ symmetry $`P`$ interchanging the two gauge groups. The resulting operators correspond to $`a_{n/2}^i\stackrel{~}{a}_{n/2}^j`$ acting on the (un)twisted light-cone vacuum, i.e. they describe oscillations of the closed string in the $`z^i`$ directions, which we recall were orbifolded by a $`Z_2`$ action. Note that for odd $`n`$ they have twisted boundary conditions. In the gauge theory operators we indeed pick up $`(1)`$ by moving $`A_i`$ or $`B_j`$ around the loop: for example, the $`\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^JA_iB_j)`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^JB_jA_i)`$ terms in $`O_{ij}^n`$ have a relative minus sign.777 We thank D. Berenstein for pointing this out to us. For $`n=0`$ they should correspond to the massless string states, hence their dimensions should be protected so that these operators have $`\mathrm{\Delta }=J+2`$. It may seem peculiar that non-chiral operators such as $`\overline{O}_{ij}^n`$ should be protected, but we already noted a similar phenomenon in the $`𝒩=4`$ case: many of the operators that are chiral from the $`𝒩=4`$ point of view do not look chiral when written in terms of $`𝒩=1`$ superfields .

Discussion of the oscillations of the string along the $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ directions, which arise from $`AdS_5`$, proceeds by analogy with . Since the orbifold group does not act on these directions, the corresponding oscillators do not have to appear in pairs, and there cannot be twisted boundary conditions. Each such insertion should have unit light-cone Hamiltonian as before, and to these we associate the four $`\mathrm{\Delta }=J+1`$ operators $`_k\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^J\pm \stackrel{~}{\varphi }^J)`$, $`k=1,2,3,4`$, where the $`\pm `$ signs are chosen for the untwisted and twisted sectors respectively. The superpartners of these excitations are the operators

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\psi \varphi ^J)\pm \mathrm{Tr}(\stackrel{~}{\psi }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^J).$$
(35)
where $`\psi (\stackrel{~}{\psi })`$ is one of the four complex fermions from the $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplet which are the adjoints of the first (second) $`SU(N)`$.

The discussion above, although somewhat sketchy, shows that it is indeed possible to construct all the string states, in a $`Z_2`$ orbifold of the pp wave by a reflection of 4 transverse coordinates, out of the gauge invariant operators of the $`𝒩=2`$ superconformal $`SU(N)\times SU(N)`$ gauge theory.

## Acknowledgements

We thank D. Berenstein, S. Cherkis, E. Gimon, S. Gubser, A. Hashimoto, B. Kol, J. Maldacena, L. Pando-Zayas, A. Polyakov, L. Rastelli, A. Sen, S. Sethi, K. Skenderis, J. Sonnenschein, M. Strassler, E. Verlinde and E. Witten for useful discussions. The work of NI and IRK is supported in part by the NSF Grant PHY-9802484. The work of SM is supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG02-90ER40542 and by the Monell Foundation.