text:
# Frictional drag in dilute bilayer 2D hole systems

\[

## Abstract

We develop a theory for frictional drag between two 2D hole layers in a dilute bilayer GaAs hole system, including effects of hole-hole and hole-phonon interactions. Our calculations suggest significant enhancement of hole drag transresistivity over the corresponding electron drag results. This enhancement originates from the exchange induced renormalization of the single layer compressibility and the strong dependence of single layer conductivity on density. We also address the effect of hole-phonon interaction on the drag temperature dependence. Our calculated results are in reasonable quantitative agreement with recent experimental observations.

PACS Number : 73.40.-c, 73.21.Ac, 73.40.Kp

\]

Frictional drag measurements of transresistivity in modulation doped GaAs electron bilayer systems have led to significant advances in our understanding of density and temperature dependence of electron-electron and electron-phonon interactions in 2D systems . Recent interest  has focussed on the role of electron correlation effects on the drag resistivity, which should vary in a systematic manner as a function of electron density and temperature. In particular a recent experiment by Pillarisetty et al.  reports drag measurements in very low density and high quality hole bilayers, where Coulomb interaction (i.e., correlation) effects should be strong by virtue of the large GaAs hole effective mass ($`m_h^{}0.4m`$ for holes compared with $`m_e^{}0.07m`$ for electrons where $`m`$ is the vacuum electron mass) and very low hole density (hole density $`p=10^{10}10^{11}cm^2`$ in Ref. , whereas typical electron densities used bilayer drag measurements have been comparatively high, $`>10^{11}cm^2`$). In terms of the dimensionless interaction strength parameter $`r_s(p\pi )^{1/2}m^{}e^2/(\mathrm{}^2\kappa )`$ where $`\kappa `$ is the background dielectric constant, which measures the ratio of the potential energy to the kinetic energy in the interacting hole system, Ref.  explores the strongly correlated regime of $`r_s2040`$ whereas the earlier electron drag experiments explored the weak coupling regime of $`r_s<3`$.

The experimental findings of Ref.  were striking, and motivated our work. They are: $`a.`$ the low density hole drag is $`23`$ orders of magnitude larger than the corresponding electron drag results published in the literature ; $`b.`$ There are some small (but systematic) deviations of the observed low density hole drag resistivity from the expected $`\rho T^2`$ Fermi liquid behavior. The low density data of Ref.  seem to better fit a $`T^{2.5}`$ behavior at low temperatures; $`c.`$ The observed $`\rho /T^2`$ behavior in Ref. , plotted as a function of $`T`$ for various bilayer hole densities, is qualitatively similar to the corresponding electron drag results in the sense that $`\rho /T^2`$ at a fixed density shows a peak at some temperature $`T_p`$ which decreases with decreasing density – the peak in $`\rho /T^2`$ as a function of $`T`$ at the lowest hole density $`p=10^{10}cm^2`$ is very sharp; $`d.`$ For bilayers with unequal hole densities, the drag resistivity at a fixed temperature plotted as a function of the density ratio $`p_1/p_2`$ decreases monotonically and does not exhibit a peak at the balance point as it does in the corresponding electron case. This peak is believed to arise from the $`2k_F`$ phonon scattering.

These experimental findings become particularly interesting due to their possible relation to the collection of transport anomalies in 2D systems referred to as the 2D metal-insulator transition (2D MIT) phenomena (The samples of Ref.  exhibit 2D MIT in each layer at $`p8.5\times 10^9cm^2`$). These anomalies, observed largely in the large $`r_s`$ regime, have raised doubts regarding the applicability of Fermi liquid theory to two dimensional systems of charges (electrons or holes) at the large $`r_{s\text{ }}`$regime, and this question has been widely debated in the literature (see  for a review). In that context, then, it is particularly important to examine whether drag measurements in the large $`r_s`$ regime may be understood within the Fermi liquid framework.

In this paper we attempt, and largely succeed, to interpret the hole drag data of Ref.  within a Fermi liquid approach. The important inputs to our theory are a perturbative expression to the drag resistivity, based on a perturbative treatement of inter-layer hole-hole scattering rate, a Hubbard approximation for the single layer polarization operator, and the experimentally measured density dependence of the single layer conductivity. Inputs of more minor significance are form factors that account for the finite thickness of the two layers and hole-phonon interaction parameters.

Our starting point for the calculation of the drag resistivity is the following expression:

$$\rho =\frac{\beta }{\sigma _1\sigma _2}\frac{d\sigma _1}{dp_1}\frac{d\sigma _2}{dp_2}\frac{q^2d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{F_1(q,\omega )F_2(q,\omega )}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\beta \omega /2)},$$
(1)
where $`F_i(q,\omega )=Im\mathrm{\Pi }_{ii}(q,\omega )|u_{12}^{sc}(q,\omega )|`$. In Eq. (1), $`\beta =1/T`$ is the inverse temperature (we use units such that $`k_B=\mathrm{}=2e=1`$, except in final formulas); $`p_{1,2}`$ are the hole densities in layers 1 and 2; $`\sigma _{1,2}`$ are the conductivities of each layer; $`q`$ is the 2D wave vector in the layer; $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}`$/$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}`$ are the irreducible hole polarizabilities in each layer; and $`u_{12}^{sc}`$ is the dynamically screened effective interlayer interaction. Several comments are in place regarding this expression: first, when the drag resistivity is derived from the Boltzmann equation (, and see also ), the approximation $`\frac{d\sigma _i}{dp_i}\frac{\sigma _i}{p_i}`$ is being made. This approximation is valid for well conducting layers, but becomes invalid at the low densities relevant here (see below). The need to replace $`\frac{\sigma _i}{p_i}`$ by $`\frac{d\sigma _i}{dp_i}`$ is discussed in Ref. . Second, the dynamically screened interlayer interaction $`u_{12}^{sc}`$ satisfies a matrix Dyson equation,

$$𝐮(q,\omega )=\left[\mathrm{𝟏}𝐯_t(q,\omega )\mathrm{\Pi }(q,\omega )\right]^1𝐯_t(q,\omega ).$$
(2)
We include in the bare interaction $`𝐯_t(q,\omega )=𝐯^c(q)+𝐯^{ph}(q,\omega )`$ both the hole-hole direct Coulomb interaction and the phonon mediated interaction $`𝐯^{ph}`$, which includes the acoustic phonon propagator and the appropriate hole-phonon interaction matrix element . The phonon mediated interaction includes both deformation potential and piezoelectric couplings between the holes and the acoustic phonons using the standard hole-phonon interaction parameters for GaAs . Following the common approximation we assume the inter-layer polarization operators $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{12},\mathrm{\Pi }_{21\text{ }}`$to be zero.

When Eq. (1) is used to analyze experiments carried out on identical layers in the commonly explored regime, of high density and low temperature, it yields,

$$\rho _D=\frac{\zeta (3)\pi }{32}\frac{h}{e^2}\left(\frac{k_BT\kappa }{e^2k_F^3d^2}\right)^2$$
(3)
with $`\zeta `$ being the Riemann zeta function. The assumptions involved in getting from Eq. (1) to Eq. (3) are large inter-layer separation ($`k_Fd1,`$ $`q_{TF}d1`$, with $`k_F`$ being the Fermi wave vector and $`q_{TF}`$ being the Thomas Fermi screening wave vector), Drude relation between conductivity and density ($`\sigma _ip_i`$), and a Random Phase Approximation (RPA) in which $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ii}`$ is replaced by its value for non-interacting electrons. The contribution of electron-phonon interaction is negligible in this regime. Eq. (3) is typically smaller than the experimentally measured value, by a factor of $`25.`$ For the experiment of Ref. , the disagreement is much larger, getting as large as a factor of $`500.`$

Our calculation differs from that leading to Eq. (3) in five points, all of them leading to an increase of the drag resistivity.

First, we use the Hubbard approximation to calculate the polarization operators $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ii}`$. Within this approximation,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ii}(q,\omega )=[1+v_i^c(q)\mathrm{\Pi }_{ii}^0(q,\omega )G(q)]^1\mathrm{\Pi }_{ii}^0(q,\omega ),$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ii}^0(q,\omega )`$ is the polarization operator for non-interacting electrons, and $`G(q)=q/2\sqrt{q^2+k_F^2}`$ is the local field correction. For small $`q`$ the Hubbard approximation amounts to the introduction of a Landau parameter $`f_0=v_i^c(q)G(q)\frac{\pi e^2}{k_F}`$, making the inverse compressibility of each layer $`\frac{\mu }{n}=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}\frac{\pi e^2}{k_F}.`$ This approximation is then consistent with measurements of the compressibility that yield negative values. In general, the effect of the Hubbard approximation is to decrease the bare intralayer interaction by a factor of $`1G(q)`$. The fact that the exchange-driven local field correction, $`G(q)`$, affects only the intra-layer interaction is what makes its effect significant: the interaction potential between anti-symmetric charge densities, $`v_{11}^c(q)(1G(q))v_{12}^c(q)`$, is modified from $`2\pi e^2d/\kappa `$ to $`\frac{2\pi e^2}{\kappa }(d\frac{1}{2k_F})`$. This increases the drag resistivity, and in the limit of $`k_Fd1`$, $`q_{TF}d1`$, Eq. (3) is replaced by

$$\rho _D=\frac{\zeta (3)\pi }{32}\frac{h}{e^2}\left(\frac{k_BT\kappa }{e^2k_F^3d^2}\right)^2\left(\frac{2k_Fd}{2k_Fd1}\right)^4.$$
(5)
We note by passing that even for densities that are not very low, the fourth power of the last term in Eq. (5) makes the correction quite significant. In the low density regime we consider, the approximation Eq. (5) is not valid, since scattreing events with large momentum transfer have a significant contribution. Our calculations below show that in that regime the local field correction increases the drag resistivity by about an order of magnitude.

Second, we do not use the approximation $`\sigma _ip_i.`$ Rather, we use measured values of $`\sigma (p),`$ provided to us by Pillarisetty et al. , to extract $`\frac{d\sigma _i}{dp_i}`$ for use in our calculation of the drag resistivity. At the lowest density measured $`\left(\frac{d\sigma _i}{dp_i}\frac{p_i}{\sigma _i}\right)^21020`$, so this correction increases the drag resistivity by about an order of magnitude. These measurements of $`\sigma (p)`$ are limited, at this stage, to the range of densities between $`0.722.1510^{10}cm^2`$, and to the temperature range $`T<0.5K`$. While this correction deacreases with increasing density and temperature, it is still between $`35`$ at the edge of the measured range. Our calculation for the range where experimental values of $`\left(\frac{d\sigma _i}{dp_i}\frac{p_i}{\sigma _i}\right)^2`$ are available is presented in Fig. 1. The other figures do not include this factor, for lack of availability of experimental data.

Third, the assumption $`k_Fd>>1`$, implying that the relevant momentum exchange is much smaller than $`k_F`$, is not valid at the low density regime. Consequently, there is an important contribution due to large momentum transfer, $`\mathrm{}q2\mathrm{}k_F`$ scattering. Taking this contribution into account (by a numerical integration of Eq. (1)) leads to an increase of the drag by another factor of $`2`$ as compared to the Boltzmann result.

Fourth, the introduction of finite thickness form factors  (see to the Coulomb and phonon interaction)

effectively decreases $`d`$, and increases the drag resistivity by about a factor $`2.`$

And fifth, we include the phonon contribution to the interaction in addition to the Coulomb one. This changes the result by less then $`50\%`$.

Combining all these five factors, we are able to account for most of the results of the measurements. We account for the very large increase of drag, as compared to measurements of electronic systems. Our Fig. 1 is in good quantitative agreement with the measured data, to within a factor of $`2`$. This type of agreement is similar to what is obtained in the small $`r_s`$ limit. Our analysis yields a leading quadratic temperature dependence of the drag in the limit $`T0`$ (at least as long as the conductivity $`\sigma `$ is temperature independent in that limit). However, our numerical integration of Eq. 1, as presented in Fig. 2, indicates that even at the lowest measured temperatures the drag resistivity does not follow a $`T^2`$ dependence. There are a number of reasons for that. First, at the low densities used in Ref.  \[shown as the inset in our Fig. 2 to be compared with inset (b) in Fig. 3 of Ref. \] the Fermi energy ($`12K)`$ is not much larger than the measurement temperature range. Second, even well below $`1K`$ the phonon contribution to drag in the low density hole bilayers is quite substantial (in contrast to electron systems where the phonon contribution is typically a factor of $`10^3`$ smaller for small layer separations of $`d=300\AA `$ or so used in Ref. ). As such we believe that the experimental departure from the $`T^2`$ behavior

reported in Ref.  is essentially a manifestation of the fact that phonon effects remain significant in the experiments, and the asymptotic $`T^2`$ regime is hard to reach in hole systems. We find that our calculated $`\rho (T)`$ at low temperature is well approximated by a $`T^{2.4}`$ behavior for $`p=2.0\times 10^{10}cm^2`$ and the exponent increases as the hole density decreases. In Fig. 4 we show our calculated contributions to the hole drag resistivity from individual hole-hole and hole-phonon interactions as compared with the corresponding electron case. The importance of phonon effects to the hole drag transresistivity is manifestly evident in Fig. 4.

In Fig. 3 we qualitatively “explain” the particularly anomalous feature of the data in Ref.  \[shown as the inset in our Fig. 2 to be compared with inset (b) in Fig. 3 of Ref. \], i.e., the non-existence of a peak in $`\rho /T^2`$ as a function of the density ratio $`p_1/p_2.`$ In qualitative agreement with Ref.  the calculated drag resistivity at a fixed temperature decreases monotonically as a function of the hole density ratio $`p_1/p_2`$ without showing any phonon-induced peak at the balance point $`p_1=p_2,`$ as has been observed in corresponding electron bilayer experiments . This peak arises from the sharp 2D Fermi surfaces in the two electron layers which, when perfectly

matched at the balance point $`p_1=p_2`$, leads to enhanced phonon scattering, leading to the peak resistivity at $`p_1=p_2`$. No such peak exists in the hole bilayer case because of the small Fermi temperature in the hole case, $`T_F=1.4K`$, and the large Bloch-Grüneisen temperature, $`T_{BG}=2.8K`$, (for $`p=2\times 10^{10}cm^2`$). Therefore typical $`T/T_F`$ is rather large in the hole case, leading to thermally broadened Fermi surfaces in the low density hole bilayers of Ref.  which cannot exhibit any sharp Fermi surface effects, and consequently the so-called “$`2k_F`$ phonon peak”  arising from the Fermi surface matching is absent. The peak in $`\rho _D/T^2,`$ appearing in Fig. 3, takes place at high temperatures, above the Fermi energy, and is unlikely to be related to the experimental peak that appears around $`0.5K.`$ We believe it may be related to the two opposing temperature dependences of the hole-hole

scattering rate on one hand and the $`\left(\frac{d\sigma _i}{dp_i}\frac{p_i}{\sigma _i}\right)^2`$ factor on the other hand.

In conclusion we have developed a theory for frictional interlayer drag resistivity in low density hole bilayers including both hole-hole and hole-phonon interaction effects. We explain the observed  dramatic deviation of drag resistivity from an RPA-based Boltzmann equation calculation as arising from several factors, out of which the most important ones are the dependence of the single-layer resistivity on density and the exchange induced renormalization of the single-layer polarization operator. Our calculation explains the large increase in the magnitude of drag and the absence of phonon-induced $`2k_F`$ peak in the drag between matched densities. We also obtain reasonable qualitative understaning of the temperature dependence of the drag resistivity. Our calculation are all done within a perturbative Fermi-liquid based approach.

The authors are grateful to D. C. Tsui for discussing the experimental results of Ref.  prior to publication, and to R. Pillarisetty and H. Noh for discussing unpublished measurements of single layer resistivity. This work is supported by US-ONR, ARDA, DARPA, US-Israel BSF and the Israel Science Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Formation time of hadrons in photon induced reactions on nuclei11footnote 1Work supported by DFG.

## 1 Introduction

In a high energy collision between two hadrons or a photon and a hadron it takes a finite amount of time for the reaction products to evolve to physical particles. During the collision process some momentum transfer between the hadrons or some hard scattering between two of the hadrons’ constituents leads to the excitation of hadronic strings. The time that is needed for the creation and fission of these strings as well as for the hadronization of the string fragments cannot be calculated within perturbative QCD because the hadronization process involves small momentum transfers of typically only a few hundred MeV. One can perform an estimate of the formation time $`\tau _f`$ in the rest frame of the hadron. It should be of the order of the time that the quark-antiquark (quark-diquark) pair needs to reach a separation that is of the size of the produced hadron ($`r_h0.60.8`$ fm):

$$\tau _f\frac{r_h}{c}.$$
(1)
During their evolution to physical hadrons the reaction products will react with reduced cross sections. This is motivated by means of color transparency: the strings and the substrings created during the fragmentation are in a color singlet state and therefore mainly react via their color dipole moment which is proportional to their transverse size. For a collision inside nuclear medium this means that during their formation time the produced hadrons travel with a reduced scattering probability. Hence the formation time plays an important role in the dynamics of nuclear reactions, e.g. heavy ion collisions, proton and pion induced reactions as well as photon and electron induced reactions on nuclei. The latter two are of special interest because they are less complex than heavy ion collisions and instead of hadron induced reactions the primary reaction does in general not only take place at the surface of the nucleus but also at larger densities. Experiments at TJNAF and DESY, for example, deal with exclusive and inclusive meson photo- and electroproduction at high energies. Large photon energies $`E_\gamma `$ are of special interest because the formation length $`l_f`$ in the rest frame of the nucleus can exceed nuclear dimensions:

$$l_f=v_h\gamma \tau _f=\frac{p_h}{m_h}\tau _f.$$
(2)
If one chooses the formation time to be $`\tau _f=0.8`$ fm/c, the formation length

in the rest frame of the nucleus will be about 30 fm for a 5 GeV pion and about 7 fm for a 5 GeV Kaon or a 7 GeV $`\rho `$ meson. These lengths have to be compared with the typical size of nuclear radii, e.g. 2.7 fm for 12C and 7.1 fm for 208Pb. The formation time has therefore a big effect on photonuclear production cross section at high energies.

To extract informations about the formation time one needs a realistic description of the final state interactions (FSI) of the reaction products. Since photon induced reactions are known to be shadowed ($`\sigma _{\gamma A}<A\sigma _{\gamma N}`$) above $`E_\gamma 1`$ GeV , one also needs a way to account for this shadowing effect in photoproduction. This is straight forward within Glauber theory  but in simple Glauber theory the FSI are purely absorptive. A more realistic coupled channel description of the FSI is possible within a transport model. We use a semi-classical transport model based on the Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck (BUU) equation to describe the FSI. Originally developed to describe heavy ion collisions  at SIS energies it has been extended in later works to investigate also inclusive particle production in heavy ion collisions up to 200 AGeV and $`\pi `$  and $`p`$ induced as well as photon and electron induced reactions in the resonance region . Inclusive photoproduction of mesons at energies between 1 and 7 GeV has been investigated in . An attractive feature of this model is its capability to describe a large variety of different reaction types. However it is not clear how to account for coherence length effects such as shadowing in a semi-classical transport model. A first attempt has been made in , in the next section we present a new, better way to implement shadowing in our model.

## 2 Model

Within our model we can only calculate the incoherent part of the photon nucleus cross section and we use Glauber theory to calculate coherent processes such as, e.g., coherent vector meson photoproduction. Note that the main part of the difference between the nuclear photoabsorption cross section and the incoherent photoproduction cross section at large energies stems from coherent $`\rho ^0`$ photoproduction. For a detailed discussion of the used transport model and the way how to implement the shadowing effect we refer to  and . In our model the reaction of a high energy photon with a nucleus takes place in two steps. In the first step the photon reacts with one nucleon inside the nucleus (impulse approximation) and produces some final state $`X`$. In this process nuclear effects like Fermi motion, binding energies and Pauli blocking of the final state nucleons are taken into account. In the second step the final state $`X`$ is propagated within the transport model. Except for the exclusive vector meson and exclusive strangeness production (see ) we use the Lund string model FRITIOF  in our model to describe high energy photoproduction on the nucleon. The particle production in FRITIOF can be decomposed into two parts. First there is a momentum transfer taking place between the two incoming hadrons leaving two excited strings with the quantum numbers of the initial hadrons. After that the two strings fragment into the observed particles. As a formation time we use 0.8 fm/c in the rest frame of each hadron; during this time the hadrons do not interact with the rest of the system. Since FRITIOF does not accept photons as incoming particles we use vector meson dominance (VMD)

$$|\gamma =\left(1\underset{V=\rho ,\omega ,\varphi }{}\frac{e^2}{2g_V^2}\right)|\gamma _0+\underset{V=\rho ,\omega ,\varphi }{}\frac{e}{g_V}|V$$
(3)
and pass the photon as a massless $`\rho ^0`$, $`\omega `$ or $`\varphi `$ with a probability corresponding to the strength of the vector meson coupling to the photon times its nucleonic cross section.

In Glauber theory shadowing of incoherent meson photoproduction arises from the interference between the two amplitudes depicted in Fig. 1. The left amplitude corresponds to the process where the photon directly produces the meson $`X`$ at nucleon $`j`$. The second amplitude of order $`\alpha _{em}`$ shows the process where the photon first produces a vector meson $`V`$ on nucleon $`i`$ without excitation of the nucleus. This vector meson then propagates at fixed impact parameter $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ (eikonal approximation) to nucleon $`j`$ to produce the final state meson $`X`$ and leaving the nucleus in the same excited state as in the left amplitude. The FSI of the outgoing meson $`X`$ are usually treated via a purely absorptive optical potential and lead to an exponential damping of the nuclear production cross section $`\mathrm{exp}[\sigma _X_{z_j}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑zn(\stackrel{}{b},z)]`$. If one knew the amplitudes $`T(\gamma NXN)`$ and $`T(VNXN)`$ one would just have to replace the purely absorptive FSI by our transport model. However, these amplitudes are in general unknown. To account for shadowing within our model we, therefore,

start from (3) and use Glauber theory  to calculate how the single $`V`$ components of the photon change due to multiple scattering on the way to nucleon $`j`$ where the state $`X`$ is produced:

$$|\gamma (\stackrel{}{r}_j)=\left(1\underset{V=\rho ,\omega ,\varphi }{}\frac{e^2}{2g_V^2}\right)|\gamma _0+\underset{V=\rho ,\omega ,\varphi }{}\frac{e}{g_V}\left(1\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }_V}(\stackrel{}{r}_j)\right)|V.$$
(4)
Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_V\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)`$ denotes the (photon energy dependent) nuclear profile function. The cross section for the photon to react with nucleon at position $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ inside the nucleus can be deduced via (4) from the optical theorem

$$\sigma _{\gamma N}(\stackrel{}{r})=\left(1\underset{V=\rho ,\omega ,\varphi }{}\frac{e^2}{2g_V^2}\right)^2\sigma _{\gamma _0N}+\underset{V=\rho ,\omega ,\varphi }{}\left(\frac{e}{g_V}\right)^2\left|1\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }_V}(\stackrel{}{r})\right|^2\sigma _V.$$
(5)
Like for the photon in vacuum each term gives the relative weight for the corresponding photon component to be passed to FRITIOF. When integrated over the whole nucleus one gets from Eq. (5) the total incoherent photonuclear cross section

$$\sigma _{\gamma A}^{inc}=d^3r_jn(\stackrel{}{r}_j)\sigma _{\gamma N}(\stackrel{}{r}_j)$$
(6)
which is shown in Fig. 2 together with the total nuclear photoabsorption cross section as calculated in . More than 90% of the difference between those two cross sections stems from coherent $`\rho ^0`$ photoproduction. In Fig. 3 we show how strongly the $`\rho ^0`$ and the $`\varphi `$ component of a real 20 GeV photon are shadowed in Pb. We plot

$$a_{eff}^V(\stackrel{}{r}_j)=n(\stackrel{}{r}_j)\frac{1}{\sigma _{\gamma N}}\left(\frac{e}{g_V}\right)^2\left|1\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }_V}(\stackrel{}{r}_j)\right|^2\sigma _V$$
(7)
as a function of $`\stackrel{}{r}_j`$. One clearly sees that due to its smaller nucleonic cross section the $`\varphi `$ component is less shadowed than the $`\rho ^0`$ component at the backside of the nucleus. This means that strangeness production (e.g. $`K`$ production), where the primary reaction is preferably triggered by the $`\varphi `$ component of the photon, is less shadowed than for instance inclusive $`\pi `$ production. This dependence of the strength of shadowing on the reaction type is new compared to the shadowing in  and can also be seen directly from the second amplitude in Fig. 1 because of the occurrence of the scattering process $`VNXN`$ at nucleon $`j`$.

As already mentioned above the purely absorptive FSI of the Glauber model are very different from the coupled channel description of a transport model. The transport model we use is based on the BUU equation that describes the time evolution of the phase space density $`f(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ of particles that can interact via binary reactions. In our case these particles are the nucleons of the target nucleus as well as the baryonic resonances and mesons ($`\pi `$, $`\eta `$, $`\rho `$, $`K`$, …) that can either be produced in the primary $`\gamma N`$ reaction or during the FSI. For particles of type $`i`$ the BUU equation looks as follows:

$$\left(\frac{}{t}+\frac{H}{\stackrel{}{r}}\frac{}{\stackrel{}{r}}\frac{H}{\stackrel{}{r}}\frac{}{\stackrel{}{p}}\right)f_i(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},t)=I_{coll}[f_1,\mathrm{}f_i,\mathrm{},f_M].$$
(8)
In the case of baryons the Hamilton function $`H`$ includes a mean field potential which in our model depends on the particle position and momentum. The collision integral on the right hand side accounts for the creation and annihilation of particles of type $`i`$ in a collision as well as elastic scattering from one position in phase space into another. For fermions Pauli blocking is taken into account in $`I_{coll}`$ via Pauli factors. For each particle type $`i`$ such a BUU equation exists; all are coupled via the mean field and the collision integral. This leads to a system of coupled differential-integral equations which we solve via a test particle ansatz for the phase space density

$$f_i(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},t)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{j}{}\delta (\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_j)\delta (\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}_j).$$
(9)
For a system of non interacting particles ($`I_{coll}=0`$) this leads directly to the classical equations of motion for the test particles:

$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{r}_j}{dt}=\frac{H}{\stackrel{}{p}_j}\frac{d\stackrel{}{p}_j}{dt}=\frac{H}{\stackrel{}{r}_j}.$$
(10)
Since the collision integral also accounts for particle creation in a collision the observed outgoing particle $`X`$ cannot only be produced in the primary reaction but can also be created by side feeding in which a particle $`Y`$ is created first which propagates and then, by FSI, produces $`X`$. In addition the state $`X`$ might get absorbed on its way out of the nucleus but be fed in again in a later interaction. Both cases can a priori not be ignored but are usually neglected in Glauber models.

## 3 Results

Exclusive vector meson photo- and electroproduction on nuclei is an ideal tool to study the effects of the coherence length, formation time and color transparency. It has been investigated at HERMES  at photon energies between 10 GeV and 20 GeV and $`Q^2`$ 5 GeV2.

The calculations for meson production on nuclei are usually done within simple Glauber theory . As already mentioned above the FSI in Glauber theory are usually purely absorptive. This means that for the reaction $`\gamma A\rho ^0A^{}`$ the primary reaction has to be $`\gamma N\rho ^0N`$. If one treats the FSI via an absorptive optical potential one gets an exponential damping $`\mathrm{exp}[\sigma _{\rho N}_{z_j}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑zn(\stackrel{}{b},z)]`$ of the nuclear production cross section. Up to now we can, for technical reasons, perform calculations only for real photons up to an energy of about 7 GeV. In Fig. 4 we show the results for the mass differential cross section of incoherent $`\rho ^0`$ photoproduction on 208Pb for $`E_\gamma =7`$ GeV. The solid line represents a calculation where the primary reaction is $`\gamma N\rho ^0N`$. It already includes the effects of shadowing, Fermi motion, Pauli blocking and the nucleon potential, but no FSI. The dotted line shows the effect of the FSI without a formation time of the $`\rho ^0`$ in $`\gamma N\rho ^0N`$. The simple Glauber model yields exactly the same result, which means that FSI processes like ($`\rho ^0N\pi N`$, $`\pi N\rho ^0N)`$ where the primary $`\rho ^0`$ gets absorbed first and is fed into the outgoing channel by a later FSI are negligible. If one assumes a formation time of $`\tau _f=0.8`$ fm/c for the $`\rho ^0`$ one gets the result indicated by the dash-dotted line. Due to the finite formation time there is less absorption and the nuclear production cross section increases. If the spectrum looked like this one would in Glauber theory be lead to the conclusion of a finite $`\rho ^0`$ formation time.

However, one will get a similar result with $`\tau _f=0`$ if one allows for other primary reaction besides $`\gamma N\rho ^0N`$ and uses a coupled channel model. This can be seen by looking at the dashed line in Fig. 4. In this case one finds that the main part of the additional $`\rho ^0`$ stem from inclusive $`\rho ^0`$ production in the primary event, e.g. $`\gamma N\rho ^0\pi N`$ where the $`\pi `$ gets absorbed during the FSI. One could now apply an exclusivity measure like in the HERMES experiment

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=\frac{P_Y^2M_N^2}{2M_N},$$
(11)
where $`P_Y`$ denotes the 4-momentum of the undetected final state and $`M_N`$ is the nucleon mass, with -2 GeV$`<\mathrm{\Delta }E<`$0.6 GeV.

This leads to a decrease of the cross section (dash-dot-dotted line) because some of the inclusive primary events are excluded. If the exclusivity measure was good enough to single out only the exclusive primary events, the curve would coincide with the dotted line and Glauber theory would be applicable. Since this is not the case, one still extracts an incorrect formation time when using simple Glauber theory. One therefore needs an additional constraint to make Glauber theory applicable. This becomes clear by examining the differential cross section $`\frac{d\sigma }{dt}`$ in Fig. 5. The meaning of the lines are as before. One can see that for $`|t|>0.1`$ GeV2 the full calculation with exclusivity measure (dash-dot-dotted line) gives the same result as the one with the primary reaction $`\gamma N\rho ^0N`$ and FSI (dotted line). This means that only in this kinematic region Glauber theory can be used. In the HERMES experiment one makes a lower $`|t|`$ cut to get rid of the $`\rho ^0`$ stemming from coherent $`\rho ^0`$ photoproduction. In the case of lead and $`E_\gamma =7`$ GeV the coherent part can be neglected above $`|t|=0.05`$ GeV2. If one wants to apply Glauber theory one will need to increase this threshold to approximately $`|t|=0.1`$ GeV2 to suppress contributions from inclusive $`\rho ^0`$.

One sees that Glauber theory can be trusted only under certain kinematic constraints. To describe less exclusive reactions one needs a more realistic description of the FSI. In Fig. 6 we show the cross section for the reactions $`\gamma AK^+X`$ and $`\gamma AK^{}X`$ in the photon energy range 1-7 GeV for 12C and 208Pb which has already been investigated in . The solid curve in Fig. 6 represents the results of the full calculation (including shadowing, FSI, $`\tau _f=0.8`$ fm/c, etc.). By comparison with the calculation without shadowing (dash-dotted line) one sees how important shadowing becomes at high energies. At 7 GeV it reduces the nuclear production cross section to about 75% for Carbon and 65% for Lead. The importance of a full coupled channel treatment of the FSI becomes clear when looking at inclusive $`K^+`$ production. Since the $`\overline{s}`$ quark cannot be absorbed in medium the FSI can just increase the $`K^+`$ production via processes like $`\pi NK^+Y`$ ($`Y=\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) for example. This one finds by comparison with the calculation without FSI (dashed line). As a consequence of this, a shorter formation time will lead to an increase of the $`K^+`$ production cross section as can be seen from the dotted line. The reason is that with decreasing formation time the primarily produced pions have a greater chance to produce $`K^+`$ in the FSI. As already mentioned in the introduction for $`\tau _f=0.8`$ fm/c the formation length of fast pions is larger than the nuclear dimension, so that they will leave the nucleus without further scattering. An enhancement of the $`K^+`$ production cross section due to FSI can of course not be explained by purely absorptive FSI as in simple Glauber theory. The $`K^{}`$ can also be absorbed via processes like $`K^{}N\pi Y`$. This effect compensates the production due to FSI in 12C and dominates in 208Pb as can bee seen in Fig. 6.

## 4 Summary & Outlook

We have shown that high energy photoproduction off nuclei offers a great possibility to study the physics of hadron formation. However, one needs a reliable model of the FSI to extract the formation time from the production cross sections. Whereas Glauber models allow for a straight forward implementation of the nuclear shadowing effect they usually have the disadvantage of a purely absorptive treatment of the FSI. As we have shown the latter might lead to a wrong estimate of the formation time if the kinematic cuts are not chosen properly. A more realistic treatment of the FSI is possible within a coupled channel transport model. However in such a model it is not totally clear how to account for the shadowing effect. We have presented a method to account for these coherence length effects which can easily be extended to higher energies and virtual photons. This will be done in future work so that we can study the effects of formation time and color transparency in particle production in the HERMES regime . We will also investigate charm production since we expect the same FSI effect as observed for the $`K^+`$ also for the $`\overline{D}`$. In addition, we plan to implement a more realistic time dependence of the cross section for the produced particles during their evolution which might again modify the extracted formation time.

## 5 Acknowledgments

This work was supported by DFG.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Since the realization made by Polchinski in 1995 that D-branes carry Ramond-Ramond charges , they have been considerably studied (see for example  for a review). Neverthe- less, we still lack of a full understanding of the action governing their dynamics.

The low energy effective action of a bosonic Dp-brane is the sum of the Born-Infeld and Wess-Zumino terms. These describe the dynamics of the bosonic massless fields on the D-brane in a general supergravity background, when the fields vary slowly compared to the string scale. The supersymmetrization of this action has been worked out by different groups  \- . The supersymmetric action looks exactly like the bosonic one, but in the former case the brane lives in superspace, and every space-time field is promoted to a superfield. The explicit form of the action is given in terms of the background supervielbein and super NS-NS and R-R gauge fields. Such as it is, it’s difficult to extract information about the dynamics of the world-volume fermionic fields with the purpose of studying D-brane phenomenology.

Explicit fermionic dependence to all orders in the fermions have been obtained in flat space in  and , and in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ in . In this paper we wish to obtain the explicit coupling of a type IIB supergravity background with nontrivial dilaton-axion and both 5 and 3-form fluxes to the world-volume fermions on a D3-brane, to second order in the latter. This is important for any understanding of brane-world models both in supersymmetric and nonsupersymmetric backgrounds. It is also indispensable if we wish to know the long range fields created by a particular D3-brane polarization which, as we will see, has 3-form flux besides the known self-dual 5-form flux.

An expansion of space-time superfields in terms of component fields for a general background was carried out in , following a method known as gauge completion, proposed in . This made it possible to obtain the explicit linear coupling between world-volume fermions and a IIA supergravity background for a D0-brane. The action obtained this way was checked by an independent method relating it to the matrix description of M-theory. We will perform the corresponding expansion for the IIB case.

In fact, we will obtain the action for the world-volume fermions by three different methods: from the known renormalizable 4-dimensional actions with $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry supplemented by 10-dimensional covariance and the relationship found in  between the 3-form flux and the field theory superpotential; from a direct calculation along the lines of , and from T-duality of the D0-brane action worked out in . The actions obtained by the three different methods agree, providing a nice and useful result for future use.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we find the possible couplings between world-volume fermions and background fields from 10-dimensional covariance, 4-dimensional Lorentz invariance and gauge invariance. In Section 3 we find these couplings for a supersymmetric background corresponding to N D3-branes plus a 3-form flux perturbation, worked out in . We also show that any smooth deformation of this background lies in a particular class of solutions studied in -. In Section 4 we perform the expansion of the superfields in terms of component fields, and find thereof the desired interaction terms from the supersymmetric D3-brane action. The results obtained are checked in Section 5 with the action obtained by T-dualizing the D0-brane action. In Section 6, we interpret the results in terms of the 4-dimensional field theory on the D3-brane. We state our conclusions in Section 7, and show in the Appendix the conventions chosen and the supergravity equations used.

## 2 Action from 10-dimensional covariance

We want to find the renormalizable terms in the action that represent the coupling between the fermionic fields on a D3-brane and a bosonic type IIB background. The massless bosonic fields of the type IIB superstring theory consist of the dilaton $`\varphi `$, the metric tensor $`G_{MN}`$ and the antisymmetric 2-tensor $`B_{MN}`$ in the NS-NS sector, and the axion $`C`$, the 2-form potential $`C_{MN}`$, and the four-form field $`C_{MNPQ}`$ with self-dual five-form field strength in the R-R sector. Their fermionic superpartners are a complex Weyl gravitino $`\psi _M`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{10}\psi _M=\psi _M`$) and a complex Weyl dilatino $`\lambda `$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{10}\lambda =\lambda `$). The theory has $`D=10`$, $`𝒩`$=2 supersymmetry with two Majorana-Weyl supersymmetry parameters of the same chirality $`\epsilon _{1,2}`$ $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{10}\epsilon _{1,2}=\epsilon _{1,2})`$. These two spinors are usually combined in the supergravity literature into a complex Weyl spinor. The two scalars $`C`$ and $`\varphi `$ can be combined into a complex field $`\tau =C+ie^\varphi `$ which parameterizes the $`SL(2,𝐑)/U\left(1\right)`$ coset space.

We are interested in backgrounds that preserve Lorentz invariance on the world-volume of the D3-brane, which lies in the 0123 coordinates (henceforth called $`\mu ,\nu \mathrm{}`$). Consequently, we will assume a background geometry of the warped form:

$$ds^2=Z^{1/2}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +Z^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{ds}{}_{6}{}^{2},$$
(1)
where the 6-dimensional space is a complex manifold $`M`$, labeled in each patch by complex coordinates $`z^i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$.

To preserve $`SO(3,1)`$ invariance, the 5-form field strength has to be:

$$F_5=d\chi _4+d\chi _4,\chi _4=f(x^m)dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3$$
(2)
where $`f`$ is a function of the orthogonal coordinates $`x^m`$. There will be generically nonzero NS-NS and R-R 3-form fluxes orthogonal to the D3-brane.

The low energy fermionic degrees of freedom on the world-volume are the massless open string Ramond states, forming a 10-dimensional Majorana-Weyl spinor $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. From 10-dimensional covariance and gauge invariance, we can guess the form of the interaction between $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and the background fields. From gauge invariance, we know that the field strengths and not the potentials should be involved in the Lagrangian. The R-R 3-form field strength $`F_3`$ and the NS-NS $`H_3`$ will be combined in the complex 3-form $`G_{(3)}`$:

$$G_{(3)}=F_{(3)}\tau H_{(3)}$$
(3)
which can have all $`(3,0)`$, $`(2,1)`$, $`(1,2)`$ and $`(0,3)`$ pieces with respect to the complex structure defined on $`M`$. This field might couple to $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ through a term like

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mno}\mathrm{\Theta }G_{mno}$$
(4)
We expect the axion and dilaton to appear in the form:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^m\mathrm{\Theta }_m\tau $$
(5)
and the 5-form field strength as:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNOPQ}\mathrm{\Theta }F_{MNOPQ}$$
(6)
where we have used capital letter indices to indicate that these run over the whole 10-d space. We can already rule out two of these interactions, namely (5) and (6), from the anticommutation relations and the Majorana property of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. For a 32-component Majorana-Weyl spinor, the only nonzero fermion bilinears are

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\mathrm{\Theta }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNPQRST}\mathrm{\Theta }$$
(7)
so we are left only with the possibility outlined in (4) of the world-volume fermions directly coupling to $`G_{(3)}`$.

The Majorana-Weyl spinor $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$ of $`SO(9,1)`$ splits into $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}},\mathrm{𝟒})+(\mathrm{𝟐},\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}})`$ of $`SO(3,1)SO(6)`$. This means that there are four 4-dimensional spinors, three fermions $`\lambda ^i`$ in the $`𝒩=1`$ chiral multiplet and a gaugino $`\psi `$ in the $`𝒩=1`$ vector multiplet. The 32 x 32 Dirac gamma matrices can be decomposed as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =\gamma ^\mu 1,\mathrm{\Gamma }^m=\gamma _{(5)}\gamma ^m$$
(8)
where $`\gamma ^\mu `$ and $`\gamma ^m`$ are Dirac gamma matrices corresponding to $`SO(3,1)`$ and $`SO(6)`$ respective- ly. For the $`SO(6)`$ matrices, it is convenient to group them into complex holomorphic and antiholomorphic ones. The spinors are eigenstates of $`S_i=\gamma ^i\gamma ^{\overline{ı}}\frac{1}{2}`$ with eigenvalues $`\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ . The fermions $`\lambda ^i`$ are built with $`SO(6)`$ spinors that have positive (negative) $`S_i`$ eigenvalue and negative (positive) $`S_j,ji`$ for the $`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}}`$) representation. The gaugino is built from the spinor that has all positive (negative) $`S_i`$ eigenvalues.

There are two independent $`SO(3,1)SO(6)`$ invariants that we can build out of $`G_{(3)}`$, namely the one in Eq.(4) and another one with a power of $`\gamma _{(5)}`$ inserted. Then, in 4-dimensional terms, the coupling to the background $`G_{(3)}`$ field is:

$`a\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\gamma _{(5)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mno}\mathrm{\Theta }G_{mno}+b\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mno}\mathrm{\Theta }G_{mno}`$ $`(a+b)\left(\psi \psi G_{ijk}+\lambda ^i\lambda ^jS_{ij}+\lambda ^i\psi G_{ij}^j\right)`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`(ab)\left(\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }G_{\overline{ı}\overline{ȷ}\overline{k}}+\overline{\lambda }^{\overline{ı}}\overline{\lambda }^{\overline{ȷ}}S_{\overline{ı}\overline{ȷ}}+\overline{\lambda }^{\overline{ı}}\overline{\psi }G_{\overline{ı}\overline{ȷ}}^{\overline{ȷ}}\right)`$
where $`S_{ij}`$ involves the $`(1,2)`$ piece of $`G_{(3)}`$ in the symmetric combination:

$$S_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\widehat{ϵ}_{ikl}G_{j\overline{k}\overline{l}}+\widehat{ϵ}_{jkl}G_{i\overline{k}\overline{l}}\right)$$
(10)
and $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ is the orthogonal frame epsilon, with values $`\pm 1`$.

For backgrounds that do not preserve Lorentz invariance there would be additional pieces in the couplings (9), namely those where the 3-form flux has one, two or three indices along the D3-brane. We have restricted ourselves to Lorentz-invariance preserving backgrounds, so we will not see the effect of those possible terms.

The gaugino mass is then proportional to the $`(3,0)`$ piece of $`G_{(3)}`$, the mass matrix for the fermions in the chiral multiplet is given by the $`(1,2)`$ piece, and the coupling between them by the nonprimitive $`(2,1)`$. In the next section we will interpret this in terms of $`𝒩`$ = 1 supersymmetry.

## 3 Interaction Lagrangian from $`𝒩`$ = 1 supersymmetry

A perturbation expansion in powers of $`G_{(3)}`$ around the black D3-brane solution $`(\text{1})`$-$`(\text{2})`$ was carried out in , with $`\stackrel{~}{ds}_6^2`$ the flat metric, $`f=\frac{1}{4Z}`$ and a constant dilaton. In order to preserve $`𝒩`$=1 supersymmetry, the first order 3-form flux, has to obey

$$G_{ijk}=G_{ij}^j=0,S_{ij}=Z_i_jW(z^i)$$
(11)
where $`W`$ is a holomorphic function proved to be proportional to the superpotential that breaks $`𝒩`$= 4 into $`𝒩`$= 1 in the dual field theory. The complex coordinates $`z^i`$ on which $`W`$ depends, are in the gauge theory the scalar components $`\varphi ^i`$ of the three chiral multiplets.

This result can be generalized by carrying out a first order perturbation in all the bosonic fields, keeping the metric as in (1) with $`\stackrel{~}{ds}_6^2`$ being flat plus a first order correction.

The supersymmetry variations of the dilation and gravitino in the Einstein frame are  111In this Section we use Einstein frame quantities, and a complex spinor $`\epsilon `$, according to the conventions that are mostly used in supergravity literature..

$$\delta \lambda =\frac{e^\varphi }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^M_M\tau \epsilon ^{}+\frac{e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }}{24}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}G_{MNP}\epsilon $$
(12)
$$\delta \psi _M=(D_M+i\frac{e^\varphi }{4}_MC)\epsilon +\frac{i}{480}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{M_1\mathrm{}M_5}F_{M_1\mathrm{}M_5}\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\epsilon +i\frac{e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }}{96}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{PQR}G_{PQR}9\mathrm{\Gamma }^{PQ}G_{MPQ}\right)\epsilon ^{}$$
(13)
where $`D_M`$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the metric $`g_{MN}`$.

The first order dilatino variation enforces $`\tau `$ to be holomorphic and sets $`G_{(3)}`$ to obey the first of the two conditions in (11). The first order gravitino variation splits into two equations. One of them is exactly the same as in , so the first order 3-form flux perturbation obeys all the conditions found there. The important ones for us are those in (11). The other one is

$$\left(D_M+i\frac{e^\varphi }{4}_MC\right)^{(1)}\epsilon ^{(0)}+\frac{i}{480}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{M_1\mathrm{}M_5}F_{M_1\mathrm{}M_5}\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\right)^{(1)}\epsilon ^{(0)}=0$$
(14)
where the subscripts (0) and (1) denote the order in the perturbation expansion. The first order product of $`F_{(5)}`$ and gamma matrices involve the fist order perturbation in $`F_{(5)}`$ as well as that of the metric. The supersymmetry of a configuration of D3/D7-branes, which has nontrivial holomorphic $`\tau `$ that depends only on one of the complex coordinates, was worked out in . In that case, the transverse metric has to be of the form

$$\stackrel{~}{ds}{}_{6}{}^{2}=2(dz^1d\overline{z}^1+dz^2d\overline{z}^2+e^{\varphi (z)}dzd\overline{z})$$
(15)
If we consider a smooth deformation of this background, we can subtract off this perturba- tion from (14) and set $`\tau `$ to a constant. We can also subtract off a perturbation of the 5-form field. Any such perturbation that preserves Lorentz invariance has to be of the form (2), and the result of adding it it’s just a perturbation of the warp factor proportional to $`f`$. Thus, we can also consider the 5-form flux and the warp factor as being unperturbed. Then, insisting that the supersymmetry parameter shouldn’t depend on the longitudinal coordinates, the $`\mu `$ component of (14) tells us that

$$F_{M_1\mathrm{}M_5}^{(0)}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{M_1\mathrm{}M_5}\right)^{(1)}=0$$
(16)
This is the same that appears in the $`m`$ component of (14). This means that from the first term in this equation, we finally find that the first order covariant derivative of $`ϵ^{(0)}`$ has to be zero, which implies that the perturbed metric has to be Ricci flat. In summary, any smooth deformation of the D3/D7 system has to lie in the class studied in  (Eq.(11) for $`G_{(3)}`$ and a metric perturbation of the ”warped Calabi-Yau” form).

Going back to the interaction between the world-volume fermions and the background, Eq.(9), we see that in the $`𝒩`$= 1 ”perturbed D3/D7-brane background”, the gaugino remains massless and there is no gaugino-$`\lambda ^i`$ fermion interaction. On the other hand, these fermions in the chiral multiplet acquire a mass proportional to the second derivative of the holomorphic function $`W`$. This fits nicely with $`𝒩`$= 1 supersymmetry in 4-dimensions, where the mass of the chiral fermions is just the second derivative of the superpotential. We will follow this discussion in Section 6, after we have found the exact interaction Lagrangian.

## 4 Couplings from $`\kappa `$-symmetric D3-brane action

The supersymmetric extension of the Dirac-Born-Infeld and Wess-Zumino actions for a Dirichlet p-brane was worked out in - in terms of supersymmetric space-time variables. It looks like the ordinary bosonic action. For a D3-brane in the string frame, it is

$$S=\mu _3d^4\zeta e^\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{det\left(𝐠_{ij}+F_{ij}𝐁_{ij}\right)}+\mu _3e^{F𝐁}𝐂$$
(17)
The use of boldface indicates that the space-time field has been promoted to a superfield. Here

$$𝐂=_n𝐂_{(n)}$$
(18)
is the collection of all RR potentials pulled back to the world-volume.

The brane is embedded in superspace, labeled by the coordinate $`Z^M=(x^m,\theta ^\mu )`$ 222In this and the following Sections, we use capital letter subindices to indicate bosonic as well as fermionic indices. $`a,b,\mathrm{}`$ refer to bosonic tangent space indices; $`m,n,\mathrm{}`$ are bosonic coordinate space indices; $`i,j,\mathrm{}`$ are world-volume bosonic indices and Greek letters refer to fermionic indices.. The $`𝒩=2`$ 10-dimensional supersymmetry is realized as $`\delta \theta =ϵ,\delta x^m=\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }^m\theta `$. The space-time fermions $`\theta `$ are a pair of real sixteen-component Majorana-Weyl spinors. The IIB fermionic index $`\mu `$ has to be understood as the product of a Majorana-Weyl index and an $`SO(2)`$ index (see Appendix A for more detail).

To project a space-time index -bosonic or fermionic- into the world-volume we must contract with the coordinate differential $`dZ^M`$. Taking for example $`𝐁_{(2)}`$, the projection amounts to

$$B_{ij}=_iZ^M_jZ^N𝐁_{MN}=_ix^m_jx^n𝐁_{mn}+2_{[i}x^m_{j]}\theta ^\mu 𝐁_{m\mu }+_i\theta ^\mu _j\theta ^\nu 𝐁_{\mu \nu }$$

The superspace constraints for the superfields are solved in . Here, we will use a different approach. We will find the expansion of every space-time field in powers of $`\theta `$ up to second order, using a method known as gauge completion. This method was developed for 11-dimensional supergravity in  and applied to IIA in the Einstein frame in . We will apply the same techniques in order to obtain the type IIB case in the string frame. For an alternative way to obtain the expansion of the vielbein, see .

The idea of gauge completion is to compare the superspace diffeomorphisms of a given superfield with the supersymmetry transformation of the corresponding component field. A superspace diffeomorphism acts like

$$\delta 𝐂_{MN}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^P_P𝐂_{MN}+2_{[M}\mathrm{\Sigma }^P𝐂_{P|N]}$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the superdiffeomorphism parameter. To zeroth order in $`\theta `$, it is

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^m=\zeta ^m,\mathrm{\Sigma }^\alpha =\epsilon ^\alpha $$
(20)
where $`\zeta ^m`$ and $`ϵ^\alpha `$ are the usual diffeomorphism and supersymmetry transformation parameters. The space-time superfields are at zeroth order

$`𝐞_m^a`$ $`=`$ $`e_m^a`$
$`𝐞_m^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\psi _m^\alpha `$
$`𝐞_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`𝐞_\mu ^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\mu ^\alpha `$ (21)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi `$
$`𝐁_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`B_{mn}`$
$`𝐁_{m\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
where ”…” indicates that all superfields with bosonic indices have as zeroth order component the corresponding bosonic field, and all the superfields with at least one fermionic index are zero.

To obtain the first order terms, let us illustrate with the dilaton superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, to which we apply a superdiffeomorphism. This amounts to an ordinary diffeomorphism plus a supersymmetry transformation. The latter has to be equal to the supersymmetry transforma- tion of the bosonic field $`\varphi `$, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^\alpha _\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }=\epsilon ^\alpha _\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }\delta _ϵ\varphi =\overline{\epsilon }\lambda $$
(22)
which implies

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi +\theta \lambda +𝒪(\theta ^2)$$
(23)
The same can be done for the vielbein and the gauge potentials. For these, the second term in (19) doesn’t contribute, except when performing a superdiffeomorphism to $`𝐞_m^\alpha `$. In that case we have

$`\delta 𝐞_m^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\beta _\beta 𝐞_m^\alpha +_m\epsilon ^\beta 𝐞_\beta ^\alpha `$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\epsilon ^\beta _\beta 𝐞_m^\alpha +_m\epsilon ^\alpha `$
$``$ $`\delta e_m^\alpha =\delta \psi _m^\alpha =_m\epsilon ^\alpha +\mathrm{}`$
so the derivative of the supersymmetry parameter cancels, and the first order vielbein with mixed components is equal to the supersymmetry variation of the gravitino without this derivative.

To obtain the fermionic components of the fields we need to know $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to first order in $`\theta `$. To that end, we perform the commutator of two superdiffeomorphisms on any superfield, say $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and make it equal to the commutator of two supersymmetries, i.e.

$$\delta _{[\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_2]}\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\epsilon _1^\alpha _\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_2^a\right)_a\mathrm{\Phi }+\left(\epsilon _1^\alpha _\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_2^\beta \right)_\beta \mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{}12$$
(25)
where … indicates terms that involve the ordinary diffeomorphism parameter $`\zeta `$. This should be equal to the commutator of two supersymmetries applied to the component field $`\varphi `$, which gives a combination of a diffeomorphism and a gauge transformation in the case of a gauge field, or a Lorentz transformation in the case of the vielbein. We are interested in the coordinate transformation, whose parameter is $`\zeta ^a=\overline{\epsilon }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\epsilon _1`$. The second term in (25) is zero for a bosonic background, while the first one is the coordinate transformation. We have then

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^a=\zeta ^a\frac{1}{2}\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\epsilon +𝒪(\theta ^2)$$
(26)
Now we can compute the first order term in the expansion of $`𝐞_\mu ^a`$ by performing a superdiffeomorphism

$`\delta 𝐞_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\beta _\beta 𝐞_\mu ^a+_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }^b𝐞_b^a+\mathrm{}`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`\epsilon ^\beta _\beta 𝐞_\mu ^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{\epsilon }\mathrm{\Gamma }^a)_\mu `$
this implies

$$𝐞_\mu ^a=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^a)_\mu $$
(28)
In the same way we can obtain $`𝐁_{m\mu }`$, $`𝐂_{m\mu }`$ and $`𝐂_{mno\mu }`$, including in these cases the gauge transformations that arise when performing two supersymmetry transformations on a given gauge field (see appendix A for the form of the gauge parameters).

To get the action to second order, we just need the second order expansion of the superfields with all bosonic components, and the first order expansion of the superfields with one fermionic index. The second order terms are obtained by the same argument as the first order ones.

We will use static gauge, in which the coordinates that label the world-volume $`\zeta ^i`$ are identified with the space-time coordinates $`x^i`$. In that gauge, the space-time spinor $`\theta `$ becomes a spinor in the world-volume. The superspace generalization of the action possesses a local fermionic symmetry called $`\kappa `$-symmetry . This symmetry allows us to remove half of the fermions by a gauge choice, making the number of fermionic degrees of freedom in the world-volume equal to the bosonic ones. We will work in a general gauge, where the two space-time Majorana-Weyl $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ are related to the world volume spinor $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ by

$$\theta _1=a\mathrm{\Theta }\theta _2=b\mathrm{\Theta },a^2+b^2=1$$
(29)
Then the only nonzero fermion bilinears are those containing antisymmetric products of three or seven gamma matrices (cf Eq(7)) with either $`\sigma ^1`$, $`\sigma ^3`$ or no Pauli matrices multiplying, so many of the terms that appear to second order in the expansion of the superfields vanish. Inside a fermion bilinear, $`\sigma ^1`$ will be equal to $`2ab`$ and $`\sigma ^3`$ to $`a^2b^2`$.

Up to the order that we need in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ (second in the case of a bosonic component, and first in the case of fermionic), we get, for a bosonic background

$`𝐞_m^a`$ $`=`$ $`e_m^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{abc}\mathrm{\Theta }w_{mbc}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(a^2b^2)\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{anp}\mathrm{\Theta }H_{mnp}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}2abe^\varphi \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m^{np}\mathrm{\Theta }F_{np}^a`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}2abe^\varphi \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{anp}\mathrm{\Theta }F_{mnp}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}2abe^\varphi e_m^a\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{npq}\mathrm{\Theta }F_{npq}^{}`$
$`𝐞_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^a)_\mu `$
$`𝐞_m^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`𝐞_\mu ^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\mu ^\alpha `$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}(a^2b^2)\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{pqr}\mathrm{\Theta }H_{pqr}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}2abe^\varphi \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mnp}\mathrm{\Theta }F_{mnp}^{}+`$
$`𝐁_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`B_{mn}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(a^2b^2)\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[m}^{ab}\mathrm{\Theta }w_{n]ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}2abe^\varphi \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mn}^p\mathrm{\Theta }_pC+\mathrm{}`$
$`𝐁_{m\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a^2b^2)(\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m)_\mu `$
$`𝐂_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{mn}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}2abe^\varphi \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[m}^{ab}\mathrm{\Theta }w_{n]ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(a^2b^2)\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mn}^p\mathrm{\Theta }_pC+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}2ab\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mn}^p\mathrm{\Theta }_p\varphi +CB_{mn}|_{\mathrm{\Theta }^2}+\mathrm{}`$
$`𝐂_{m\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`CB_{m\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}2abe^\varphi \left(\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\right)_\mu `$
$`𝐂_{mnop}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{mnop}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}(a^2b^2)\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mnop}^{qrs}\mathrm{\Theta }F_{qrs}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}2abe^\varphi \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mnop}^{qrs}\mathrm{\Theta }H_{qrs}+\mathrm{}`$
$`𝐂_{mno\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`0+\mathrm{}`$ (30)
where the $`+\mathrm{}`$ in the second order $`𝐁_{mn}`$, $`𝐂_{mn}`$ and $`𝐂_{mnop}`$ and first order $`𝐂_{mno\mu }`$ are terms that are zero for our background, when projecting this fields to the world-volume.

To second order in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, the action (17) for a background with 3-form flux orthogonal to the D3-brane, is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mu _3}}={\displaystyle }d^4\zeta e^\varphi (1\mathrm{\Phi }|_{\mathrm{\Theta }^2})\{det[g_{ij}+2_{(i}\mathrm{\Theta }^\mu _{j)}x^b𝐞_\mu ^a|_\mathrm{\Theta }\eta _{ab}+2_ix^m_jx^b𝐞_m^a|_{\mathrm{\Theta }^2}\eta _{ab}`$
$`+F_{ij}𝐁_{ij}|_{\mathrm{\Theta }^2}+2_{[i}\mathrm{\Theta }^\mu 𝐁_{j]\mu }]\}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}\widehat{ϵ}^{ijkl}{\displaystyle d^4\zeta \left[C_{ijkl}+𝐂_{ijkl}|_{\mathrm{\Theta }^2}+6F_{[ij}\left(𝐂_{kl]}|_{\mathrm{\Theta }^2}2_{[k}\mathrm{\Theta }^\mu 𝐂_{l]\mu }C(𝐁_{kl}|_{\mathrm{\Theta }^2}2_{[k}\mathrm{\Theta }^\mu 𝐁_{l]\mu })\right)\right]}`$ (31)
where $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ is the Levi-Civita tensor in the orthogonal frame, with values $`\pm 1`$.

Inserting the expansions (30) in (31) and using, for the DBI part:

$$\sqrt{det\left(1+M\right)}=1+\frac{1}{2}trM\frac{1}{4}trM^2+\frac{1}{8}(trM)^2+𝒪(M^3)$$
(32)
we get, to second order in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and up to terms proportional to $`F`$, changing the background metric in (1) to the string frame,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu _3}}_{DBI}=𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }^0)+Z^1({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^iD_i\mathrm{\Theta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}(a^2b^2)\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{pqr}\mathrm{\Theta }H_{pqr}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}2abe^\varphi \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{pqr}\mathrm{\Theta }F_{pqr}^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a^2b^2)F^{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_iD_j\mathrm{\Theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}2abe^\varphi F^{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^m\mathrm{\Theta }_mC)+𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }^4,F^2)`$ (33)
where $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }^0)`$ are the usual bosonic terms.

For the Wess-Zumino Lagrangian, we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu _3}}_{WZ}=𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }^0)+Z^1({\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}(a^2b^2)e^\varphi \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{pqr}\mathrm{\Theta }(_6F_{(3)}^{})_{pqr}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}2ab\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{pqr}\mathrm{\Theta }(_6H_{(3)})_{pqr}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}2ab(F)^{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_iD_j\mathrm{\Theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(a^2b^2)e^\varphi (F)^{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^m\mathrm{\Theta }_mC+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}2ab(F)^{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^m\mathrm{\Theta }_m\varphi )`$ (34)
Collecting (33) and (34), we get a D3-brane Lagrangian for the world-volume fermions

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu _3}}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }^0)+Z^1({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^iD_i\mathrm{\Theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}e^\varphi \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{pqr}\mathrm{\Theta }Re\left[(a+ib)^2(_6GiG)_{pqr}\right]`$ (35)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a^2b^2)F^{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_iD_j\mathrm{\Theta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}2ab(F)^{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_iD_j\mathrm{\Theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}2abe^\varphi F^{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^m\mathrm{\Theta }_mC`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(a^2b^2)e^\varphi (F)^{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^m\mathrm{\Theta }_mC+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}2ab(F)^{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^m\mathrm{\Theta }_m\varphi )`$
The world-volume fermions don’t couple to the 5-form flux (or to the derivative of the warp factor) as we suggested in Section 2, and they couple to the derivative of the dilation-axion only through the field strength. As far as the coupling to the 3-form flux, they only couple to the combination $`(_6G_{(3)}iG_{(3)})`$. In the class of exact supersymmetric solutions to IIB supergravity studied in , which includes the Klebanov-Strassler solution for the deformed conifold , this combination is zero. In a more general class of supersymmetric and nonsupersymmetric solutions studied in , where the localized sources obey a sort of BPS condition, the 3-form flux $`G_{(3)}`$ must also be imaginary self-dual.

The couplings found in (35) indicate that certain polarizations of the D3-brane have magnetic H-dipole moment, as well as magnetic D5-brane dipole moment. This in turn implies that some polarizations of the D3-brane will produce a generically nonzero value of the 3-form flux. In , the long range supergravity fields were worked out for the different polarizations of a D0-brane. Having found the couplings between the background and the world-volume fermions to second order in the latter, we can obtain the long range supergravity fields produced by a D3-brane up to order $`r^5`$.

### Gauge invariance and $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ duality

The action found in (35) is both gauge invariant and $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ self-dual (when written in the Einstein frame). Let’s first show this for the term involving the coupling to the three-form flux. In the Einstein frame (see Eqs.(51) and (52) below), this coupling is

$$\frac{1}{48}e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }Re\left[(a+ib)^2(_6GiG)_{pqr}\right]\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{pqr}\mathrm{\Theta }$$
(36)
Under an $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ transformation

$$\tau ^{}=\frac{a\tau +b}{c\tau +d},\left(\begin{array}{c}H_{(3)}^{}\\ F_{(3)}^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}d& c\\ b& a\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}H_{(3)}\\ F_{(3)}\end{array}\right)$$
(37)
the combination appearing in (36) picks up a phase

$$e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^{}}G_{(3)}^{}=e^{i\alpha }e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }G_{(3)},e^{i\alpha }=\frac{c\tau +d}{|c\tau +d|}$$
(38)
Also under gauge transformations this combination picks up a phase

$$(a^{}+ib^{})^2=e^{i\beta }(a+ib)^2$$
(39)
Any one of these phases can be removed by a chirality rotation in the fermion $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{}=e^{i\delta \gamma _{(5)}}\mathrm{\Theta }$$
(40)
whose action on (36) is

$$Re\left[(_6GiG)_{pqr}\right]\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{pqr}\mathrm{\Theta }^{}=Re\left[e^{2i\delta }(_6GiG)_{pqr}\right]\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{pqr}\mathrm{\Theta }$$
(41)
Setting $`\delta =\frac{\beta }{2}`$ or $`\delta =\frac{\alpha }{2}`$ we can absorb the phases that appear when we change the gauge or perform an $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ transformation. This part of the action is then both gauge and $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ invariant.

The terms that involve the field strength in (35) are also gauge invariant and self-dual. In the Einstein frame, using again the equations below (51) and (52), these are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu _3}}_{(Einstein)}=`$ $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }^0)+𝒪(F^0,\mathrm{\Theta }^2)`$ (42)
$`+`$ $`Z^1({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a^2b^2)e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }F^{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_iD_j\mathrm{\Theta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}2abe^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }(F)^{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_iD_j\mathrm{\Theta }`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}2abe^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }F^{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^m\mathrm{\Theta }_mC+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(a^2b^2)e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }(F)^{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^m\mathrm{\Theta }_mC`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(a^2b^2)e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }F^{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}\mathrm{\Theta }_m\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}2abe^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }(F)^{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^m\mathrm{\Theta }_m\varphi )`$
where the terms proportional to the derivative of the dilaton come in part from translating to the Einstein frame the term in (35) containing the covariant derivative of the fermion coupled to the field strength.

The first term linear in the filed strength is zero from

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^iD^j\mathrm{\Theta }_jA_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^i\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^j,\overline{)}D\}\mathrm{\Theta }_jA_i`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}D^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^j\mathrm{\Theta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\overline{)}D\mathrm{\Gamma }^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^j\mathrm{\Theta }\right)_jA_i`$
where in the second equality we used the equation of motion in a fermion bilinear $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^iD_i\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$. Moving the first term to the left hand side, we get the combination that appears in the action, which is zero after integrating the second term by parts and using the Bianchi identity $`dF=0`$. The same can be shown for the second term, involving $`F`$.

The remaining four terms in (42) can be combined in the form

$$\frac{1}{16}Im\left[(a+ib)^2(F+iF)^{ij}\frac{_m\tau }{\sqrt{\tau _2}}\right]\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^m\mathrm{\Theta }$$
(44)
This is obviously invariant under $`C^{}=C+1`$, and we will show that it is also invariant under an S-duality $`\tau ^{}=\frac{1}{\tau }`$, along the lines of Seiberg and Witten’s prove of S-duality in $`𝒩=2`$ super Yang Mills . Introduce a Lagrange multiplier vector field $`A_D`$, add to the Lagrangian a term $`\frac{1}{2}(F_D)^{ij}F_{ij}`$ and integrate out $`F`$. The result of doing this is the usual bosonic term with $`F`$ replaced by $`F_D`$ and $`\tau `$ replaced by $`\frac{1}{\tau }`$, and for the term involving the fermions, we get

$$\frac{1}{16}Im\left[(a+ib)^2(F_D+iF_D)^{ij}\frac{_m\tau }{\tau \sqrt{\tau _2}}\right]\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^m\mathrm{\Theta }$$
(45)
But this is just what we would get if we change $`\tau `$ in (44) by $`\frac{1}{\tau }`$, up, again, to a phase transformation, i.e.

$$\frac{_m\tau }{\sqrt{\tau _2}}\stackrel{}{\tau {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\tau }}}\frac{_m\tau }{\tau \sqrt{\tau _2}}e^{i\alpha }$$
(46)
where $`\alpha `$ was defined in (38), and in the present case $`c=1,d=0`$. A gauge redefinition also amounts to adding a phase, as in (39). Any two of these phases can now be absorbed by a duality rotation of the world-volume field strength.

We have thus shown that the action is gauge invariant, and is invariant under $`\tau \tau +1`$ and $`\tau \frac{1}{\tau }`$, making it $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ self-dual. It is nice to see how both symmetries act in a similar way, adding a phase that can be removed by a redefinition of a world-volume field.

## 5 T-duality of D0-brane Action

The interactions between world-volume fermions and the supergravity background for a D0-brane to order $`\mathrm{\Theta }^2`$ have been worked out in the Einstein frame in . The explicit form of the action is shown in the weak field limit, keeping only terms linear in the background field. But it is not hard to get the action including nonlinear terms, as well as terms involving time derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, that they set to zero. It is

$`S=`$ $``$ $`\mu _0{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau e^{\frac{3}{4}\varphi }(1\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{\Phi }|_{\mathrm{\Theta }^2})\left((g_{MN}2e_{Ma}𝐞_N^a|_{\mathrm{\Theta }^2})\dot{x}^M\dot{x}^N2\dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}^\mu 𝐞_\mu ^a\eta _{ab}\dot{x}^b\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}`$ (47)
$`+`$ $`\mu _0{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \left(C_M+𝐂_M|_{\mathrm{\Theta }^2}\right)\dot{x}^M}+\dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}^\mu C_\mu |_\mathrm{\Theta }`$
where boldface fields are superfields, and the indices $`M,N`$ are bosonic indices that run over time and space.

The expansions found in  for a bosonic background, in the gauge $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{11}\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Theta }`$ are

$`𝐞_m^a`$ $`=`$ $`e_m^a+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{abc}\mathrm{\Theta }w_{mbc}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{64}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m^{op}\mathrm{\Theta }H_{op}^a+{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{64}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ano}\mathrm{\Theta }H_{mno}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{192}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }e_m^a\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{nop}\mathrm{\Theta }H_{nop}`$
$`𝐞_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^a)_\mu `$
$`𝐞_m^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}e^{\frac{3}{4}\varphi }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_m^{no}\mathrm{\Theta })^\mu F_{no}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{192}}e^{\frac{1}{4}\varphi }(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{nop}\mathrm{\Theta })^\mu F_{mnop}^{}`$
$`𝐞_\mu ^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\mu ^\nu `$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{48}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mnp}\mathrm{\Theta }H_{mnp}`$
$`𝐁_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[m}^{op}\mathrm{\Theta }w_{n]op}{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{32}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[m}^{op}\mathrm{\Theta }H_{n]op}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mn}^p\mathrm{\Theta }_p\varphi `$
$`𝐂_m`$ $`=`$ $`C_m{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m^{no}\mathrm{\Theta }F_{no}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{48}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{nop}\mathrm{\Theta }F_{mnop}^{}`$
$`𝐂_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}e^{\frac{3}{4}\varphi }(\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{11})_\mu `$ (48)
Inserting (48) in (47) and expanding the square root in the DBI part we get, to first order in the velocity and second order in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ 333We have assumed that the metric splits into a time-time component and space-space components. This must hold if we want the T-dual metric to look like (1).

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu _0\sqrt{g_{00}}}}_{DBI}=𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }^0)`$ (49)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{48}}e^{\frac{5}{4}\varphi }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mnp}\mathrm{\Theta }H_{mnp}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16}}e^{\frac{5}{4}\varphi }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{0mn}\mathrm{\Theta }H_{0mn}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}e^{\frac{3}{4}\varphi }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{0mn}\mathrm{\Theta }w_{0mn}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}e^{\frac{3}{4}\varphi }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^0\dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e^{\frac{3}{4}\varphi }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(m|}^{np}\mathrm{\Theta }w_{np}^{|0)}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16}}e^{\frac{5}{4}\varphi }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(m|}^{np}\mathrm{\Theta }H_{np}^{|0)}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}e^{\frac{3}{4}\varphi }g^{00}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}\right)\dot{x}^m`$
where the indices $`m,n,\mathrm{}`$ run over spatial directions only.

The Wess-Zumino part of the action gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu _0}}_{WZ}=𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }^0)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{mn}\mathrm{\Theta }F_{mn}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{48}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mnp}\mathrm{\Theta }F_{0mnp}^{}`$ (50)
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{16}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m^{np}\mathrm{\Theta }F_{np}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{48}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{npq}\mathrm{\Theta }F_{mnpq}^{}\right)\dot{x}^m`$
This result is given in the Einstein frame, and we would like to change it to the string frame. We expect to have an overall factor of $`\sqrt{g_{00(string)}}e^\varphi `$ in front of the Lagrangian. Using $`g_{mn(Einstein)}=e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }g_{mn(string)}`$, which implies

$`\sqrt{g_{(4)(Einstein)}}=e^\varphi \sqrt{g_{(4)(string)}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(Einstein)}^m=e^{\frac{1}{4}\varphi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(string)}^m`$
$`w_{mp(Einstein)}^0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_{[\widehat{m}}\varphi e_{\widehat{p}](string)}^0+w_{mp(string)}^0`$ (51)
-where a hat is used to remind that the indices are tangent space indices- we get that the fermion $`\theta `$ should transform as

$$\theta _{(Einstein)}=e^{\frac{1}{8}\varphi }\theta _{(string)}$$
(52)
This agrees with the rescaling of the spinors found in  and also with the way the supersymmetry parameter $`\epsilon `$ transforms . Every RR field also transforms as $`F_{(n)(Einstein)}=e^\varphi F_{(n)(string)}`$.

In the string frame, the D0-brane Lagrangian is then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu _0\sqrt{g_{00}}}}_{DBI(string)}=𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }^0)`$ (53)
$`+`$ $`e^\varphi \left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{48}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mnp}\mathrm{\Theta }H_{mnp}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{0mn}\mathrm{\Theta }H_{0mn}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{0mn}\mathrm{\Theta }w_{0mn}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^0\dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`e^\varphi \left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(m|}^{np}\mathrm{\Theta }w_{np}^{|0)}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(m|}^{np}\mathrm{\Theta }H_{np}^{|0)}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}g^{00}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}\right)\dot{x}^m`$
for the DBI part, and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu _0}}_{WZ(string)}=𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }^0)`$ $`+`$ $`e^\varphi \left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{16}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{mn}\mathrm{\Theta }F_{mn}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{48}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mnp}\mathrm{\Theta }F_{0mnp}^{}\right)`$ (54)
$`+`$ $`e^\varphi \left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{16}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m^{np}\mathrm{\Theta }F_{np}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{48}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{npq}\mathrm{\Theta }F_{mnpq}^{}\right)\dot{x}^m`$
for the Wess-Zumino.

We want to T-dualize this action in the 1,2 and 3 directions to get the D3-brane action. If we implement T-duality in n directions labeled by $`i,j,\mathrm{}`$ the NS-NS and R-R fields transform as (see for example )

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒢_{ab}𝒢_{ai}𝒢^{ij}𝒢_{jb}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{ai}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒢^{ij}𝒢_{aj}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{ia}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒢_{ja}𝒢^{ji}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒢^{ij}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}lndet(𝒢_{ij})`$
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{qk}i_1\mathrm{}i_k}^q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(nk)!}}ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}𝒞_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{qk}i_{k+1}\mathrm{}i_n}^{(n+q2k)}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{A}^i`$ $`=`$ $`x^i`$ (55)
where the fields with tilde are the T-dual fields, $`A^i`$ is the world-volume gauge field, and we have defined

$`𝒢_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{ab}B_{ab}`$
$`𝒞^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`C^{(n)}C^{(n2)}B+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}C^{(n4)}BB+\mathrm{}`$ (56)
We want our T-dual metric to be of the form (1) multiplied by $`e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }`$ to change it to the string frame, and the NS-NS and R-R T-dual 2-form fields to be orthogonal to the 3-brane. From (55) we see that $`B_{(2)}`$ has to be originally orthogonal to it, and $`g^{ij}=e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }Z^{\frac{1}{2}}\eta _{ij}`$.

Let’s start with the velocity-independent terms in the DBI action (53). The first one T-dualizes to

$$\frac{i}{48}\sqrt{g_{00(string)}}e^\varphi \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mnp}\mathrm{\Theta }H_{mnp}\frac{i}{48}Z^1\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mnp}H_{mnp}6\mathrm{\Gamma }^{iab}w_{iab})\mathrm{\Theta }$$
(57)
This, together with the third and fourth terms in (53), give the covariant derivative of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ along the directions of the D3-brane: $`\frac{i}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^iD_i\mathrm{\Theta }`$; $`i=0,1,2,3`$. The second term in (53) vanishes when T-dualizing, by the condition of Lorentz invariance.

As far as the T-dual of the velocity-independent terms in the Wess-Zumino Lagrangian (54), the first one T-dualizes to zero according to the Lorentz-invariance condition, and in the second one:

$$F_{0mnp}^{}=C_{0[mn,p]}C_0H_{mnp}\frac{1}{3!}ϵ^{ijk}C_{0ijk[mn,p]}\frac{1}{3!}ϵ^{ijk}C_{0ijk}H_{mnp}$$
(58)
where in the first equality we imposed the condition that the fields are time independent, and $`H_{(3)}`$ doesn’t have a time component. Using, in form notation,

$$dC_{(6)}=e^\varphi (F_{(3)}CH_{(3)})+C_{(4)}H_{(3)}$$
(59)
and combining it with the first term in (57), coming from the DBI Lagrangian, we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{48}}e^\varphi \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mnp}\mathrm{\Theta }F_{0mnp}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{48}}\sqrt{g_{00(string)}}e^\varphi \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mnp}\mathrm{\Theta }H_{mnp}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{48}}e^\varphi Z^1\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mnp}\mathrm{\Theta }Re[(_6G)_{mnp}iG_{mnp}]`$ (60)
The terms proportional to the velocity, when T-dualizing, will give terms proportional to the world-volume field strength. So the terms we have just found are all the renormalizable terms on the world-volume. Collecting them, we get from T-duality that the renormalizable terms in the D3-brane Lagrangian

$$_{D3}=𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }^0)+Z^1(\frac{i}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^iD_i\mathrm{\Theta }\frac{i}{48}e^\varphi \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mnp}\mathrm{\Theta }Re[(_6G)_{mnp}iG_{mnp}])$$
(61)
where $`i`$ runs fron 0 to 3.

This interaction between the world-volume fermions and the 3-form flux is exactly as found in the previous section (35)444The difference in factors of $`i`$ come from the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ matrices, which are taken to be real in Section V, while in  they were chosen to be imaginary. in the gauge $`(a,b)=(1,0)`$, providing a check of our results.

As for the terms involving the D0-brane velocity in the DBI Lagrangian (53), the first and the last one combine to give a covariant derivative of the spinor, that T-dualizes to

$$\frac{i}{2}e^\varphi \sqrt{g_{(string)}^{00}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_iD_0\mathrm{\Theta }\dot{x}^i\frac{i}{2}Z^1\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_iD_0\mathrm{\Theta }F^{i0}$$
(62)
as appears in the D3-brane calculation (35). The second one gives zero for our background.

In the Wess-Zumino action (54), the first term proportional to the velocity is zero after performing T-duality, and the second goes to

$$\frac{i}{48}e^\varphi \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mnp}\mathrm{\Theta }F_{imnp}^{}\dot{x}^i\frac{i}{16}Z^1\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ijm}\mathrm{\Theta }_mC(F)_{ij}$$
(63)
This term is also in complete agreement with those found in the previous Section, also in the gauge $`(a,b)=(1,0)`$, concluding our check of the world-volume fermionic action for a D3-brane.

From our results, it seems that the gauge choice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{11}\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in the IIA case corresponds to the choice $`(a,b)=(1,0)`$ (Eq. (29)) in the IIB case. Anyway, we showed in the D3-brane case that the action is gauge invariant.

## 6 Gauge Theory on the D3-brane

Splitting the spinor $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in 10-dimensions into a 4-dimensional gaugino and three fermions $`\lambda ^i`$ in the chiral multiplet as we did in Section 2, we can interpret our results in terms of gauge theory on the D3-brane.

From the kinetic term for $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ we get the kinetic terms for the gaugino and $`\lambda ^i`$ fermions555In this Section, since we are dealing with ordinary space, we go back to the conventions used at the beginning, where Greek subindices label directions along the D3-brane.

$$\frac{1}{2}Z^1\left(\overline{\lambda }^{\overline{ı}}\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu \lambda ^i+\overline{\psi }\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu \psi \right)$$
(64)
where the covariant derivative reduced to an ordinary derivative, since

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\gamma ^\mu w_\mu ^{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{1}{2}_mlnZ\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^m\mathrm{\Theta }=0$$
(65)
from (7). As far as the interaction terms, in the first place, from the combination $`(_6G_{(3)}iG_{(3)})`$ that we get in the renormalizable part of the action, only $`G_{ijk},S_{ij}`$ and $`G_{ij}^j`$ survive. So, from (35) and (9), the renormalizable fermion-fermion interactions in the D3-brane are

$$\frac{Z^1}{48}e^\varphi \left(\lambda ^i\lambda ^jRe(S_{ij})+\lambda ^i\psi Re(G_{ij}^j)+\psi \psi Re(G_{ijk})\right)$$
(66)
These components of the 3-form flux are in general functions of the coordinates $`z^i`$, which are in the gauge theory the scalar partners of $`\lambda ^i`$. When the D-brane is located at some $`z^i`$, these scalar fields acquire a vev, giving masses to the fermions.

In low energy effective $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric theories, these terms are constructed from the superpotential and the auxiliary fields $`F`$ and $`D`$ in the chiral and vector multiplet respectively

$$_{𝒩=1}=\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^i\lambda ^j\frac{^2W}{\varphi ^i\varphi ^j}+\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}D\frac{\tau }{\varphi ^i}\lambda ^i\psi F^i\frac{\tau }{\varphi ^i}\psi \psi +\mathrm{}$$
(67)
where $`+\mathrm{}`$ stands for kinetic terms, and terms involving the gauge field.

The term involving the mass of the fermions in the chiral multiplet fits nicely, as we mentioned in Section 3, with the result obtained in , where the symmetric combination of $`(1,2)`$ components of $`G_{(3)}`$ was found to be proportional to the superpotential in the field theory.

The tree level gaugino mass is associated to F-term supersymmetry breaking. Comparing Eqs.(66) and (67), we see that this breaking comes in the 10-dimensional theory from the $`(3,0)`$ piece of the 3-form flux. Going back to (12), we see indeed that if the dilaton is holomorphic, a nonzero $`(3,0)`$ piece of $`G_{(3)}`$ breaks all the supersymmetry.

Finally, the coupling between the matter fermions and the gaugino, is associated with D-term supersymmetry breaking. Again, comparing with (66), we see that this breaking comes from the nonprimitive $`(2,1)`$ 3-form flux, whose nonzero vacuum expectation value also breaks supersymmetry in the 10-dimensional theory.

Supersymmetry breaking in the field theory is mediated in this scenario by bulk supergravity fields. For other mechanisms of supersymmetry breaking in brane-world models see  and references therein.

The other terms in (35), which have one power of the field strength, give in 4-dimensions

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu m}\mathrm{\Theta }(F+iF)_{\mu \nu }_m\tau ϵ^{\overline{ı}\overline{ȷ}\overline{k}}\lambda ^i\overline{\sigma }^\mu \sigma ^\nu \lambda ^j(F+iF)_{\mu \nu }_{\overline{k}}\tau +\lambda ^i\overline{\sigma }^\mu \sigma ^\nu \psi (F+iF)_{\mu \nu }_i\tau $$
(68)
These are transition electric and magnetic moments for the fermions in the chiral multiplet. In general, with multiple D3-branes, those fermions would be the quarks and leptons of the gauge theory. Considering the case of the neutrinos, transition moments have been speculated to be a possible explanation to the solar neutrino problem (see  and references therein). Models including neutrino transition magnetic moments both in the Standard Model  -including a fourth generation neutrino- and in the softly broken MSSM  -keeping an unbroken $`l_el_\mu `$ symmetry- have been built.

## 7 Conclusions

We have found the coupling between the world-volume fermions on a D3-brane and an $`SO(3,1)`$-invariant IIB supergravity background, to second order in the fermions. These only couple directly to the NS-NS and R-R 3-form flux, which implies that a single D3-brane in certain states has $`H_{(3)}`$ and $`F_{(3)}`$-dipole moments. The 3-form flux appears in the combination $`(_6G_{(3)}iG_{(3)})`$, which is closely related to the equations of motion of type IIB supergravity. There are particular classes of supersymmetric and nonsupersymmetric exact solutions where this combination vanishes, rendering the background transparent to the brane (the bosonic world-volume degrees of freedom don’t couple either to the 3-form flux when it is orthogonal to the brane). We have also found that the world-volume gauge field couples linearly only to the derivative of the dilaton-axion. We proved gauge invariance and $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ duality of the action, noting that gauge redefinitions and $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ transformations act in a fashion that can be offset by redefinitions of world-volume fields.

By splitting the $`SO(9,1)`$ spinor $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ into representations of $`SO(3,1)SO(6)`$, we interpreted our results in terms of 4-dimensional gauge theories. The spinor $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ splits into a Weyl spinor in the $`𝒩=1`$ vector multiplet -photino- and three Weyl spinors each one in an $`𝒩=1`$ chiral multiplet -”matter fermions”-. The coupling to the 3-form flux corresponds to mass terms for the photino and matter fermions, as well as a photino-matter fermion interaction. The component of the 3-form flux that gives mass to the photino, the $`(3,0)`$, as well as the component that appears in the photino-matter fermion interaction -nonprimitive $`(2,1)`$\- break supersymmetry in the 10-dimensional IIB background. We saw that in 4-dimensional supersymmetric theories, these interactions come from F and D-term supersymmetry breaking. On the other hand, the mass matrix for the matter fermions, which comes from the $`(1,2)`$ piece of $`G_{(3)}`$, can be nonzero in a supersymmetric background corresponding to a D3/D7-brane system plus a 3-form flux perturbation. In the case of a background corresponding only to N D3-branes plus a 3-form flux perturbation, which includes the Polchinski-Strassler solution , this vev was found in  to be proportional to the second derivative of the superpotential that breaks $`𝒩=4`$ into $`𝒩=1`$ in the field theory. These two pieces fit nicely, since in supersymmetric 4-d gauge theories the mass matrix for the fermions in the chiral multiplet is given by the second derivative of the superpotential.

When there is a nonzero gauge field on the D3-brane, we showed that there is a flavor changing dipole moment proportional to the antiholomorphic derivative of the dilaton-axion, as well as a matter fermion-photino dipole moment proportional to its holomorphic derivative. In a IIB supersymmetric background with 4 supercharges, the dilaton is holomorphic or antiholomorphic depending whether we have D3 or anti D3-branes. In the cases considered before, the dilaton is holomorphic, and only the matter fermion-photino dipole moment survives in these supersymmetric backgrounds.

The results here obtained completely agree with the ones obtained in  for a D0-brane, after performing T-duality in three directions. They provide a very useful result for brane-world models and in general for D-brane phenomenology. The generalization to several D3-branes shouldn’t be hard to obtain, and it can be used for the construction of realistic models of nature built from D-branes in background fluxes.

## Acknowledgements

I am greatly indebted to Joe Polchinski, for guiding me through this project and reading the manuscript. I would also like to thank Iosif Bena, Andrew Frey, Mark Van Raamsdonk, Pedro Silva, Andrei Starinets, Wati Taylor, Arkady Tseytlin and the CIT-USC Center for Theoretical Physics, where part of this project was completed. This work was supported by National Science Foundation grant PHY97-22022.

## Appendix

Throughout the paper, we use two different conventions with respect to indices, according to what’s most convenient in each case. In Sections 2,3 and 6, where we deal with ordinary space-time, upper case Latin indices refer to the entire ten-dimensional space-time, and lower case Greek indices refer to 4-dimensional space-time. For the 6-dimensional space, we use m,n,.. when dealing with a real basis, and i,j,… for a complex basis. In Sections 4 and 5, when working in superspace, upper case Latin indices refer to any index, bosonic or fermionic. Lower case Greek indices are fermionic indices and lower case m,n,… refer to bosonic coordinate basis indices; a,b,… refer to bosonic tangent space indices and i,j… are bosonic world-volume indices.

We use 32-component Majorana-Weyl spinors $`\theta ^\mu `$, where the index $`\mu `$ should be viewed as a composite index, product of a Majorana-Weyl index and an SO(2) index. The generators of the SO(2) may taken to be $`\sigma ^1,i\sigma ^2,\sigma ^3`$, where $`\sigma `$’s are Pauli matrices. A possible correspondence with the complex formalism used in supergravity papers is $`\sigma ^1\theta i\theta ^{}`$, $`i\sigma ^2\theta i\theta `$, $`\sigma ^3\theta \theta ^{}`$. The Dirac gamma-matrices are also extended, and they obey $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^M,\mathrm{\Gamma }^N\}=2g^{MN}`$ times a delta in the SO(2) index. All fermions and Gamma matrices are thus real.

The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s may be decomposed

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =\gamma ^\mu 1,\mathrm{\Gamma }^m=\gamma _{(5)}\gamma ^m$$

where $`\gamma ^\mu `$ and $`\gamma ^m`$ are Dirac gamma matrices corresponding to $`SO(3,1)`$ and $`SO(6)`$ respective- ly. The 4-dimensional chirality matrix is

$$\gamma _{(5)}=\frac{i}{4!}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\gamma ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }$$

where $`ϵ_{0123}=\sqrt{g_{(4)}}=Z^1`$. In the 6-dimensional space, the chirality matrix is

$$\gamma _{(7)}=\frac{i}{6!}ϵ_{mnopqr}\gamma ^{mnopqr}$$

and

$$\gamma _{(11)}=\gamma _{(5)}\gamma _{(7)}$$

The supersymmetry transformations for the fields in type IIB in the string frame are ,

$`\delta \lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^M_M\varphi \epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}H_{MNP}\sigma ^3\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }^MF_M(i\sigma ^2)\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}e^\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}F_{MNP}^{}\sigma ^1\epsilon `$
$`\delta \psi _M`$ $`=`$ $`D_M\epsilon +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}e^\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }^N\mathrm{\Gamma }_MF_N(i\sigma ^2)\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{PQ}H_{MPQ}\sigma ^3\epsilon +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}e^\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }^{PQR}\mathrm{\Gamma }_MF_{PQR}^{}\sigma ^1\epsilon `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}!}}e^\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }^{PQRST}F_{PQRST}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_M(i\sigma ^2)\epsilon `$
$`\delta e_m^a`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\epsilon }\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\psi _m`$
$`\delta \varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\epsilon }\lambda `$
$`\delta B_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{\epsilon }\sigma ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[m}\psi _{n]}`$
$`\delta C_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`2e^\varphi \overline{\epsilon }\sigma ^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[m}\left(\psi _{n]}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n]}\lambda \right)+C\delta B_{mn}`$
$`\delta C_{mnop}`$ $`=`$ $`4e^\varphi \overline{\epsilon }(i\sigma ^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[mno}\left(\psi _{p]}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p]}\lambda \right)+12C_{[mn}\delta B_{op]}`$
where $`D_M`$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the metric, and the modified field strengths $`F^{}`$ are

$$F_{(3)}^{}=dC_{(2)}CH_{(3)},F_{(5)}^{}=dC_{(4)}H_{(3)}C_{(2)}$$
(69)
The commutator of two local supersymmetries on a gauge field gives a combination of a coordinate and a gauge transformation. For any field to which the commutator is applied, the resulting coordinate transformation is

$$\zeta ^m=\overline{\epsilon }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }^m\epsilon _1$$
(70)
and the gauge transformations are

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_m^B=\zeta ^nB_{mn}\overline{\epsilon }_2\sigma ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\epsilon _1$$
(71)
for the NS-NS 2-form field $`B_{(2)}`$, and

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_m^C`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta ^nC+e^\varphi \overline{\epsilon }_2\sigma ^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\epsilon _1C\overline{\epsilon }_2\sigma ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\epsilon _1`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mnp}^C`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta ^qC_{qmnp}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^\varphi \overline{\epsilon }_2(i\sigma ^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mnp}\epsilon _13C_{[mn}\overline{\epsilon }_2\sigma ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p]}\epsilon _1`$ (72)
for the R-R 2- and 4-form fields $`C_{(2)}`$ and $`C_{(4)}`$ respectively.