text:
# Charge Fluctuations and Counterion Condensation

## I Introduction

Electrostatic interactions control the structure, phase behavior, and function of macroions in aqueous solutions. The macroions may be charged membranes, stiff polyelectrolytes such as DNA, or charged colloidal particles. The fundamental description of these charged systems has been the Poisson-Boltzmann (PB) theory. However, it ignores fluctuations and correlations, which are important for the cases of low temperatures, highly charged surfaces, or multivalent counterions. These fluctuation and correlation effects, which have been the focus of recent theoretical efforts, may drastically alter the mean-field picture of PB theory . For example, one surprising effect is the attraction between two highly charged macroions, as observed in experiments and in simulations. In this paper, we argue that correlation effects may lead to condensation of counterions onto an oppositely charged plate, whose surface charge becomes effectively renormalized. In particular, the counterion valence plays an interesting role: for $`Z>Z_c1.62`$ for typical system parameters (see below), we find a first-order phase transition in which a large fraction of the counterions is condensed, while for $`Z<Z_c`$ the condensation proceeds smoothly, implying that monovalent and divalent counterions exhibit qualitatively distinct behavior. This is in contrast with more familiar theories of counterion condensation, e.g. Manning condensation for charged rods, where the effective charge is continuously modified by the valence.

Recall that for a single plate of charge density $`\sigma (𝐱)=\sigma _0\delta (z)`$ immersed in an aqueous solution of dielectric constant $`ϵ`$, containing point-like counterions of charge $`Ze`$ on both sides of the plate, PB theory predicts that the counterion density

$$c(z)=\frac{1}{2\pi Z^2l_B\left(|z|+\lambda \right)^2},$$
(1)
decays to zero algebraically with a characteristic length $`\lambda e/(\pi l_BZ\sigma _0)`$, where $`l_B\frac{e^2}{ϵk_BT}7`$Å is the Bjerrum length in water at room temperature, $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $`T`$ is the temperature. This Gouy-Chapman (GC) length $`\lambda `$ defines a sheath near the charged surface within which most of the counterions are confined. Typically, it is on the order of few Angstroms for $`\sigma _0e/100`$Å-2. Note that Eq. (1) implies that at zero temperature all of the counterions would collapse onto the charged plane. However, for high surface charge (or low temperature) $`Z^2l_B\lambda `$, fluctuation and correlation corrections can become so large that the solution Eq. (1) to the PB equation is no longer valid. Therefore, we might expect a quantitative deviation from the conclusion above. Indeed, as pointed out by Netz et al., a perturbative expansion about the PB solution breaks down in this regime, as indicated by an unphysical (negative) counterion density in the one-loop approximation. Motivated by these observations, we propose a two-fluid model in which the counterions are divided into a free and a condensate fraction. The free counterions have the usual 3D spatial distribution, while the condensed counterions are confined to the two-dimensional charged plane, with a mean (2D) density $`n_c`$. We treat the fraction of 2D condensed counterions $`\tau Zen_c/\sigma _0`$ as a variational parameter, which is determined self-consistently by minimizing the total free energy of the system.

It may be useful to illustrate the essential physics first by a simple picture. In the spirit of the two-fluid model, the 2D condensed counterions partially neutralize the charged plate, effectively reducing the surface charge density from $`\sigma _0`$ to $`en_R=\sigma _0Zen_c`$, where $`n_c`$ is their surface (2D) density. The free counterions can be modeled as a 3D ideal gas confined to a slab of thickness $`\lambda _R1/(\pi l_BZn_R)`$. At the Debye-Hückel level, the free energy per unit area for the condensed counterions $`f_{2d}(n_c)`$ can be written as

$$\beta f_{2d}(n_c)=n_c\left\{\mathrm{ln}[n_ca^2]1\right\}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2𝐪}{(2\pi )^2}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{1}{q\lambda _D}\right]\frac{1}{q\lambda _D}\right\},$$
(2)
where $`\beta ^1=k_BT`$ and $`\lambda _D=1/(2\pi l_BZ^2n_c)`$ is the 2D screening length. The first term in Eq. (2) is the entropy and the second term arises from the 2D fluctuations. Note that the latter term is logarithmically divergent, which may be regularized by a microscopic cut-off $`q_c2\pi /a`$, yielding $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }f_{2d}(n_c)\frac{1}{8\pi \lambda _D^2}\mathrm{ln}(2\pi \lambda _D/a)`$. The free energy of the free counterions $`f_{3d}(n_c)`$ consists of the entropy of a confined 3D ideal gas and the fluctuation free energy. The latter term may be estimated by using the fluctuation contribution to the free energy density from the 3D Debye-Hückel theory and multiplying it by the thickness of the slab $`\lambda _R`$:

$$\beta f_{3d}(n_c)c\lambda _R\left\{\mathrm{ln}[ca^3]1\right\}\frac{\kappa _s^3}{12\pi }\lambda _R,$$
(3)
where $`c=n_R/(Z\lambda _R)`$ average (3D) concentration of the free counterions and $`\kappa _s^24\pi Z^2l_Bc`$ is the $`3D`$ screening length. Note that the second term scales as $`\lambda _R^2`$. This simple picture to estimate $`f_{3d}(n_c)`$ contains all the qualitative physics, which follow from the more precise analysis presented below. The total free energy in the two-fluid model is $`f(\tau )=f_{2d}(\tau )+f_{3d}(\tau )`$. Minimizing $`f(n_c)`$ to find $`n_c`$, we obtain

$$1+\tau g\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\pi }{\tau \theta g}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\tau }{(1\tau )^2\theta g}\right]\frac{4}{3}g(1\tau )=0,$$
(4)
where the three dimensionless parameters: the order parameter $`\tau Zen_c/\sigma _0`$, the coupling constant $`gZ^2l_B/\lambda `$, (where $`\lambda `$ is the bare GC length), and the reduced temperature $`\theta a/(Z^2l_B)`$, completely determine the equilibrium state of the system. It is straightforward to obtain the asymptotic solutions of Eq. (4) corresponding to the uncondensed, $`\tau _11`$, and condensed, $`\tau _21`$, state of the counterions: $`\tau _1g\theta \mathrm{exp}\left[1\frac{4}{3}g\right]`$ and $`\tau _21\left[\pi \mathrm{exp}(1)\right]^{1/2}\left(\frac{g\theta }{\pi }\right)^{\frac{g1}{2}}`$. For weak couplings, $`g1`$, $`\tau _1`$ is the only consistent solution. On the other hand, for large coupling $`g1`$, where fluctuation free energies dominate the system, $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$ are both consistent solutions for small $`\theta `$, and a first-order transition takes place when $`f(\tau _1)=f(\tau _2)`$. Thus, a large fraction of counterions is condensed if $`g`$ exceeds some threshold value $`g>g_0`$. For an estimate, taking $`\theta =0.02`$ (divalent counterions at room temperature) we find $`g_01.757`$, corresponding to a surface charge of $`\sigma _0e/10`$ nm-2.

We emphasize that although there is a close analogy between our approach and the more familiar theory of counterion condensation, e.g. Manning condensation, the counterion condensation in our model has a different physical origin arising from charge fluctuations. In Manning condensation, the competition between entropy and electrostatics leads to an electrostatic potential at large distances that is independent of the charge density of the rod above the Manning threshold. In this sense, for the geometry of a charge plate, counterions are always ”Manning condensed” at the PB level. On the other hand, in our model, we take one step further by showing that when correlation effects are taken into account, a finite fraction of the counterions is condensed to form a 2D Coulomb gas onto the charged plate. This paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II, we present in detail the two-fluid model and construct the total free energy of the system. In Sec. III we present the central results of this paper, followed by an extensive discussion.

## II Counterion Free Energy in The “Two-Fluid” Model

To study the condensation more rigorously, we compute total free energy by mapping the problem into a field theory. Consider an overall neutral system consisting of counterions and an oppositely charged surface immersed in an aqueous solution. The surface charge density on the plate is $`\sigma _0=en_0`$. We model the aqueous solution with a uniform dielectric constant $`ϵ`$. This simplification allows us to study fluctuation and correlation effects analytically. In the spirit of the “two-fluid” model, we divide the counterions into a “condensed” and a “free” fraction. The condensed counterions are allowed to move only on the charged surface, while the free counterions distribute in the space on both sides of the plate. The electrostatic free energy for the whole system may be written as

$`\beta F_{el}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2𝐫n_c(𝐫)\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left[n_c(𝐫)a^2\right]1\right\}}+{\displaystyle d^3𝐱\rho (𝐱)\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left[\rho (𝐱)a^3\right]1\right\}}`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z^2l_B}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3𝐱d^3𝐱^{}\frac{n_c(𝐫)\delta (z)n_c(𝐫^{})\delta (z^{})}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Z^2l_B}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3𝐱d^3𝐱^{}\frac{\rho (𝐱)\rho (𝐱^{})}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|}}`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`Zl_B{\displaystyle d^3𝐱d^3𝐱^{}\frac{n_c(𝐫)\delta (z)[Z\rho (𝐱^{})n_f(𝐱^{})]}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|}}Zl_B{\displaystyle d^3𝐱d^3𝐱^{}\frac{\rho (𝐱)n_f(𝐱^{})}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|}}`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l_B}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3𝐱d^3𝐱^{}\frac{n_f(𝐱)n_f(𝐱^{})}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|}},`$ (8)
where $`a`$ is the molecular size of the counterions, $`l_B=e^2/(ϵk_BT)`$ is the Bjerrum length, $`Z`$ is the valence of the counterions, $`𝐫`$ is the in-plane position vector, and $`𝐱=(𝐫,z)`$. The first two terms in Eq. (8) are the two-dimensional entropy for the condensate and three-dimensional entropy for the “free” counterions, respectively, and the other terms represent the electrostatic interactions of counterions in the system. In Eq. (8), the two-dimensional density of the condensed counterions is denoted by $`n_c(𝐫)`$, the “free” counterions with 3D density by $`\rho (𝐱)`$, and the external fixed charges arising from the surface by $`n_f(𝐱)=n_0\delta (z)`$. Within the Gaussian fluctuation approximation, we consider the spatial dependent fluctuations of the 2D density of condensed counterions about a uniform mean: $`n_c(𝐫)=n_c+\delta n_c(𝐫)`$, and expand Eq. (8) to second order in $`\delta n_c(𝐫)`$:

$`\beta F_{el}`$ $`=`$ $`n_c\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left[n_ca^2\right]1\right\}𝒜+{\displaystyle d^3𝐱\rho (𝐱)\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left[\rho (𝐱)a^3\right]1\right\}}`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z^2l_B}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3𝐱d^3𝐱^{}\frac{\rho (𝐱)\rho (𝐱^{})}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|}}Zl_B{\displaystyle d^3𝐱d^3𝐱^{}\frac{\rho (𝐱)n_R(𝐱^{})}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|}}`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2𝐫d^2𝐫^{}\left[\frac{Z^2l_B}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}+\frac{\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})}{n_c}\right]\delta n_c(𝐫)\delta n_c(𝐫^{})}`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`Zl_B{\displaystyle d^3𝐱d^3𝐱^{}\frac{\delta n_c(𝐫)\delta (z)J(𝐱^{})}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l_B}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3𝐱d^3𝐱^{}\frac{n_R(𝐱)n_R(𝐱^{})}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|}}+𝒪[\delta n_c(𝐫)]^3,`$ (12)
where $`𝒜`$ is the area of the plane, $`J(𝐱)Z\rho (𝐱^{})n_R(𝐱)`$, and $`n_R(𝐱)=n_f(𝐱)Zn_c\delta (z)`$. Note that $`J(𝐱)`$ is linearly coupled to $`\delta n_c(𝐫)`$ in the above equation. Summing over all the 2D fluctuations of the condensed counterions, i.e.

$`e^{\beta _e}={\displaystyle 𝒟\delta n_c(𝐫)e^{\beta F_{el}}},`$

we obtain two terms in the effective free energy: $`_e=F_{2d}+_{3d}`$. The first term $`F_{2d}`$ is the free energy associated with the condensed counterions which can be written as

$$\beta F_{2d}=n_c\left\{\mathrm{ln}[n_ca^2]1\right\}𝒜+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}det\widehat{𝐊}_{2d}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}det[_𝐱^2],$$
(13)
where $`\widehat{𝐊}_{2d}(𝐱,𝐲)\left[_𝐱^2+\frac{2}{\lambda _D}\delta (z)\right]\delta (𝐱𝐲)`$ is the 2D Debye-Hückel operator and $`\lambda _D=1/(2\pi Z^2l_Bn_c)`$ is the Debye screening length in 2-D. The first term in Eq. (13) is the entropy and the second term arises from the 2D charge-fluctuations. Note that this fluctuation term can be evaluated analytically, with the result quoted in Eq. (2):

$`\beta f_{2d}(n_c)=n_c\left\{\mathrm{ln}[n_ca^2]1\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐪}{(2\pi )^2}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{1}{q\lambda _D}\right]\frac{1}{q\lambda _D}\right\}}.`$

The second term $`_{3d}`$ is the electrostatic free energy for the “free” counterions, taking into account of the presence of the fluctuating condensate; to within an additive constant, it may be written as

$`\beta _{3d}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3𝐱\rho (𝐱)\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left[\rho (𝐱)a^3\right]1\right\}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3𝐱d^3𝐱^{}\rho (𝐱)G_{2d}(𝐱,𝐱^{})\rho (𝐱^{})}`$ (14)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle d^3𝐱\varphi (𝐱)\rho (𝐱)},`$ (15)
where $`\varphi (𝐱)d^3𝐱^{}Z^1G_{2d}(𝐱,𝐱^{})n_R(𝐱^{})`$ is the “renormalized” external field arising from the charged plate. From Eq. (15), we can see that the presence of the condensate modifies the electrostatics of the free counterions in two ways. First, the condensate partially neutralizes the charged surface, effectively reducing the surface charge density from $`en_0`$ to $`en_R=e(n_0Zn_c)`$. Second, their fluctuations renormalize the electrostatic interaction of the system; thus, instead of the usual Coulomb potential, the free counterions and the charged surfaces interact via the interaction $`G_{2d}(𝐱,𝐱^{})`$, which is the inverse (the Green’s function) of the 2D Debye-Hückel operator $`\widehat{𝐊}_{2d}`$:

$$\left[_𝐱^2+\frac{2}{\lambda _D}\delta (z)\right]G_{2d}(𝐱,𝐱^{})=4\pi l_BZ^2\delta (𝐱𝐱^{}),$$
(16)
where the second term in the bracket takes the fluctuating 2D “condensate” into account. Hence, in the limit $`n_c0`$ or $`\lambda _D\mathrm{}`$, $`G_{2d}(𝐱,𝐱^{})`$ reduces to the usual Coulomb interaction $`G_0(𝐱,𝐱^{})=4\pi l_BZ^2/|𝐱𝐱^{}|`$.

After a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation, the grand canonical partition function for the free counterions can be mapped onto a functional integral representation: $`𝒵_\mu [\varphi ]=𝒩_0𝒟\psi e^{𝒮[\psi ,\varphi ]}`$ with the effective Hamiltonian

$$𝒮[\psi ,\varphi ]=\frac{1}{4\pi l_BZ^2}d^3𝐱\left\{\frac{1}{2}\psi (𝐱)[^2]\psi (𝐱)+\frac{1}{\lambda _D}\delta (z)[\psi (𝐱)]^2\kappa ^2e^{i\psi (𝐱)+\varphi (𝐱)}\right\},$$
(17)
where $`\psi (𝐱)`$ is the fluctuating field, $`\kappa ^2=4\pi l_BZ^2e^\mu /a^3`$, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, and $`𝒩_0^2det\widehat{𝐊}_{2d}`$ is the normalization factor. The minimum of the effective Hamiltonian, given by $`\frac{\delta 𝒮}{\delta \psi (𝐱)}|_{\psi =\psi _0}=0`$, defines the saddle-point equation for $`\psi _0(𝐱)`$, which reads

$$^2\phi (𝐱)+\kappa ^2e^{\phi (𝐱)}=4\pi l_BZn_R\delta (z)+\frac{2}{\lambda _D}\delta (z)\phi (𝐱)$$
(18)
in terms of the mean-field potential $`\phi (𝐱)=i\psi _0(𝐱)\varphi (𝐱)`$. The solution to Eq. (18) is $`\phi (𝐱)=2\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{\kappa |z|}{\sqrt{2}}\right)`$, which satisfies the boundary conditions: $`i)`$ $`\phi (0)=0`$ and $`ii)`$ $`\frac{d\phi }{dz}|_{z=0}=2\pi l_BZn_R`$, with $`\kappa =2\pi l_BZn_R/\sqrt{2}`$. Thus, at the mean-field level, the distribution of the free counterions

$`\rho _0(𝐱)\kappa ^2e^{\phi (𝐱)}/4\pi l_BZ^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi l_BZ^2(|z|+\lambda _R)^2}}`$

has exactly the same form as the PB distribution Eq. (1), but with a renormalized GC length $`\lambda _R\sqrt{2}/\kappa =1/(\pi l_BZn_R)`$. To obtain the mean-field free energy of the free counterions $`F_0(n_R)`$, we note that it is related to the Gibbs potential $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0[\varphi ]𝒮[\psi _0,\varphi ]`$ by a Legendre transformation: $`F_0(n_R)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0[\varphi ]+\mu d^3𝐱\rho _0(𝐱)`$. Solving for the chemical potential $`\mu `$ from its definition: $`\mu =\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{n_Ra^3}{2Z\lambda _R}\right)`$ and using the mean-field solution $`\phi (𝐱)`$, we find

$$\beta F_0(n_R)/𝒜=\frac{n_R}{Z}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{n_Ra^3}{2Z\lambda _R}\right)\frac{n_R}{Z},$$
(19)
where $`𝒜`$ is the area of the charged plane. Note that $`F_0(n_R)`$ has the form of an ideal gas entropy of a gas with concentration $`n_R/(Z\lambda _R)`$ confined to a slab of thickness $`\lambda _R`$, the renormalized GC length.

Next, to capture correlation effects, we must also include the fluctuations of the free counterions, thereby treating the “free” and “condensed” counterions on the same level. To this end, we expand the action $`𝒮[\psi ,\varphi ]`$ about the saddle-point $`\psi _0(𝐱)`$ to second order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\psi (𝐱)=\psi (𝐱)\psi _0(𝐱)`$

$$𝒮[\varphi ,\psi ]=𝒮[\varphi ,\psi _0]+\frac{1}{2}d^3𝐱d^3𝐲\mathrm{\Delta }\psi (𝐱)\widehat{𝐊}_{3d}(𝐱,𝐲)\mathrm{\Delta }\psi (𝐲)+\mathrm{},$$
(20)
where the differential operator

$$\widehat{𝐊}_{3d}(𝐱,𝐲)\left[_𝐱^2+\frac{2}{\lambda _D}\delta (z)+\frac{2}{(|z|+\lambda _R)^2}\right]\delta (𝐱𝐲),$$
(21)
is the second variation of the action $`𝒮[\psi ,\varphi ]`$. Note that the linear term in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\psi (𝐱)`$ does not contribute to the expansion since $`\psi _0(𝐱)`$ satisfies the saddle-point equation Eq. (18). Performing the Gaussian integrals in the functional integral, we obtain an expression for the change in the free energy due to fluctuations of the free counterions:

$$\beta \mathrm{\Delta }F_{3d}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}det\widehat{𝐊}_{3d}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}det\widehat{𝐊}_{2d},$$
(22)
where the second term comes from the normalization factor $`𝒩_0`$. To evaluate $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }F_{3d}`$ explicitly, we first differentiate it with respect to $`l_B`$ by making use of the identity $`\delta \mathrm{ln}det\widehat{𝐗}=\text{Tr}\widehat{𝐗}^1\delta \widehat{𝐗}`$ to obtain

$$4\pi l_BZ^2\frac{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }F_{3d}}{l_B}=\frac{\lambda _R}{l_B}d^3𝐱\frac{2G_{3d}(𝐱,𝐱)}{(|z|+\lambda _R)^3}\frac{\lambda _D}{l_B}d^3𝐱\left[G_{3d}(𝐱,𝐱)G_{2d}(𝐱,𝐱)\right]\frac{\delta (z)}{\lambda _D^2},$$
(23)
where $`G_{2d}(𝐱,𝐱)=\frac{d^2𝐪}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{2\pi l_BZ^2}{q}\left[1\frac{e^{2q|z|}}{1+q\lambda _D}\right]`$ and $`G_{3d}(𝐱,𝐱^{})`$ is the Green’s function for the 3D free counterions. It satisfies

$$\left[_𝐱^2+\frac{2}{\lambda _D}\delta (z)+\frac{2}{(|z|+\lambda _R)^2}\right]G_{3d}(𝐱,𝐱^{})=4\pi l_BZ^2\delta (𝐱𝐱^{}),$$
(24)
which can be solved to yield:

$`G_{3d}(𝐱,𝐱)={\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐪}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi l_BZ^2}{q}}\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2(|z|+\lambda _R)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2q|z|}\left[1+\frac{1}{q(|z|+\lambda _R)}\right]^2}{(1+q\lambda _R)[1+q\lambda _R+(q\lambda _R)^2]}}`$ (25)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (q\lambda _R)^3e^{2q|z|}\left[1+\frac{1}{q(|z|+\lambda _R)}\right]^2}{[1+q\lambda _R+(q\lambda _R)^2][(1+q\lambda _R)(1+\gamma )+(q\lambda _R)^2]}}\},`$ (26)
where $`\gamma \lambda _R/\lambda _D=2\tau /(1\tau )`$. Note that the first term in $`G_{3d}(𝐱,𝐱)`$ is just the Coulomb self-energy $`G_0(\mathrm{𝟎})=\frac{d^2𝐪}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{2\pi l_BZ^2}{q}`$, which must be subtracted. Inserting $`G_{2d}(𝐱,𝐱)`$ and $`G_{3d}(𝐱,𝐱)`$ into Eq. (23), we obtain

$$\frac{1}{𝒜}\frac{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }F_{3d}}{l_B}=\frac{_1(\gamma )}{4\pi \lambda _R^3}\frac{\lambda _R}{l_B}+\frac{_2(\gamma )/\gamma }{4\pi \lambda _D^3}\frac{\lambda _D}{l_B}+(\text{self-energy}),$$
(27)
where the functions $`_{1,2}(\gamma )`$ are given by

$`_1(\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(1+\gamma )+3\left|\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma }{3\gamma }}}\mathrm{tan}^1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma }{1+\gamma }}}\right|,`$ (28)
$`_2(\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2}{1+\gamma }}+(2\gamma )\left|\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma }{3\gamma }}}\mathrm{tan}^1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma }{1+\gamma }}}\right|.`$ (29)
Because $`_{1,2}(\gamma )`$ are independent of $`l_B`$, we can integrate Eq. (23) back to obtain $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }F_{3d}`$; thus, the total free energy per unit area for the free counterions is

$$\beta f_{3d}(\tau )=\frac{n_R}{Z}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{n_Ra^3}{2Z\lambda _R}\right)\frac{n_R}{Z}\frac{_1(\gamma )}{8\pi \lambda _R^2}\frac{_2(\gamma )}{8\pi \lambda _D\lambda _R}.$$
(30)
Incidentally, in the limit of vanishing density of the condensed counterions, $`n_c0`$ (or $`\lambda _R\lambda `$), $`_1(0)=\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}`$, and we obtain the fluctuation correction to the mean-field PB free energy: $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{pb}=k_BT/(8\sqrt{3}\lambda ^2)`$. This result may be understood physically as follows. According to PB theory, the counterions are confined to a slab of thickness $`\lambda `$, and thus may be considered as an ideal gas with a 3D concentration of $`cn_0/\lambda `$. This implies that the inverse of the 3D “screening” length is $`\kappa _s\sqrt{cl_B}1/\lambda `$. Using the 3D Debye-Hückel free energy (per unit volume) $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }f\kappa _s^3`$, the correction to the mean-field PB free energy (per unit area) scales like $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }f_{pb}\lambda \lambda ^3\lambda ^2`$, in agreement with Eq. (3). Therefore, the precise calculation leading to Eq. (30) justifies the use of the simple picture to illustrate the physics behind the counterion condensation presented in the Introduction. We note finally that Eq. (30) also contains additional couplings among the fluctuations of the “condensed” and “free” counterions.

## III Results and Discussion

The central results of this paper follow from the minimization of the total free energy $`f(\tau )=f_{2d}(\tau )+f_{3d}(\tau )`$, obtained respectively in Eqs. (2) and (30), with respect to the order parameter $`\tau `$. Fig. 1 summarizes the behavior of $`\tau `$ as a function of the coupling constant related to the surface charge density $`g=Z^2l_B/\lambda `$ and the reduced temperature $`\theta a/(Z^2l_B)`$. For weak coupling $`g1`$, where fluctuation corrections are negligibly small, the counterions prefer to be free to gain entropy; there are almost no condensed counterions so that $`\tau 0`$. This is not surprising since PB theory is a weak-coupling theory which becomes exact as $`g0`$. However, for higher surface charge density, where correlation effects become more important, the behavior of $`\tau `$ depends crucially on $`\theta `$. In particular, for $`\theta <\theta _c0.0378`$, $`\tau `$ displays a finite jump at $`g_0(\theta )`$, e.g. $`g_0=1.695`$ at $`\theta =0.02`$. \[This corresponds to divalent counterions at room temperature with $`\sigma _00.1e`$ nm-2.\] Thus, the system exhibits a first-order phase transition, in which a large fraction of counterions is condensed (about $`80\%`$). The physical mechanism leading to this counterion condensation is the additional binding arising from 2D charge-fluctuations, which dominate the system at lower temperatures. However, for $`\theta >\theta _c`$ the behavior of $`\tau `$ is completely different; in this regime, there is no phase transition and the condensation occurs smoothly. Thus, the condensation transition is similar to the liquid-gas transition, which has a line of first-order transitions terminating at the critical point where a second-order transition occurs. In our case, the critical point is found to be $`\tau _c0.4`$, $`g_c1.605`$, and $`\theta _c0.0378`$. Furthermore, if one takes $`l_B10`$ Å, i.e. room temperature, and $`a1`$Å, it follows from the definition of $`\theta `$ that there is a critical value of counterion valence $`Z_c=\sqrt{a/(l_B\theta _c)}1.62`$, below which no first-order condensation transition is possible. Therefore, divalent counterions behave qualitatively differently from monovalent counterions. In fact, significant differences between mono- and divalent ions are observed in various biophysical processes.

We stress that fluctuation effects are crucial for this counterion condensation transition to occur. In fact, it may be viewed as a surface analog of the bulk transition discussed by Fisher and Levin. These authors predicted a phase separation, where a strongly correlated, dense phase coexists with a weakly correlated dilute phase in an ionic system dominated by Coulomb interactions and charge fluctuations. In our case, the surface breaks the translational symmetry and similar phase separation occurs in its vicinity. Indeed, using Eq. (30) in the limit of $`\tau 0`$, i.e. without assuming the existence of 2D condensate, the system shows a thermodynamic instability at $`g4.4`$. The inclusion of an additional degree of freedom, i.e., allowing the counterions to condense, can only lower the total free energy, suggesting a phase transition in which the condensate (“liquid”) near the surface coexists with the more dilute, delocalized counterion (“gas”) distribution. Indeed, a recent simulation clearly shows that at low temperature, most of the counterions reside on the surface, consistent with our two-fluid picture. However, our calculation based on the Gaussian fluctuation theory may break down for very large $`g>10`$. In this regime, a complementary treatment is considered by Shklovskii in Ref. , in which the condensed counterions are assumed to form a 2D Wigner crystal. That theory also predicts a strongly reduced surface charge and an exponentially large renormalized Gouy-Chapmann length, qualitatively similar to our results. In contrast, by treating the fluctuations of the condensed and free counterions on an equal footing, we are able to capture the onset of the condensation (at $`g2`$), which bridges between the regime where PB theory is appropriate, $`g0`$, and the very strong coupling regime, $`g\mathrm{}`$ .

In summary, we have presented a new mechanism by which the counterions become condensed so as to neutralize the surface charge of a macroion. It has been known experimentally that an effective surface charge, which is always lower than the actual charge, must be introduced in order to fit experimental data to the PB theory. Thus, our theory offers a possible scenario to account for this experimental fact. In addition, for the case of two highly-charged surfaces, the PB repulsions between them are greatly reduced due to strong condensation, and the dominant interaction will be the charge fluctuation attractions. Thus, this condensation picture may also be crucial to understanding the like-charged attraction. Furthermore, there are some recent experimental and simulation indications that are consistent with the predicted condensation effect. The experiments were performed with a monolayer of cationic surfactant where surface density of the surfactant and the counterion/salt density are controlled with high accuracy. The experiments measured a rapid neutralization (about $`90\%`$) of the charged surfactant monolayer by increasing its surface density (by about $`10\%`$). In some cases, a discontinuous neutralization process is observed. Also, recent extensive simulation studies of uniformly charged surfaces performed in Ref.  reports two interesting observations: First, when $`g1`$ there appears a coexistence between two distinct counterion density distributions: an exponentially decaying distribution near the immediate vicinity of the charged surface and an algebraic decaying distribution far away from the the surface. Note that the exponentially decaying distribution might be associated with our condensed counterions, which we have assumed to be a delta-function distribution. Secondly, the specific heat of the simulated system shows a pronounced hump in the region $`10<g<100`$, though no rigorous proof of the condensation transition from simulations (and experiments) has been obtained so far. Indeed, there remains some fundamental issues to be addressed in the future, for example, the role of excluded volumes, the discreteness of the surface charge and its mobility, and higher order (beyond Gaussian) corrections. A recent calculation and simulation shows that charge discreteness also induces charge localization. Therefore, it is possible that these neglected effects may smooth out the first-order transition. However, we believe that a rapid variation of the condensation with the surface charge, reflecting the predicted effect, should remain.

## IV acknowledgment

We would like to thank Ramin Golestanian, Jacob Israelachvili, Claus Jeppesen, and Kurt Kremer for fruitful discussions. AL and PP acknowledge support from NSF grants MRL-DMR-9632716, DMR-9624091, DMR-9708646, and UC-Biotechnology research and Education Program. DL, PP, and SS acknowledge support from U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF) Grant No. 98-00063 and Schmidt-Minerva Center.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

YITP-SB-02-08 hep-th/yymmxxxx

The Massless Spectrum of Covariant Superstrings

P.A. Grassi$`^{a,}`$1 pgrassi@insti.physics.sunysb.edu, G. Policastro$`^{b,}`$2 g.policastro@sns.it, and P. van Nieuwenhuizen$`^{a,}`$3 vannieu@insti.physics.sunysb.edu

(a) C.N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics,

State University of New York at Stony Brook, NY 11794-3840, USA

(b) Scuola Normale Superiore,

Piazza dei Cavalieri 7, Pisa, 56126, Italy

We obtain the correct cohomology at any ghost number for the open and closed covariant superstring, quantized by an approach which we recently developed. We define physical states by the usual condition of BRST invariance and a new condition involving a new current which is related to a grading of the underlying affine Lie algebra.

February 19, 2002

Introduction. Recently, we developed a new approach to the long-standing problem of the covariant quantization of the superstring . The formulation of Berkovits of super-Poincaré covariant superstrings in $`9+1`$ dimensions  is based on a free conformal field theory on the world-sheet and a nilpotent BRST charge which defines the physical vertices as representatives of its cohomology. In addition to the conventional variables $`x^m`$ and $`\theta ^\alpha `$ of the Green-Schwarz formalism, a conjugate momentum $`p_\alpha `$ for $`\theta ^\alpha `$ and a set of commuting ghost fields $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ are introduced. The latter are complex Weyl spinors satisfying the pure spinor conditions $`\lambda ^\alpha \gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\lambda ^\beta =0`$ (cf. for example ). This equation can be solved by decomposing $`\lambda `$ with respect to a non-compact $`U(5)`$ subgroup of $`SO(9,1)`$ into a singlet $`\underset{¯}{1}`$, a vector $`\underset{¯}{5}`$, and a tensor $`\underset{¯}{10}`$. The vector can be expressed in terms of the singlet and tensor, hence there are 11 independent complex variables in $`\lambda ^\alpha `$.

Since the presence of the non-linear constraint $`\lambda ^\alpha \gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\lambda ^\beta =0`$ makes the theory unsuitable for a path integral quantization and higher loop computations, we relaxed the pure spinor condition by adding further ghosts. We were naturally led to a finite set of extra fields, but the BRST charge $`Q`$ of this system was not nilpotent, and the central charge of the conformal field theory did not vanish. The latter problem was solved by adding one more extra ghost system, which we denoted by $`\eta ^m`$ and $`\omega _z^m`$. The former problem was solved by introducing yet another new ghost pair, $`b`$ and $`c_z`$, which we tentatively associated with the central charge generator in the affine superalgebra which plays an essential role in the superstring .

The BRST charge is linear in $`c_z`$, and without further conditions on physical states the theory would be trivial. We proposed that physical states belong not only to the BRST cohomology ($`Q|\psi =0`$, but $`|\psi Q|\varphi `$), but also that the deformed stress tensor $`T+𝒱^{(0)}`$, where $`𝒱^{(0)}`$ is a vertex operator, satisfies the usual OPE of a conformal spin 2 tensor. (The latter condition is weaker that the requirement that vertex operators be primary fields with conformal spin equal to 1).

In this letter we propose another definition of physical states. We retain the BRST condition, but we replace the stress tensor condition by the requirement that the physical states belong to a subspace $`^{}`$ of the entire linear space $``$ of vertex operator. The latter can be decomposed w.r.t. a grading naturally associated with the underlying affine algebra (cf. ) as $`=_{}_+`$, with negative and non-negative grading, respectively. The BRST charge $`Q=_{n0}Q_n`$ contains only terms $`Q_n`$ with non-negative grading, hence one can consistently consider the action of $`Q`$ in $`_+`$. The physical space is identified with the cohomology group $`H(Q,_+)`$, namely

$$\begin{array}{cc}& Q|\psi =0,|\psi _+,\hfill \\ & |\psi Q|\varphi ,|\varphi _+.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(1)`$
We show that with these conditions we obtain in a very simple way the correct massless spectrum of the open and closed superstring. In particular, our results agree with the work of Berkovits and collaborators , who obtains the correct field equations for the massless states $`\gamma _{mnrpq}^{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha A_\beta =0`$, but defines physical states by only the BRST condition on the unintegrated vertex $`𝒰^{(1)}=\lambda ^\alpha A_\alpha (x,\theta )`$ in terms of pure spinors $`\lambda ^\alpha `$. In their work the superfields $`A_m`$ and $`W^\alpha `$ (the latter is denoted by $`A^\alpha `$ in ) of the open string are expressed in term of $`A_\alpha `$ by the relations of $`d=10`$ superspace,

$$A_m=\frac{1}{8}\gamma _m^{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha A_\beta ,W^\alpha A^\alpha =\frac{1}{10}\gamma ^{m,\alpha \beta }\left(D_\beta A_m_mA_\beta \right),$$
$`(2)`$
whereas in our work these same relations follow from the physical state conditions. We obtain corresponding results for closed (type II) strings, which also agree with  and .

Then we consider the sectors with ghost number different from one,and obtain in all these sectors the correct results.

We also give a derivation of the $`\eta ^m,\omega _z^m`$ terms in the action, based on a local symmetry which has been found in the constrained spinor approach . This derivation leads us to replace the pair $`(\eta ^m,\omega _z^m)`$ in  with $`(\eta _z^m,\omega ^m)`$.

The new current and grading. We based our approach on the following affine superalgebra

$$\begin{array}{cc}& d_\alpha (z)d_\beta (w)\frac{\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\mathrm{\Pi }_m(w)}{zw},d_\alpha (z)\mathrm{\Pi }^m(w)\frac{\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\theta ^\beta (w)}{zw},\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Pi }^m(z)\mathrm{\Pi }^n(w)\frac{1}{(zw)^2}\eta ^{mn}k,d_\alpha (z)_w\theta ^\beta (w)\frac{1}{(zw)^2}\delta _\alpha ^\beta k,\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Pi }^m(z)_w\theta ^\beta (w)0,_z\theta ^\alpha (z)_w\theta ^\beta (w)0,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3)`$
where $``$ denotes the singular contributions to the OPE’s. This algebra has a natural grading defined as follows: $`d_\alpha (z)`$ has grading $`1/2`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^m(z)`$ has grading $`1`$, $`_z\theta ^\alpha (z)`$ has grading $`3/2`$, and the central charge $`k`$ (which numerically is equal to unity) has grading $`2`$. The corresponding ghost systems are $`(\lambda ^\alpha ,\beta _{z\alpha })`$, $`(\xi ^m,\beta _{zm})`$, $`(\chi _\alpha ,\kappa _z^\alpha )`$, and $`(c_z,b)`$. We thus define the following grading for the ghosts and corresponding antighosts

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{gr}(\lambda ^\alpha )=\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{gr}(\xi ^m)=1,\mathrm{gr}(\chi _\alpha )=\frac{3}{2},\mathrm{gr}(c_z)=2,\hfill \\ & \mathrm{gr}(\beta _\alpha )=\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{gr}(\beta _m)=1,\mathrm{gr}(\kappa ^\alpha )=\frac{3}{2},\mathrm{gr}(b)=2.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4)`$
We also need the ghost $`\omega ^m`$ and the antighost $`\eta _z^m`$, although this pair does not seem to correspond to a generator. We assign the grading $`\mathrm{gr}(\eta _z^m)=2`$ and $`\mathrm{gr}(\omega ^m)=2`$ for the following reason. In , we relaxed the pure spinor constraint by successively adding quartets starting from $`(\lambda _+,\lambda _{[ab]};\beta ^+,\beta ^{[ab]})`$ of  (the indices $`a,b`$ belong to the fundamental representation of the $`U(5)`$ subgroup of $`SO(1,9)`$), and adding the fields $`(\lambda ^a,\beta _a;\xi ^a,\beta _a^{})`$ with grading $`(1/2,1/2,1,1)`$. This procedure yields the covariant spinors $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ and $`\beta _\alpha `$, but now the fields $`(\xi ^a,\beta _a^{})`$ are non-covariant w.r.t. $`SO(9,1)`$. Thus, we added the quartet $`(\xi _a,\beta ^{}_{}{}^{}a;\chi _a,\kappa ^a)`$ with grading $`(1,1,3/2,3/2)`$. The spinors $`(\chi _a,\kappa ^a)`$ are part of a covariant spinor and the missing parts are introduced by adding the quartets $`(\chi ^+,\kappa _+,c,b)`$ and $`(\chi ^{[ab]},\kappa _{[ab]},\eta ^m,\omega ^m)`$, both with grading $`(3/2,3/2,2,2)`$. In this way, we obtain the covariant fields $`\lambda ^\alpha =(\lambda _+,\lambda ^a,\lambda _{[ab]})`$; $`\beta _\alpha =(\beta ^+,\beta _a,\beta ^{[ab]})`$; $`\xi ^m=(\xi ^a,\xi _a)`$; $`\beta ^m=(\beta ^{}_{}{}^{}a,\beta _a^{})`$; $`\chi _\alpha =(\chi ^+,\chi _a,\chi ^{[ab]})`$; $`\kappa ^\alpha =(\kappa _+,\kappa ^a,\kappa _{ab})`$; $`b,c`$ and $`\eta _m,\omega ^m`$.

As usual for a conformal field theory, it is natural to introduce a current whose OPE’s with the ghost and antighosts reproduce the grading assignments in (4)

$$j_z^{grad}=\frac{1}{2}\beta _{z,\alpha }\lambda ^\alpha \beta _{z,m}\xi ^m\frac{3}{2}\kappa _z^\alpha \chi _\alpha 2bc_z2\eta _z^m\omega _m.$$
$`(5)`$
Independent confirmation that this current might be important comes from the cancellation of the anomaly (namely the terms with $`(zw)^3`$) in the OPE of the stress energy tensor $`T_{zz}(z)`$ (cf. eqs. (1-3) of ref. ) with $`j_z^{grad}`$. In fact, one finds

$$c^{grad}=\frac{1}{2}\times (+16)_{\lambda \beta }+1\times (10)_{\xi \beta }+\frac{3}{2}\times (+16)_{\kappa \chi }+2\times (1)_{bc}+2\times (10)_{\eta \omega }=0.$$
$`(6)`$
The requirement that the vertex operators contain only terms with non-negative grading will lead to the correct massless spectrum. It will also severely restrict the contribution of the vertex operators to correlation functions (in the usual RNS approach ghost insertions are needed to compensate the anomaly in the ghost current, whereas here we anticipate to need insertions of fields in $`_{}`$ to compensate the non-negative grading of vertex operators $`𝒰^{(1)}_+`$).

All the terms in the stress tensor $`T_{zz}(z)`$ and in the ghost current

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill T_{zz}& =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_z^m\mathrm{\Pi }_{mz}d_{z\alpha }_z\theta ^\alpha \beta _{zm}_z\xi ^m\beta _{z\alpha }_z\lambda ^\alpha \kappa _z^\alpha _z\chi _\alpha +_zbc_z\eta _z^m_z\omega _m,\hfill \\ \hfill J_z^{gh}& =\left(\beta _{mz}\xi ^m+\kappa _z^\alpha \chi _\alpha +\beta _{z\alpha }\lambda ^\alpha +bc_z+\eta _z^m\omega _m\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(7)`$
have grading zero, since they are sums of terms of ghost and antighost pairs with opposite grading. On the other hand, the terms in the current $`j_z^B(z)`$ (cf. eq. (1.2) in ) and the field $`B_{zz}(z)`$ have different grading4 In  we presented four different solutions $`B^i`$ of the the equation $`T_{zz}(z)=\{Q,B_{zz}^i(z)\}`$. None of the solutions $`B^i`$ have definite grading except $`B_{zz}^{IV}(z)=b\widehat{T}_{zz}(z)+b_zbc_z\frac{1}{2}_z^2b`$ which has grading equal to $`2`$ carried by the antighost $`b`$.. For instance, the BRST current can be decomposed in the following pieces $`j_z^B(z)=_{n=0}^2j_z^{B,(n)}(z)`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill j_z^{B,(0)}(z)& =\xi ^m\kappa _z^\alpha \gamma _{m\alpha \beta }\lambda ^\beta \frac{1}{2}\lambda ^\alpha \gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\lambda ^\beta \beta _{zm}+\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{2}b\left(\xi ^m_z\xi _m\frac{3}{2}\chi _\alpha _z\lambda ^\alpha +\frac{1}{2}_z\chi _\alpha \lambda ^\alpha \right)\frac{1}{2}_z\left(b\chi _\alpha \lambda ^\alpha \right),\hfill \\ \hfill j_z^{B,(\frac{1}{2})}(z)& =\lambda ^\alpha d_{z\alpha },j_z^{B,(1)}(z)=\xi ^m\mathrm{\Pi }_{zm},\hfill \\ \hfill j_z^{B,(\frac{3}{2})}(z)& =\chi _\alpha _z\theta ^\alpha ,j_z^{B,(2)}(z)=c_z.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(8)`$
It is clear that all terms in $`j_z^B(z)`$ have non-negative grading.

Massless Spectrum of the Open Superstring. We now turn to the determination of the massless cohomology for the open superstring, namely we will compute $`H(Q,_+)`$ for any ghost number.

Following the RNS approach, the cohomology $`H^{(1)}(Q,_+)`$ at ghost number $`1`$ should be identified with the physical fields of the open superstring. In particular, the massless spectrum coincides with spin zero world-sheet fields $`𝒰^{(1)}(z)`$. The most general scalar expression in $`_+`$ is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒰^{(1)}(z)& =\lambda ^\alpha A_\alpha +\xi ^mA_m+\chi _\alpha W^\alpha +\omega ^mB_m\hfill \\ & +b\left(\xi ^m\xi ^nF_{mn}+\lambda ^\alpha \chi _\beta F_\alpha ^\beta +\chi _\alpha \xi ^mF_m^\alpha +\chi _\alpha \chi _\beta F^{\alpha \beta }\right)\hfill \\ & +b\omega ^m\left(\lambda ^\alpha G_{m\alpha }+\xi ^nG_{mn}+\chi _\alpha G_m^\alpha \right)+b\omega ^m\omega ^nK_{mn},\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(9)`$
where $`A_\alpha ,\mathrm{},K_{mn}`$ are arbitrary superfields of $`x_m,\theta ^\alpha `$. It clearly makes a big difference that $`\omega ^m`$ no longer is a $`1`$-form. Notice that the requirement that $`𝒰^{(1)}(z)_+`$ forbids the terms $`b(\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta F_{\alpha \beta }+\lambda ^\alpha \xi ^mF_{\alpha m})`$ in the vertex (these terms are indeed present in eq. (6.4) of ).

The condition $`\{Q,𝒰^{(1)}(z)\}=0`$ implies the following equations

$$\begin{array}{cc}& D_{(\alpha }A_{\beta )}\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^mA_m=0,\hfill \\ & _mA_\alpha D_\alpha A_m+\gamma _{m\alpha \beta }W^\beta =0,\hfill \\ & _{[m}A_{n]}+F_{mn}=0,D_\beta W^\alpha +F_\beta ^\alpha =0,\hfill \\ & _mW^\alpha +F_m^\alpha =0,F^{\alpha \beta }=0,\hfill \\ & D_\alpha B_mG_{m\alpha }=0,_nB_mG_{mn}=0,\hfill \\ & G_m^\alpha =0,K_{mn}=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(10)`$
where $`D_\alpha /\theta ^\alpha +\frac{1}{2}\theta ^\beta \gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m/x^m`$ 5 The normalization is chosen such that $`D_\alpha D_\beta +D_\beta D_\alpha =\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m_m`$. We define $`D_{(\alpha }A_{\beta )}=\frac{1}{2}\left(D_\alpha A_\beta +D_\beta A_\alpha \right)`$ and $`_{[m}A_{n]}=\frac{1}{2}\left(_mA_n_nA_m\right)`$.. The terms in $`\{Q,𝒰^{(1)}(z)\}`$ which contain the field $`b`$ yield equations which are the Bianchi identities . From the first two equations of (10) one gets the field equations for $`N=1,d=(9,1)`$ SQED

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \gamma _{[mnpqr]}^{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha A_\beta =0,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(11)`$
as well as the definition of the vector potential $`A_m`$ and the spinorial field strength $`W^\alpha `$ in terms of $`A_\alpha `$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A_m=\frac{1}{8}\gamma _m^{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha A_\beta ,W^\alpha =\frac{1}{10}\gamma _m^{\alpha \beta }\left(D_\beta A_m_mA_\beta \right).& \end{array}$$
$`(12)`$
Moreover, the remaining equations in (10) imply that the curvatures $`F_{mn},F_m^\alpha `$, and $`F_\beta ^\alpha `$ are expressed in terms of the spinor potential $`A_\alpha `$, and similarly the superfields $`G_{m\alpha },G_{mn}`$ are solely functions of $`B_m`$.

The gauge transformations of the vertex $`𝒰^{(1)}(z)`$ are generated by the BRST variation of spin zero field $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0)}(z)_+`$ with ghost number zero, whose most general expression is given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0)}(z)=C+b\omega ^mM_m`$, with $`C`$ and $`M_m`$ arbitrary superfields. The BRST variation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0)}`$ is

$$\delta 𝒰^{(1)}(z)=[Q,\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0)}(z)]=\lambda ^\alpha D_\alpha C+\xi ^m_mC+\omega ^mM_m+b\omega ^m(\lambda ^\alpha D_\alpha M_m+\xi ^n_nM_m).$$
$`(13)`$
One can easily check that the field $`M_m`$ can be used to gauge away $`B_m`$, while $`C`$ is the usual parameter of the gauge transformations on the SQED potentials: $`\delta A_\alpha =D_\alpha C,\delta A_m=_mC`$. Thus, the only independent superfield is $`A_\alpha `$, and it satisfies (11) which is gauge invariant.

In order to exhibit explicitly the physical degrees of freedom it is convenient to work in the gauge $`\theta ^\alpha A_\alpha =0`$. The photon $`a_m`$ and the photino $`u^\alpha `$ are identified with the first coefficients in the expansion of $`A_m`$ and $`W^\alpha `$ in powers of $`\theta `$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A_m(x,\theta )& =a_m(x)+\theta ^\alpha \gamma _{m\alpha \beta }u^\beta (x)+\mathrm{},\hfill \\ \hfill W^\alpha (x,\theta )& =u^\alpha (x)+\gamma _\beta ^{mn,\alpha }\theta ^\beta _ma_n(x)+\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(14)`$
The ellipses denote terms which contain derivatives of $`a_m`$ and $`u^\alpha `$. From the Bianchi identities and (11) one derives $`_mF^{mn}=0`$ and $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m_mW^\beta =0`$, while $`\theta ^\alpha A_\alpha =0`$ implies that $`A_\alpha =\frac{1}{2}a^m(\gamma _m\theta )_\alpha +a^{m_1\mathrm{}m_5}(\gamma _{m_1\mathrm{}m_5}\theta )_\alpha +(\gamma ^m\theta )_\alpha (u\gamma _m\theta )+(\gamma _{m_1\mathrm{}m_5}\theta )_\alpha v_\beta ^{m_1\mathrm{}m_5}\theta ^\beta +\mathrm{}`$. From (11) it follows that $`a^{m_1\mathrm{}m_5}=v_\beta ^{m_1\mathrm{}m_5}=0`$ and in this way one has obtained the linearized field equations for the gauge field $`a_m`$ and the gaugino $`u^\alpha `$.

At other ghost numbers the cohomology groups $`H^{(n)}(Q,_+)`$ vanish, except the group $`H^{(2)}(Q,_+)`$ which contains the antifields $`a_m^{},u_\alpha ^{}`$ of the gauge field $`a_m`$ and of the gaugino $`u^\alpha `$ . The analysis can be performed along the lines of the previous discussion and one can see that all the $`\omega `$-dependent terms are cohomologically trivial, and therefore can be reabsorbed by a gauge transformation. For the $`\omega `$-independent terms one has the following general decomposition

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒰^{(2)}=& \lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta A_{\alpha \beta }^{}+\lambda ^\alpha \xi ^mA_{\alpha m}^{}+\mathrm{}+\chi _\alpha \chi _\beta A^{,\alpha \beta }\hfill \\ \hfill +& b\left(\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta \xi ^mF_{\alpha \beta m}^{}+\lambda ^\alpha \xi ^m\xi ^nF_{\alpha mn}^{}+\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta \chi _\gamma F_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma +\mathrm{}+\chi _\alpha \chi _\beta \chi _\gamma F^{,\alpha \beta \gamma }\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(15)`$
The condition $`𝒰^{(2)}_+`$ does not allow the term $`\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta \lambda ^\gamma F_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{}`$, which is permitted by ghost number counting. This implies that the superfield $`A_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ should satisfy the field equation $`D_{(\alpha }A_{\beta \gamma )}^{}\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{(\alpha \beta }^mA_{\gamma )m}^{}=0`$. Furthermore, the gauge transformations are generated by the BRST variation of a ghost-number $`1`$ superfield $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(1)}(z)`$ (whose decomposition is given in eq. (9)), namely $`\delta 𝒰^{(2)}(z)\{Q,\mathrm{\Omega }^{(1)}(z)\}`$. One obtains that the gauge transformations of the super-antifield $`A_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ are the equations of motion of the potential $`A_\alpha `$

$$\delta A_{\alpha \beta }^{}=D_{(\alpha }A_{\beta )}\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^mA_m.$$
$`(16)`$
As shown in  the only states in the BRST cohomology at non-zero momentum are the on-shell gauge field $`a_m`$ and the gluino $`u^\alpha `$ at ghost number $`+1`$ and the corresponding antifields $`a_m^{},u_\alpha ^{}`$ at ghost number $`+2`$. The latter are the coefficients of the superfield $`A_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$. In fact, since $`A_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ is a symmetric bispinor, it can be decomposed into a vector part and a self-dual $`5`$-form one: $`A_{\alpha \beta }^{}=\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^mA_m^{}+\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{[mnrpq]}A_{[mnrpq]}^{}`$. The gauge transformations (16) remove the vector component $`A_m^{}`$, and the first coefficients of the $`\theta `$-expansion of $`A_{[mnrpq]}^{}`$ exhibit the on-shell fields

$$A_{[mnpqr]}^{}=(\theta \gamma _{[mnp}\theta )(\theta \gamma _{qr]})^\alpha u_\alpha ^{}(x)+(\theta \gamma _{[mnp}\theta )(\theta \gamma _{qr]s})^\alpha a^{,m}(x)+\mathrm{}.$$
$`(17)`$
The ellipses involve terms with derivatives of $`a_m^{}`$ and $`u_\alpha ^{}`$.

Before closing this section, we point out that the choice of the subspace $`_+`$ is one of the possible choices. Another interesting situation is the restriction to the subspace $`_+^{}`$ with strictly positive grading. It is straightforward to see that, at ghost number 1, the cohomology $`H^{(1)}(Q,_+^{})`$ is identified with the gauge potentials which satisfy $`F_{mn}=D_\alpha W^\beta =0`$. This corresponds to a topological gauge model in the target space.

The Massless Spectrum of the Closed Superstring. According to our formalism , the BRST charge is the sum of the BRST charge for the left and right movers denoted by $`Q_L`$ and $`Q_R`$, respectively. In the super-Poincaré covariant formulation of closed superstring, one can choose the spinors $`\theta _L^\alpha `$ and $`\theta _R^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ to be Weyl or anti-Weyl in the left- or in the right-mover sector: the same chirality for both spinors leads to Type IIB strings, opposite chiralities lead to Type IIA strings. In the following we will not distinguish between the two cases.

As in , also in our formalism the holomorphic and anti-holomorphic sector are decoupled. Each operator in the left-mover sector has its counterpart in the right-mover one. Therefore, the assignments of ghost number and grading, as well as the central charge cancellations (cf. eq. (6)), are exactly the same in both sectors.

Denoting by $`_+^L`$ and $`_+^R`$ the left- and right-mover subspaces with non-negative gradings, the physical state condition is expressed by

$$\begin{array}{cc}& Q_L|\psi =Q_R|\psi =0,|\psi _+^L_+^R,\hfill \\ & |\psi Q_L|\varphi +Q_R|\chi ,|\varphi ,|\chi _+^L_+^R,\hfill \\ & Q_R|\chi =Q_L|\varphi =0.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(18)`$
The cohomology group $`H^{(1,1)}(Q,_+^L_+^R)`$ is identified with the physical degrees of freedom. In particular, the spin zero vertex operator $`𝒰^{(1,1)}`$ contains the massless fields of the closed superstring. To determine the linearized field equations, we first analyze the $`\omega ,\widehat{\omega }`$-dependent terms of the vertex. Since $`\omega `$ and $`\widehat{\omega }`$ are BRST inert, one can analyze the sectors of $`H^{(1,1)}(Q,_+^L_+^R)`$ with different powers of $`\omega `$ and $`\widehat{\omega }`$ separately. We prove that all the sectors with positive powers of $`\omega `$ and $`\widehat{\omega }`$ vanish. Consider the generic decomposition with one power of $`\omega `$, $`𝒰^{(1,1)}=\omega ^m\left(_m(\widehat{C})+bC^A_{mA}(\widehat{C})\right)`$, where $`C^A`$ and $`\widehat{C}^{\widehat{A}}`$ denote collectively the ghost fields $`(\lambda ^\alpha ,\xi ^m,\chi _\alpha ,b)`$ of left- and right-moving sectors. The functions $`_m`$ and $`_{mA}`$ are polynomials in the right-moving ghost fields $`\widehat{C}^{\widehat{A}}`$ with superfield coefficients.

The conditions $`[Q_L,𝒰^{(1,1)}]=[Q_R,𝒰^{(1,1)}]=0`$ imply that

$$Q_L_m(\widehat{C})C^A_{mA}(\widehat{C})=0,Q_R_m(\widehat{C})=Q_R_{mA}(\widehat{C})=0.$$
$`(19)`$
Thus, the vertex $`𝒰^{(1,1)}=\{Q_L,\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ is BRST trivial where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(b\omega ^m_m(\widehat{C})\right)`$ and $`\{Q_R,\mathrm{\Lambda }\}=0`$. The same argument can be easily repeated for any positive power of $`\omega `$ or $`\widehat{\omega }`$. Therefore, we have to analyze only the $`\omega ,\widehat{\omega }`$-independent terms.

The vertex $`𝒰`$ can be decomposed into the following terms

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒰(z,\overline{z})& =𝒰^{(1,1)}+b𝒰^{(2,1)}+\widehat{b}𝒰^{(1,2)}+b\widehat{b}𝒰^{(2,2)},\hfill \\ \hfill 𝒰^{(1,1)}& =\left(\lambda _L^\alpha \lambda _R^{\widehat{\alpha }}A_{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}+\mathrm{}+\chi _{L\alpha }\chi _{R\widehat{\alpha }}A^{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill 𝒰^{(2,1)}& =\left(\xi _L^m\xi _L^n\lambda _R^{\widehat{\alpha }}B_{mn\widehat{\alpha }}+\mathrm{}+\chi _{L\alpha }\chi _{L\beta }\chi _{R\widehat{\alpha }}B^{\alpha \beta \widehat{\alpha }}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill 𝒰^{(1,2)}& =\left(\lambda _L^\alpha \xi _R^{\widehat{m}}\xi _R^{\widehat{n}}B_{\alpha \widehat{m}\widehat{n}}+\mathrm{}+\chi _\alpha \chi _{R\widehat{\alpha }}\chi _{R\widehat{\gamma }}B^{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\gamma }}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill 𝒰^{(2,2)}& =\left(\xi _L^m\xi _L^n\xi _R^{\widehat{m}}\xi _R^{\widehat{n}}C_{mn\widehat{m}\widehat{n}}+\mathrm{}+\chi _{L\alpha }\chi _{L\beta }\chi _{R\widehat{\gamma }}\chi _{R\widehat{ϵ}}C^{\alpha \beta \widehat{\gamma }\widehat{ϵ}}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(20)`$
where all the coefficients $`A_{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }},\mathrm{}C^{\alpha \beta \widehat{\gamma }\widehat{ϵ}}`$ are arbitrary superfields. Notice that the condition $`𝒰(z,\overline{z})_+^L_+^R`$ forbids the terms $`b\lambda _L^\alpha \lambda _L^\beta ,b\lambda _L^\alpha \xi _L^m`$ and the corresponding ones for right-movers. Finally, also the terms $`b\widehat{b}\lambda _L^\alpha \lambda _L^\beta \lambda _R^{\widehat{\alpha }}\lambda _R^{\widehat{\gamma }},\mathrm{},b\widehat{b}\lambda _L^\alpha \xi _L^m\lambda _R^{\widehat{\alpha }}\xi _R^{\widehat{m}}`$ are ruled out.

As in the case of the open superstring, the absence of these terms combined with the BRST invariance yields the following equations6 The N=2 D=9,1 supersymmetric derivatives are defined by $`D_\alpha =\frac{}{\theta ^\alpha }+\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\theta ^\beta _m`$ and $`\widehat{D}_{\widehat{\alpha }}=\frac{}{\widehat{\theta }^{\widehat{\alpha }}}+\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}^m\widehat{\theta }^{\widehat{\beta }}_m`$.

$$\begin{array}{cc}& D_{(\alpha }A_{\beta )\widehat{\alpha }}\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^mA_{m\widehat{\alpha }}=0,D_{(\widehat{\alpha }}A_{\alpha \widehat{\gamma })}\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\gamma }}^mA_{\alpha m}=0,\hfill \\ & _mA_{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}D_\alpha A_{m\widehat{\alpha }}+\gamma _{m\alpha \beta }A_{\widehat{\alpha }}^\beta =0,_mA_{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}D_{\widehat{\alpha }}A_{\alpha m}+\gamma _{m\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\gamma }}A_\alpha ^{\widehat{\gamma }}=0,\hfill \\ & D_{(\alpha }A_{\beta )m}\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^nA_{mn}=0,D_{(\widehat{\alpha }}A_{m\widehat{\gamma })}\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\gamma }}^nA_{mn}=0,\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}& _mA_{\alpha n}D_\alpha A_{mn}+\gamma _{m\alpha \beta }A_n^\beta =0,_mA_{n\widehat{\alpha }}D_{\widehat{\alpha }}A_{mn}+\gamma _{m\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\gamma }}A_n^{\widehat{\gamma }}=0,\hfill \\ & D_{(\alpha }A_{\beta )}^{\widehat{\gamma }}\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^mA_m^{\widehat{\gamma }}=0,D_{(\widehat{\alpha }}A_{\widehat{\gamma })}^\alpha \frac{1}{2}\gamma _{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\gamma }}^mA_m^\alpha =0,\hfill \\ & _mA_\alpha ^{\widehat{\gamma }}D_\alpha A_m^{\widehat{\gamma }}+\gamma _{m\alpha \beta }A^{\beta \widehat{\gamma }}=0,_mA_{\widehat{\alpha }}^\alpha D_{\widehat{\alpha }}A_m^\alpha +\gamma _{m\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\gamma }}A^{\alpha \widehat{\gamma }}=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(21)`$
The other equations coming from $`[Q_L+Q_R,𝒰]=0`$ will not impose any further constraint on the superfields, but they define consistently the curvature in terms of $`A_{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }},\mathrm{}A^{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}`$. Notice that the superfields $`A_{m\widehat{\alpha }},A_{\alpha m},\mathrm{}A^{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}`$ are solved in terms of the fundamental field $`A_{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}`$ as follows

$$\begin{array}{cc}& A_{m\widehat{\alpha }}=\frac{1}{8}D_\alpha \gamma _m^{\alpha \beta }A_{\beta \widehat{\alpha }},A_{\alpha m}=\frac{1}{8}D_{\widehat{\alpha }}\gamma _m^{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}A_{\alpha \widehat{\beta }},\hfill \\ & A_{\widehat{\alpha }}^\alpha =\frac{1}{10}\gamma ^{m\alpha \beta }\left(D_\beta A_{m\widehat{\alpha }}_mA_{\beta \widehat{\alpha }}\right),A_\alpha ^{\widehat{\alpha }}=\frac{1}{10}\gamma ^{m\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\gamma }}\left(D_{\widehat{\gamma }}A_{\alpha m}_mA_{\alpha \widehat{\gamma }}\right),\hfill \\ & A_m^{\widehat{\gamma }}=\frac{1}{8}\gamma _m^{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha A_\beta ^{\widehat{\gamma }},A_m^\alpha =\frac{1}{8}\gamma _m^{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\gamma }}D_{\widehat{\alpha }}A_{\widehat{\gamma }}^\alpha ,\hfill \\ & A_{mn}=\frac{1}{64}D_\alpha D_{\widehat{\alpha }}\gamma _m^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _n^{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}A_{\beta \widehat{\beta }},A^{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}=\frac{1}{10}\gamma ^{m\alpha \beta }\left(D_\beta A_m^{\widehat{\alpha }}_mA_\beta ^{\widehat{\alpha }}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(22)`$
The superfield $`A_{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}`$ satisfies the field equations

$$\gamma _{mnpqr}^{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha A_{\beta \widehat{\gamma }}=0,\gamma _{mnpqr}^{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\gamma }}D_{\widehat{\alpha }}A_{\gamma \widehat{\gamma }}=0,$$
$`(23)`$
which are the linearized $`N=2`$ supergravity equations of motion. The gauge transformations are generated by the BRST variations of two generic superfields $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0,1)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(1,0)}`$ by $`\delta 𝒰(z,\overline{z})=\{Q_L,\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0,1)}\}+\{Q_R,\mathrm{\Omega }^{(1,0)}\}`$, with $`\{Q_R,\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0,1)}\}=\{Q_L,\mathrm{\Omega }^{(1,0)}\}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0,1)}_+,\mathrm{\Omega }^{(1,0)}_+`$. Assuming for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0,1)}`$ the general decomposition

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Omega }^{(0,1)}(z)& =\lambda _R^{\widehat{\alpha }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\widehat{\alpha }}+\xi _R^m\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_m+\chi _{R\widehat{\alpha }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\widehat{\alpha }}\hfill \\ & +b_R\left(\xi _R^m\xi _R^n\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_{mn}+\lambda _R^{\widehat{\alpha }}\chi _{R\widehat{\gamma }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_{\widehat{\alpha }}^{\widehat{\gamma }}+\chi _{R\widehat{\alpha }}\xi ^m\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_m^{\widehat{\alpha }}+\chi _{R\widehat{\alpha }}\chi _{R\widehat{\gamma }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}^{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\gamma }}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(24)`$
and analogously for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(1,0)}`$ exchanging $`RL`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\widehat{\alpha }},\mathrm{},\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}^{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\gamma }}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Xi }^{\alpha \gamma }`$, the relevant gauge transformations are

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \delta A_{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}=D_\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\widehat{\alpha }}+D_{\widehat{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha .\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(25)`$
The conditions $`\{Q_R,\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0,1)}\}=\{Q_L,\mathrm{\Omega }^{(1,0)}\}=0`$ imply that the gauge parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta `$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\widehat{\gamma }}`$ satisfy the following equations

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \gamma _{[mnpqr]}^{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta =0,\gamma _{[mnpqr]}^{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\gamma }}D_{\widehat{\alpha }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\widehat{\gamma }}=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(26)`$
The gauge transformations for the other superfields $`A_{m\widehat{\alpha }},\mathrm{},A^{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}`$ can be easily derived from eq. (26) using their definitions (22). The field equations (23) and the gauge transformations (25) derived for the closed superstring are in agreement with  and . The physical degrees of freedom can be easily read from the first components of the $`\theta _L^\alpha `$ and $`\theta _R^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ of the superfields $`A_{mn}(x,\theta _L,\theta _R),A_m^{\widehat{\gamma }}(x,\theta _L,\theta _R),A_m^\alpha (x,\theta _L,\theta _R)`$ and $`A^{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}(x,\theta _L,\theta _R)`$. The first component of $`A_{mn}=(g_{mn}+b_{mn}+\eta _{mn}\varphi )+𝒪(\theta _L,\theta _R)`$ describe the graviton, the NS-NS two-form and the dilaton. The first components of $`A_m^{\widehat{\gamma }}=\psi _m^{\widehat{\gamma }}+𝒪(\theta _L,\theta _R)`$ and $`A_m^\alpha =\psi _m^\alpha +𝒪(\theta _L,\theta _R)`$ contain the N=2 gravitinos $`\psi _m^{\widehat{\gamma }},\psi _m^\alpha `$, and the chirality of the right-mover spinor $`\theta _R`$ determines if the string is Type IIA or IIB. Finally, $`A^{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}=F^{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}+𝒪(\theta _L,\theta _R)`$ where $`F^{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}`$ are the R-R field strenghts. The linearized field equations for $`g_{mn},b_{mn},\varphi ,\psi _m^\alpha ,\psi _m^{\widehat{\gamma }}`$ and $`F^{\alpha \widehat{\alpha }}`$ are discussed in great detail in .

Of course the closed superstring massless spectrum can be understood as the tensor product of the cohomologies for open superstring of left- and right-movers. Mathematically, this is encoded in the well-known Künneth formula $`H^{(1,1)}(Q_L+Q_R,_+^L_+^R)=H^{(1)}(Q_L,_+^L)H^{(1)}(Q_R,_+^R)`$.

Conclusions. We conclude by giving an argument for the presence of the term $`\eta _z^m\overline{}\omega _m`$ in the action, with $`(\eta _z^m,\omega _m)`$ a ghost-charge $`(1,1)`$ spin $`(1,0)`$ system. We start from the observation that in the approach with the pure spinor constraint $`\lambda ^\alpha \gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\lambda ^\beta =0`$ the action with $`=\beta _{z,\alpha }\overline{}\lambda ^\alpha `$ has the local gauge invariance

$$\delta \beta _{z,\alpha }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{zm}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\lambda ^\beta ,\delta \lambda ^\alpha =0.$$
$`(27)`$
The gauge parameter has ghost number $`2`$. To remove the pure spinor constraint we introduce the Lagrange multiplier field $`\alpha _{z\overline{z},m}`$ with the ghost number $`2`$

$$=\beta _{z,\alpha }\overline{}\lambda ^\alpha +\frac{1}{2}\alpha _{z\overline{z},m}\lambda ^\alpha \gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\lambda ^\beta .$$
$`(28)`$
The action with unconstrained $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ is still gauge invariant if $`\alpha _{z\overline{z},m}`$ transforms as $`\delta \alpha _{z\overline{z},m}=\overline{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{zm}`$. We fix this local gauge symmetry as usual by adding a BRST exact term. The gauge parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{zm}`$ becomes a field $`\eta _{zm}`$ with ghost number $`1`$, which is an antighost. As the BRST exact term we take

$$s\left(\omega ^m\alpha _{z\overline{z},m}\right)=d^m\alpha _{z\overline{z},m}\omega ^m\overline{}\eta _{zm}.$$
$`(29)`$
The field $`\omega ^m`$ has ghost number $`+1`$, and is a ghost field; it transforms into a BRST auxiliary field $`d^m`$ with ghost number $`+2`$. Integrating over $`d^m`$ and $`\alpha _{z\overline{z},m}`$ sets these fields to zero, and one is indeed left with the term $`\overline{}\eta _{zm}\omega ^m=\eta _{zm}\overline{}\omega ^m`$ in the action. We end up by recalling that the previous argument is a strong indication in favour of the presence of the fields $`\eta _z^m`$ and $`\omega _m`$ in our formalism, nevertheless a complete picture can be only achieved by starting from a gauge invariant action and using the Batalin-Vilkovisky framework for its quantization.

Before concluding, we would like to point out the relation between the cohomology in the Berkovits’ approach and in our formalism which also indicates the path toward the proof of the equivalence of the two approaches.

The group $`H(Q_B|_{p.s.})`$, which represents the cohomology in the Berkovits’ formalism is an example of a constrained BRST cohomology, or equivalently, of equivariant cohomology . In the latter case, the BRST cohomology is computed on the supermanifold $`M`$ with coordinates $`x^m,\theta ^\alpha `$ on which the space-time translations $`x^mx^m+\frac{1}{2}\lambda \gamma ^m\lambda `$, generated by unconstrained spinors $`\lambda ^\alpha `$, act freely. One finds that $`Q_B^2=_V`$ where $`V^m=\frac{1}{2}\lambda \gamma ^m\lambda `$. Notice that the r.h.s. can be also written in term of the Lie derivative $`_V=d\iota _V+\iota _Vd`$, where $`\iota _V`$ is the contraction of a form with the vector $`V^m`$. One can represent $`\iota _V`$ by the operator $`𝑑zV^m\beta _{zm}`$; its action of (parity reversed forms) $`\xi ^m`$ is then given by the OPE of $`\beta _{zm}(z)`$ with $`\xi ^m(z)`$. The exterior differential $`d`$ is $`\xi ^m_m`$ where $`\xi ^m`$ are the parity-reversed coordinates of the cotagent bundle $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}`$. The usual exterior derivative $`d=dx^m_m`$ has been replaced by $`𝑑z\xi ^m\mathrm{\Pi }_{zm}`$ . Since $`\mathrm{\Pi }_z^m(z)^lx^n(w)(zw)^{l1}`$, the operator $`𝑑z\xi ^m\mathrm{\Pi }_{zm}`$ represents the exterior derivative on the jet bundle $`\{x^m,x^m,^2x^m,\mathrm{}\}`$. Following the approach of equivariant cohomology , one can define a new BRST operator $`Q^{}`$ by

$$Q^{}=Q_B+d+\iota _V=Q\xi ^m\mathrm{\Pi }_{zm}\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^\alpha \gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\lambda ^\beta \beta _{zm}.$$
$`(30)`$
Unfortunately, this operator fails to be nilpotent and the solution of this problem has been discussed in . Moreover, it turns out that the BRST cohomology computed in the space of zero conformal-weight vertex operators with non-negative gradings coincides with the massless spectrum of the superstring, and this suggests a complete equivalence of the two approaches. It has been also pointed out in similar examples discussed in  that one needs further conditions on the functional space to identify the correct physical observables as elements of the BRST cohomology.

In the present paper, we identify the massless spectrum for the open and closed superstrings by the cohomology at ghost number $`+1`$ of the BRST operator restricted to a subspace of the entire linear space of vertex operators. The subspace is selected by means of a natural grading which is assigned to the ghosts and antighosts.

We are involved in the computation of amplitudes using the present formalism. The preliminary results are very encouraging and we hope to report on this soon.

We thank M. Porrati, N. Berkovits and J.-S. Park for useful discussions. G. P. thanks C.N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics at Stony Brook for the hospitality. This work was partly funded by NSF Grants PHY-0098527.

References

relax P. A. Grassi, G. Policastro, M. Porrati and P. Van Nieuwenhuizen, Covariant quantization of superstrings without pure spinor constraints, \[hep-th/0112162\]. relax N. Berkovits, Super-Poincaré covariant quantization of the superstring, JHEP 0004, 018 (2000) \[hep-th/0001035\]; N. Berkovits and B. C. Vallilo, Consistency of super-Poincaré covariant superstring tree amplitudes, JHEP 0007, 015 (2000) \[hep-th/0004171\]; N. Berkovits, Cohomology in the pure spinor formalism for the superstring, JHEP 0009, 046 (2000) \[hep-th/0006003\]; N. Berkovits, Covariant quantization of the superstring, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16, 801 (2001) \[hep-th/0008145\]; N. Berkovits and O. Chandia, Superstring vertex operators in an AdS(5) x S(5) background, Nucl. Phys. B 596, 185 (2001) \[hep-th/0009168\]; N. Berkovits, The Ten-dimensional Green-Schwarz superstring is a twisted Neveu-Schwarz-Ramond string, Nucl. Phys. B 420, 332 (1994) \[hep-th/9308129\] ; N. Berkovits, Relating the RNS and pure spinor formalisms for the superstring, \[hep-th/0104247\]; N. Berkovits and O. Chandia, Lorentz invariance of the pure spinor BRST cohomology for the superstring, \[hep-th/0105149\]. relax P.S. Howe, Pure Spinor Lines in Superspace and Ten-Dimensional Supersymmetric Theories, Phys. Lett. B258 (1991) 141, Addendum-ibid.B259 (1991) 511; P.S. Howe, Pure Spinors, Function Superspaces and Supergravity Theories in Ten Dimensions and Eleven Dimensions, Phys. Lett. B273 (1991) 90. relax W. Siegel, Classical Superstring Mechanics, Nucl. Phys. B263 (1986) 93; W. Siegel, Randomizing the Superstring, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994), 2799. relax V. G. Kac, Simple graded Lie algebras of finite growth, Func. Anal. Appl. 1, (1967) 328; K. Bardacki and M. B. Halpern, New dual quark model, Phys. Rev. D 3 (1971) 2493; V. G. Kac, Infinite dimensional Lie algebras, 3rd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990. relax N. Berkovits and P. Howe, Ten-dimensional supergravity constraints from the pure spinor formalism for the superstring, \[hep-th/0112160\]. relax N. Berkovits, Covariant quantization of the superparticle using pure spinors, \[hep-th/0105050\]. relax E. Witten, An Interpretation Of Classical Yang-Mills Theory, Phys. Lett. B 77, 394 (1978); E. Witten, Twistor - Like Transform In Ten-Dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B 266, 245 (1986); J. P. Harnad and S. Shnider, Constraints And Field Equations For Ten-Dimensional Super-Yang-Mills Theory, Commun. Math. Phys. 106, 183 (1986). relax R. Stora, Exercises in equivariant cohomology, CERN-TH-96-279 NATO Advanced Study Institute: Quantum Fields and Quantum Space Time, Cargese, Corsica, France, 22 Jul - 3 Aug 1996. R. Stora, Exercises in equivariant cohomology, arXiv:hep-th/9611114 ; J. Kalkman, Brst Model For Equivariant Cohomology And Representatives For The Equivariant Thom Class, Commun. Math. Phys. 153, 447 (1993); S. Ouvry, R. Stora and P. van Baal, On The Algebraic Characterization Of Witten’s Topological Yang-Mills Theory, Phys. Lett. B 220, 159 (1989); L. Baulieu and I. M. Singer, Conformally Invariant Gauge Fixed Actions For 2-D Topological Gravity, Commun. Math. Phys. 135, 253 (1991). relax A. Blasi and R. Collina, Basic Cohomology Of Topological Quantum Field Theories, Phys. Lett. B 222, 419 (1989); F. Delduc, N. Maggiore, O. Piguet and S. Wolf, Note on constrained cohomology, Phys. Lett. B 385, 132 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9605158\]; F. Fucito, A. Tanzini, L. C. Vilar, O. S. Ventura, C. A. Sasaki and S. P. Sorella, Algebraic renormalization: Perturbative twisted considerations on topological Yang-Mills theory and on N = 2 supersymmetric gauge theories, arXiv:hep-th/9707209.


text:
# The blue to red supergiant ratio in young clusters at various metallicities

## 1 Introduction

The variation with metallicity $`Z`$ of the number of blue and red supergiants is important in relation to the nature of the supernova progenitors in different environments (Langer 1991ab) and its effects on the luminous star populations in galaxies (e.g. Cervino & Mas-Hesse ce94 (1994); Origlia et al. or99 (1999)). This ratio also constitutes an important and sensitive test for stellar evolution models, because it is very sensitive to mass loss, convection and mixing processes (Langer & Maeder lm95 (1995)). Stellar evolution models can usually, by adjustement of parameters such as the rate of mass loss by stellar winds, reproduce the observed ratio for a given metallicity, but are not able to reproduce its variation with the metallicity. Thus, the problem of the blue to red supergiant ratio ($`B/R`$ ratio) remains one of the most severe problems in stellar evolution.

Since the last studies of the $`B/R`$ ratio in the Galaxy and in the Magellanic Clouds more than fifteen years ago (Meylan & Maeder mm82 (1982); Humphreys & McElroy hm84 (1984)), many new spectroscopic and photometric measurements have been performed. Our aim here is to reexamine this question accounting for these recent observational improvements. We chose to use stellar clusters instead of field stars for obvious reasons: stars are at the same distance, with the same age and above all have the same chemical composition. Moreover, the knowledge of the age of the clusters enables us to estimate the initial masses of the supergiants used to derive the $`B/R`$ ratio.

Thus, the present work is in the continuity of the work of Meylan & Maeder (mm82 (1982)). However, the present study presents two significant improvements. First, the identification of supergiants is based on spectroscopic measurements instead of on photometric colours. Spectroscopic measurements allow a more accurate differentiation between supergiants and main sequence stars (see however the discussion in Sect. 4). Second, the number of stellar clusters in our galactic sample is increased by a factor of four.

In Sect. 2, we review the various studies about the $`B/R`$ ratio. Section 3 presents the new counts. Our results are discussed in Sect. 4, and conclusions are given in Sect. 5.

## 2 Previous studies

Walker (wa64 (1964)) observed that the $`B/R`$ ratio in M33 decreases when the distance to the centre of the galaxy increases. Van den Bergh (1968) explained this variation by a radial metallicity gradient in the disk of M33, the metallicity being higher in the inner parts. Humphreys & Sandage (1980) reexamined the $`B/R`$ ratio in M33 and confirmed its decrease when the galactocentric distance increases. Freedman (1985) contested the results of Humphreys & Sandage (hs80 (1980)) concerning the variation of the $`B/R`$ ratio in M33 and concluded that this was just an effect of incompleteness. However, Ivanov (1998) concluded that the diminution was real and was in good agreement with the radial metallicity gradient observed in M33 (McCarthy et al. mc95 (1995)).

Hartwick (ha70 (1970)) noticed the decrease of the $`B/R`$ ratio in the Milky Way as the galactocentric radius increases. Robertson (ro73 (1973), ro74 (1974)), Hagen & van den Bergh (hv74 (1974)) compared theoretical evolutionary tracks to observed HR diagrams (HRD) of stellar clusters in the Galaxy and in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). They attributed the observed differences between the HRD to differences in the metal content.

Humphreys (1979a ) investigated the variation of the $`B/R`$ ratio in the LMC. She concluded that the radial variation of this ratio must be weak or absent, in agreement with the study of the chemical composition of the HII regions made by Pagel et al. (pa78 (1978)). In a study of the supergiants in the Galaxy and in the LMC, Humphreys & Davidson (hd79 (1979)) found a decrease of the $`B/R`$ ratio when the metallicity decreases. Cowley et al. (1979) examined the variation of the $`B/R`$ ratio across the face of the LMC and found that it increases by a factor of 1.8 when the metallicity increases by a factor of 1.2.

The first study of the $`B/R`$ ratio using stellar clusters in the Galaxy, the LMC and the SMC (Small Magellanic Cloud) was made by Meylan & Maeder (mm82 (1982)), who concluded to a steep increase of $`B/R`$ when the metallicity increases, with a difference of about an order of magnitude in $`B/R`$ between the Galaxy and the SMC. Humphreys & McElroy (1984) reexamined the $`B/R`$ ratio in the Galaxy, the LMC and the SMC, and gave new values which accounted for the incompleteness of the data. They found a $`B/R`$ ratio about ten times higher in the central parts of the Galaxy than in the SMC.

Langer & Maeder (lm95 (1995)) summarized some results about the values of the $`B/R`$ ratio and gave a $`B/R`$ ratio approximately six times larger in the solar neighborhood than in the SMC. After comparison of different stellar models with observations, they concluded that most massive star models have problems reproducing the decrease of $`B/R`$ when the metallicity decreases. Deng et al. (1996) used the supergiant stars catalogue from Blaha & Humphreys (bh89 (1989)) to make new counts in the Galaxy and in the LMC. They found a $`B/R`$ ratio about five times higher in the Galaxy than in the LMC.

To summarize the $`B/R`$ ratio appears to be an increasing function of metallicity. This trend is observed by studies in the Galaxy, the Magellanic Clouds as well as in the Triangulum galaxy. In this work we shall take the opportunity of recent improvements brought to our knowledge of Galactic and Magellanic clusters to reexamine carefully this question.

## 3 Results from new cluster studies in the Galaxy, LMC and SMC

### 3.1 Spectroscopic counts

We select in the Webda database (Mermilliod me95 (1995); http://obswww.unige.ch/webda) young clusters with $`\mathrm{log}age`$ between 6.8 and 7.5, corresponding to masses at the turn off between 8 $`M_{}`$ and 24 $`M_{}`$ and to initial masses of the supergiants between about 8 and 30 $`M_{}`$ (Meynet et al. meynet93 (1993)). Let us note that this interval of masses for the supergiants probes a region of the HR diagram below the observed upper limit for the luminosity of the red supergiants, i.e. below $`M_{\mathrm{bol}}9.5`$ (Humphreys & Davidson hd79 (1979), hd84 (1984)).

We only keep the clusters with spectroscopic measurements for the brightest stars in order to distinguish supergiants from main sequence stars. In this way, 45 clusters are selected. For each cluster, we count the number of supergiant stars of spectral type O, B, A, K and M. In a few cases, the spectroscopic class for the same star is different depending on the authors. In these cases, we adopt the most recent determination. The galactocentric distance R of each cluster is calculated from the values of its galactic coordinates and from its distance to the sun given by the Webda database. For each galactocentric radius, a metallicity is associated by taking a value of $`Z=0.02`$ at the solar position (we take R$`{}_{}{}^{}=8.5`$ kpc for the solar galactocentric distance) and an averaged radial metallicity gradient of $`0.08`$ dex kpc-1. This value has been chosen from various studies of the galactic gradient determined by means of spectroscopic and photometric indices of stellar populations in open clusters (see the discussion by Alibés et al. al01 (2001)).

The results are given in Table 1, where $`B`$ represents the number of O, B and A supergiants, while $`R`$ is the number of K and M supergiants. $`N_O`$, $`N_B`$, $`N_A`$, $`N_K`$ and $`N_M`$ indicate the number of supergiants with spectral type O, B, A, K and M respectively. Each cluster age is given in logarithm and taken from the Webda database. The region noted GC refers to the region inside the solar circle and includes all the clusters with a galactocentric distance shorter than 8.5 kpc. Likewise, the GAC region corresponds to the region outside the solar circle and includes the clusters with a galactocentric distance higher than 8.5 kpc.

On the basis of these results, we examined the variation of the $`B/R`$ ratio with the galactocentric radius by grouping open clusters in different distance bins. In Fig. 1, two different binnings are shown. In the first one, clusters are grouped in three main galactocentric distance intervals (6.5-8.0, 8.0-9.0 and 9.0-11.5 kpc), in order to have the same number of clusters (15) in each bin. We also separate the clusters in five distance intervals (6.5-7.5, 7.5-8.0, 8.0-8.5, 8.5-10.0 and 10.0-11.5 kpc) to check whether the variation of the $`B/R`$ ratio observed when considering three intervals is still present (due to the small number of supergiants counted for each clusters, it is not pertinent to adopt a finer binning). The metallicity of each bin is obtained by averaging the metallicities of all the clusters in this bin. We precise here that the metallicities are not obtained from stars in each clusters, but from an adopted metallicity gradient of $`0.08`$ dex kpc-1. In this way, we assign a metallicity for each distance interval mentioned above (e.g. for the GC and GAC region we take respectively $`Z=0.023`$ and $`Z=0.016`$). The increase of the $`B/R`$ ratio with the metallicity is shown in Fig. 1 and in Table 3.

In order to obtain values of the $`B/R`$ ratio for lower metallicities, we select young clusters in the Magellanic Clouds. According to a discussion by Maeder et al. (maeder99 (1999)), the average value of the metallicity is $`Z=0.007`$ for the LMC and $`Z=0.002`$ for the SMC. Without sufficient spectroscopic data for the young clusters of the LMC, it is not possible to give a reliable value for $`B/R`$ in the LMC. In the SMC, the only cluster satisfying the age criteria and having spectroscopic measurements is NGC 330 ($`\mathrm{log}age=7.00`$ according to Cassatella et al. cassa96 (1996)). This cluster has been well studied and so different values exist for the $`B/R`$ ratio : $`B/R=7/12`$ (Cayrel et al. cay88 (1988)), $`B/R=9/15`$ (Carney et al. car85 (1985); Brocato & Castellani bc92 (1992); Bomans & Grebel bg94 (1994)), $`B/R=12/15`$ (Grebel & Richtler gr92 (1992)). In these ratios, $`B`$ only includes B supergiants. Thus, the value of the $`B/R`$ ratio for NGC 330 lies somewhere between 0.5 and 0.8 (when only B supergiants are counted). The value of 0.6 is currently accepted and is reported in Fig. 1.

### 3.2 Photometric counts

In order to complete counts based on spectroscopic measurements, we perform counts based on colour indices in the same way as Meylan & Maeder (1982). To this purpose, we select among the 45 open clusters mentioned in Table 1, those having photometric measurements down to $`M_v=2`$ and with at least 15 stars brighter than this magnitude. Hence 23 clusters are selected. The distinction between blue and red supergiants is made in the following way : when $`(BV)_00`$, the star is considered to have a O, B or A spectral type and is included in $`B`$, whereas for $`(BV)_01.2`$, the star is considered to be a K or a M and is included in $`R`$. This distinction remains valid for the SMC, where late-type supergiants are of earlier type than in the Galaxy and LMC (Humphreys 1979b ; Elias et al. el85 (1985)). We then count all the stars in these two colour intervals down to a certain limit $`M_{vlim}`$ of the absolute magnitude. In order to be sure that the results do not depend on the value of this arbitrary chosen limit, the counts are made for four different limits : $`M_{vlim}=3.25`$, $`M_{vlim}=3.0`$, $`M_{vlim}=2.5`$ and $`M_{vlim}=2.0`$. The 23 selected clusters and the results are listed in Table 2. Because of the small number of clusters selected in this case, it is not pertinent to subdivide the clusters in several distance intervals or age intervals, and so we consider all the clusters with $`\mathrm{log}age`$ between 6.8 and 7.5 and only the two main regions GC and GAC to calculate the $`B/R`$ ratio (see Table 3).

For the Magellanic Clouds, we use the data from Elson (el91 (1991)), except for the SMC cluster NGC 330 (Vallenari va94 (1994)). Cluster ages are taken from Cassatella et al. (cassa96 (1996)). The same criteria of selection as those used for galactic clusters give a total of 3 clusters selected in the LMC. In the SMC, NGC 330 is the only cluster satisfying both the criteria for age and for the number of stars brighter than $`M_v=2`$. The counts are made in exactly the same way as for the Milky Way. The selected clusters and the results of the counts are given in Table 2, while Table 3 summarizes the values of the $`B/R`$ ratio found in the four main regions (GC, GAC, LMC and SMC). Let us note here that our selected clusters have a mean age approximately the same in the GC, GAC and SMC regions (respectively 7.0, 7.1 and 7.0) which is a nice feature for the comparisons performed here.

From the results for spectroscopic and photometric counts, we find the following average relation :

$$\frac{B/R}{(B/R)_{}}0.05e^{3\frac{Z}{Z_{}}}$$

where $`Z_{}=0.02`$ and $`(B/R)_{}`$ is the value of $`B/R`$ at $`Z_{}`$ which depends on the definition of $`B`$ and $`R`$ and on the age interval considered. For clusters with $`\mathrm{log}age`$ between 6.8 and 7.5 (initial masses of the supergiants between $`8`$ and 30 $`M_{}`$), $`(B/R)_{}3.0`$ for spectroscopic counts when $`B`$ includes O, B and A supergiants, and $`(B/R)_{}2.5`$ when only B supergiants are counted. For photometric counts, $`(B/R)_{}`$ equals $`17.2`$, $`18.5`$, $`23.0`$ and $`24.0`$ for $`M_{vlim}=3.25`$, $`M_{vlim}=3.0`$, $`M_{vlim}=2.5`$ and $`M_{vlim}=2.0`$, respectively.

## 4 Discussion of the results

Fig. 1 clearly shows that the present study, based on the most recent spectroscopic measurements found in the literature, confirms the trend already found in previous works, namely the decrease of the $`B/R`$ ratio with the metallicity. In the Galaxy, $`B/R`$ is approximately 3 times higher in the GC than in the GAC (Table 3). This variation can also be observed by separating the Galaxy in three or five galactocentric distance intervals. Moreover, the $`B/R`$ ratio in the SMC confirms the results obtained for the Galaxy, with a value approximately 2 times lower than in the GAC region. Fig. 1 shows also that the decrease is stronger at high metallicity than at low metallicity. This is in good agreement with recent results from Massey (ma02 (2002)) who found a $`B/R`$ ratio only slightly higher in the LMC than in the SMC.

Concerning photometric counts, we can see in Table 3 that $`B/R`$ is higher in the GC region than in the GAC region. The increase of the $`B/R`$ ratio when the limit magnitude increases is simply due to the fact that more main sequence stars are included in $`B`$. The results are stable for the limit magnitudes $`3.25`$, $`3.0`$, and $`2.5`$, for which $`B/R`$ is approximately 2.5 times higher in the GC than in the GAC (in good agreement with Meylan & Maeder mm82 (1982) and with the results from spectroscopic counts). For the limit magnitude of -2.0, the value of $`B/R`$ for the GC seems relatively low, which likely reflects problems of completeness.

The $`B/R`$ ratios in the LMC (Table 3) confirm the decrease of $`B/R`$ when the metallicity decreases. However, the results for the SMC seem less clear. This is probably due to the fact that ratios for the SMC are based on one single cluster (NGC 330). This is obviously insufficient to obtain precise $`B/R`$ ratios and thus, in this case, results must be regarded with circumspection.

What are the effects of grouping clusters of different ages on the results ? Let us recall that we selected clusters with $`\mathrm{log}age`$ between 6.8 and 7.5. This means that the $`B/R`$ ratio we obtain are for supergiants with initial masses between about 8 and 30 $`M_{}`$. Adopting narrower age intervals would give indication on the $`B/R`$ ratio in a smaller range of initial masses. One can wonder to which extent the decrease of the $`B/R`$ ratio with the metallicity would remain the same, if smaller age (mass) intervals were adopted. To check this point, we considered different age intervals (i.e. different intervals of initial masses for the supergiants). It is obvious that a finer age interval means less clusters selected and so a less reliable statistic. Therefore, we choose larger distance intervals when finer age intervals are considered. First, we calculate the $`B/R`$ ratio in the same three distance intervals considered above (6.5-8.0, 8.0-9.0 and 9.0-11.5 kpc) for two age intervals : $`\mathrm{log}age`$ between 6.8 and 7.2 (initial masses of the supergiants between 12–30 $`M_{}`$) and $`\mathrm{log}age`$ between 7.0 and 7.4 (initial masses of the supergiants between 9–18 $`M_{}`$). We also choose two finer age intervals, $`\mathrm{log}age`$ between 6.9 and 7.1 (initial masses of the supergiants between 14–23 $`M_{}`$) and $`\mathrm{log}age`$ between 7.1 and 7.3 (initial masses of the supergiants between 10–15 $`M_{}`$), for which we calculate the $`B/R`$ ratio in the two main distance intervals GC and GAC. The results of these counts are shown in Fig. 2. We precise that the value of the galactocentric radius R of each distance interval is obtained by averaging the galacocentric radii of the clusters found in the bin.

We observe that for different age intervals, the $`B/R`$ ratio always remains higher for larger metallicities. Fig. 2 shows clearly that the variation of the $`B/R`$ ratio with the galactocentric radius remains more or less the same whatever the interval of ages (masses) considered. Moreover, we can see that considering finer age intervals changes only slightly the values of the $`B/R`$ ratio. In that respect, the age interval between 6.8 and 7.5 appears to be a good compromise between the necessity to select a sufficiently high numbers of clusters to have a reliable statistics, and the necessity to somewhat restrain the domain of masses.

Finally, let us stress that when comparisons with stellar evolution models are made, the same definitions of the blue and the red supergiants used for obtaining the observed $`B/R`$ ratios has to be used to determine the theoretical $`B/R`$ ratios. In that respect, it is worthwhile to recall here that even if a star is classified as a blue supergiant, it may belong to the upper end of the Main Sequence.

## 5 Conclusions

The decrease of the $`B/R`$ ratio with the metallicity does not appear to be an artifact due for instance to incompleteness but instead a robust feature that stellar evolution models should be able to reproduce. The fact that the present day grids of stellar models are still unable to account for this feature demands some caution when evolutionary population synthesis models are used to interpret the integrated luminosity of high redshift galaxies.

Recent studies by Maeder & Meynet (mm01 (2001)) show that the inclusion in the stellar models of the effects of rotation changes the $`B/R`$ ratios. Physically, this results from the mild mixing, which leads to more helium in the region of the H–shell burning. The opacity is lower and the intermediate convective zone less important or absent. As convection implies a polytropic index $`n=1.5`$, which means a relative compactness of the internal convective regions, the absence of an intermediate convective zone is a necessary condition for stellar expansion to the supergiant stage. Interestingly, rotating models are able to account for the numerous red supergiants seen at low metallicity, a feature that standard models could not reproduce.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank J.-C. Mermilliod for his help in using the Webda database.