text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Penrose limit  of the AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$ solution of type IIB theory is a pp-wave with maximal supersymmetry . This result is of considerable interest within the framework of the AdS/CFT correspondence, since the pp-wave provides a background for which the string theory action in light-cone gauge describes a massive free string, which is exactly solvable , thus allowing explicit comparisons with results in the dual gauge theory . The Penrose limit of the AdS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times S^7`$ and AdS$`{}_{7}{}^{}\times S^4`$ solutions of M-theory also gives rise to a maximally-supersymmetric pp-wave, obtained in , and this provides a simple background for the DLCQ description of M-theory, and the corresponding matrix-model in this regime . Subsequent papers have explored a variety of consequences and generalisations of these observations -.

In a previous paper , we studied a wider class of supersymmetric pp-waves in the type IIB theory, generalising the maximally-supersymmetric one that arises as the Penrose limit of AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$. In particular, we allowed for a more general structure of the constant self-dual five-form field strength; these structures were motivated by the flat (orbifold) limit of a special holonomy transverse space for the pp waves. In fact any pp-wave within the general class automatically has 16 Killing spinors, which we therefore denoted as “standard” Killing spinors. In special cases one finds that there can be additional Killing spinors, which we denoted as “supernumerary” Killing spinors. The maximum number, 16, of these is achieved for the Penrose limit of AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$. (In this class we also found another example of the Penrose limit of AdS$`{}_{3}{}^{}\times S^3`$ arising form an D3/D3-intersection.)

The focus of our study in  was to determine the circumstances under which one obtains supernumerary Killing spinors in the type IIB pp-waves. These are important when one considers the exactly-solvable string models in the pp-wave backgrounds; we found that it is the supernumerary Killing spinors that are in one to one correspondence with the associated linearly-realised worldsheet supersymmetries of the corresponding string action. In fact the string theory is solved by going to the light-cone gauge, with the $`x^+`$ coordinate in the pp-wave being set equal to the world-sheet time coordinate. In order that the linearly-realised world-sheet supersymmetries be unbroken, it is necessary therefore that the associated supernumerary Killing spinors be independent of the coordinate $`x^+`$, which is indeed the case in all the type IIB pp-waves. For instance, all 16 supernumerary Killing spinors in the Penrose limit of AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$ have this property .

A further significance of having Killing spinors in the type IIB pp-waves that are independent of $`x^+`$ is that after performing a T-duality transformation on the $`x^+`$ coordinate (which is always a Killing direction), the resulting type IIA solution will also be supersymmetric. It can be lifted to M-theory, where it acquires an interpretation as a supersymmetric deformed M2-brane, i.e. an M2-brane in which an additional 4-form flux is turned on in the transverse space -. An intriguing feature of the deformed M2-branes obtained by this T-dualisation procedure is that if any of the Killing spinors originate from supernumerary Killing spinors (which are $`x^+`$-independent), then in the M-theory picture they solve the Killing-spinor equations despite violating the criterion that is usually applied  for testing whether a supersymmetry survives when the extra 4-form flux is turned on .

In this paper, we study supersymmetric pp-waves in M-theory. In particular, we allow for rather general structures for the constant 4-form field strength of M-theory, motivated from the flat (orbifold) limit of special holonomy transverse space for the pp-waves. These possible structures fall into two classes. Focusing on the nature of supersymmetry, we again find that there are always 16 “standard” Killing spinors, and that additional “supernumerary” Killing spinors can arise in special cases. Unlike the case of pp-waves in type IIB, however, it is no longer automatic that supernumerary Killing spinors are independent of $`x^+`$. The Penrose limit of AdS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times S^7`$ or AdS$`{}_{7}{}^{}\times S^4`$ provides the unique example where the number of supernumerary Killing spinors attains its maximum, namely 16 . Unlike the maximally-supersymmetric pp-wave in type IIB, however, here in the M-theory maximally-supersymmetric pp-wave the 16 supernumerary Killing spinors all depend on $`x^+`$.

Again our focus is on the occurrence of supernumerary Killing spinors, and also on determining the dependence of all the Killing spinors on the $`x^+`$ coordinate and the 9 transverse coordinates $`z^i`$. These dependences are of importance when one considers reductions to type IIA, and subsequent T-dualisation to type IIB, since they determine whether there will be supersymmetries in the type IIA and IIB supergravity solutions.

Depending upon whether one reduces from $`D=11`$ on $`x^+`$ or on one of the transverse coordinates $`z^i`$, one either obtains a D0-brane or a pp-wave in the type IIA theory. In the case of a pp-wave, the string theory in this background is again exactly-solvable by going to the light-cone gauge, giving rise to a free massive theory. In the case of a reduction instead on $`x^+`$, the D0-brane world-particle action leads to a DLCQ description of the M-theory matrix model in this sector. Thus these backgrounds of M-theory provide for dual descriptions, either in terms of a solvable type IIA string action or in a matrix theory model. In particular, the supernumerary supersymmetry plays a key role in determining the supersymmetry of the string action as well as supersymmetry of the matrix model.

We begin in section 2 by setting up our formalism for the pp-waves in M-theory, and obtaining the criterion for the existence of Killing spinors. We then study the coordinate dependences of the Killing spinors, for the various choices of constant 4-form fluxes in the flat nine-dimensional transverse space that we are considering. This allows us to discuss the supersymmetry of the type IIA D0-branes and pp-waves that we can obtain by dimensional reduction. We also show how some of our pp-wave solutions are related to Penrose limits of M2-brane and M5-brane intersections.

In section 3 we derive the light-cone action for type IIA strings in arbitrary bosonic backgrounds, making use of earlier covariant results for the Green-Schwarz action up to quadratic order in fermions that were obtained in . We also obtain an analogous result for the light-cone action for the type IIB string, again valid for arbitrary bosonic backgrounds, and based on covariant results obtained in . Using these light-cone actions, we study the properties of some of the pp-wave solutions that we obtain by dimensional reduction and T-duality.

In certain cases the M-theory pp-waves have no isometry direction within the nine-dimensional transverse space, and so they cannot be reduced to give pp-waves in ten dimensions. Under these circumstances, where the pp-waves are intrinsically eleven-dimensional, one is led to considering a DLCQ description in this background, leading to a matrix model. In particular, we derive the matrix-model action, whose supersymmetry is in one to one correspondence with the supernumerary supersymmetries of the corresponding pp-wave background.

## 2 Supersymmetry of pp-waves in M-theory

### 2.1 General formalism

We shall consider pp-wave solutions of $`D=11`$ supergravity, where the metric and 4-form are given by

$`ds_{11}^2`$ $`=`$ $`4dx^+dx^{}+Hdx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+dz_i^2,`$ (1)
$`F_{\left(4\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu dx^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)},`$ (2)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ is a harmonic 3-form in the flat nine-dimensional transverse space whose metric is $`dz_i^2`$, $`\mu `$ is a constant, and we are taking $`H`$ here to depend only on $`z^i`$. In the vielbein basis $`e^+=dx^+`$, $`e^{}=2dx^{}+\frac{1}{2}Hdx^+`$, $`e^i=dz^i`$, for which the metric is $`ds_{11}^2=2e^+e^{}+e^ie^i`$, the spin connection is given by

$$\omega _{+i}=\frac{1}{2}_iHe^+,\omega _i=\omega _+=\omega _{ij}=0,$$
(3)
and the only non-vanishing Riemann tensor components, in the vielbein basis, are

$$R_{+i+j}=\frac{1}{2}_i_jH.$$
(4)
This implies that the only non-vanishing Ricci-tensor component is $`R_{++}=\frac{1}{2}\text{    }\text{ }H`$. The $`D=11`$ supergravity equations are therefore satisfied if $`H`$ obeys the equation

$$\text{    }\text{ }H=\frac{1}{6}\mu ^2|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}|^2.$$
(5)
In this paper we shall focus on the cases where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ is a covariantly-constant 3-form. It is sufficient for our purposes to take the solution for $`H`$ to be

$$H=c_0+\frac{Q}{r^7}\underset{i}{}\mu _i^2z_i^2,$$
(6)
where $`c_0`$, $`Q`$ and $`\mu _i`$ are constants, and $`r^2z_iz_i`$. It follows from (5) that the $`\mu _i`$ are subject to the condition

$$\underset{i}{}\mu _i^2=\frac{1}{12}\mu ^2|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}|^2.$$
(7)
When $`\mu =0`$ (and hence $`\mu _i=0`$), the solution becomes a standard pp-wave in $`D=11`$, whose dimensional reduction gives a D0-brane in the type IIA theory, and the pp-wave charge $`Q`$ becomes the charge of the D0-brane.

The supercovariant derivative appearing in the supersymmetry transformation rule $`\delta \psi _M=D_Mϵ`$ is given by

$$D_M=_M\frac{1}{288}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_M{}_{}{}^{N_1\mathrm{}N_4}F_{N_1\mathrm{}N_4}^{}8F_{MN_1\mathrm{}N_3}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{N_1\mathrm{}N_3}).$$
(8)
Defining $`D_M=_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, we therefore find

$`_+=_++\frac{1}{4}_iH\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,_{}=_{},_i=_i,`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_+=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{12}\mu (1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+)W,\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=0,\mathrm{\Omega }_i=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{24}\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_iW+3W\mathrm{\Gamma }_i),`$ (9)
where we have defined

$$W\frac{\mathrm{i}}{6}\mathrm{\Phi }_{ijk}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ijk}.$$
(10)
It follows immediately from (9) that Killing spinors $`ϵ`$, satisfying $`D_Mϵ=0`$, are independent of $`x^{}`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Omega }_j=0`$ we have $`_i_jϵ=0`$ and hence it follows that

$$ϵ=(1z^i\mathrm{\Omega }_i)\chi ,$$
(11)
where $`\chi `$ depends only on $`x^+`$. Finally, from $`D_+ϵ=0`$ one deduces that

$$_+\chi \frac{\mathrm{i}}{12}\mu (\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_++1)W\chi =0$$
(12)
and

$$\left[\mu ^2z^i(\mathrm{\Gamma }_iW^2+9W^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_i+6W\mathrm{\Gamma }_iW)+72_iH\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\chi =0.$$
(13)
Thus (13) determines the number of Killing spinors, while (11) and (12) determine their $`z^i`$ and $`x^+`$ dependence.

Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0`$, we have a unique decomposition $`\chi =\chi _++\chi _{}`$ for any $`\chi `$, where $`\chi _+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\chi `$ and $`\chi _{}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\chi `$ have the defining properties $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\chi _+=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\chi _{}=0`$.

It is evident from (13) that there will always be 16 Killing spinors corresponding to $`\chi =\chi _{}`$. Accordingly, we refer to these as “standard Killing spinors,” since they exist for any choice of the function $`H`$ that satisfies the field equation (5). In particular, the pp-wave charge $`Q`$ can be non-zero. In certain cases there can also be additional Killing spinors corresponding to $`\chi =\chi _+`$. We refer to these as “supernumerary Killing spinors.” We shall construct the two categories of Killing spinors, and discuss their coordinate dependences, in the following two subsections.

Before discussing the two categories of Killing spinors, let us be a little more specific in our choice of constant 3-forms $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$. It turns out to be natural to restrict attention to cases where the associated matrix $`W`$, defined by (10), is a sum of individual terms $`W_\alpha `$ that all commute with each other. This can be seen to lead to two inequivalent maximal sets of terms, which we shall refer to as Case 1 and Case 2. For the two cases we have

$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞𝟏}}:`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}=m_1dz^{129}+m_2dz^{349}+m_3dz^{569}+m_4dz^{789},`$
$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞𝟐}}:`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}=m_1dz^{123}+m_2dz^{145}+m_3dz^{167}+m_4dz^{246}`$
$`+m_5dz^{257}+m_6dz^{347}+m_7dz^{356},`$
where we have defined $`dz^{ijk}dz^idz^jdz^k`$. It should be noted that unless all four of the $`m_\alpha `$ coefficients are non-zero in Case 1, it is in fact encompassed (after a relabelling of coordinates) within Case 2.

It is straightforward to verify that if we construct $`W`$ as in (10), and write it as

$$W=\underset{\alpha }{}m_\alpha W_\alpha ,$$
(16)
where $`W_\alpha `$ denotes the individual $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ijk}`$ structures (for example $`W_1=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{129}`$ is one of the four structures in Case 1), then we shall have $`[W_\alpha ,W_\beta ]=0`$. In consequence, for either Case 1 or Case 2 we can choose a basis for the gamma matrices in which the $`W_\alpha `$ are all diagonal. It is useful to have in mind such a diagonal choice of basis in the subsequent discussion.

For our canonical choices, one can see that if the $`m_\alpha `$ are taken equal then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ in Case 1 can be expressed as $`mdz_9J`$, where $`J`$ is the Kähler form for the eight-dimensional flat space with metric $`_{i=1}^8dz_i^2`$. Likewise, if the $`m_\alpha `$ are set equal in Case 2, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ can be expressed as $`m\mathrm{\Psi }_{\left(3\right)}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ is a $`G_2`$-invariant associative 3-form in the flat seven-dimensional space with metric $`_{i=1}^7dz_i^2`$.

### 2.2 The 16 standard Killing spinors

The 16 standard Killing spinors correspond to taking $`\chi =\chi _{}`$, i.e. they are defined by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\chi =0`$. It is evident from (9) and (11) that they are all independent of all of the $`z^i`$ coordinates. It is also evident from (12) that they will have $`x^+`$ dependence given by

$$\chi =e^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{4}\mu x^+W}\chi _0,$$
(17)
where $`\chi _0`$ is any constant spinor satisfying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\chi _0=0`$. If $`W`$ annihilates any of these spinors, then the associated “standard” Killing spinor will be independent of $`x^+`$ (and so, in fact, it will be independent of all the coordinates). The discussion now divides into two, according to whether we take $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ to be given by (14) or (15):

Case 1:

For $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ given by (14), the eigenvalues of $`W`$ are

$$\lambda _i=\pm m_1\pm m_2\pm m_3\pm m_4,$$
(18)
where the $`\pm `$ choices are all independent. Each eigenvalue occurs twice, making the 32 in total. In the subspace of eigenspinors annihilated by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ one gets each eigenvalue once, and likewise in the subspace annihilated by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$. For the standard Killing spinors arising in Case 1, it therefore follows that the possible numbers that are independent of $`x^+`$ can be $`N_{\mathrm{stan}}=`$ 0, 2, 4 or 8.

The number $`N_{\mathrm{stan}}=0`$ is achieved for generic choices of the $`m_\alpha `$; $`N_{\mathrm{stan}}=2`$ is achieved for choices where $`m_1+m_2+m_3+m_4=0`$; $`N_{\mathrm{stan}}=4`$ is achieved for choices with $`m_4=0`$ and $`m_1+m_2+m_3=0`$ (or permutations); and $`N_{\mathrm{stan}}=8`$ is achieved for choices with $`m_3=m_4=0`$ and $`m_1+m_2=0`$ (or permutations).

Case 2:

When $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ is given by (15), we find that again $`W`$ generically has sixteen different eigenvalues, each occurring twice. One copy of the sixteen again occurs in each of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ subspaces. The eigenvalues are given by $`\pm \lambda _i`$, where

$$\lambda _8=m_1+m_2+m_3m_4+m_5+m_6+m_7,$$
(19)
and $`\lambda _i`$ for $`1i7`$ is given by reversing the sign of each $`m_\alpha `$ that occurs as a coefficient of any term containing the gamma matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$. The numbers of standard Killing spinors that are independent of $`x^+`$ that can be achieved for these Case 2 examples are therefore $`N_{\mathrm{stan}}=2n`$, where $`0n6`$ is the number of $`\lambda _i=0`$ that are arranged to vanish by choosing the $`m_\alpha `$ appropriately. Thus for Case 2 we can have $`N_{\mathrm{stan}}=`$ 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 standard Killing spinors that are independent of $`x^+`$.

### 2.3 Supernumerary Killing spinors

We now turn to the discussion of supernumerary Killing spinors, for which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\chi =0`$. In a generic pp-wave solution there will be none of these, but they can arise in special cases when $`H`$ given in (6) is quadratic in $`z^i`$ (i.e. the pp-wave charge $`Q=0`$), and the distribution of $`\mu _i`$ coefficients (which must in any case satisfy (7)) is chosen appropriately. The numbers of supernumerary Killing spinors that can be achieved depends also on the choice of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$.

The equation (13) that determines the number of Killing spinors admits solutions for supernumerary Killing spinors ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\chi =0`$) if $`H`$ in (6) depends on $`z^i`$ only quadratically, and

$$\left[\mu ^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_iW^2+9W^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_i+6W\mathrm{\Gamma }_iW)144\mu _i^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\right]\chi =0,$$
(20)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\chi =0`$.

As we discussed when we made our choices (14) or (15) for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$, the resulting terms $`W_\alpha `$ defined by (10) and (16) can all be simultaneously diagonalised (for each of Case 1 or Case 2 separately), by means of an appropriate similarity transformation of the gamma matrices. It is convenient to assume that such a basis for the gamma matrices has been chosen.

With respect to a diagonal basis, it is evident that

$$X_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_iW\mathrm{\Gamma }_i+3W$$
(21)
is also diagonal, and therefore that (20) can be rewritten as

$$(\mu ^2X_i^2144\mu _i^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\chi =0,\text{for each }i.$$
(22)
From (11), it now follows that the solutions of (22) will give the supernumerary Killing spinors, with $`z^i`$ dependence given by

$$ϵ=(1\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\mu _iz^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)\chi .$$
(23)
In particular, this means that a supernumerary Killing spinor is independent of a given coordinate $`z^i`$ if and only if the associated coefficient $`\mu _i`$ in (6) is zero.

The discussion of the supernumerary Killing spinors now divides into the two possibilities for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$, given by (14) or (15).

Case 1:

In this case $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ is given by (14). In the direction $`i=9`$ we have $`X_9=4W`$, and so $`\mu _9^2=\frac{1}{9}\mu ^2\lambda ^2`$, where $`\lambda `$ is one of the eigenvalues of $`W`$ given in (18). Without loss of generality, since the other eigenvalues differ only in sign permutations of the $`m_\alpha `$, we can take

$$\mu _9^2=\frac{1}{9}\mu ^2(m_1+m_2+m_3+m_4)^2.$$
(24)
The remaining $`\mu _i`$ for $`1i8`$ are then given by

$`\mu _1^2=\mu _2^2`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{36}\mu ^2(2m_1+m_2+m_3+m_4)^2,`$
$`\mu _3^2=\mu _4^2`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{36}\mu ^2(m_12m_2+m_3+m_4)^2,`$
$`\mu _5^2=\mu _6^2`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{36}\mu ^2(m_1+m_22m_3+m_4)^2,`$
$`\mu _7^2=\mu _8^2`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{36}\mu ^2(m_1+m_2+m_32m_4)^2.`$ (25)
To see this, we note that if $`(X_9\kappa _9)\mathrm{\Gamma }_9\chi =0`$ then $`4W\chi =\kappa _9\chi `$. We are taking $`\kappa _9=4(m_1+m_2+m_3+m_4)`$. Substituting into $`(X_1\kappa _1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\chi =0`$ we therefore find $`\frac{1}{4}\kappa _9\chi +3\stackrel{~}{W}\chi \kappa _1\chi =0`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{W}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1W\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. From (14) and (10) it follows that the diagonal matrix $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ has eigenvalues that are just those of $`W`$ but with $`m_2`$, $`m_3`$ and $`m_4`$ reversed in sign, and so $`\stackrel{~}{W}\chi =(m_1m_2m_3m_4)\chi `$. Thus we deduce that $`\kappa _1=2(2m_1m_2m_3m_4)`$. Applying an analogous argument for each direction $`i`$, we arrive at (25).

For a generic choice of the constants $`m_\alpha `$, there are precisely two supernumerary Killing spinors. This is because a given bosonic solution has fixed values for the coefficients $`\mu _\alpha `$, and so there are two solutions to (20) since there is a twofold degeneracy in (25). In special cases, where the $`m_\alpha `$ are chosen so that two or more of the expressions in (25) are equal, there can therefore be more solutions of (20). It is an elementary exercise to enumerate all the possible numbers of supernumerary supersymmetries that can be achieved for specific choices of $`m_\alpha `$. As in the case of type IIB pp-wave solutions, the supernumerary supersymmetries can lead to a variety of “non-standard” fractions of total supersymmetry that exceed $`\frac{1}{2}`$ .

It is worth remarking that for Case 1, as a consequence of the equation $`X_9=4W`$, it follows that supernumerary Killing spinors are independent of $`x^+`$ if and only if they are independent of $`z_9`$.

Case 2:

When the 3-form $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ is given by (15), it follows that we shall have $`X_8=X_9=2W`$, and so from (22) we shall have $`\mu _8^2=\mu _9^2=\frac{1}{36}\mu ^2\lambda ^2`$, where $`\lambda `$ is one of the eigenvalues of $`W`$. These are now given by $`\lambda _8`$ in (19), together with $`\lambda _i`$ for $`1i7`$ as described below (19). Without loss of generality, since the $`\mu _\alpha `$ have not yet been specified, we may choose

$$\mu _8^2=\mu _9^2=\frac{1}{36}\mu ^2\lambda _8^2=\frac{1}{36}\mu ^2(m_1+m_2+m_3m_4+m_5+m_6+m_7)^2.$$
(26)
For the other constants $`\mu _i`$, we shall therefore have

$$\mu _i^2=\frac{1}{144}\mu ^2(\lambda _83\lambda _i)^2,1i7.$$
(27)
where $`\lambda _8`$ and $`\lambda _i`$ are given by (19) and below. For example, we shall have $`\mu _1^2=\frac{1}{36}\mu ^2(2m_1+2m_2+2m_3+m_4m_5m_6m_7)^2`$.

### 2.4 Supersymmetry of type IIA pp-waves and D0-branes

Having obtained the M-theory pp-waves, we can dimensionally reduce the solutions to $`D=10`$, giving rise to D0-branes if we reduce on the $`x^+`$ coordinate, or to type IIA pp-waves if we reduce instead on any of the $`z^i`$ coordinates. Of course a reduction on a particular $`z^i`$ coordinate is possible only if it is a Killing direction, which means that the associated coefficient $`\mu _i`$ in the metric function $`H`$ must vanish.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1There are, of course, many other Killing vectors in the pp-wave metric, which could be used for Kaluza-Klein reduction, but we are not considering these here (see, however, section 2.5). Some examples are discussed in ; these typically give rise to an extra (constant) flux in the lower dimension, coming from a non-vanishing Kaluza-Klein vector potential.

First let us consider a reduction on $`x^+`$. This is a Killing direction for all pp-wave solutions. However, some or all of the Killing spinors in a given solution may be dependent on the $`x^+`$ coordinate, in which case they will not survive in the reduction of the solution to type IIA supergravity. As we saw from (12), the criterion for a Killing spinor to be independent of $`x^+`$ is that it should be annihilated by $`W`$. For the standard Killing spinors, the fraction of the 16 Killing spinors that will survive the reduction on $`x^+`$ depends on the detailed structure of $`W`$. The 16 standard Killing spinors exist for any solution for $`H`$, subject to (5). In particular, they exist when the D0-brane charge $`Q`$ is turned on. The supernumerary Killing spinors, on the other hand, are all eigenvectors of $`W`$ with the same eigenvalue, and hence they are all $`x^+`$-independent if $`W\chi =0`$, but $`x^+`$-dependent if $`W\chi 0`$. The supernumerary Killing spinors exist only if $`Q=0`$ and the $`\mu _i`$ are distributed appropriately.

For a reduction on one of the transverse coordinates $`z^i`$, the the corresponding constant $`\mu _i`$ in the expression for $`H`$ in the metric (1) must vanish, in order that $`/z^i`$ be a Killing vector. As we saw in (23), the Killing spinors are then also independent of the coordinate $`z^i`$, and hence they will all survive in the reduction. In section 2.2, it was observed that the 16 standard Killing spinors are all independent of $`z^i`$.

When $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ is contained within the Case 1 in (14), the direction $`z_9`$ is singled out. It was observed in the discussion of Case 1 in section 2.3 that if $`\mu _9=0`$ then we have also $`W\chi =0`$, and so this implies that if $`z_9`$ is a Killing direction then the supernumerary Killing spinors will not only be independent of $`z_9`$, but also of $`x^+`$.

In Case 2, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ is given by (15), the directions $`z_8`$ and $`z_9`$ are singled out. If we arrange for $`\mu _8=\mu _9=0`$ (they are always equal), then as shown in 2.3 we also have $`W\chi =0`$, and so the supernumerary Killing spinors will be independent of $`x^+`$ as well as the reduction coordinate $`z_8`$ or $`z_9`$.

In fact these various reductions to type IIA can be related to the general type IIB pp-waves obtained in , by means of T-duality. If we dimensionally reduce on $`z_9`$ in Case 1, or on $`z_8`$ or $`z_9`$ in Case 2, which is possible if parameters are chosen so that the corresponding $`\mu _i`$ coefficient vanishes, the resulting supernumerary Killing spinors are all independent $`x^+`$. This implies that the type IIA string action then has linearly-realised supersymmetries.

We can also obtain large classes of type IIA pp-wave solutions in which other $`\mu _i`$ parameters are instead zero. (That is to say, $`\mu _i`$ other than $`\mu _9`$ in Case 1, or $`\mu _8=\mu _9`$ in Case 2.) In these circumstances, there can exist supernumerary Killing spinors that are dependent on $`x^+`$. One would then obtain a type IIA solution where some, or all, of the world-sheet supersymmetries were non-linearly realised.

### 2.5 An explicit example

Here we consider an explicit example where only $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ are non-vanishing. (This can equally well be for either Case 1 in (14) or Case 2 in (15), since the two are then equivalent after coordinate relabellings.) Taking $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ as given, we can then arrange for two choices for the $`\mu _i`$ coefficients that will give rise to supernumerary Killing spinors. These are summarised in the following table:

$`\mu _1^2=\mu _2^2`$ $`\mu _3^2=\mu _4^2`$ $`\mu _5^2=\mu _6^2`$ $`\mu _7^2=\mu _8^2`$ $`\mu _9^2`$    $`\frac{1}{36}(2m_1+m_2)^2`$ $`\frac{1}{36}(m_12m_2)^2`$ $`\frac{1}{36}(m_1+m_2)^2`$ $`\frac{1}{36}(m_1+m_2)^2`$ $`\frac{1}{9}(m_1+m_2)^2`$  $`\frac{1}{36}(2m_1+m_2)^2`$ $`\frac{1}{36}(m_1+2m_2)^2`$ $`\frac{1}{36}(m_1m_2)^2`$ $`\frac{1}{36}(m_1m_2)^2`$ $`\frac{1}{9}(m_1m_2)^2`$

Table 1: Choices for $`\mu _i`$ with fixed $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ that give supernumerary Killing spinors

The second choice is nothing but the first, with one of the two $`m_i`$ reversed in sign. However, if the $`m_\alpha `$ are given, fixed parameters, then these two choices for the $`\mu _\alpha `$ correspond to two independent solutions.<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2In our previous discussion, we adopted an “active” viewpoint when discussing the possible occurrences of supernumerary Killing spinors, rather than the “passive” viewpoint we are adopting here. Namely, we previously took a fixed choice for how the eigenvalues were to be expressed in terms of the $`m_\alpha `$, and then covered the spectrum of possibilities by allowing the $`m_\alpha `$ to be chosen freely. The two viewpoints are clearly equivalent, if appropriate care is taken.

For generic but fixed values of $`m_\alpha `$, each choice in Table 1 gives rise to 8 supernumerary Killing spinors. When $`m_1=m_2`$ in the second choice, the 8 supernumerary Killing spinors are all independent of $`x^+`$. This then corresponds to the Penrose limit of the M2/M5-brane system (AdS$`{}_{3}{}^{}\times S^3\times T^4`$). By contrast, in the first choice in Table 1 the 8 supernumerary Killing spinors depend on the $`x^+`$ coordinate. For both choices, 8 of the 16 standard Killing spinors are independent of $`x^+`$. Another special case arises when either $`m_1=\pm 2m_2`$ or $`m_2=\pm 2m_1`$, which implies that $`\mu _1=\mu _2=0`$ or $`\mu _3=\mu _4=0`$. Interestingly enough, this case is T-dual to the maximally supersymmetric pp-wave arising from the Penrose limit of AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$. Suppose, for example, we have the choice giving $`\mu _1=\mu _2=0`$. We can then reduce on $`z_1`$ and T-dualise on $`z_2`$. The resulting type IIB solution is the maximally-supersymmetric pp-wave, in a slightly non-standard coordinate system that was introduced in  to make certain Killing directions in the transverse space manifest. The reverse procedure of T-dualisation and lifting was performed in , to give the pp-wave in $`D=11`$.

### 2.6 AdS Penrose limits

Various AdS spacetimes can arise in M-theory as near-horizon limits of M-brane intersections. The M2-brane and M5-brane themselves have near-horizon limits AdS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times S^7`$ and AdS$`{}_{7}{}^{}\times S^4`$ respectively; these both have the same Penrose limit. The resulting pp-wave is maximally supersymmetric, and is the one obtained in , with

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`c_0\frac{1}{9}\mu ^2(z_1^2+z_2^2+z_3^2)\frac{1}{36}\mu ^2(z_4^2+\mathrm{}z_9^2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu dz^{123}.`$ (28)
(The constant $`c_0`$ was not included in the Penrose limit taken in , but it can easily be included, as was shown in  for any Penrose limit.) There is no isometry along any of the $`z^i`$ directions. All the Killing spinors depend on $`x^+`$, and so a dimensional reduction on the $`x^+`$ coordinate will result in a type IIA supergravity solution that breaks all the supersymmetry.

The Penrose limits of intersecting M-branes that give rise to AdS structure were discussed in . An M2/M5 brane intersection gives rise to AdS$`{}_{3}{}^{}\times S^3\times T^4`$ in the near-horizon limit. The Penrose limit is then given by

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`c_0\frac{1}{4}\mu ^2(z_1^2+z_2^2+z_3^2+z_4^2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu (dz^{129}+dz^{349}).`$ (29)
There are in total 24 Killing spinors, of which 16 are the standard Killing spinors, together with 8 supernumerary Killing spinors. Out of the 16 standard Killing spinors, 8 are independent of $`x^+`$. All 8 supernumerary Killing spinors are independent of $`x^+`$, giving a total of 16 Killing spinors independent of $`x^+`$. Thus the D0-brane brane after reduction to type IIA will have 16 Killing spinors, but reduced to 8 if the D0-brane charge $`Q`$ is turned on (since then the supernumerary Killing spinors will already be lost in $`D=11`$). The solution has also isometries along the five $`z^i`$ coordinates with $`i=5,6,7,8,9`$. All 24 Killing spinors are independent of these coordinate, and so they will all survive if the M-theory solution is instead reduced on any of these five $`z^i`$ coordinates, giving a pp-wave in type IIA. In particular, if we reduce the solution on the $`z^9`$ coordinate the pp-wave will have a constant (NS-NS) 3-form $`F_{\left(3\right)}`$, and in fact this pp-wave is itself the Penrose limit of the NS1/NS5 system in type IIA. If instead we reduce the $`D=11`$ solution on $`z_5`$, $`z_6`$, $`z_7`$ or $`z_8`$, the ten-dimensional pp-wave is supported by a constant R-R 4-form $`F_{\left(4\right)}`$.

M2/M2/M2 and M5/M5/M5 brane intersections give rise to AdS$`{}_{2}{}^{}\times S^3`$ and AdS$`{}_{3}{}^{}\times S^2`$ respectively. Both have the same Penrose limit, which can be written as

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`c_0\frac{1}{4}\mu ^2(z_7^2+z_8^2)\mu ^2z_9^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu (dz^{129}+dz^{349}+dz^{569}),`$ (30)
In this case there are the 16 standard Killing spinors plus 4 supernumerary Killing spinors, giving a total of 20 in all. All the Killing spinors depend on $`x^+`$, and hence after reduction on $`x^+`$ to type IIA the resulting D0-brane will have no supersymmetry. There are also isometries in the $`z^i`$ coordinates with $`i=1,\mathrm{}6`$. Since none of the Killing spinors depends on any of these coordinates, the type IIA pp-wave that results from reducing instead on one of these will have all 20 Killing spinors.

The M2/M2/M5/M5 brane intersection system gives an AdS$`{}_{2}{}^{}\times S^2`$ in its near-horizon limit. The Penrose limit is given by

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`c_0\mu ^2(z_1^2+z_6^2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu (dz^{123}+dz^{145}+dz^{246}+dz^{356}).`$ (31)
In this case, 4 out of the 16 standard Killing spinors are independent of $`x^+`$. Additionally, there are 4 supernumerary Killing spinors, which are all $`x^+`$-independent.

## 3 Matrix model and type II string actions

### 3.1 Type IIA string action

Whenever there is an isometry in any of the $`z^i`$ directions, the $`D=11`$ pp-wave can be dimensionally reduced on such a coordinate, to give a pp-wave in the type IIA theory. In general, the resulting pp-wave can have non-vanishing constant backgrounds both for the NS-NS 3-form and R-R 4-form. The precise details depend in the usual way on the structure of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ in $`D=11`$.

The Green-Schwarz action for the type IIA string in an arbitrary bosonic background was derived, in component form up to and including second-order in the fermionic coordinates $`\theta `$, in  (the form of the R-R couplings had previously been obtained schematically in ):

$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{h}h^{ij}_iX^\mu _jX^\nu g_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ij}_iX^\mu _jX^\nu A_{\mu \nu }`$
$`\mathrm{i}\overline{\theta }\beta ^{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu D_j\theta _iX^\mu +\frac{\mathrm{i}}{8}_iX^\mu _jX^\nu \overline{\theta }\beta ^{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu {}_{}{}^{\rho \sigma }\theta F_{\nu \rho \sigma }`$
$`\frac{\mathrm{i}}{16}_iX^\mu _jX^\nu e^\varphi \overline{\theta }\beta ^{ij}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\rho \sigma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu F_{\rho \sigma }+\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\rho \sigma \lambda \tau }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu F_{\rho \sigma \lambda \tau }\right)\theta ,`$
where

$$\beta ^{ij}\sqrt{h}h^{ij}ϵ^{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11},D_i\theta _i\theta +\frac{1}{4}_iX^\mu \omega _\mu {}_{}{}^{mn}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mn}^{}\theta .$$
(33)
The field strengths are given by

$$F_{\left(4\right)}=dA_{\left(3\right)}A_{\left(1\right)}dA_{\left(2\right)},F_{\left(3\right)}=dA_{\left(2\right)},F_{\left(2\right)}=dA_{\left(1\right)}.$$
(34)
The fermionic coordinates $`\theta `$ are non-chiral, and can be written as $`\theta =\left(\begin{array}{c}\theta ^1\\ \theta ^2\end{array}\right)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\theta =\left(\begin{array}{c}\theta ^1\\ \theta ^2\end{array}\right)`$. In a notation adapted to the passage to light-cone gauge, we can introduce world-sheet Dirac matrices $`\varrho _i`$, with $`\varrho _0=\mathrm{i}\tau _2`$, $`\varrho _1=\tau _1`$ and $`\varrho _2=\tau _3`$, where $`\tau _i`$ are the Pauli matrices. The $`\varrho _i`$ act on the upper and lower 16 components $`\theta ^1`$ and $`\theta ^2`$ of the column vector $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\theta ^1\\ \theta ^2\end{array}\right)`$, and $`\varrho _2`$ is the chirality operator. The conjugate spinor in this notation is then $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\varrho _0`$, and we therefore have the “dictionary” $`\overline{\theta }𝒪\theta \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\varrho _0𝒪\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}𝒪\theta \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\varrho _1𝒪\mathrm{\Psi }`$, where $`𝒪`$ is any matrix or operator constructed from the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ matrices. In the light-cone gauge, where $`X^+=\tau `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\theta =0`$ and $`\sqrt{h}h^{ij}=\eta ^{ij}`$, the fermionic part of the type IIA Green-Schwarz action (3.1) therefore becomes

$$_F=\mathrm{i}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\overline{)}D\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{\mathrm{i}}{4}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\varrho _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\overline{)}F_{\left(3\right)}\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{\mathrm{i}}{4}e^\varphi \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(\varrho _1\overline{)}F_{\left(2\right)}\varrho _0\overline{)}F_{\left(4\right)})\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(35)
where we have defined

$$\overline{)}F_{\left(2\right)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^iF_{+i},\overline{)}F_{\left(3\right)}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}F_{+ij},\overline{)}F_{\left(4\right)}\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ijk}F_{+ijk}.$$
(36)
In the pp-wave backgrounds we are considering here, the world-sheet Dirac operator $`\overline{)}D`$ just reduces to $`\overline{)}`$ in the light-cone gauge.

If the dimensional reduction from the $`D=11`$ pp-wave to $`D=10`$ is performed on a Killing direction $`z^i`$ whose differential $`dz^i`$ does not appear in the expression for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ in $`D=11`$, then the solution in $`D=10`$ is a pp-wave with only the R-R 4-form $`F_{\left(4\right)}`$ as a source. This situation can be achieved for any $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ contained within Case 2, provided that one reduces on the $`z_8`$ or $`z_9`$ coordinate. Since Case 1 is encompassed by Case 2 (after appropriate coordinate relabellings) in all situations except where all four $`m_\alpha `$ are non-vanishing, it is only in this last circumstance that one is forced into a dimensional reduction in which the differential $`dz^i`$ of the reduction coordinate is present in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ in $`D=11`$. Of course in other cases too, one may choose to perform the dimensional reduction on such a coordinate $`z^i`$, provided that the associated coefficient $`\mu _i`$ in the quadratic metric function $`H`$ vanishes, implying that $`/z^i`$ is a Killing vector.

Let us first consider the case where the differential $`dz^i`$ of the reduction coordinate $`z^i`$ does not appear in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ in $`D=11`$. It then follows from (3.1) and (35) that after choosing the light-cone gauge, the associated type IIA string action will be<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3See also  for a related discussion of the type IIA Green-Schwarz action in a gravitational wave background.

$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}}(\frac{1}{2}\dot{z}_i^2\frac{1}{2}z_i^2\frac{1}{2}\mu _i^2z_i^2)+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\mathrm{i}\overline{)}+\frac{1}{4}\mu \varrho _0W)\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (37)
Thus the masses of the fermions will be given by the eigenvalues of $`W`$.

Suppose now that we instead perform a reduction on a coordinate $`z^i`$ whose differential $`dz^i`$ does appear in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(4\right)}`$ in $`D=11`$. We now find that $`F_{\left(4\right)}`$ in $`D=11`$ reduces as

$$F_{\left(4\right)}F_4+dzF_{\left(3\right)}$$
(38)
in $`D=10`$, where $`z`$ is the reduction coordinate. We now have the non-vanishing NS-NS field $`F_{\left(3\right)}`$ in the type IIA background, together, possibly, with a non-vanishing R-R 4-form $`F_{\left(4\right)}`$. If the reduction of the 3-form $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ is written as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}\mathrm{\Phi }_3+dz\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$, and if we define

$$Y\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij},$$
(39)
then it follows from (3.1) and (35) that after choosing the light-cone gauge, we shall obtain the string action

$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}}(\frac{1}{2}\dot{z}_i^2\frac{1}{2}z_i^2+\mu z_i^{}B_i\frac{1}{2}\mu _i^2z_i^2)+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\mathrm{i}\overline{)}+\frac{1}{4}\mu \varrho _0W+\frac{1}{4}\mu \varrho _0Y)\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (40)
Here, $`B_i`$ denotes the components of the 1-form $`B_{\left(1\right)}`$ whose exterior derivative gives $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)}=dB_{\left(1\right)}`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(2\right)}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}dz^idz^j`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}`$ are constants, we may therefore take $`B_i`$ to be given by

$$B_i=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{ji}z^j.$$
(41)
Thus the string action in this case is given by

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}}(\frac{1}{2}\dot{z}_i^2\frac{1}{2}(z_i^{}\frac{1}{2}\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}z_j)^2\frac{1}{2}\mu _i^2z_i^2)+\frac{1}{8}\mu ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{ik}\mathrm{\Phi }_{jk}z^jz^k`$ (42)
$`+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\mathrm{i}\overline{)}+\frac{1}{4}\mu \varrho _0W+\frac{1}{4}\mu \varrho _0Y)\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Psi }.`$
Thus the boson masses, as well as the fermion masses, are modified by the presence of the NS-NS 3-form field. This is a generalisation of a result obtained in .

As an example, let us consider the pp-wave in $`D=11`$ resulting from taking $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ to be given by Case 1, as in (14). After dimensional reduction on the coordinate $`z_9`$, which will be a Killing direction provided that

$$m_1+m_2+m_3+m_4=0$$
(43)
(see (24)), the type IIA light-cone action will be given by

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}}(\frac{1}{2}\dot{z}_i^2\frac{1}{2}(z_i^{}\frac{1}{2}\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}z_j)^2\frac{1}{2}\mu _i^2z_i^2)+\frac{1}{8}\mu ^2[m_1^2(z_1^2+z_2^2)+\mathrm{}+m_4^2(z_7^2+z_8^2)]`$ (44)
$`+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\mathrm{i}\overline{)}+\frac{1}{4}\mu \varrho _0Y)\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Psi },`$
with $`Y`$ given by

$$Y=\mathrm{i}m_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}+\mathrm{i}m_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{34}+\mathrm{i}m_3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{56}+\mathrm{i}m_4\mathrm{\Gamma }_{78}.$$
(45)
(The matrix $`W`$ is absent here, since all terms in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(3\right)}`$ in $`D=11`$ involved a factor $`dz_9`$. Thus the $`D=10`$ background is purely NS-NS in this example.)

Note that the choice of gauge for writing $`B_{\left(1\right)}B_idz^i`$ is not unique. In this example we could, for instance, choose, instead of writing it in the “symmetrical” gauge

$$B_{\left(1\right)}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}z^idz^j=\frac{1}{2}m_1(z_1dz_2z_2dz_1)+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}m_4(z_7dz_8z_8dz_7),$$
(46)
to write it in the “asymmetrical” form

$$B_{\left(1\right)}=m_1z_1dz_2+m_2z_3dz_4+m_3z_5dz_6+m_4z_7dz_8$$
(47)
In this choice of gauge we would instead obtain the string action

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}}(\frac{1}{2}\dot{z}_i^2\frac{1}{2}(z_i^{}\frac{1}{2}\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}z_j)^2\frac{1}{2}\mu _i^2z_i^2)+\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2[m_1^2z_1^2+m_2^2z_3^2+m_3^2z_5^2+m_4^2z_7^2]`$ (48)
$`+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\mathrm{i}\overline{)}+\frac{1}{4}\mu \varrho _0Y)\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Psi }.`$
Of course the different gauge choices just change the action by a total derivative, and so they are equivalent in the closed string sector.

### 3.2 Type IIB string action

Many of our examples can be T-dualised to pp-waves in type IIB theory when there are two $`\mu _i`$ that vanish. In some cases, when the type IIA pp-wave is supported only by the $`F_{\left(3\right)}`$, the solution is also valid in type IIB theory supported by the NS-NS $`F_{\left(3\right)}`$ or the R-R $`F_{\left(3\right)}`$, or both using S-duality rotation. Thus in this section, we consider the light-cone type IIB string action in such a background.

In , the Green-Schwarz action for the type IIB string in an arbitrary bosonic background was derived, giving all terms up to and including quadratic order in the fermionic coordinates. In the notation of , the two Majorana-Weyl fermions were denoted by $`\theta ^1`$ and $`\theta ^2`$. If we put these in a column vector $`\theta \left(\begin{array}{c}\theta ^1\\ \theta ^2\end{array}\right)`$, and define world-sheet Dirac matrices $`\varrho _i`$ by $`\varrho _0=\mathrm{i}\tau _2`$, $`\varrho _1=\tau _1`$ and $`\varrho _2=\tau _3`$, where $`\tau _i`$ are the Pauli matrices, then we find the following “dictionary” for converting the notation in  to the one we wish to use here. For any matrix or operator $`𝒪`$ constructed from the target-space Dirac matrices, we shall have

$`\overline{\theta }\varrho _0𝒪\theta =\overline{\theta }^1𝒪\theta ^1\overline{\theta }^2𝒪\theta ^2,\overline{\theta }\varrho _1𝒪\theta =\overline{\theta }^1𝒪\theta ^1\overline{\theta }^2𝒪\theta ^2,`$
$`\overline{\theta }𝒪\theta =2\overline{\theta }^{[1}𝒪\theta ^{2]},\overline{\theta }\varrho _2𝒪\theta =2\overline{\theta }^{(1}𝒪\theta ^{2)},`$ (49)
where the conjugate of $`\theta `$ is defined by $`\overline{\theta }=\theta ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\varrho _0=(\overline{\theta }^2,\overline{\theta }^1)`$. Substituting into equation (3.29) of  (in the updated v2. where a minor typographical error has been corrected and conventions adjusted), the type IIB Green-Schwarz action up to $`O(\theta ^2)`$ is given by

$``$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{h}h^{ij}_iX^\mu _jX^\nu g_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ij}_iX^\mu _jX^\nu B_{\mu \nu }`$
$`+\mathrm{i}_iX^\mu \overline{\theta }\gamma ^{ij}\varrho _0\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu D_j\theta \frac{\mathrm{i}}{8}_iX^\mu _jX^\nu \overline{\theta }\gamma ^{ij}\varrho _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu {}_{}{}^{\rho \sigma }\theta G_{\nu \rho \sigma }`$
$`+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{8}e^\varphi _iX^\mu _jX^\nu \overline{\theta }\gamma ^{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu [\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho _\rho \chi +\frac{1}{6}\varrho _2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\rho _1\rho _2\rho _3}F_{\rho _1\rho _2\rho _3}+\frac{1}{240}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _5}F_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _5}]\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu \theta ,`$
where $`G_{\left(3\right)}=dB_{\left(2\right)}`$ is the NS-NS 3-form, $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ are the dilaton and axion, and $`F_{\left(3\right)}`$ and $`F_{\left(5\right)}`$ are the R-R 3-form and self-dual 5-form, and we have defined

$$\gamma ^{ij}\sqrt{h}h^{ij}ϵ^{ij}\varrho _2.$$
(51)
In the light-cone gauge, $`X^+=\tau `$, $`\theta =\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$, and $`\sqrt{h}h^{ij}=\eta ^{ij}`$, we therefore find that the fermionic part of the action becomes

$$_F=\mathrm{i}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\overline{)}D\mathrm{\Psi }+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{4}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\varrho _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\overline{)}G_3\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{\mathrm{i}}{4}e^\varphi \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(_+\chi +\varrho _2\overline{)}F_{\left(3\right)}+\frac{1}{2}\overline{)}F_{\left(5\right)})\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(52)
where we have defined

$$\overline{)}G_{\left(3\right)}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}G_{+ij},\overline{)}F_{\left(3\right)}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}F_{+ij},\overline{)}F_{\left(5\right)}\frac{1}{24}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ijk\mathrm{}}F_{+ijk\mathrm{}}.$$
(53)
Note that for all the pp-waves, it follows from (3) that $`\overline{)}D`$ is just $`\overline{)}`$.

To apply this action to our examples, let us first consider Case 2, with $`\mu _8=\mu _9=0`$. This example can be T-dualised to type IIB, where it gives rise to pp-waves of the sort described in . In these cases the pp-wave is supported only by the self-dual R-R 5-form. The action was obtained in .

For another example consider Case 1, with all four of the $`m_\alpha `$ non-vanishing, but chosen so that $`\mu _9=0`$, thus permitting a reduction in the $`z_9`$ direction to give a type IIA solution. The solution is then supported purely by the NS-NS 3-form. There is in general no further isometry direction among the remaining $`z_i`$ coordinates that could allow us to perform a T-duality transformation. However, since only the NS-NS 3-form field is involved, we can clearly take the identical configuration and view it as a solution instead of the type IIB theory, again supported by the NS-NS 3-form. Having done so, we can then choose to perform an S-duality transformation, thereby introducing a non-vanishing R-R 3-form as well (or instead). It is then straightforward to see from (52) and (53), together with imposing the light-cone gauge in the bosonic part of (3.2), that these type IIB pp-wave backgrounds will have a light-cone string action given by

$$=\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}(\frac{1}{2}\dot{z}_i^2\frac{1}{2}(z_i^{}\frac{1}{2}B_{ij}z^j)^2\frac{1}{2}\mu _i^2z_i^2)+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\mathrm{i}\overline{)}+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{4}\varrho _1\overline{)}G_{\left(3\right)}\frac{\mathrm{i}}{4}\varrho _2\overline{)}F_{\left(3\right)})\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(54)
where $`\overline{)}G_{\left(3\right)}`$ and $`\overline{)}F_{\left(3\right)}`$ are the NS-NS and R-R 3-form contributions respectively.

### 3.3 Matrix model action

There are many examples in our general discussion where all the coefficients $`\mu _i`$ in the metric function $`H`$ are non-vanishing, implying that the pp-wave is intrinsically eleven-dimensional. In these cases, the system is best described by a D0-brane action. Namely, one can perform a DLCQ compactification - along the light-cone coordinate $`x^{}x^{}+2\pi R`$, and consider the sector with momentum $`2p^+=p^{}=N/R`$. The dynamics of this sector is then described by a $`U(N)`$ matrix model with the strength of interactions governed by $`g2R`$. The procedure as it applies to the case of the Penrose limit of AdS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times S^7`$ or AdS$`{}_{7}{}^{}\times S^4`$ was given in . The form of the action for the general, constant $`W`$, as studied in this paper, can be derived along the same lines, and is structurally of the same form. This is due to the fact that the 4-form field strength enters the D0-brane particle action in the light-cone gauge (i.e. the $`U(N)`$ matrix model) only through $`W=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{6}\mathrm{\Phi }_{ijk}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ijk}`$. The form of the action is thus given by

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{9}{}}}[(\dot{X}^i)^2\mu _i^2(X^i)^2]+\mathrm{\Psi }^T\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{4}\mu \mathrm{\Psi }^TW\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (55)
$`\frac{2}{3}\mu g{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k=1}{\overset{9}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}(X^iX^jX^k)\mathrm{\Phi }_{ijk}+2g^2\mathrm{Tr}([X^i,X^j]^2)+2\mathrm{i}g\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Psi }^T\mathrm{\Gamma }^i[\mathrm{\Psi },X^i]).`$
Note that in addition to the standard matrix-model interactions there are also the fermionic and bosonic mass terms, and additionally the term tri-linear in $`X^i`$ that is related to the Myers effect .

The supersymmetry of this quantum mechanical matrix model fixes the coefficients in front of the fermionic mass terms and the interaction terms in the same way as it was derived for the special case of $`W=\mathrm{\Phi }_{123}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}`$ in . Indeed, the existence of supersymmetry is dictated by the existence of the supernumerary Killing spinors. In fact, the supersymmetry transformation parameter is exactly the supernumerary Killing spinor:

$`\delta X^i`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^iϵ,`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\dot{X}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_i+\mu X^i(\frac{1}{4}W\mathrm{\Gamma }_i+\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{\Gamma }_iW)+\mathrm{i}g[X^i,X^j]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}\right)ϵ,`$
$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\mu Wt}ϵ_0.`$ (56)
The case where $`W=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{123}`$ was given in . In that case, the system is fully supersymmetric, and hence $`ϵ_0`$ is an arbitrary constant spinor. Furthermore, since $`W`$ has no zero eigenvalues in that example, all the supersymmetry parameters $`ϵ`$ are time-dependent.

For the more general $`W`$’s that we have considered in this paper, $`ϵ_0`$ is subject to further projection constraints, in accordance with the supernumerary Killing spinors. In our more general cases $`W`$ can annihilate $`ϵ_0`$, implying that $`ϵ`$ is then time-independent. In such an example, the pp-wave can also be reduced to give rise to a pp-wave in type IIA, thus giving an exactly-solvable string action. The existence of two routes, one corresponding to the matrix model of the D0-particle action, and the other corresponding to the free massive Type IIA string action, therefore suggests that these are dual descriptions of the theory when the background is of this particular type.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper, we studied a general class of supersymmetric pp-waves in M-theory, by turning on constant 3-forms, motivated by the orbifold (flat) limit of a special holonomy transverse space for the pp-wave. These 3-forms fall into two classes, one motivated by the Kähler form of the eight-dimensional special holonomy transverse space, and the other motivated by the associative 3-form of a seven-dimensional transverse space of $`G_2`$ holonomy.

This general class of pp-waves encompass the Penrose limits of AdS$`{}_{p}{}^{}\times S^q`$ with $`(p,q)=(4,7),(7,4),(3,3),(3,2),(2,3),(2,2)`$ which are associated with the near horizon limits of the M2-brane, M5-brane, and M2/M5, M5/M5/M5, M2/M2/M2 and M2/M2/M5/M5 intersections, respectively. In addition this general class contains many additional examples of pp-waves that are do not correspond to any known Penrose limit.

We focused on the study of the target space supersymmetry. In addition to 16 “standard” Killing spinors that always arise, we determined the conditions under which additional “supernumerary” Killing spinors appear. We also analysed the conditions under which the Killing spinors are independent of the light cone $`x^+`$ coordinate, or of one or more of the nine transverse coordinates. These conditions determine whether the reduction of the M-theory pp-waves to type IIA supergravity, and subsequent T-dualisation to type IIB, remain supersymmetric.

Since $`x^+`$ is always a Killing direction the M-theory pp-wave can always be reduced on this coordinate, leading to a D0-brane configuration of the type IIA theory. Its world-particle action corresponds to a DLCQ description of a matrix-theory action for M-theory, with unbroken supersymmetry governed by $`x^+`$-independent supernumerary supersymmetries of the M-theory pp-wave background.

On the other hand the independence of a Killing spinor on a transverse coordinate allows for a reduction on this coordinate down to a supersymmetric type IIA pp-wave. The light cone string actions in these backgrounds correspond to exactly-solvable free massive string theories, and again the supernumerary supersymmetries play a key role in determining the supersymmetry of the string action.

## Note Added

We have updated the discussion of the type IIA and type IIB string actions in this version of the paper, taking into account the corrections and improvements in v2. of . There was only one minor typographical in the type IIB action in the earlier version of , but there were various inelegant notations and conventions, all of which have now been changed, and these changes are incorporated in this version of the present paper. A detailed discussion of the changes is given in the Addendum section in v2. of . We are grateful to Kelly Stelle for discussions leading to these improvements.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Gary Gibbons, Jim Liu and Justin Vázquez-Poritz for conversations. H.L. and C.N.P. are grateful to UPenn for hospitality and financial support during the course of this work.


format: text

text:
# Method for monopole creation in spinor Bose-Einstein condensates

## I Introduction

Since the experimental realization of Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC’s) in 1995 anderson95 ; davis95 ; bradley95 ; bradley97 , a wide variety of properties and effects in BEC’s has been studied. Among the major topics of interest are topological defects such as vortices baym96 ; marzlin97 ; dum98 ; matthews99 ; dobrek99 ; martikainen01  and solitons dum98 ; reinhardt97 ; burger99 ; denschlag00 . More recently, the realization of BEC’s in optical traps stamperkurn98 ; barrett01  has opened up interesting new avenues of research in this area. This development makes it possible to create multicomponent condensates where all magnetic substates $`m_F`$ are trapped. The resulting spin degree of freedom permits the existence of topological defects that cannot appear in scalar condensates, such as skyrmions khawaja01  and monopoles stoof01 . Important properties of monopoles, such as stability and dynamics, have already been examined stoof01 ; martikainen02 . Here we propose an explicit method for creating a monopole in BEC’s, focusing on the experimentally relevant case of $`{}_{}{}^{23}\mathrm{Na}`$. Our proposal extends the method of “phase imprinting” used to generate topological defects in scalar condensates dobrek99 ; burger99 ; denschlag00 . In particular, we demonstrate that the energy shift experienced by each component of the condensate depends on both $`m_F`$ and the polarization of the laser beam, and that by applying a sequence of different polarizations the phases of the components can be engineered in a broad manner.

A spin-1 BEC can be described by the condensate wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i=\sqrt{n(𝐫)}\zeta _i(𝐫)`$, where $`n(𝐫)`$ is the total density and $`\zeta (𝐫)`$ is a normalized spinor describing the local spin of the condensate. For an anti-ferromagnetic BEC such as $`{}_{}{}^{23}\text{Na}`$, the ground state spinor is given by ho98

$$\zeta _g(𝐫)=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
The spinor corresponding to a monopole has the form stoof01

$$\zeta _m(𝐫)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}m_x(𝐫)+im_y(𝐫)\\ \sqrt{2}m_z(𝐫)\\ m_x(𝐫)+im_y(𝐫)\end{array}\right).$$
(2)
$`𝐦(𝐫)`$ is a unit vector field that describes the local rotation of the ground state spinor. By considering the energy and winding number of such a condensate, it can be shown stoof01  that $`𝐦(𝐫)=𝐫/r`$ uniquely characterizes the monopole structure. We see that $`𝐦(𝐫)`$ assumes the familiar hedgehog structure associated with a monopole.

For the purpose of phase engineering, it is convenient to also write this spinor in spherical coordinates as

$$\zeta _m(𝐫)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\varphi }\\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\varphi }\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
where $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle and $`\theta `$ the polar angle. In addition, we define the phase of each component $`\phi _i\mathrm{arg}(\zeta _i)`$. For example, the phases of the components in the monopole are given by

$$\phi _m=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi +\pi \\ \pi \theta (z)\\ \varphi \end{array}\right),$$
(4)
where $`\theta (z)`$ is the step function.

## II Condensate dynamics

The Hamiltonian of the condensate in second quantized form is ho98 ; ohmi98

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}𝐫({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}}\psi _i^{}\psi _i+V_{\text{trap}}(𝐫)\psi _i^{}\psi _i+`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{c_0}{2}}\psi _i^{}\psi _j^{}\psi _j\psi _i+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{2}}\psi _i^{}\psi _j^{}𝐅_{il}𝐅_{jk}\psi _k\psi _l)+`$
$`+_B+_L,`$
where $`\psi _i(𝐫)`$ is the field annihilation operator for spin state $`i`$, $`F_i\{i=x,y,z\}`$ are the spin matrices, $`V_{\text{trap}}(𝐫)`$ is the trapping potential, and $`c_0=4\pi \mathrm{}^2(a_0+2a_2)/3m`$ and $`c_2=4\pi \mathrm{}^2(a_2a_0)/3m`$ are constants that depend on the scattering lengths $`a_0`$ and $`a_2`$. $`_B`$ and $`_L`$ describe respectively the applied magnetic field and the laser beams that will be used to create the monopole. During the times that the applied magnetic field and lasers are turned on, we assume that their respective Hamiltonians dominate $``$ and are the only terms that need to be considered in the evolution of the system.

The Hamiltonian for the applied magnetic field is given by $`_B=𝑑𝐫\psi _i^{}(\gamma 𝐁\mathrm{}𝐅_{ij})\psi _j`$, where $`\gamma `$ is the gyromagnetic ratio. When we ignore all other terms in $``$, the magnetic field leads to the following equations of motion:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{dt}}\mathrm{\Psi }_i=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(\gamma 𝐁\mathrm{}𝐅_{ij})\mathrm{\Psi }_j.$$
(6)
When a laser beam is applied, the ground state energy of magnetic substate $`i`$ is shifted by an amount grimm00

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_i=\frac{3\pi c^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\omega _0^3}I\times \underset{j}{}\frac{C_{ij}^2}{\delta _{ij}},$$
(7)
where the sum is carried out over all excited states $`|j`$. Here, $`\delta _{ij}`$ is the detuning of the laser from the $`|i|j`$ transition, $`I`$ the laser intensity, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the rate of spontaneous decay, $`\omega _0`$ the atomic resonance frequency, and $`C_{ij}`$ is a transition strength characterizing the coupling between atom and laser. The coefficients $`C_{ij}`$ depend on the ground substate $`m_F`$ and on the polarization of the laser beam and are given in Figure 1.

## III Phase engineering using phase imprinting

The concept of phase engineering via imprinting was suggested dobrek99 ; denschlag00  and experimentally demonstrated burger99 ; denschlag00  as a means of creating topological defects in scalar condensates. We extend the method to spinor condensates, focusing on the case of $`{}_{}{}^{23}\mathrm{Na}`$. We show that the energy shifts induced by different beam polarizations allow for wide capabilities in phase engineering.

Suppose that a laser is detuned by an amount $`\delta `$ from the $`{}_{}{}^{2}S_{1/2}^{}(F=1){}_{}{}^{2}P_{1/2}^{}(F=2)`$ transition, and that the states $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{1/2}^{}(F=1)`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{1/2}^{}(F=2)`$ are separated in frequency by an amount $`\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, as shown in Figure 2. From Eq. (7), the energy of the ground state is shifted by an amount

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_i=\frac{3\pi c^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\omega _0^3}I\times \underset{_{kP_{1/2}(F=2)}^{jP_{1/2}(F=1)}}{}\left(\frac{C_{ij}^2}{\delta +\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }}+\frac{C_{ik}^2}{\delta }\right).$$
(8)
We assume that the laser pulse has a square envelope with a duration $`t`$ that is short compared to the condensate’s correlation time $`t_c=\mathrm{}/\mu `$, where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. In this case the primary effect of the light shift is to imprint a phase onto each component burger99 :

$$\zeta _i(𝐫)\zeta _i(𝐫)\mathrm{exp}[i\mathrm{\Delta }E_it/\mathrm{}].$$
(9)
Using the coefficients given in Figure 1 and the expansion $`\frac{1}{\delta +\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }}=\frac{1}{\delta }\frac{\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta ^2}+\mathrm{}`$, one can obtain explicit results for the phase shifts generated in the condensate. For $`\delta \eta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the shifts corresponding to $`\pi `$-, $`\sigma ^+`$-, and $`\sigma ^{}`$-polarized beams are

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi ^\pi (t)^T`$ $``$ $`\alpha t[(222){\displaystyle \frac{\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\delta }}(101)],`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi ^+(t)^T`$ $``$ $`\alpha t(321),`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi ^{}(t)^T`$ $``$ $`\alpha t(123).`$ (12)
Here $`\alpha \pi c^2\mathrm{\Gamma }I/4\mathrm{}\omega _0^3\delta `$. Equations (10)-(12) suggest a basic technique for phase engineering of the spinor condensate. To shift the phase of $`m_F=1`$ relative to $`m_F=1`$, one can use beams with polarizations $`\sigma ^+`$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$. Once the phase between these two states is fixed as desired, one can use $`\pi `$-polarized light to adjust the phase of $`m_F=0`$ relative to the other states. Although it is not used in our proposal for monopole creation, we note that this phase shift is due to a second order term in Eq. (10), and we thus expect that it will be more difficult to implement in an experiment. It may be useful, in addition, to alter the global phase of the condensate, which can be realized approximately by using the first order term in Eq. (10). Finally, one can incorporate spatial dependence into the phases by using the above pulses in conjunction with absorption plates to create non-uniform intensity profiles $`I(𝐫)`$ dobrek99 . Writing $`I(𝐫)=I_0\rho (𝐫)`$, where $`I_0`$ is the maximum intensity in the profile and $`0\rho (𝐫)1`$, Eqs. (10)-(12) remain valid with the replacements $`\alpha \alpha _0\rho (𝐫)`$ and $`\alpha _0\pi c^2\mathrm{\Gamma }I_0/4\mathrm{}\omega _0^3\delta `$.

## IV Model for monopole creation

Martikainen et al. point out martikainen02  that the monopole spinor given in Eq. (2) resembles a combination of other topological defects. Indeed, the form of $`\zeta _m(𝐫)`$ presented in Eq. (3) makes it clear that the $`m_F=+1`$ state contains a vortex, the $`m_F=1`$ state an anti-vortex, and the $`m_F=0`$ state a soliton. They thus suggest that one can experimentally create monopoles by creating the appropriate defects in the individual components. Here we provide a method to accomplish this using the phase imprinting concepts discussed above.

Starting from the ground state of Eq. (1), we first apply a constant magnetic field of magnitude $`B_0`$ along the negative $`y`$-axis for a time $`t_B`$. Defining $`\omega _B=\gamma B_0`$, Eq. (6) readily yields

$$\zeta _B\zeta (t_B)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}(\omega _Bt_B)\\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}(\omega _Bt_B)\\ \mathrm{sin}(\omega _Bt_B)\end{array}\right).$$
(13)
The phases of $`\zeta _B`$ (for $`0<\omega _Bt_B<\pi /2`$) are

$$\phi _B^T=(\pi 00).$$
(14)
The effect of the magnetic field is to populate the $`m_F=\pm 1`$ states prior to phase engineering. Experimentally, $`t_B(0<\omega _Bt_B<\pi /2)`$ should be chosen to best realize the monopole structure.

To create the monopole, we assume that we have blue-detuned lasers, all of which have equal intensities $`I_0`$ and values of $`\delta `$, and which can be applied in square-shaped pulses. The results can be accordingly modified to cover more general situations. In addition, we assume that we have absorption plates that can create the following intensity profiles:

$`\rho _1(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2\pi }},`$ (15)
$`\rho _2(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi \varphi )}{2\pi }},`$ (16)
$`\rho _3(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta (z),`$ (17)
$`\rho _4(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta (z).`$ (18)
The pulse sequence to create the monopole is given in Table 1. Pulses A and B use intensity profiles with azimuthal dependence to create a vortex in the $`m_F=1`$ component and an anti-vortex in the $`m_F=1`$ component. Pulses C and D together imprint the necessary phases to generate the soliton in the $`m_F=0`$ component. It can be readily verified that the resulting phases of the components are exactly those of the monopole given in Eq. (4). The total time of the laser pulses, assuming that pulses with profiles $`\rho _3(𝐫)`$ and $`\rho _4(𝐫)`$ can be executed simultaneously, is $`T=3\pi /\alpha _0`$. Strictly speaking, pulse C is not physically possible — the profile $`\rho _3(𝐫)`$ requires an axis of propagation $`\widehat{k}`$ in the $`xy`$ plane, which is inconsistent with a polarization vector of $`\widehat{ϵ}=\frac{\widehat{x}+i\widehat{y}}{\sqrt{2}}`$. However, it is possible to create an effective interaction term resembling $`\widehat{ϵ}𝐫`$ using a beam that does propagate in the $`xy`$ plane. Indeed, consider a pulse with polarization vector $`\widehat{ϵ}^{}=\frac{\widehat{z}+i\widehat{y}}{\sqrt{2}}`$ sandwiched between magnetic field pulses that generate the rotations $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi }{2}F_y\right)`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi }{2}F_y\right)`$. One can readily check that

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi }{2}F_y\right)\widehat{ϵ}^{}𝐫\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi }{2}F_y\right)=\widehat{ϵ}𝐫.$$
(19)
Physically, the $`m_F`$ eigenstates along the $`z`$-axis are transformed by rotation to become $`m_F`$ eigenstates along the $`x`$-axis. The phase shifts are subsequently performed on these states, where $`\rho _3(𝐫)`$ and $`\widehat{ϵ}^{}`$ are consistent, before the system is rotated back.

Experimentally, one should seek to make $`\delta `$ as large as possible while increasing $`I_0`$ to maintain a given potential depth. This is because the photon scattering rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sc}`$ of an individual atom scales as $`I_0(\mathrm{\Gamma }/\delta )^2`$ compared to $`I_0\mathrm{\Gamma }/\delta `$ for the dipole potential grimm00 , and also because the approximation errors in Eqs. (10)-(12) scale as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\delta `$. To maintain the validity of Eqs. (10)-(12), however, one must impose the limit $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{fs}}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{fs}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}\times 10^{12}\mathrm{s}^1`$ is the fine structure splitting between $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{1/2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{3/2}^{}`$. Physically, this means that the light shifts due to the excited $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{3/2}^{}`$ states remain negligible compared to those originating from the $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{1/2}^{}`$ states. As a concrete example, we consider the case $`\delta =3\times 10^{10}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`I_0=10^2I_s`$, where $`I_s`$ is the saturation intensity. This results in a pulse sequence length of $`T\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}35}\mu \mathrm{s}`$ and a scattering time of an individual atom of $`T_{sc}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sc}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}25}T`$. We also mention that the ratio $`T_{sc}/T`$ can be enhanced by pairing every beam in the original sequence with an appropriately chosen second beam. If both beams have the same polarization and are detuned equally above and below the $`{}_{}{}^{2}S_{1/2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}P_{3/2}^{}`$ transition, the light shifts from the $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{3/2}^{}`$ states are approximately cancelled out, while those from the $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{1/2}^{}`$ states are reinforced. This makes it possible to abandon the requirement $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{fs}}`$ and choose much larger detunings.

Finally, we note that the solution (9) for the dynamics of the system under the laser beams is only approximate and overlooks subtler but important points. Clearly such a transformation is unphysical in our case at the origin as it would introduce an infinite phase gradient energy dobrek99 , and a more careful analysis of the dynamics near the center would have to include other terms in the Hamiltonian. Also, in a real system, an absorption plate cannot perfectly generate the intensity profiles given in (15) and (16), which leads to various degrees of imperfection in vortex creation dobrek99 . In addition, experimental efforts to create a soliton in a scalar condensate using an intensity profile like that of (17) show that the dipole potential also creates a density wave in addition to the soliton burger99 ; denschlag00 . We refer the reader to the cited references for further discussion. Ultimately, however, it does not appear that these imperfections preclude the creation of vortices and solitons, which suggests that the creation of monopoles via phase imprinting should also be viable in spite of such imperfections.

## V Summary

We have proposed a method to create a monopole in an antiferromagnetic spin-1 BEC by extending the phase imprinting concept used in scalar BEC’s. We demonstrate that laser beams with different polarizations generate energy shifts that can be used to engineer the phases of the magnetic substates in a broad manner. We also present an explicit pulse sequence that, starting from the ground state of the condensate, produces phases in the substates corresponding to those of a monopole.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to K.-A. Suominen for fruitful discussions and comments on this work. D.C. is supported by CIMO through a Fulbright Fellowship.


text:
# Higgs couplings at the LHC

## I Coupling determination at the LHC

One of the prime tasks of the LHC will be to probe the mechanism of electroweak gauge symmetry breaking. Beyond observation of the various CP even and CP odd scalars which nature may have in store for us ATLAS ; CMStp ; LHCHiggsI , this means the determination of the couplings of the Higgs boson to the known fermions and gauge bosons, i.e. the measurement of $`Htt`$, $`Hbb`$, $`H\tau \tau `$ and $`HWW`$, $`HZZ`$, $`H\gamma \gamma `$, $`Hgg`$ couplings, to the extent possible.

Clearly this task very much depends on the expected Higgs boson mass. For $`m_H>200`$ GeV and within the SM, only the $`HZZ`$ and $`HWW`$ channels are expected to be observable, and the two gauge boson modes are related by SU(2). A much richer spectrum of decay modes is predicted for the intermediate mass range, i.e. if a SM-like Higgs boson has a mass between the LEP2 limit of 114 GeV and the $`Z`$-pair threshold. The main reasons for focusing on this range are present indications from electroweak precision data, which favor $`m_H\stackrel{<}{}200`$ GeV EWfits , as well as expectations within the MSSM, which predicts the lightest Higgs boson to have a mass $`m_h\stackrel{<}{}135`$ GeV. In this contribution I update and extend recent predictions for Higgs coupling measurements at the LHC zknr  for a Higgs boson with couplings qualitatively similar to the SM case.

## II Survey of intermediate mass Higgs channels

The total production cross section for a SM Higgs boson at the LHC is dominated by the gluon fusion process, $`ggH`$, which largely proceeds via a top-quark loop. Thus, inclusive Higgs searches will collectively be called “gluon fusion” channels in the following. Three inclusive channels are highly promising for the SM Higgs boson search ATLAS ; CMStp ; LHCHiggsI ,

$`ggH\gamma \gamma ,\mathrm{for}m_H\stackrel{<}{}150\mathrm{GeV},`$ (1)
$`ggHZZ^{}4\mathrm{},\mathrm{for}m_H\stackrel{>}{}120\mathrm{GeV},`$ (2)
and

$$ggHWW^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }\overline{\mathrm{}}\nu ,\mathrm{for}m_H\stackrel{>}{}130\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(3)
The $`H\gamma \gamma `$ signal can be observed as a narrow and high statistics $`\gamma \gamma `$ invariant mass peak, albeit on a very large diphoton background. A few tens of $`HZZ^{}4\mathrm{}`$ events are expected to be visible in 100 fb-1 of data, with excellent signal to background ratios (S/B), ranging between 1:1 and 6:1, in a narrow four-lepton invariant mass peak. Finally, the $`HWW^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }\overline{\mathrm{}}\nu `$ mode is visible as a broad enhancement of event rate in a 4-lepton transverse mass distribution, with S/B between 1:4 and 1:1 (for favorable values of the Higgs mass, around 170 GeV). Analyses of these inclusive channels have been performed by CMS and ATLAS at the hadron level and include full detector simulations. These complete analyses were used as input in Ref. zknr . Expected accuracies for the three inclusive channels are shown as solid lines in Fig. 1.

Additional and crucial information on the Higgs boson can be obtained by isolating Higgs production in weak boson fusion (WBF), i.e. by separately observing $`qqqqH`$ and crossing related processes, in which the Higgs is radiated off a $`t`$-channel $`W`$ or $`Z`$. Specifically, it was shown in parton level analyses that the weak boson fusion channels, with subsequent Higgs decay into photon pairs RZ\_gamgam ; R\_thesis ,

$$qqqqH,H\gamma \gamma ,\mathrm{for}m_H\stackrel{<}{}150\mathrm{GeV},$$
(4)
into $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ pairs R\_thesis ; RZ\_tautau\_lh ; RZ\_tautau\_ll ,

$$qqqqH,H\tau \tau ,\mathrm{for}m_H\stackrel{<}{}150\mathrm{GeV},$$
(5)
or into $`W`$ pairs R\_thesis ; RZ\_WW ; KPRZ

$$qqqqH,HWW^{}e^\pm \mu ^{}/p_T,\mathrm{for}m_H\stackrel{>}{}110\mathrm{GeV},$$
(6)
can be isolated at the LHC. The weak boson fusion channels utilize the significant background reductions which are expected from double forward jet tagging and central jet vetoing techniques, and promise low background environments in which Higgs decays can be studied in detail.

Compared to the analysis of Ref. zknr , new results for $`HWW^{}l^+\nu l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ have become available KPRZ  and will be included in the following. Table 1 summarizes expected event rates (after cuts and including efficiency factors) for the combined $`qqqqH,HWW^{}ll^{}/p_T`$ channels. The rates and ensuing statistical errors of the signal cross section are given for 100 fb-1 of data collected in both the ATLAS and the CMS detector.

The results used in this analysis for the WBF channels were derived at the parton level. First hadron level analyses with full detector simulation qualitatively confirm the parton level results wbfexp , but yield somewhat lower rates. This can partially be explained by initial and final state radiation which produces additional jet activity, leading to misidentified forward tagging jets. A full simulation of forward jets confirms previous assumptions on jet reconstruction efficiencies which were based on a fast detector simulation. Lower efficiencies are found in the very far forward region only, which contributes little to the signal. The parton level results include jet reconstruction efficiencies of 0.86 per jet. Another effect of additional hadronic activity in the full simulation is a somewhat reduced reconstruction efficiency for isolated leptons, which was assumed to be 0.95 per lepton in the parton level studies. Finally, central jet veto efficiencies, as calculated in PYTHIA versus the parton level, approximately agree for the signal but show discrepancies for multi-jet QCD backgrounds, perhaps because PYTHIA uses $`22`$ processes for the simulation of hard matrix elements. In view of these unresolved issues, the agreement between parton level and full simulation results, at the factor 2 level or better, is reassuring. Also, the parton level analysis did not make use of all decay channels (e.g. no $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}e^+e^{},\mu ^+\mu ^{}+/p_T`$ decays), the full detector simulation for $`HWW^{}`$ has not yet been optimized for $`m_H\stackrel{<}{}140`$ GeV, and no analysis has yet exploited multivariate techniques to enhance the Higgs signals over backgrounds. In light of this, the parton level results on WBF processes appear to be quite realistic and I use them in the following. Expected accuracies for the three WBF channels are shown as dashed lines in Fig. 1.

Among the associated production channels, $`t\overline{t}H`$ production appears most promising. Recent analyses have significantly improved the techniques for observing the decays into $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs Drollinger:2001ym ; Green:2001gh ,

$$gg,q\overline{q}t\overline{t}H,Hb\overline{b};,\mathrm{for}m_H\stackrel{<}{}130\mathrm{GeV},$$
(7)
and $`W^+W^{}`$ pairs Maltoni:2002jr ,

$$gg,q\overline{q}t\overline{t}H,HW^+W^{},\mathrm{for}m_H\stackrel{>}{}140\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(8)
The $`Hb\overline{b}`$ signal in $`t\overline{t}H`$ events will be visible with good purity, S/B $`2/3`$ Drollinger:2001ym , and the Higgs invariant mass peak allows for a direct measurement of backgrounds in the sidebands. The $`HW^+W^{}`$ signal is expected to yield similar purity, but is more difficult to measure precisely, because the Higgs mass peak cannot be reconstructed. This makes precise background determinations challenging. A third associated production channel which has been re-analyzed recently is $`WH`$ production Drollinger:2002uj ,

$$q\overline{q}WH,Hb\overline{b},\mathrm{for}m_H\stackrel{<}{}120\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(9)
The particular importance of this channel is that it allows to isolate the $`Hb\overline{b}`$ partial width, because the Higgs coupling to $`W`$’s can be separately determined in WBF.

The statistical accuracy with which the signal cross sections of the processes in Eqs. (1-9) can be determined is shown in Fig. 1. For 100 fb-1 of data per experiment we expect typical statistical errors of order 10%. Experimental systematic errors, e.g. luminosity errors or knowledge of detector acceptance will be substantially smaller, of order 5% or less. This means that higher luminosity running can improve experimental errors substantially, provided that problems associated with pile-up can be overcome. Such dedicated analyses have not been finalized yet for all processes. In a conservative approach, the results below are based on a nominal integrated luminosity of 200 fb-1, unless stated otherwise.

## III Measurement of Higgs properties

In order to translate the cross section measurements of the various Higgs production and decay channels into measurements of Higgs boson properties, in particular into measurements of the various Higgs boson couplings to gauge fields and fermions, it is convenient to rewrite them in terms of partial widths of various Higgs boson decay channels. The Higgs-fermion couplings $`g_{Hff}`$, for example, which in the SM are given by the fermion masses, $`g_{Hff}=m_f(m_H)/v`$, can be traded for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f=\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\overline{f}f)`$, where, for top-quarks, the final fermions $`f`$ would be virtual. Similarly, the square of the $`HWW`$ coupling ($`g_{HWW}=gm_W`$ in the SM) or the $`HZZ`$ coupling is proportional to the partial widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=\mathrm{\Gamma }(HWW^{})`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z=\mathrm{\Gamma }(HZZ^{})`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\gamma \gamma )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g=\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hgg)`$ determine the squares of the effective $`H\gamma \gamma `$ and $`Hgg`$ couplings. The Higgs production cross sections are governed by the same squares of couplings, hence, $`\sigma (VVH)\mathrm{\Gamma }_V`$ (for $`V=g,W,Z`$). Combined with the branching fractions $`B(Hii)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_i/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the various signal cross sections measure different combinations of Higgs boson partial and total widths, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The production rate for WBF is a mixture of $`ZZH`$ and $`WWH`$ processes, and we cannot distinguish between the two experimentally, at the LHC. In a large class of models the ratio of $`HWW`$ and $`HZZ`$ couplings is identical to the one in the SM, however, and this includes the MSSM. Let us therefore assume that 1) the $`HZZ^{}`$ and $`HWW^{}`$ partial widths are related by SU(2) as in the SM, i.e. their ratio, $`z`$, is given by the SM value, $`z=\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z/\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=z_{SM}`$. This assumption can be tested, at the 15-20% level for $`m_H>130`$ GeV, e.g. by forming the ratio $`B\sigma (ggHZZ^{})/B\sigma (ggHWW^{})`$ zknr . The expected precision, as a function of $`m_H`$, is given by the solid black line in Fig. 2.

With $`W,Z`$-universality, the three weak boson fusion cross sections give us direct measurements of three combinations of (partial) widths,

$`X_\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_W\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ $`\mathrm{from}`$ $`qqqqH,H\gamma \gamma ,`$ (10)
$`X_\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_W\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ $`\mathrm{from}`$ $`qqqqH,H\tau \tau ,`$ (11)
$`X_W={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ $`\mathrm{from}`$ $`qqqqH,HWW^{},`$ (12)
In addition the three gluon fusion channels provide measurements of

$`Y_\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_g\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ $`\mathrm{from}`$ $`ggH\gamma \gamma ,`$ (13)
$`Y_Z={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_g\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ $`\mathrm{from}`$ $`ggHZZ^{},`$ (14)
$`Y_W={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_g\mathrm{\Gamma }_W}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ $`\mathrm{from}`$ $`ggHWW^{}.`$ (15)
Finally, the $`t\overline{t}H`$ and $`WH`$ associated production channels measure the combinations

$`T_b={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_t\mathrm{\Gamma }_b}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ $`\mathrm{from}`$ $`ggt\overline{t}H,Hb\overline{b},`$ (16)
$`T_W={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_t\mathrm{\Gamma }_W}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ $`\mathrm{from}`$ $`ggt\overline{t}H,HWW^{},`$ (17)
$`U_b={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_W\mathrm{\Gamma }_b}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ $`\mathrm{from}`$ $`q\overline{q}WH,Hb\overline{b}.`$ (18)
When extracting Higgs couplings, the QCD uncertainties of production cross sections enter. These can be estimated via the residual scale dependence of the NLO predictions and are small (below 5%) for the WBF case wbfNLO , while larger uncertainties are found for gluon fusion Djouadi:1991tk ; Spira:1995rr . Recently, the NNLO QCD corrections for the gluon fusion cross section have been determined HggNNLO , in the heavy top-quark limit, which provides an excellent approximation for the intermediate mass Higgs boson considered here. First results indicate a stabilization of the perturbative expansion at two loops. The diminished scale dependence at NNLO suggests a remaining error due to higher order effects of as little as $`15\%`$. The present analysis assumes a theoretical uncertainty of 20% in the gluon fusion cross section. For the $`t\overline{t}H`$ cross section, which has been calculated at NLO as well ttHNLO ; tthNLOq , the scale dependence is reduced dramatically at NLO, to a level of about $`6\%`$ ttHNLO . For this analysis I conservatively take a theory error of $`10\%`$ into account.

A first test of the Higgs sector is provided by taking ratios of the $`X_i`$’s and ratios of the $`Y_i`$’s. QCD uncertainties, and all other uncertainties related to the initial state, like luminosity and pdf errors, largely cancel in these ratios. For example, $`X_\tau /X_W=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau /\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ compares the $`\tau \tau H`$ Yukawa coupling with the $`HWW`$ coupling, while $`X_\gamma /X_W`$ and $`Y_\gamma /Y_W`$ determine the analogous ratio, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma /\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ for the loop-induced photon–Higgs coupling. Expected errors on theses ratios, for 200 fb-1 of data, are shown in Fig. 2(a). For Higgs masses between 120 and 140 GeV they are in the 10–15% range. Accepting an additional systematic error of about 20%, a measurement of the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g/\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$, which determines the $`Htt`$ to $`HWW`$ coupling ratio, can be performed, by measuring the cross section ratios $`B\sigma (ggH\gamma \gamma )/\sigma (qqqqH)B(H\gamma \gamma )`$ and $`B\sigma (ggHWW^{})/\sigma (qqqqH)B(HWW^{})`$. Comparing $`WH`$ to WBF cross sections, the ratio $`U_b/X_\tau =\mathrm{\Gamma }_b/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau `$ determines the ratio of b-quark to tau Yukawa couplings. Because QCD radiative corrections to both WBF and Drell-Yan processes are well known, this cross section ratio has a small QCD error, which is taken as 10%. Taking the error estimates of Ref. Drollinger:2002uj , for 300 fb$`^1`$in one detector, and $`m_H=120`$ GeV, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau `$ ratio can be determined with an overall uncertainty of $`\pm 23\%`$. Since this measurement becomes worse quickly with increasing $`m_H`$, it will be replaced below by the assumption of $`b,\tau `$ universality.

Beyond the measurement of coupling ratios, minimal additional assumptions allow an indirect measurement of the total Higgs width. First of all, the $`\tau `$ rate in WBF is measurable with an accuracy of order 10%. The $`\tau `$ is a third generation fermion with isospin $`\frac{1}{2}`$, just like the $`b`$-quark. In many models, the ratio of their coupling to the Higgs is given by the $`\tau `$ to $`b`$ mass ratio. In addition to $`W,Z`$-universality we thus assume that (2) $`y=\mathrm{\Gamma }_b/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau =y_{SM}`$ and, finally, (3) the branching ratio for unexpected channels is small, i.e. $`ϵ=1\left[B(Hb\overline{b})+B(H\tau \tau )+B(HWW^{})+B(HZZ^{})+B(Hgg)+B(H\gamma \gamma )\right]1`$. An error of 7% is assigned to the $`b,\tau `$ universality assumption, corresponding to the uncertainty induced in $`y_{SM}`$ by the error on the $`b`$-quark mass.

With these three assumptions consider the observable

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_W`$ $`=`$ $`X_\tau (1+y)+X_W(1+z)+X_\gamma +Y_W`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau +\mathrm{\Gamma }_b+\mathrm{\Gamma }_W+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma +\mathrm{\Gamma }_g\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_W}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}=(1ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }_W.`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_W`$ provides a lower bound on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(HWW^{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$. Provided $`ϵ`$ is small (within the SM and for $`m_H115`$ GeV, $`ϵ<0.03`$ and it is dominated by $`B(Hc\overline{c})`$), the determination of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_W`$ provides a direct measurement of the $`HWW^{}`$ partial width. Once $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ has been determined, the total width of the Higgs boson is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^2}{X_W}=\frac{1}{X_W}\left(X_\tau (1+y)+X_W(1+z)+X_\gamma +\stackrel{~}{X}_g\right)^2\frac{1}{(1ϵ)^2}.$$
(20)
Similarly, other partial widths can be extracted by combining the ratio measurements discussed above with the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ determination, e.g.

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\tau =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau }{\mathrm{\Gamma }_W}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_W=\frac{X_\tau }{X_W}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_W.$$
(21)
The top quark Yukawa coupling can be determined by the combination

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_t=\frac{T_b}{X_\tau }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_W\frac{1}{y_{SM}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_t\mathrm{\Gamma }_b}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_W\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_W\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau ^{SM}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^{SM}}.$$
(22)
Extractions of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau `$ and the total width require a measurement of the $`qqqqH,HWW^{}`$ cross section, which is expected to be available for $`m_H\stackrel{>}{}110`$ GeV KPRZ , but suffers from poor statistics close to the limit set by LEP2. Consequently, errors are sizable for Higgs masses around 110 GeV, but stay within the 10–20% range for the most interesting Higgs mass region, between 120 and 140 GeV. Results for these indirect extractions of (partial) widths are shown in Fig. 2(b) and look highly promising.

One should note that only a few of these measurements, most notably the $`Hgg`$ partial width (over the entire Higgs mass range) and the extraction of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_W`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ for $`m_H\stackrel{>}{}150`$ GeV, are limited by systematic uncertainties, in particular higher order QCD effects. For the WBF cross sections the assessment of these errors (5%) is probably too conservative. This means that substantial improvements are possible, in principle, with higher luminosity data, in the 115 GeV $`<m_H<150`$ GeV mass range. Whether pile-up effects do permit such improvements requires detailed studies.

## IV Summary

With an integrated luminosity of 100 fb-1 per experiment, the LHC can measure various ratios of Higgs partial widths, with accuracies of order 10 to 25%. This translates into 5 to 10% measurements of various ratios of coupling constants. The ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau /\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ measures the coupling of down-type fermions relative to the Higgs couplings to gauge bosons. To the extent that the $`H\gamma \gamma `$ triangle diagrams are dominated by the $`W`$ loop, the width ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau /\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma `$ probes the same relationship. The fermion triangles leading to an effective $`Hgg`$ coupling are expected to be dominated by the top-quark, thus, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g/\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ probes the coupling of up-type fermions relative to the $`HWW`$ coupling. This top-quark Yukawa coupling can be probed directly, at the 15 to $`20\%`$ level for $`m_H\stackrel{<}{}130`$ GeV, via $`t\overline{t}H`$ production with $`Hb\overline{b}`$. Finally, for any Higgs boson mass in the range left by LEP2, the absolute normalization of the $`HWW`$ coupling is accessible via the extraction of the $`HWW^{}`$ partial width in weak boson fusion.

These measurements test the crucial aspects of the Higgs sector. The $`HWW`$ coupling, being linear in the Higgs field, identifies the observed Higgs boson as the scalar responsible for the spontaneous breaking of $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$: a scalar without a vacuum expectation value does not exhibit such a trilinear coupling at tree level. The particular tensor structure of this SM $`HWW`$ coupling can be identified as well in WBF PRZ . The measurement of the ratios $`g_{Htt}/g_{HWW}`$ and $`g_{H\tau \tau }/g_{HWW}`$ then probes the mass generation of both up and down type fermions.

These measurements may be complemented by observation of $`WH/ZH,Hb\overline{b}`$ production at the Tevatron or the LHC to remove assumptions on the $`g_{Hbb}/g_{H\tau \tau }`$ coupling ratios. In all, hadron collider data in the LHC era are expected to determine the dominant couplings of a SM like Higgs boson at the 5–10% level.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by WARF and in part by DOE under Grant No. DE-FG02-95ER40896.