format: text

text:
# Constructing compact manifolds with exceptional holonomy

## 1 Introduction

In the theory of Riemannian holonomy groups, perhaps the most mysterious are the two exceptional cases, the holonomy group $`G_2`$ in 7 dimensions and the holonomy group $`Spin(7)`$ in 8 dimensions. This is a survey paper on the construction of examples of compact 7- and 8-manifolds with holonomy $`G_2`$ and $`Spin(7)`$.

All of the material described can be found in the author’s book . Some, but not all, is also in the papers . In particular, the most complicated and powerful form of the construction of compact manifolds with exceptional holonomy by resolving orbifolds $`T^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and many of the examples, are given only in  and not in any published paper.

The rest of this section introduces the holonomy groups $`G_2`$, $`Spin(7)`$ and $`SU(m)`$, and the relations between them. Section 2 discusses constructions for compact 7-manifolds with holonomy $`G_2`$. Most of the section explains how to do this by resolving the singularities of orbifolds $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, but in §2.5 we briefly discuss two other methods starting from Calabi–Yau 3-folds.

Section 3 explains constructions for compact 8-manifolds with holonomy $`Spin(7)`$. One way to do this is to resolve orbifolds $`T^8/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, but as this is very similar in outline to the $`G_2`$ material of §2 we say little about it. Instead we describe a second construction which begins with a Calabi–Yau 4-orbifold.

### 1.1 Riemannian holonomy groups

Let $`M`$ be a connected $`n`$-dimensional manifold, $`g`$ a Riemannian metric on $`M`$, and $``$ the Levi-Civita connection of $`g`$. Let $`x,y`$ be points in $`M`$ joined by a smooth path $`\gamma `$. Then parallel transport along $`\gamma `$ using $``$ defines an isometry between the tangent spaces $`T_xM`$, $`T_yM`$ at $`x`$ and $`y`$.

Definition 1.1  The holonomy group $`Hol(g)`$ of $`g`$ is the group of isometries of $`T_xM`$ generated by parallel transport around piecewise-smooth closed loops based at $`x`$ in $`M`$. We consider $`Hol(g)`$ to be a subgroup of $`O(n)`$, defined up to conjugation by elements of $`O(n)`$. Then $`Hol(g)`$ is independent of the base point $`x`$ in $`M`$.

The classification of holonomy groups was achieved by Berger  in 1955.

###### Theorem 1.2

Let $`M`$ be a simply-connected, $`n`$-dimensional manifold, and $`g`$ an irreducible, nonsymmetric Riemannian metric on $`M`$. Then either

* $`Hol(g)=SO(n)`$,
* $`n=2m`$ and $`Hol(g)=SU(m)`$ or $`U(m)`$,
* $`n=4m`$ and $`Hol(g)=Sp(m)`$ or $`Sp(m)Sp(1)`$,
* $`n=7`$ and $`Hol(g)=G_2`$, or
* $`n=8`$ and $`Hol(g)=Spin(7)`$.

Now $`G_2`$ and $`Spin(7)`$ are the exceptional cases in this classification, so they are called the exceptional holonomy groups. For some time after Berger’s classification, the exceptional holonomy groups remained a mystery. In 1987, Bryant  used the theory of exterior differential systems to show that locally there exist many metrics with these holonomy groups, and gave some explicit, incomplete examples. Then in 1989, Bryant and Salamon  found explicit, complete metrics with holonomy $`G_2`$ and $`Spin(7)`$ on noncompact manifolds.

In 1994-5 the author constructed the first examples of metrics with holonomy $`G_2`$ and $`Spin(7)`$ on compact manifolds . These, and the more complicated constructions developed later by the author  and by Kovalev , are the subject of this article.

### 1.2 The holonomy group $`G_2`$

Let $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_7)`$ be coordinates on $`^7`$. Write $`\mathrm{d}𝐱_{ij\mathrm{}l}`$ for the exterior form $`\mathrm{d}x_i\mathrm{d}x_j\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}x_l`$ on $`^7`$. Define a metric $`g_0`$, a 3-form $`\phi _0`$ and a 4-form $`\phi _0`$ on $`^7`$ by $`g_0=\mathrm{d}x_1^2+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{d}x_7^2`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \phi _0& =\mathrm{d}𝐱_{123}+\mathrm{d}𝐱_{145}+\mathrm{d}𝐱_{167}+\mathrm{d}𝐱_{246}\mathrm{d}𝐱_{257}\mathrm{d}𝐱_{347}\mathrm{d}𝐱_{356}\text{and}\hfill \\ \hfill \phi _0& =\mathrm{d}𝐱_{4567}+\mathrm{d}𝐱_{2367}+\mathrm{d}𝐱_{2345}+\mathrm{d}𝐱_{1357}\mathrm{d}𝐱_{1346}\mathrm{d}𝐱_{1256}\mathrm{d}𝐱_{1247}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
The subgroup of $`GL(7,)`$ preserving $`\phi _0`$ is the exceptional Lie group $`G_2`$. It also preserves $`g_0,\phi _0`$ and the orientation on $`^7`$. It is a compact, semisimple, 14-dimensional Lie group, a subgroup of $`SO(7)`$.

A $`G_2`$-structure on a 7-manifold $`M`$ is a principal subbundle of the frame bundle of $`M`$, with structure group $`G_2`$. Each $`G_2`$-structure gives rise to a 3-form $`\phi `$ and a metric $`g`$ on $`M`$, such that every tangent space of $`M`$ admits an isomorphism with $`^7`$ identifying $`\phi `$ and $`g`$ with $`\phi _0`$ and $`g_0`$ respectively. By an abuse of notation, we will refer to $`(\phi ,g)`$ as a $`G_2`$-structure.

###### Proposition 1.3

Let $`M`$ be a $`7`$-manifold and $`(\phi ,g)`$ a $`G_2`$-structure on $`M`$. Then the following are equivalent:

* $`Hol(g)G_2`$, and $`\phi `$ is the induced $`3`$-form,
* $`\phi =0`$ on $`M`$, where $``$ is the Levi-Civita connection of $`g`$, and
* $`\mathrm{d}\phi =\mathrm{d}^{}\phi =0`$ on $`M`$.

We call $`\phi `$ the torsion of the $`G_2`$-structure $`(\phi ,g)`$, and when $`\phi =0`$ the $`G_2`$-structure is torsion-free. A triple $`(M,\phi ,g)`$ is called a $`G_2`$-manifold if $`M`$ is a 7-manifold and $`(\phi ,g)`$ a torsion-free $`G_2`$-structure on $`M`$. If $`g`$ has holonomy $`Hol(g)G_2`$, then $`g`$ is Ricci-flat.

###### Theorem 1.4

Let $`M`$ be a compact $`7`$-manifold, and suppose that $`(\phi ,g)`$ is a torsion-free $`G_2`$-structure on $`M`$. Then $`Hol(g)=G_2`$ if and only if $`\pi _1(M)`$ is finite. In this case the moduli space of metrics with holonomy $`G_2`$ on $`M`$, up to diffeomorphisms isotopic to the identity, is a smooth manifold of dimension $`b^3(M)`$.

### 1.3 The holonomy group $`Spin(7)`$

Let $`^8`$ have coordinates $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_8)`$. Define a 4-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ on $`^8`$ by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Omega }_0=& \mathrm{d}𝐱_{1234}+\mathrm{d}𝐱_{1256}+\mathrm{d}𝐱_{1278}+\mathrm{d}𝐱_{1357}\mathrm{d}𝐱_{1368}\mathrm{d}𝐱_{1458}\mathrm{d}𝐱_{1467}\hfill \\ \hfill & \mathrm{d}𝐱_{2358}\mathrm{d}𝐱_{2367}\mathrm{d}𝐱_{2457}+\mathrm{d}𝐱_{2468}+\mathrm{d}𝐱_{3456}+\mathrm{d}𝐱_{3478}+\mathrm{d}𝐱_{5678}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
The subgroup of $`GL(8,)`$ preserving $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is the holonomy group $`Spin(7)`$. It also preserves the orientation on $`^8`$ and the Euclidean metric $`g_0=\mathrm{d}x_1^2+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{d}x_8^2`$. It is a compact, semisimple, 21-dimensional Lie group, a subgroup of $`SO(8)`$.

A $`Spin(7)`$-structure on an 8-manifold $`M`$ gives rise to a 4-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and a metric $`g`$ on $`M`$, such that each tangent space of $`M`$ admits an isomorphism with $`^8`$ identifying $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`g`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`g_0`$ respectively. By an abuse of notation we will refer to the pair $`(\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$ as a $`Spin(7)`$-structure.

###### Proposition 1.5

Let $`M`$ be an $`8`$-manifold and $`(\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$ a $`Spin(7)`$-structure on $`M`$. Then the following are equivalent:

* $`Hol(g)Spin(7)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the induced $`4`$-form,
* $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ on $`M`$, where $``$ is the Levi-Civita connection of $`g`$, and
* $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ on $`M`$.

We call $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the torsion of the $`Spin(7)`$-structure $`(\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$, and $`(\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$ torsion-free if $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. A triple $`(M,\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$ is called a $`Spin(7)`$-manifold if $`M`$ is an 8-manifold and $`(\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$ a torsion-free $`Spin(7)`$-structure on $`M`$. If $`g`$ has holonomy $`Hol(g)Spin(7)`$, then $`g`$ is Ricci-flat.

Here is a result on compact 8-manifolds with holonomy $`Spin(7)`$.

###### Theorem 1.6

Let $`(M,\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$ be a compact $`Spin(7)`$-manifold. Then $`Hol(g)=Spin(7)`$ if and only if $`M`$ is simply-connected, and $`b^3(M)+b_+^4(M)=b^2(M)+b_{}^4(M)+25`$. In this case the moduli space of metrics with holonomy $`Spin(7)`$ on $`M`$, up to diffeomorphisms isotopic to the identity, is a smooth manifold of dimension $`1+b_{}^4(M)`$.

### 1.4 The holonomy groups $`SU(m)`$

Let $`^m^{2m}`$ have complex coordinates $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_m)`$, and define the metric $`g_0`$, Kähler form $`\omega _0`$ and complex volume form $`\theta _0`$ on $`^m`$ by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill g_0=|\mathrm{d}z_1|^2+\mathrm{}+|\mathrm{d}z_m|^2,\omega _0& =\frac{i}{2}(\mathrm{d}z_1\mathrm{d}\overline{z}_1+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{d}z_m\mathrm{d}\overline{z}_m),\hfill \\ \hfill \text{and}\theta _0& =\mathrm{d}z_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}z_m.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
The subgroup of $`GL(2m,)`$ preserving $`g_0,\omega _0`$ and $`\theta _0`$ is the special unitary group $`SU(m)`$. Manifolds with holonomy $`SU(m)`$ are called Calabi–Yau manifolds.

Calabi–Yau manifolds are automatically Ricci-flat and Kähler, with trivial canonical bundle. Conversely, any Ricci-flat Kähler manifold $`(M,J,g)`$ with trivial canonical bundle has $`Hol(g)SU(m)`$. By Yau’s proof of the Calabi conjecture , we have:

###### Theorem 1.7

Let $`(M,J)`$ be a compact complex $`m`$-manifold admitting Kähler metrics, with trivial canonical bundle. Then there is a unique Ricci-flat Kähler metric $`g`$ in each Kähler class on $`M`$, and $`Hol(g)SU(m)`$.

Using this and complex algebraic geometry one can construct many examples of compact Calabi–Yau manifolds. The theorem also applies in the orbifold category, yielding examples of Calabi–Yau orbifolds.

### 1.5 Relations between $`G_2`$, $`Spin(7)`$ and $`SU(m)`$

Here are the inclusions between the holonomy groups $`SU(m),G_2`$ and $`Spin(7)`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}SU(2)& & SU(3)& & G_2\\ & & & & & & \\ SU(2)\times SU(2)& & SU(4)& & Spin(7).\end{array}$$

We shall illustrate what we mean by this using the inclusion $`SU(3)G_2`$. As $`SU(3)`$ acts on $`^3`$, it also acts on $`^3^7`$, taking the $`SU(3)`$-action on $``$ to be trivial. Thus we embed $`SU(3)`$ as a subgroup of $`GL(7,)`$. It turns out that $`SU(3)`$ is a subgroup of the subgroup $`G_2`$ of $`GL(7,)`$ defined in §1.2.

Here is a way to see this in terms of differential forms. Identify $`^3`$ with $`^7`$ in the obvious way in coordinates, so that $`(x_1,(x_2+ix_3,x_4+ix_5,x_6+ix_7))`$ in $`^3`$ is identified with $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_7)`$ in $`^7`$. Then $`\phi _0=\mathrm{d}x_1\omega _0+Re\theta _0`$, where $`\phi _0`$ is defined in (1) and $`\omega _0,\theta _0`$ in (3). Since $`SU(3)`$ preserves $`\omega _0`$ and $`\theta _0`$, the action of $`SU(3)`$ on $`^7`$ preserves $`\phi _0`$, and so $`SU(3)G_2`$.

It follows that if $`(M,J,h)`$ is Calabi–Yau 3-fold, then $`\times M`$ and $`𝒮^1\times M`$ have torsion-free $`G_2`$-structures, that is, are $`G_2`$-manifolds.

###### Proposition 1.8

Let $`(M,J,h)`$ be a Calabi–Yau $`3`$-fold, with Kähler form $`\omega `$ and complex volume form $`\theta `$. Let $`x`$ be a coordinate on $``$ or $`𝒮^1`$. Define a metric $`g=\mathrm{d}x^2+h`$ and a $`3`$-form $`\phi =\mathrm{d}x\omega +Re\theta `$ on $`\times M`$ or $`𝒮^1\times M`$. Then $`(g,\phi )`$ is a torsion-free $`G_2`$-structure on $`\times M`$ or $`𝒮^1\times M`$, and $`\phi =\frac{1}{2}\omega \omega \mathrm{d}xIm\theta `$.

Similarly, the inclusions $`SU(2)G_2`$ and $`SU(4)Spin(7)`$ give:

###### Proposition 1.9

Let $`(M,J,h)`$ be a Calabi–Yau $`2`$-fold, with Kähler form $`\omega `$ and complex volume form $`\theta `$. Let $`(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ be coordinates on $`^3`$ or $`T^3`$. Define a metric $`g=\mathrm{d}x_1^2+\mathrm{d}x_2^2+\mathrm{d}x_3^2+h`$ and a $`3`$-form

$$\phi =\mathrm{d}x_1\mathrm{d}x_2\mathrm{d}x_3+\mathrm{d}x_1\omega +\mathrm{d}x_2Re\theta \mathrm{d}x_3Im\theta $$
(4)
on $`^3\times M`$ or $`T^3\times M`$. Then $`(\phi ,g)`$ is a torsion-free $`G_2`$-structure on $`^3\times M`$ or $`T^3\times M`$, and

$$\phi =\frac{1}{2}\omega \omega +\mathrm{d}x_2\mathrm{d}x_3\omega \mathrm{d}x_1\mathrm{d}x_3Re\theta \mathrm{d}x_1\mathrm{d}x_2Im\theta .$$
(5)
###### Proposition 1.10

Let $`(M,J,g)`$ be a Calabi–Yau $`4`$-fold, with Kähler form $`\omega `$ and complex volume form $`\theta `$. Define a $`4`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`M`$ by $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{2}\omega \omega +Re\theta `$. Then $`(\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$ is a torsion-free $`Spin(7)`$-structure on $`M`$.

## 2 Constructing $`G_2`$-manifolds from orbifolds $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

We now explain the method used in  and \[9, §11–§12\] to construct examples of compact 7-manifolds with holonomy $`G_2`$. It is based on the Kummer construction for Calabi–Yau metrics on the $`K3`$ surface, and may be divided into four steps.

* Let $`T^7`$ be the 7-torus and $`(\phi _0,g_0)`$ a flat $`G_2`$-structure on $`T^7`$. Choose a finite group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of isometries of $`T^7`$ preserving $`(\phi _0,g_0)`$. Then the quotient $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a singular, compact 7-manifold, an orbifold.
* For certain special groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ there is a method to resolve the singularities of $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in a natural way, using complex geometry. We get a nonsingular, compact 7-manifold $`M`$, together with a map $`\pi :MT^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the resolving map.
* On $`M`$, we explicitly write down a 1-parameter family of $`G_2`$-structures $`(\phi _t,g_t)`$ depending on $`t(0,ϵ)`$. They are not torsion-free, but have small torsion when $`t`$ is small. As $`t0`$, the $`G_2`$-structure $`(\phi _t,g_t)`$ converges to the singular $`G_2`$-structure $`\pi ^{}(\phi _0,g_0)`$.
* We prove using analysis that for sufficiently small $`t`$, the $`G_2`$-structure $`(\phi _t,g_t)`$ on $`M`$, with small torsion, can be deformed to a $`G_2`$-structure $`(\stackrel{~}{\phi }_t,\stackrel{~}{g}_t)`$, with zero torsion. Finally, we show that $`\stackrel{~}{g}_t`$ is a metric with holonomy $`G_2`$ on the compact 7-manifold $`M`$.

We will now explain each step in greater detail.

### 2.1 Step 1: Choosing an orbifold

Let $`(\phi _0,g_0)`$ be the Euclidean $`G_2`$-structure on $`^7`$ defined in §1.2. Suppose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a lattice in $`^7`$, that is, a discrete additive subgroup isomorphic to $`^7`$. Then $`^7/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the torus $`T^7`$, and $`(\phi _0,g_0)`$ pushes down to a torsion-free $`G_2`$-structure on $`T^7`$. We must choose a finite group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acting on $`T^7`$ preserving $`(\phi _0,g_0)`$. That is, the elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are the push-forwards to $`T^7/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of affine transformations of $`^7`$ which fix $`(\phi _0,g_0)`$, and take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to itself under conjugation.

Here is an example of a suitable group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, taken from \[9, §12.2\].

Example 2.1  Let $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_7)`$ be coordinates on $`T^7=^7/^7`$, where $`x_i/`$. Let $`(\phi _0,g_0)`$ be the flat $`G_2`$-structure on $`T^7`$ defined by (1). Let $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ be the involutions of $`T^7`$ defined by

$`\alpha :(x_1,\mathrm{},x_7)`$ $`(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,x_6,x_7),`$ (6)
$`\beta :(x_1,\mathrm{},x_7)`$ $`(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,\frac{1}{2}x_6,x_7),`$ (7)
$`\gamma :(x_1,\mathrm{},x_7)`$ $`(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,\frac{1}{2}x_5,x_6,\frac{1}{2}x_7).`$ (8)
By inspection, $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ preserve $`(\phi _0,g_0)`$, because of the careful choice of exactly which signs to change. Also, $`\alpha ^2=\beta ^2=\gamma ^2=1`$, and $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ commute. Thus they generate a group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma _2^3`$ of isometries of $`T^7`$ preserving the flat $`G_2`$-structure $`(\phi _0,g_0)`$.

Having chosen a lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and finite group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the quotient $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an orbifold, a singular manifold with only quotient singularities. The singularities of $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ come from the fixed points of non-identity elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We now describe the singularities in our example.

###### Lemma 2.2

In Example 2.1, $`\beta \gamma ,\gamma \alpha ,\alpha \beta `$ and $`\alpha \beta \gamma `$ have no fixed points on $`T^7`$. The fixed points of $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ are each $`16`$ copies of $`T^3`$. The singular set $`S`$ of $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a disjoint union of $`12`$ copies of $`T^3`$, $`4`$ copies from each of $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$. Each component of $`S`$ is a singularity modelled on that of $`T^3\times ^2/\{\pm 1\}`$.

The most important consideration in choosing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is that we should be able to resolve the singularities of $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ within holonomy $`G_2`$. We will explain how to do this next.

### 2.2 Step 2: Resolving the singularities

Our goal is to resolve the singular set $`S`$ of $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to get a compact 7-manifold $`M`$ with holonomy $`G_2`$. How can we do this? In general we cannot, because we have no idea of how to resolve general orbifold singularities with holonomy $`G_2`$. However, suppose we can arrange that every connected component of $`S`$ is locally isomorphic to either

* $`T^3\times ^2/G`$, for $`G`$ a finite subgroup of $`SU(2)`$, or
* $`𝒮^1\times ^3/G`$, for $`G`$ a finite subgroup of $`SU(3)`$ acting freely on $`^3\{0\}`$.

One can use complex algebraic geometry to find a crepant resolution $`X`$ of $`^2/G`$ or $`Y`$ of $`^3/G`$. Then $`T^3\times X`$ or $`𝒮^1\times Y`$ gives a local model for how to resolve the corresponding component of $`S`$ in $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Thus we construct a nonsingular, compact 7-manifold $`M`$ by using the patches $`T^3\times X`$ or $`𝒮^1\times Y`$ to repair the singularities of $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In the case of Example 2.1, this means gluing 12 copies of $`T^3\times X`$ into $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`X`$ is the blow-up of $`^2/\{\pm 1\}`$ at its singular point.

Now the point of using crepant resolutions is this. In both case (a) and (b), there exists a Calabi–Yau metric on $`X`$ or $`Y`$ which is asymptotic to the flat Euclidean metric on $`^2/G`$ or $`^3/G`$. Such metrics are called Asymptotically Locally Euclidean (ALE). In case (a), the ALE Calabi–Yau metrics were classified by Kronheimer , and exist for all finite $`GSU(2)`$. In case (b), crepant resolutions of $`^3/G`$ exist for all finite $`GSU(3)`$ by Roan , and the author , \[9, §8\] proved that they carry ALE Calabi–Yau, using a noncompact version of the Calabi Conjecture.

By Propositions 1.8 and 5, we can use the Calabi–Yau metrics on $`X`$ or $`Y`$ to construct a torsion-free $`G_2`$-structure on $`T^3\times X`$ or $`𝒮^1\times Y`$. This gives a local model for how to resolve the singularity $`T^3\times ^2/G`$ or $`𝒮^1\times ^3/G`$ with holonomy $`G_2`$. So, this method gives not only a way to smooth out the singularities of $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as a manifold, but also a family of torsion-free $`G_2`$-structures on the resolution which show how to smooth out the singularities of the $`G_2`$-structure.

The requirement above that $`S`$ be divided into connected components of the form (a) and (b) is in fact unnecessarily restrictive. There is a more complicated and powerful method, described in \[9, §11–§12\], for resolving singularities of a more general kind. We require only that the singularities should locally be of the form $`^3\times ^2/G`$ or $`\times ^3/G`$, for $`G`$ a finite subgroup of $`SU(2)`$ or $`SU(3)`$, and when $`GSU(3)`$ we do not require that $`G`$ act freely on $`^3\{0\}`$.

If $`X`$ is a crepant resolution of $`^3/G`$, where $`G`$ does not act freely on $`^3\{0\}`$, then the author shows \[9, §9\],  that $`X`$ carries a family of Calabi–Yau metrics satisfying a complicated asymptotic condition at infinity, called Quasi-ALE metrics. These yield the local models necessary to resolve singularities locally of the form $`\times ^3/G`$ with holonomy $`G_2`$. Using this method we can resolve many orbifolds $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and prove the existence of large numbers of compact 7-manifolds with holonomy $`G_2`$.

### 2.3 Step 3: Finding $`G_2`$-structures with small torsion

For each resolution $`X`$ of $`^2/G`$ in case (a), and $`Y`$ of $`^3/G`$ in case (b) above, we can find a 1-parameter family $`\{h_t:t>0\}`$ of metrics with the properties

* $`h_t`$ is a Kähler metric on $`X`$ with $`Hol(h_t)=SU(2)`$. Its injectivity radius satisfies $`\delta (h_t)=O(t)`$, its Riemann curvature satisfies $`R(h_t)_{C^0}=O(t^2)`$, and $`h_t=h+O(t^4r^4)`$ for large $`r`$, where $`h`$ is the Euclidean metric on $`^2/G`$, and $`r`$ the distance from the origin.
* $`h_t`$ is Kähler on $`Y`$ with $`Hol(h_t)=SU(3)`$, where $`\delta (h_t)=O(t)`$, $`R(h_t)_{C^0}=O(t^2)`$, and $`h_t=h+O(t^6r^6)`$ for large $`r`$.

In fact we can choose $`h_t`$ to be isometric to $`t^2h_1`$, and the properties above are easy to prove.

Suppose one of the components of the singular set $`S`$ of $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is locally modelled on $`T^3\times ^2/G`$. Then $`T^3`$ has a natural flat metric $`h_{T^3}`$. Let $`X`$ be the crepant resolution of $`^2/G`$ and let $`\{h_t:t>0\}`$ satisfy property (a). Then Proposition 5 gives a 1-parameter family of torsion-free $`G_2`$-structures $`(\widehat{\phi }_t,\widehat{g}_t)`$ on $`T^3\times X`$ with $`\widehat{g}_t=h_{T^3}+h_t`$. Similarly, if a component of $`S`$ is modelled on $`𝒮^1\times ^3/G`$, using Proposition 1.8 we get a family of torsion-free $`G_2`$-structures $`(\widehat{\phi }_t,\widehat{g}_t)`$ on $`𝒮^1\times Y`$.

The idea is to make a $`G_2`$-structure $`(\phi _t,g_t)`$ on $`M`$ by gluing together the torsion-free $`G_2`$-structures $`(\widehat{\phi }_t,\widehat{g}_t)`$ on the patches $`T^3\times X`$ and $`𝒮^1\times Y`$, and $`(\phi _0,g_0)`$ on $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The gluing is done using a partition of unity. Naturally, the first derivative of the partition of unity introduces ‘errors’, so that $`(\phi _t,g_t)`$ is not torsion-free. The size of the torsion $`\phi _t`$ depends on the difference $`\widehat{\phi }_t\phi _0`$ in the region where the partition of unity changes. On the patches $`T^3\times X`$, since $`h_th=O(t^4r^4)`$ and the partition of unity has nonzero derivative when $`r=O(1)`$, we find that $`\phi _t=O(t^4)`$. Similarly $`\phi _t=O(t^6)`$ on the patches $`𝒮^1\times Y`$, and so $`\phi _t=O(t^4)`$ on $`M`$.

For small $`t`$, the dominant contributions to the injectivity radius $`\delta (g_t)`$ and Riemann curvature $`R(g_t)`$ are made by those of the metrics $`h_t`$ on $`X`$ and $`Y`$, so we expect $`\delta (g_t)=O(t)`$ and $`R(g_t)_{C^0}=O(t^2)`$ by properties (a) and (b) above. In this way we prove the following result \[9, Th. 11.5.7\], which gives the estimates on $`(\phi _t,g_t)`$ that we need.

###### Theorem 2.3

On the compact $`7`$-manifold $`M`$ described above, and on many other $`7`$-manifolds constructed in a similar fashion, one can write down the following data explicitly in coordinates:

* Positive constants $`A_1,A_2,A_3`$ and $`ϵ`$,
* A $`G_2`$-structure $`(\phi _t,g_t)`$ on $`M`$ with $`\mathrm{d}\phi _t=0`$ for each $`t(0,ϵ)`$, and
* A $`3`$-form $`\psi _t`$ on $`M`$ with $`\mathrm{d}^{}\psi _t=\mathrm{d}^{}\phi _t`$ for each $`t(0,ϵ)`$.

These satisfy three conditions:

* $`\psi _t_{L^2}A_1t^4`$, $`\psi _t_{C^0}A_1t^3`$ and $`\mathrm{d}^{}\psi _t_{L^{14}}A_1t^{16/7}`$,
* the injectivity radius $`\delta (g_t)`$ satisfies $`\delta (g_t)A_2t`$,
* the Riemann curvature $`R(g_t)`$ of $`g_t`$ satisfies $`R(g_t)_{C^0}A_3t^2`$.

Here the operator $`\mathrm{d}^{}`$ and the norms $`._{L^2}`$, $`._{L^{14}}`$ and $`._{C^0}`$ depend on $`g_t`$.

Here one should regard $`\psi _t`$ as a first integral of the torsion $`\phi _t`$ of $`(\phi _t,g_t)`$. Thus the norms $`\psi _t_{L^2}`$, $`\psi _t_{C^0}`$ and $`\mathrm{d}^{}\psi _t_{L^{14}}`$ are measures of $`\phi _t`$. So parts (i)–(iii) say that the torsion $`\phi _t`$ must be small compared to the injectivity radius and Riemann curvature of $`(M,g_t)`$.

### 2.4 Step 4: Deforming to a torsion-free $`G_2`$-structure

We prove the following analysis result.

###### Theorem 2.4

Let $`A_1,A_2,A_3`$ be positive constants. Then there exist positive constants $`\kappa ,K`$ such that whenever $`0<t\kappa `$, the following is true.

Let $`M`$ be a compact $`7`$-manifold, and $`(\phi ,g)`$ a $`G_2`$-structure on $`M`$ with $`\mathrm{d}\phi =0`$. Suppose $`\psi `$ is a smooth $`3`$-form on $`M`$ with $`\mathrm{d}^{}\psi =\mathrm{d}^{}\phi `$, and

* $`\psi _{L^2}A_1t^4`$, $`\psi _{C^0}A_1t^{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{d}^{}\psi _{L^{14}}A_1`$,
* the injectivity radius $`\delta (g)`$ satisfies $`\delta (g)A_2t`$, and
* the Riemann curvature $`R(g)`$ satisfies $`R(g)_{C^0}A_3t^2`$.

Then there exists a smooth, torsion-free $`G_2`$-structure $`(\stackrel{~}{\phi },\stackrel{~}{g})`$ on $`M`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }\phi _{C^0}Kt^{1/2}`$.

Basically, this result says that if $`(\phi ,g)`$ is a $`G_2`$-structure on $`M`$, and the torsion $`\phi `$ is sufficiently small, then we can deform to a nearby $`G_2`$-structure $`(\stackrel{~}{\phi },\stackrel{~}{g})`$ that is torsion-free. Here is a sketch of the proof of Theorem 2.4, ignoring several technical points. The proof is that given in \[9, §11.6–§11.8\], which is an improved version of the proof in .

We have a 3-form $`\phi `$ with $`\mathrm{d}\phi =0`$ and $`\mathrm{d}^{}\phi =\mathrm{d}^{}\psi `$ for small $`\psi `$, and we wish to construct a nearby 3-form $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ with $`\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{\phi }=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}^{}\stackrel{~}{\phi }=0`$. Set $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }=\phi +\mathrm{d}\eta `$, where $`\eta `$ is a small 2-form. Then $`\eta `$ must satisfy a nonlinear p.d.e., which we write as

$$\mathrm{d}^{}\mathrm{d}\eta =\mathrm{d}^{}\psi +\mathrm{d}^{}F(\mathrm{d}\eta ),$$
(9)
where $`F`$ is nonlinear, satisfying $`F(\mathrm{d}\eta )=O\left(|\mathrm{d}\eta |^2\right)`$.

We solve (9) by iteration, introducing a sequence $`\{\eta _j\}_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`\eta _0=0`$, satisfying the inductive equations

$$\mathrm{d}^{}\mathrm{d}\eta _{j+1}=\mathrm{d}^{}\psi +\mathrm{d}^{}F(\mathrm{d}\eta _j),\mathrm{d}^{}\eta _{j+1}=0.$$
(10)
If such a sequence exists and converges to $`\eta `$, then taking the limit in (10) shows that $`\eta `$ satisfies (9), giving us the solution we want.

The key to proving this is an inductive estimate on the sequence $`\{\eta _j\}_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$. The inductive estimate we use has three ingredients, the equations

$`\mathrm{d}\eta _{j+1}_{L^2}`$ $`\psi _{L^2}+C_1\mathrm{d}\eta _j_{L^2}\mathrm{d}\eta _j_{C^0},`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{d}\eta _{j+1}_{L^{14}}`$ $`C_2\left(\mathrm{d}^{}\psi _{L^{14}}+\mathrm{d}\eta _j_{L^{14}}\mathrm{d}\eta _j_{C^0}+t^4\mathrm{d}\eta _{j+1}_{L^2}\right),`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{d}\eta _j_{C^0}`$ $`C_3\left(t^{1/2}\mathrm{d}\eta _j_{L^{14}}+t^{7/2}\mathrm{d}\eta _j_{L^2}\right).`$ (13)
Here $`C_1,C_2,C_3`$ are positive constants independent of $`t`$. Equation (11) is obtained from (10) by taking the $`L^2`$-inner product with $`\eta _{j+1}`$ and integrating by parts. Using the fact that $`\mathrm{d}^{}\phi =\mathrm{d}^{}\psi `$ and $`\psi _{L^2}=O(t^4)`$, $`|\psi |=O(t^{1/2})`$ we get a powerful estimate of the $`L^2`$-norm of $`\mathrm{d}\eta _{j+1}`$.

Equation (12) is derived from an elliptic regularity estimate for the operator $`\mathrm{d}+\mathrm{d}^{}`$ acting on 3-forms on $`M`$. Equation (13) follows from the Sobolev embedding theorem, since $`L_1^{14}(M)`$ embeds in $`C^0(M)`$. Both (12) and (13) are proved on small balls of radius $`O(t)`$ in $`M`$, using parts (ii) and (iii) of Theorem 2.3, and this is where the powers of $`t`$ come from.

Using (11)-(13) and part (i) of Theorem 2.3 we show that if

$$\mathrm{d}\eta _j_{L^2}C_4t^4,\mathrm{d}\eta _j_{L^{14}}C_5,\text{and}\mathrm{d}\eta _j_{C^0}Kt^{1/2},$$
(14)
where $`C_4,C_5`$ and $`K`$ are positive constants depending on $`C_1,C_2,C_3`$ and $`A_1`$, and if $`t`$ is sufficiently small, then the same inequalities (14) apply to $`\mathrm{d}\eta _{j+1}`$. Since $`\eta _0=0`$, by induction (14) applies for all $`j`$ and the sequence $`\{\mathrm{d}\eta _j\}_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is bounded in the Banach space $`L_1^{14}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^3T^{}M)`$. One can then use standard techniques in analysis to prove that this sequence converges to a smooth limit $`\mathrm{d}\eta `$. This concludes the proof of Theorem 2.4.

From Theorems 2.3 and 2.4 we see that the compact 7-manifold $`M`$ constructed in Step 2 admits torsion-free $`G_2`$-structures $`(\stackrel{~}{\phi },\stackrel{~}{g})`$. Theorem 1.4 then shows that $`Hol(\stackrel{~}{g})=G_2`$ if and only if $`\pi _1(M)`$ is finite. In the example above $`M`$ is simply-connected, and so $`\pi _1(M)=\{1\}`$ and $`M`$ has metrics with holonomy $`G_2`$, as we want.

By considering different groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acting on $`T^7`$, and also by finding topologically distinct resolutions $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_k`$ of the same orbifold $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we can construct many compact Riemannian 7-manifolds with holonomy $`G_2`$. A good number of examples are given in \[9, §12\]. Figure 1 displays the Betti numbers of compact, simply-connected 7-manifolds with holonomy $`G_2`$ constructed there. There are 252 different sets of Betti numbers.

Examples are also known \[9, §12.4\] of compact 7-manifolds with holonomy $`G_2`$ with finite, nontrivial fundamental group. It seems likely to the author that the Betti numbers given in Figure 1 are only a small proportion of the Betti numbers of all compact, simply-connected 7-manifolds with holonomy $`G_2`$.

### 2.5 Other constructions of compact $`G_2`$-manifolds

Here are two other methods, taken from \[9, §11.9\], that may be used to construct compact 7-manifolds with holonomy $`G_2`$. The first method was outlined by the author in \[6, §4.3\], and is being studied by the author’s student Ben Stephens.

Method 1. Let $`(Y,J,h)`$ be a Calabi–Yau 3-fold, with Kähler form $`\omega `$ and holomorphic volume form $`\theta `$. Suppose $`\sigma :YY`$ is an involution, satisfying $`\sigma ^{}(h)=h`$, $`\sigma ^{}(J)=J`$ and $`\sigma ^{}(\theta )=\overline{\theta }`$. We call $`\sigma `$ a real structure on $`Y`$. Let $`N`$ be the fixed point set of $`\sigma `$ in $`Y`$. Then $`N`$ is a real 3-dimensional submanifold of $`Y`$, and is in fact a special Lagrangian 3-fold.

Let $`𝒮^1=/`$, and define a torsion-free $`G_2`$-structure $`(\phi ,g)`$ on $`𝒮^1\times Y`$ as in Proposition 1.8. Then $`\phi =\mathrm{d}x\omega +Re\theta `$, where $`x/`$ is the coordinate on $`𝒮^1`$. Define $`\widehat{\sigma }:𝒮^1\times Y𝒮^1\times Y`$ by $`\widehat{\sigma }\left((x,y)\right)=(x,\sigma (y))`$. Then $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ preserves $`(\phi ,g)`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }^2=1`$. The fixed points of $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ in $`𝒮^1\times Y`$ are $`\{,\frac{1}{2}+\}\times N`$. Thus $`(𝒮^1\times Y)/\widehat{\sigma }`$ is an orbifold. Its singular set is 2 copies of $`N`$, and each singular point is modelled on $`^3\times ^4/\{\pm 1\}`$.

We aim to resolve $`(𝒮^1\times Y)/\widehat{\sigma }`$ to get a compact 7-manifold $`M`$ with holonomy $`G_2`$. Locally, each singular point should be resolved like $`^3\times X`$, where $`X`$ is an ALE Calabi–Yau 2-fold asymptotic to $`^2/\{\pm 1\}`$. There is a 3-dimensional family of such $`X`$, and we need to choose one member of this family for each singular point in the singular set.

Calculations by the author indicate that the data needed to do this is a closed, coclosed 1-form $`\alpha `$ on $`N`$ that is nonzero at every point of $`N`$. The existence of a suitable 1-form $`\alpha `$ depends on the metric on $`N`$, which is the restriction of the metric $`g`$ on $`Y`$. But $`g`$ comes from the solution of the Calabi Conjecture, so we know little about it. This may make the method difficult to apply in practice.

The second method is studied by Alexei Kovalev , and is based on an idea due to Simon Donaldson.

Method 2. Let $`X`$ be a projective complex 3-fold with canonical bundle $`K_X`$, and $`s`$ a holomorphic section of $`K_X^1`$ which vanishes to order 1 on a smooth divisor $`D`$ in $`X`$. Then $`D`$ has trivial canonical bundle, so $`D`$ is $`T^4`$ or $`K3`$. Suppose $`D`$ is a $`K3`$ surface. Define $`Y=XD`$, and suppose $`Y`$ is simply-connected.

Then $`Y`$ is a noncompact complex 3-fold with $`K_Y`$ trivial, and one infinite end modelled on $`D\times 𝒮^1\times [0,\mathrm{})`$. Using a version of the proof of the Calabi Conjecture for noncompact manifolds one constructs a complete Calabi–Yau metric $`h`$ on $`Y`$, which is asymptotic to the product on $`D\times 𝒮^1\times [0,\mathrm{})`$ of a Calabi–Yau metric on $`D`$, and Euclidean metrics on $`𝒮^1`$ and $`[0,\mathrm{})`$. We call such metrics Asymptotically Cylindrical.

Suppose we have such a metric on $`Y`$. Define a torsion-free $`G_2`$-structure $`(\phi ,g)`$ on $`𝒮^1\times Y`$ as in Proposition 1.8. Then $`𝒮^1\times Y`$ is a noncompact $`G_2`$-manifold with one end modelled on $`D\times T^2\times [0,\mathrm{})`$, whose metric is asymptotic to the product on $`D\times T^2\times [0,\mathrm{})`$ of a Calabi–Yau metric on $`D`$, and Euclidean metrics on $`T^2`$ and $`[0,\mathrm{})`$.

Donaldson and Kovalev’s idea is to take two such products $`𝒮^1\times Y_1`$ and $`𝒮^1\times Y_2`$ whose infinite ends are isomorphic in a suitable way, and glue them together to get a compact 7-manifold $`M`$ with holonomy $`G_2`$. The gluing process swaps round the $`𝒮^1`$ factors. That is, the $`𝒮^1`$ factor in $`𝒮^1\times Y_1`$ is identified with the asymptotic $`𝒮^1`$ factor in $`Y_2D_2\times 𝒮^1\times [0,\mathrm{})`$, and vice versa.

## 3 Compact $`Spin(7)`$-manifolds from Calabi–Yau 4-orbifolds

In a very similar way to the $`G_2`$ case, one can construct examples of compact 8-manifolds with holonomy $`Spin(7)`$ by resolving the singularities of torus orbifolds $`T^8/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This is done in  and \[9, §13–§14\]. In \[9, §14\], examples are constructed which realize 181 different sets of Betti numbers. Two compact 8-manifolds with holonomy $`Spin(7)`$ and the same Betti numbers may be distinguished by the cup products on their cohomologies (examples of this are given in \[7, §3.4\]), so they probably represent rather more than 181 topologically distinct 8-manifolds.

The main differences with the $`G_2`$ case are, firstly, that the technical details of the analysis are different and harder, and secondly, that the singularities that arise are typically more complicated and more tricky to resolve. One reason for this is that in the $`G_2`$ case the singular set is made up of 1 and 3-dimensional pieces in a 7-dimensional space, so one can often arrange for the pieces to avoid each other, and resolve them independently.

But in the $`Spin(7)`$ case the singular set is typically made up of 4-dimensional pieces in an 8-dimensional space, so they nearly always intersect. There are also topological constraints arising from the $`\widehat{A}`$-genus, which do not apply in the $`G_2`$ case. The moral appears to be that when you increase the dimension, things become more difficult.

Anyway, we will not discuss this further, as the principles are very similar to the $`G_2`$ case above. Instead, we will discuss an entirely different construction of compact 8-manifolds with holonomy $`Spin(7)`$ developed by the author in  and \[9, §15\], a little like Method 1 of §2.5. In this we start from a Calabi–Yau $`4`$-orbifold rather than from $`T^8`$. The construction can be divided into five steps.

* Find a compact, complex 4-orbifold $`(Y,J)`$ satisfying the conditions:

+ $`Y`$ has only finitely many singular points $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_k`$, for $`k1`$.
    + $`Y`$ is modelled on $`^4/i`$ near each $`p_j`$, where $`i`$ acts on $`^4`$ by complex multiplication.
    + There exists an antiholomorphic involution $`\sigma :YY`$ whose fixed point set is $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_k\}`$.
    + $`Y\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_k\}`$ is simply-connected, and $`h^{2,0}(Y)=0`$.
* Choose a $`\sigma `$-invariant Kähler class on $`Y`$. Then by Theorem 1.7 there exists a unique $`\sigma `$-invariant Ricci-flat Kähler metric $`g`$ in this Kähler class. Let $`\omega `$ be the Kähler form of $`g`$. Let $`\theta `$ be a holomorphic volume form for $`(Y,J,g)`$. By multiplying $`\theta `$ by $`\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi }`$ if necessary, we can arrange that $`\sigma ^{}(\theta )=\overline{\theta }`$.

Define $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{2}\omega \omega +Re\theta `$. Then $`(\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$ is a torsion-free $`Spin(7)`$-structure on $`Y`$, by Proposition 1.10. Also, $`(\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$ is $`\sigma `$-invariant, as $`\sigma ^{}(\omega )=\omega `$ and $`\sigma ^{}(\theta )=\overline{\theta }`$. Define $`Z=Y/\sigma `$. Then $`Z`$ is a compact real 8-orbifold with isolated singular points $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_k`$, and $`(\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$ pushes down to a torsion-free $`Spin(7)`$-structure $`(\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$ on $`Z`$.
* $`Z`$ is modelled on $`^8/G`$ near each $`p_j`$, where $`G`$ is a certain finite subgroup of $`Spin(7)`$ with $`|G|=8`$. We can write down two explicit, topologically distinct ALE $`Spin(7)`$-manifolds $`X_1,X_2`$ asymptotic to $`^8/G`$. Each carries a 1-parameter family of homothetic ALE metrics $`h_t`$ for $`t>0`$ with $`Hol(h_t)=_2SU(4)Spin(7)`$.

For $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$ we choose $`i_j=1`$ or 2, and resolve the singularities of $`Z`$ by gluing in $`X_{i_j}`$ at the singular point $`p_j`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$, to get a compact, nonsingular 8-manifold $`M`$, with projection $`\pi :MZ`$.
* On $`M`$, we explicitly write down a 1-parameter family of $`Spin(7)`$-structures $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_t,g_t)`$ depending on $`t(0,ϵ)`$. They are not torsion-free, but have small torsion when $`t`$ is small. As $`t0`$, the $`Spin(7)`$-structure $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_t,g_t)`$ converges to the singular $`Spin(7)`$-structure $`\pi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_0,g_0)`$.
* We prove using analysis that for sufficiently small $`t`$, the $`Spin(7)`$-structure $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_t,g_t)`$ on $`M`$, with small torsion, can be deformed to a $`Spin(7)`$-structure $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_t,\stackrel{~}{g}_t)`$, with zero torsion.

It turns out that if $`i_j=1`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$ we have $`\pi _1(M)_2`$ and $`Hol(\stackrel{~}{g}_t)=_2SU(4)`$, and for the other $`2^k1`$ choices of $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_k`$ we have $`\pi _1(M)=\{1\}`$ and $`Hol(\stackrel{~}{g}_t)=Spin(7)`$. So $`\stackrel{~}{g}_t`$ is a metric with holonomy $`Spin(7)`$ on the compact 8-manifold $`M`$ for $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)(1,\mathrm{},1)`$.

Once we have completed Step 1, Step 2 is immediate. Steps 4 and 5 are analogous to Steps 3 and 4 of §2, and can be done using the techniques and analytic results developed by the author for the first $`T^8/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ construction of compact $`Spin(7)`$-manifolds, , \[9, §13\]. So the really new material is in Steps 1 and 3, and we will discuss only these.

### 3.1 Step 1: An example

We do Step 1 using complex algebraic geometry. The problem is that conditions (a)–(d) above are very restrictive, so it is not that easy to find any $`Y`$ satisfying all four conditions. All the examples $`Y`$ the author has found are constructed using weighted projective spaces, an important class of complex orbifolds.

Definition 3.1  Let $`m1`$ be an integer, and $`a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_m`$ positive integers with highest common factor 1. Let $`^{m+1}`$ have complex coordinates on $`(z_0,\mathrm{},z_m)`$, and define an action of the complex Lie group $`^{}`$ on $`^{m+1}`$ by

$$(z_0,\mathrm{},z_m)\stackrel{u}{}(u^{a_0}z_0,\mathrm{},u^{a_m}z_m),\text{for }u^{}\text{.}$$

The weighted projective space $`_{a_0,\mathrm{},a_m}^m`$ is $`(^{m+1}\{0\})/^{}`$. The $`^{}`$-orbit of $`(z_0,\mathrm{},z_m)`$ is written $`[z_0,\mathrm{},z_m]`$.

Here is the simplest example the author knows.

Example 3.2  Let $`Y`$ be the hypersurface of degree 12 in $`_{1,1,1,1,4,4}^5`$ given by

$$Y=\{[z_0,\mathrm{},z_5]_{1,1,1,1,4,4}^5:z_0^{12}+z_1^{12}+z_2^{12}+z_3^{12}+z_4^3+z_5^3=0\}.$$

Calculation shows that $`Y`$ has trivial canonical bundle and three singular points $`p_1=[0,0,0,0,1,1]`$, $`p_2=[0,0,0,0,1,e^{\pi i/3}]`$ and $`p_3=[0,0,0,0,1,e^{\pi i/3}]`$, all modelled on $`^4/i`$.

Now define a map $`\sigma :YY`$ by

$$\sigma :[z_0,\mathrm{},z_5][\overline{z}_1,\overline{z}_0,\overline{z}_3,\overline{z}_2,\overline{z}_5,\overline{z}_4].$$

Note that $`\sigma ^2=1`$, though this is not immediately obvious, because of the geometry of $`_{1,1,1,1,4,4}^5`$. It can be shown that conditions (a)–(d) of Step 1 above hold for $`Y`$ and $`\sigma `$.

More suitable 4-folds $`Y`$ may be found by taking hypersurfaces or complete intersections in other weighted projective spaces, possibly also dividing by a finite group, and then doing a crepant resolution to get rid of any singularities that we don’t want. Examples are given in , \[9, §15\].

### 3.2 Step 3: Resolving $`^8/G`$

Define $`\alpha ,\beta :^8^8`$ by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha :(x_1,\mathrm{},x_8)& (x_2,x_1,x_4,x_3,x_6,x_5,x_8,x_7),\hfill \\ \hfill \beta :(x_1,\mathrm{},x_8)& (x_3,x_4,x_1,x_2,x_7,x_8,x_5,x_6).\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`\alpha ,\beta `$ preserve $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ given in (2), so they lie in $`Spin(7)`$. Also $`\alpha ^4=\beta ^4=1`$, $`\alpha ^2=\beta ^2`$ and $`\alpha \beta =\beta \alpha ^3`$. Let $`G=\alpha ,\beta `$. Then $`G`$ is a finite nonabelian subgroup of $`Spin(7)`$ of order 8, which acts freely on $`^8\{0\}`$. One can show that if $`Z`$ is the compact $`Spin(7)`$-orbifold constructed in Step 2 above, then $`T_{p_j}Z`$ is isomorphic to $`^8/G`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$, with an isomorphism identifying the $`Spin(7)`$-structures $`(\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$ on $`Z`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_0,g_0)`$ on $`^8/G`$, such that $`\beta `$ corresponds to the $`\sigma `$-action on $`Y`$.

In the next two examples we shall construct two different ALE $`Spin(7)`$-manifolds $`(X_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1,g_1)`$ and $`(X_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_2,g_2)`$ asymptotic to $`^8/G`$.

Example 3.3  Define complex coordinates $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_4)`$ on $`^8`$ by

$$(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)=(x_1+ix_2,x_3+ix_4,x_5+ix_6,x_7+ix_8),$$

Then $`g_0=|\mathrm{d}z_1|^2+\mathrm{}+|\mathrm{d}z_4|^2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\frac{1}{2}\omega _0\omega _0+Re(\theta _0)`$, where $`\omega _0`$ and $`\theta _0`$ are the usual Kähler form and complex volume form on $`^4`$. In these coordinates, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha :(z_1,\mathrm{},z_4)& (iz_1,iz_2,iz_3,iz_4),\hfill \\ \hfill \beta :(z_1,\mathrm{},z_4)& (\overline{z}_2,\overline{z}_1,\overline{z}_4,\overline{z}_3).\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
Now $`^4/\alpha `$ is a complex singularity, as $`\alpha SU(4)`$. Let $`(Y_1,\pi _1)`$ be the blow-up of $`^4/\alpha `$ at 0. Then $`Y_1`$ is the unique crepant resolution of $`^4/\alpha `$. The action of $`\beta `$ on $`^4/\alpha `$ lifts to a free antiholomorphic map $`\beta :Y_1Y_1`$ with $`\beta ^2=1`$. Define $`X_1=Y_1/\beta `$. Then $`X_1`$ is a nonsingular 8-manifold, and the projection $`\pi _1:Y_1^4/\alpha `$ pushes down to $`\pi _1:X_1^8/G`$.

There exist ALE Calabi–Yau metrics $`g_1`$ on $`Y_1`$, which were written down explicitly by Calabi \[4, p. 285\], and are invariant under the action of $`\beta `$ on $`Y_1`$. Let $`\omega _1`$ be the Kähler form of $`g_1`$, and $`\theta _1=\pi _1^{}(\theta _0)`$ the holomorphic volume form on $`Y_1`$. Define $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\frac{1}{2}\omega _1\omega _1+Re(\theta _1)`$. Then $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,g_1)`$ is a torsion-free $`Spin(7)`$-structure on $`Y_1`$, as in Proposition 1.10.

As $`\beta ^{}(\omega _1)=\omega _1`$ and $`\beta ^{}(\theta _1)=\overline{\theta }_1`$, we see that $`\beta `$ preserves $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,g_1)`$. Thus $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,g_1)`$ pushes down to a torsion-free $`Spin(7)`$-structure $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,g_1)`$ on $`X_1`$. Then $`(X_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1,g_1)`$ is an ALE $`Spin(7)`$-manifold asymptotic to $`^8/G`$.

Example 3.4  Define new complex coordinates $`(w_1,\mathrm{},w_4)`$ on $`^8`$ by

$$(w_1,w_2,w_3,w_4)=(x_1+ix_3,x_2+ix_4,x_5+ix_7,x_6+ix_8).$$

Again we find that $`g_0=|\mathrm{d}w_1|^2+\mathrm{}+|\mathrm{d}w_4|^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\frac{1}{2}\omega _0\omega _0+Re(\theta _0)`$. In these coordinates, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha :(w_1,\mathrm{},w_4)& (\overline{w}_2,\overline{w}_1,\overline{w}_4,\overline{w}_3),\hfill \\ \hfill \beta :(w_1,\mathrm{},w_4)& (iw_1,iw_2,iw_3,iw_4).\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
Observe that (15) and (16) are the same, except that the rôles of $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are reversed. Therefore we can use the ideas of Example 3.2 again.

Let $`Y_2`$ be the crepant resolution of $`^4/\beta `$. The action of $`\alpha `$ on $`^4/\beta `$ lifts to a free antiholomorphic involution of $`Y_2`$. Let $`X_2=Y_2/\alpha `$. Then $`X_2`$ is nonsingular, and carries a torsion-free $`Spin(7)`$-structure $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_2,g_2)`$, making $`(X_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_2,g_2)`$ into an ALE $`Spin(7)`$-manifold asymptotic to $`^8/G`$.

We can now explain the remarks on holonomy groups at the end of Step 5. The holonomy groups $`Hol(g_i)`$ of the metrics $`g_1,g_2`$ in Examples 3.2 and 3.2 are both isomorphic to $`_2SU(4)`$, a subgroup of $`Spin(7)`$. However, they are two different inclusions of $`_2SU(4)`$ in $`Spin(7)`$, as in the first case the complex structure is $`\alpha `$ and in the second $`\beta `$.

The $`Spin(7)`$-structure $`(\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$ on $`Z`$ also has holonomy $`Hol(g)=_2SU(4)`$. Under the natural identifications we have $`Hol(g_1)=Hol(g)`$ but $`Hol(g_2)Hol(g)`$ as subgroups of $`Spin(7)`$. Therefore, if we choose $`i_j=1`$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$, then $`Z`$ and $`X_{i_j}`$ all have the same holonomy group $`_2SU(4)`$, so they combine to give metrics $`\stackrel{~}{g}_t`$ on $`M`$ with $`Hol(\stackrel{~}{g}_t)=_2SU(4)`$.

However, if $`i_j=2`$ for some $`j`$ then the holonomy of $`g`$ on $`Z`$ and $`g_{i_j}`$ on $`X_{i_j}`$ are different $`_2SU(4)`$ subgroups of $`Spin(7)`$, which together generate the whole group $`Spin(7)`$. Thus they combine to give metrics $`\stackrel{~}{g}_t`$ on $`M`$ with $`Hol(\stackrel{~}{g}_t)=Spin(7)`$.

### 3.3 Conclusions

The author was able in  and \[9, Ch. 15\] to construct compact 8-manifolds with holonomy $`Spin(7)`$ realizing 14 distinct sets of Betti numbers, which are given in Table 1. Probably there are many other examples which can be produced by similar methods.

Comparing these Betti numbers with those of the compact 8-manifolds constructed in \[9, Ch. 14\] by resolving torus orbifolds $`T^8/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we see that these examples the middle Betti number $`b^4`$ is much bigger, as much as $`\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}662}`$ in one case.

Given that the two constructions of compact 8-manifolds with holonomy $`Spin(7)`$ that we know appear to produce sets of 8-manifolds with rather different ‘geography’, it is tempting to speculate that the set of all compact 8-manifolds with holonomy $`Spin(7)`$ may be rather large, and that those constructed so far are a small sample with atypical behaviour.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Noncommutative geometry appears in M-theory, string theory and condensed matter physics . Noncommutative field theories are known to describe the low-energy effective theory of D-branes in a background B-field . (2+1)-dimensional noncommutative theories have applications to the quantum Hall effect . In spite of the nonlocality and entangled UV/IR mixing in perturbation theory, the appearance of these theories in string theory suggests that some class of noncommutative field theories is a sensible deformation of ordinary field theories.

In view of understanding nonperturbative effects in noncommutative field theories, noncommutative solitons and instantons have been investigated. In four-dimensional noncommutative Yang-Mills theory, there exists a U(1) instanton which is nonsingular due to the position-space uncertainty . The moduli space of instantons are also smooth . In noncommutative scalar field theories, there exist solitons (GMS solitons)  at the limit of large noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$; they cannot exist in the commutative counterpart.

Low-energy dynamics of solitons can be approximated by geodesic motion on the moduli space of static solutions . In commutative theories, scattering properties of solitons in gauge theories and nonlinear sigma models were studied extensively using this approximation . A common feature is that the scattering of two solitons occurs at right angle for the head-on collision. In noncommutative theories, the scatterings of solitons in the GMS model, Yang-Mills theories and integrable models were investigated .

In this letter we investigate the low-energy dynamics of BPS solitons of the noncommutative $`CP^1`$ model in 2+1 dimensions. It was shown that the noncommutative $`CP^N`$ model has the BPS solutions as the commutative model does . In the commutative $`CP^N`$ model, the moduli space of solitons is known to be a Kählar manifold . We show that the moduli space of the noncommutative $`CP^N`$ model is a Kählar manifold too. We calculate the $`\theta `$-dependence of the moduli space metric in the $`CP^1`$ case.

This letter is organized as follows. In section 2, we review the BPS solutions of the noncommutative $`CP^N`$ model. In section 3, we give the compact form of the Kählar potential of the moduli space of these solutions. In section 4, we investigate the one-soliton metric of the noncommutative $`CP^1`$ model and show that the motion of a single soliton is the same as that of the commutative model. In section 5, we study the two-soliton metric of the model and find that the singularity which exists in the commutative model disappears in the noncommutative model. Furthermore, we show that the two-soliton metric has the smooth commutative limit.

## 2 BPS solution of the noncommutative $`CP^N`$ model

We recapitulate the (2+1)-dimensional noncommutative $`CP^N`$ model, closely following Lee, Lee and Yang .

We consider the (2+1)-dimensional field theory on the noncommutative space. The noncommutativity is introduced by

$$[x,y]=i\theta ,\theta >0.$$
(1)
We set

$$z=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x+iy),\overline{z}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(xiy).$$
(2)
Then the equation (1) becomes

$$[z,\overline{z}]=\theta ,$$
(3)
or

$$[a,a^{}]=1,a=\frac{z}{\sqrt{\theta }},a^{}=\frac{\overline{z}}{\sqrt{\theta }}.$$
(4)
This is the algebra of the creation and annihilation operators. We use the Fock space of the quantum harmonic oscillator for the representation of the algebra (1).

The derivative and the integral on the noncommutative space are given by

$$_x\mathrm{\Phi }=i\theta ^1[y,\mathrm{\Phi }],_y\mathrm{\Phi }=i\theta ^1[x,\mathrm{\Phi }],$$
(5)
$$d^2x𝒪\text{Tr}𝒪=2\pi \theta \underset{n0}{}n|𝒪|n,$$
(6)
where $`|n(n=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$ are the basis of the Fock space.

The Lagrangian of the noncommutative $`CP^N`$ model  is defined by

$`L`$ $`=\text{Tr}[D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^{}D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }+\lambda (\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }1)],`$ (7)
$`D_\mu `$ $`=_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }i\mathrm{\Phi }A_\mu ,A_\mu =i\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi },`$ (8)
where the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }={}_{}{}^{t}(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\mathrm{},\varphi _{N+1})`$ is the complex $`(N+1)`$-component vector, and $`\lambda `$ is the Lagrange multiplier field which gives the constraint $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$. This theory has the global $`SU(N+1)`$ symmetry and $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\mathrm{\Phi }(x)g(x)`$, where $`g(x)U(1)`$.

The energy functional is

$$E=\text{Tr}(|D_0\mathrm{\Phi }|^2+|D_z\mathrm{\Phi }|^2+|D_{\overline{z}}\mathrm{\Phi }|^2).$$
(9)
We have the Bogomolnyi bound

$$E\text{Tr}(|D_0\mathrm{\Phi }|^2)+2\pi |Q|,$$
(10)
where $`Q`$ is the topological charge,

$$Q=\frac{1}{2\pi }\text{Tr}(|D_z\mathrm{\Phi }|^2|D_{\overline{z}}\mathrm{\Phi }|^2).$$
(11)
The BPS equation of the static solution is

$`D_{\overline{z}}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=0\text{for self-dual solution},`$ (12)
$`D_z\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=0\text{for anti-self-dual solution}.`$ (13)
We parametrize $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=W(W^{}W)^{1/2},$$
(14)
where $`W`$ is the complex $`(N+1)`$-component vector. We define the projection operator $`P`$ by

$$P=1W(W^{}W)^1W^{}.$$
(15)
Then (7) and (11) are

$`L`$ $`=\text{Tr}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{W^{}W}}}_\mu W^{}P^\mu W{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{W^{}W}}}\right],`$ (16)
$`Q`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\text{Tr}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{W^{}W}}}(_{\overline{z}}W^{}P_zW_zW^{}P_{\overline{z}}W){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{W^{}W}}}\right].`$ (17)
The BPS equation (12) becomes

$$D_{\overline{z}}\mathrm{\Phi }=P(_{\overline{z}}W)(W^{}W)^{1/2}=0.$$
(18)
This equation is equivalent to $`_{\overline{z}}W=WV`$, where $`V`$ is an arbitrary scalar. In the commutative case, using the $`N`$-component vector $`w`$, we set $`W={}_{}{}^{t}(w,1)`$ by the gauge transformation

$$WW^{}=W\mathrm{\Delta }(z,\overline{z}),$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(z,\overline{z})`$ is an arbitrary scalar. Then (18) becomes $`_{\overline{z}}w=0`$, namely, $`w`$ is holomorphic. In the noncommutative case, The Lagrangian (16) is invariant under the transformation (19) when $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is invertible.

We will be mainly concerned with the one- and two-soliton solutions of the noncommutative $`CP^1`$ model. The one- and two-soliton solutions of the commutative $`CP^1`$ model are respectively given by

$`w`$ $`=\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{z\nu }},`$ (20)
$`w`$ $`=\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta z+\gamma }{z^2+\delta z+ϵ}},`$ (21)
where $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}𝑪`$ are the moduli parameters. We may set the moduli parameters $`\lambda `$ and $`\alpha `$ to zero, using the global $`SU(2)`$ symmetry.

In the noncommutative case, $`W=(z,1)`$ and $`W^{}=Wz^1=(1,z^1)`$ are gauge inequivalent, where $`z^1`$ is defined to be $`z^1(\overline{z}z)^1\overline{z}\overline{z}(\overline{z}z+\theta )^1`$. $`z^1`$ satisfies $`zz^1=1`$ and $`z^1z=1|00|`$. $`W`$ satisfies the BPS equation (18) but $`W^{}`$ does not. In general, $`W`$ satisfies the BPS equation (18) if the components of $`W`$ are polynomials of $`z`$. The BPS one- and two-soliton solutions in the noncommutative $`CP^1`$ model corresponding to (20) and (21) are respectively given by

$`W`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{z\nu }{\mu }}\right),`$ (22)
$`W`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{z^2+\delta z+ϵ}{2\beta z+\gamma }}\right).`$ (23)
## 3 Moduli space metric

In the following section, we consider the scattering of BPS solutions of the noncommutative $`CP^N`$ model. In the low-energy limit (near the Bogomolnyi bound), it is a good approximation that only the moduli parameters depend on the time . Their time evolution is determined by minimizing the action $`S=𝑑tL`$. It amounts to dealing with the kinetic energy $`T`$ (the term in the Lagrangian including the time derivative only), since the rest of the Lagrangian gives the topological charge. The kinetic energy is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill T& =\text{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{W^{}W}}_tW^{}P_tW\frac{1}{\sqrt{W^{}W}}\right)\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}(_tP^{})^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
where $`P^{}`$ is defined by

$$P^{}=1P=W(W^{}W)^1W^{}.$$
(25)
$`T`$ is written as $`T=\frac{1}{2}(ds/dt)^2`$, where $`ds^2`$ is the line element of the moduli space. The dynamics of solitons is given by the geodesic line in the moduli space. We denote generically the moduli parameters by $`\zeta ^a`$. We then have

$$T=\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}\frac{d\zeta ^a}{dt}\frac{d\zeta ^b}{dt},$$
(26)
where $`g_{ab}`$ is the moduli space metric.

It is convenient to express $`P^{}`$ in the Fock space language,

$$P^{}=\underset{n,m}{}|\psi _nh^{nm}\psi _m|,|\psi _n=W|n,$$
(27)
$$h_{nm}=\psi _n|\psi _m,h^{nm}=(h_{nm})^1.$$
(28)
The BPS solution $`W`$ (or $`|\psi _n`$) is a holomorphic function of the moduli parameters. It was shown that the moduli space in the case where $`|\psi _n`$ is holomorphic is a Kähler manifold . Hence, we write

$$T=\frac{1}{2}g_{\overline{a}b}\frac{d\zeta ^{\overline{a}}}{dt}\frac{d\zeta ^b}{dt},g_{\overline{a}b}=\frac{}{\zeta ^{\overline{a}}}\frac{}{\zeta ^b}K,$$
(29)
where the Kähler potential $`K`$ is given by

$$K=\text{Tr}\mathrm{ln}(h_{nm})=\text{Tr}\mathrm{ln}(W^{}W).$$
(30)
## 4 One-soliton metric

The BPS one-soliton solution of the noncommutative $`CP^1`$ model is given by (22). We substitute (22) into (24), then we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill T& =\text{Tr}[\frac{1}{\sqrt{(\overline{z}\overline{\nu })(z\nu )+|\mu |^2}}_t\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{z}\overline{\nu }& \overline{\mu }\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ & \times \left\{1\left(\begin{array}{c}z\nu \\ \mu \end{array}\right)\frac{1}{(\overline{z}\overline{\nu })(z\nu )+|\mu |^2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{z}\overline{\nu }& \overline{\mu }\end{array}\right)\right\}\hfill \\ & \times _t\left(\begin{array}{c}z\nu \\ \mu \end{array}\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{(\overline{z}\overline{\nu })(z\nu )+|\mu |^2}}].\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
The $`\dot{\overline{\mu }}\dot{\mu }`$ term in $`T`$ is

$$2\pi \theta \dot{\overline{\mu }}\dot{\mu }\underset{n0}{}\frac{1}{\theta n+|\mu |^2}\left[\frac{\theta n}{\theta n+|\mu |^2}+\frac{|\nu |^2}{\theta (n+1)+|\mu |^2}\right].$$
(32)
The first term in (32) diverges. We set $`\mu `$ to a constant in the low-energy approximation. Calculating the trace in (31) with $`\dot{\mu }=0`$, we obtain

$$T=2\pi \frac{d\overline{\nu }}{dt}\frac{d\nu }{dt},\text{or}ds^2=4\pi d\overline{\nu }d\nu .$$
(33)
This is $`\theta `$-independent and coincides with the commutative case. A single soliton moves straight without changing the size.

The result (33) can be explained in a more general framework. In the low-energy limit, the action $`S=𝑑tL`$ is invariant under the Galilean transformation

$`t`$ $`t`$
$`x`$ $`x+v_xt`$ (34)
$`y`$ $`y+v_yt,`$
since this transformation does not change the commutation relation (1). Under the Galilean transformation, the kinetic energy in the center-of-mass frame $`T_{\mathrm{cm}}`$ is transformed as

$$T_{\mathrm{cm}}\frac{1}{2}Mv^2+T_{\mathrm{cm}},$$
(35)
where $`M`$ is the total mass of the solitons; $`M=2\pi |Q|`$. From (35), it follows that the contribution of the center-of-mass coordinates to the kinetic energy is the same as in the commutative case. From now on, we restrict the moduli parameters to the center-of-mass frame.

## 5 Two-soliton metric

The BPS two-soliton solution of the noncommutative $`CP^1`$ model in the center-of-mass frame ($`i.e.\delta =0`$.) is

$$W=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{z^2+ϵ}{2\beta z+\gamma }\right).$$
(36)
Computing the kinetic energy in the low-energy limit, we can see that the contribution of the $`\dot{\overline{\beta }}\dot{\beta }`$ term to the kinetic energy diverges. In the low-energy approximation, we set $`\beta `$ to a constant. We consider the case of $`\beta =0`$ for simplicity. In the commutative model, the moduli space metric is calculated by Ward . There exists a singularity at $`(ϵ,\gamma )=(0,0)`$. In the next subsection, we will see the disappearance of this singularity in the noncommutative model.

The Kähler potential corresponding to (36) is

$$K=\text{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\left[(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)+\overline{\gamma }\gamma \right],$$
(37)
This is a formal expression since the trace in (37) diverges. A finite Kähler potential is obtained by subtracting the divergent terms using the Kähler transformation

$$K(\gamma ,ϵ;\overline{\gamma },\overline{ϵ})K(\gamma ,ϵ;\overline{\gamma },\overline{ϵ})f(\gamma ,ϵ)\overline{f}(\overline{\gamma },\overline{ϵ})$$
(38)
In (37), only the terms with the same number of $`z^2`$ and $`\overline{z}^2`$ contribute to the trace. Hence, $`K`$ is the function of $`\overline{ϵ}ϵ`$ and $`\overline{\gamma }\gamma `$ only; $`K=K(\overline{ϵ}ϵ,\overline{\gamma }\gamma )`$. It then follows that the moduli space is manifestly invariant under the following three kinds of transformations: i) $`(ϵ,\gamma )(\overline{ϵ},\overline{\gamma })`$, ii) $`ϵe^{i\varphi }ϵ`$, and iii) $`\gamma e^{i\chi }\gamma `$.

The moduli space metric is

$`g_{\overline{\gamma }\gamma }`$ $`=\text{Tr}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\gamma }\gamma }{\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)}}\right)\right],`$ (39a)
$`g_{\overline{ϵ}\gamma }`$ $`=\text{Tr}\left[\overline{\gamma }(z^2+ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{[\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)]^2}}\right],`$ (39b)
$`g_{\overline{\gamma }ϵ}`$ $`=\text{Tr}\left[\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)]^2}}(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})\right],`$ (39c)
$`g_{\overline{ϵ}ϵ}`$ $`=\text{Tr}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\gamma }\gamma }{\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)+4\theta \overline{z}z+2\theta ^2}}\right].`$ (39d)
It is difficult to compute the trace of (39) exactly, but we can investigate the moduli space metric of the two solitons in the case of $`|\gamma |,|ϵ|\theta `$ or $`|\gamma |,|ϵ|\theta `$.

### 5.1 The case of $`|\gamma |,|ϵ|\theta `$

In the case of $`|\gamma |,|ϵ|\theta `$, we write (39a) as

$$\begin{array}{c}g_{\overline{\gamma }\gamma }=\frac{1}{\theta ^2}\text{Tr}[\frac{1}{\overline{\gamma }\gamma /\theta ^2+(a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\overline{ϵ}/\theta )(a^2+ϵ/\theta )}\hfill \\ \hfill \times (1\frac{\overline{\gamma }\gamma /\theta ^2}{\overline{\gamma }\gamma /\theta ^2+(a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\overline{ϵ}/\theta )(a^2+ϵ/\theta )})],\end{array}$$
(40)
The operator $`a^2+ϵ/\theta `$ has two zero eigenstates $`e^{\pm i\sqrt{\frac{ϵ}{\theta }}a^{}}|0`$. These states do not contribute to the trace in (40). Then, we can easily compute the trace in the lowest order of $`\theta ^1`$. For (39b), (39c) and (39d), we can calculate the trace similarly. Then we obtain

$$ds^2=\frac{2\pi }{\theta }\left(d\overline{\gamma }d\gamma +\frac{2}{3}d\overline{ϵ}dϵ\right)+O(\theta ^2).$$
(41)
Therefore, the metric is flat. The singularity which exists in the commutative model at $`(ϵ,\gamma )=(0,0)`$ disappears in the noncommutative model. The same phenomena are known in noncommutative Yang-Mills theories . Since the relative coordinate of the solitons is $`iϵ^{1/2}`$, it seems that the geodesic which connects $`ϵ=ϵ_0`$ and $`ϵ=ϵ_0`$ represents the right angle scattering. However, (41) is valid only in the region $`|ϵ|\theta `$. To investigate the scattering, a further study of the moduli space is needed.

### 5.2 The case of $`|\gamma |,|ϵ|\theta `$

In the case of $`|\gamma |,|ϵ|\theta `$, it is convenient to use the $``$-product formalism to compute (39) rather than the operator formalism. The $``$-product is defined by

$$f(z,\overline{z})g(z,\overline{z})=f(z,\overline{z})\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\theta }{2}(\stackrel{}{_z}\stackrel{}{_{\overline{z}}}\stackrel{}{_{\overline{z}}}\stackrel{}{_z})\right]g(z,\overline{z}).$$
(42)
We use the formulae

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)}}`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑u\mathrm{exp}\left[u\{\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)\}\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑u\mathrm{exp}_{}\left[u\{\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)\}\right],`$ (43)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)]^2}}`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑uu\mathrm{exp}\left[u\{\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)\}\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑uu\mathrm{exp}_{}\left[u\{\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)\}\right],`$ (44)
where $`\mathrm{exp}_{}`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{exp}_{}(A)=1+A+\frac{1}{2!}AA+\frac{1}{3!}AAA+\mathrm{}.$$
(45)
For small $`\theta `$, we have the following relation

$$\mathrm{exp}_{}(A)=\mathrm{exp}(A)+O(\theta ^2).$$
(46)
Using the formulae (43)-(46), the moduli space metric up to the order $`\theta `$ is

$`g_{\overline{\gamma }\gamma }`$ $`={\displaystyle }d^2x[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\gamma }\gamma }{\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)}})`$
$`+`$ $`\theta {\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{z}z}{[\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)]^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{\gamma }\gamma }{\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)}})]+O(\theta ^2),`$ (47a)
$`g_{\overline{ϵ}\gamma }`$ $`={\displaystyle }d^2x[{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\gamma }(z^2+ϵ)}{[\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)]^2}}`$
$`+\theta {\displaystyle \frac{4\overline{\gamma }\overline{z}z(z^2+ϵ)}{[\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)]^3}}]+O(\theta ^2),`$ (47b)
$`g_{\overline{\gamma }ϵ}`$ $`={\displaystyle }d^2x[{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})}{[\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)]^2}}`$
$`+\theta {\displaystyle \frac{4\gamma \overline{z}z(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})}{[\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)]^3}}]+O(\theta ^2),`$ (47c)
$`g_{\overline{ϵ}ϵ}`$ $`={\displaystyle d^2x\frac{\overline{\gamma }\gamma }{[\overline{\gamma }\gamma +(\overline{z}^2+\overline{ϵ})(z^2+ϵ)]^2}}+O(\theta ^2).`$ (47d)
The integrals appearing in the coefficients of $`\theta `$ in (47) converge. Hence, the moduli space metric has the smooth commutative limit $`\theta 0`$ with $`\gamma `$ and $`ϵ`$ fixed.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Ryu Sasaki and Katsushi Ito for valuable comments. K. F. and H. N. are supported by a Research Assistantship of Chuo University. This work is supported partially by grants of Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, (Priority Area B, “Supersymmetry and Unified Theory” and Basic Research C).


text:
# An algorithm for twisted fusion rules

## Abstract

We present an algorithm for an efficient calculation of the fusion rules of twisted representations of untwisted affine Lie algebras. These fusion rules appear in WZW orbifold theories and as annulus coefficients in boundary WZW theories; they provide NIM-reps of the WZW fusion rules.

© 2002 International Press

Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 6 (2002) 197–205

footnotetext: e-print archive:  http://lanl.arXiv.org/abs/math.QA/0203133

Max-Planck Institut für Gravitationsphysik

Albert-Einstein-Institut, Am Mühlenberg 1

D-14476 Golm, Germany

quella@aei-potsdam.mpg.de

LPTHE – Univ. Paris VI, 4 place Jussieu

F – 75252 Paris, France.

ingo@lpthe.jussieu.fr schweige@lpthe.jussieu.fr

It is a well known fact that affine Lie algebras have twisted integrable highest weight representations, and also their fusion rules can be determined . The study of conformal field theories provides two interpretations for these algebraic objects: They appear as fusion rules in WZW orbifolds, and on surfaces with boundaries twisted representations label symmetry breaking boundary conditions; their fusion rules describe annulus coefficients , see also . In this short note we present an algorithm to compute these fusion rules efficiently.

More precisely, we work in the following setting. Let $`\widehat{𝔤}^{(1)}`$ be an untwisted affine Lie algebra and $`\omega `$ an automorphism of order $`N`$ of its horizontal subalgebra $`𝔤`$. In the WZW theory based on $`\widehat{𝔤}^{(1)}`$ at level $`k`$ with modular invariant given by charge conjugation, we consider boundary conditions for which left movers and right movers are related by the automorphism $`\omega `$ at the boundary. By T-duality, these boundary conditions correspond to symmetry preserving boundary conditions in a theory with modular invariant of automorphism type $`\omega `$. This kind of boundary conditions was analysed in  and more recently again in .

The spectrum of open strings living between two boundary conditions $`\alpha ,\beta `$ is encoded in the boundary partition function

$`Z_{\beta \alpha }(q)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}N_{i\alpha }^\beta \chi _i(q)`$
where the sum over $`i`$ runs over integrable highest weight representations of $`\widehat{𝔤}^{(1)}`$ at level $`k`$ and $`\chi _i(q)`$ are the corresponding characters. The set of boundary conditions is given by twisted representations of $`\widehat{𝔤}^{(1)}`$ at level $`k`$ and the annulus coefficients $`N_{i\alpha }^\beta `$ are the corresponding twisted fusion rules . They form a representation of the fusion rules of the WZW theory at level $`k`$ by matrices with non-negative integer entries, a so-called NIM-rep.

In order to describe the set of twisted representations we need to introduce some notation. We denote the weight lattice of the horizontal subalgebra $`𝔤`$ by $`L`$.111Notice that $`L`$, in contrast to frequent use in the literature, refers to the weight lattice and not to the root lattice. This convention will be more economic later. A basis of this lattice are the fundamental weights $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}`$. The Killing form endows $`L`$ with a bilinear form $`(,)`$, and on $`L`$ we have the action of the Weyl group $`W`$ which is generated by reflections $`s_i(\lambda )=\lambda 2(\lambda ,\alpha _{(i)})\alpha _{(i)}/(\alpha _{(i)},\alpha _{(i)})`$ at the hyperplanes perpendicular to the simple roots $`\alpha _{(i)}`$. The lattice $`L^{}`$ dual to $`L`$ is the coroot lattice of $`𝔤`$; a basis are the simple coroots $`\alpha _{(i)}^{}`$. The lattices $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$ inherit an action of the automorphism $`\omega `$, which can be decomposed into an outer automorphism $`\omega _0`$ and an inner one $`\omega _i`$, $`\omega =\omega _i\omega _0`$. While the inner automorphism $`\omega _i`$ can be chosen to be the adjoint action of an element of a Cartan subalgebra and therefore induces a trivial action on $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$, the outer part $`\omega _0`$ can be chosen to be a diagram automorphism of the Dynkin diagram of $`𝔤`$. It acts on the lattices $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$ by the permutations $`\omega _0(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\omega _0i)}`$ and $`\omega _0\left(\alpha _{(i)}^{}\right)=\alpha _{(\omega _0i)}^{}`$ of fundamental weights or simple coroots, respectively. Without loss of generality we can therefore assume $`\omega `$ to be a diagram automorphism. The length of the orbit $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)},\omega (\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}),\omega ^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}),\mathrm{}\}`$ will be denoted by $`n_i`$. We also define the lattice of symmetric weights $`L_\omega =\{\mu L|\omega (\mu )=\mu \}`$ which inherits the scalar product from $`L`$.

An important ingredient in our algorithm is the subgroup

$`W_\omega =\left\{wW\right|w\omega =\omega w\}`$
of the Weyl group that commutes with the action of $`\omega `$. It is a Coxeter group with the following generators $`\stackrel{~}{s}_i`$: for orbits of length 1, take $`\stackrel{~}{s}_i=s_i`$. If $`i\omega i`$, take the product $`\stackrel{~}{s}_i=s_is_{\omega i}\mathrm{}s_{\omega ^{n_i1}i}`$. This prescription needs to be modified, if the element $`A_{i,\omega i}`$ of the Cartan matrix is non-vanishing, which in our situation only happens for the outer automorphism of $`A_{2n}`$ and the orbit consisting of the two nodes in the middle of the Dynkin diagram. In this case, take $`\stackrel{~}{s}_i=s_is_{\omega i}s_i=s_{\omega i}s_is_{\omega i}`$.

We also need the orthogonal projection of weight space onto its symmetric subspace: $`𝒫_\omega `$ defined by $`𝒫_\omega =\frac{1}{N}\left(1+\omega +\mathrm{}+\omega ^{N1}\right)`$, $`N`$ being the order of $`\omega `$. For the implementation on a computer, one uses directly the action of $`\stackrel{~}{s}_i`$ on symmetric weights:

$`\stackrel{~}{s}_i(\lambda )=\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{2(\lambda ,𝒫_\omega \alpha _{(i)})}{(𝒫_\omega \alpha _{(i)},𝒫_\omega \alpha _{(i)})}}𝒫_\omega \alpha _{(i)}.`$ (1)
While the symmetric weight lattice $`L_\omega `$ is not invariant under the full Weyl group, it admits an action of $`W_\omega `$.

We may also define a symmetric coroot lattice $`(L^{})_\omega =\{\beta L^{}|\omega (\beta )=\beta \}`$. Note that $`L_\omega `$ and $`(L^{})_\omega `$ are not dual to each other. Instead one finds that the lattice $`\left((L^{})_\omega \right)^{}`$ dual to $`(L^{})_\omega `$ involves fractional symmetric weights. $`𝒫_\omega `$ restricts to a surjective map from $`L`$ to $`\left((L^{})_\omega \right)^{}`$.

We summarise the expressions for the different lattices by comparing to the situation for inner automorphisms where just two lattices appear:

* Weight lattice: $`L=\{_i\lambda _i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}|\lambda _i\}`$ .
* Coroot lattice: $`L^{}=\{_i\beta _i\alpha _{(i)}^{}|\beta _i\}L`$ .

In addition there are four lattices related to the automorphism $`\omega `$.

* Symmetric weight lattice: $`L_\omega =\{_i\lambda _i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}|\lambda _i,\lambda _{\omega i}=\lambda _i\}L`$ .
* Symmetric coroot lattice:
$`(L^{})_\omega =\{_i\beta _i\alpha _{(i)}^{}|\beta _i,\beta _{\omega i}=\beta _i\}L^{}`$ .
* Fractional symmetric weight lattice:
$`\left((L^{})_\omega \right)^{}=\{_i\lambda _i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}|n_i\lambda _i,\lambda _{\omega i}=\lambda _i\}L_\omega `$ .
* Fractional symmetric coroot lattice:
$`(L_\omega )^{}=\{_i\beta _i\alpha _{(i)}^{}|n_i\beta _i,\beta _{\omega i}=\beta _i\}(L^{})_\omega `$ .

Recall that the $`n_i`$ are the orbit lengths of fundamental weights.

The integrable highest weight modules of $`\widehat{𝔤}^{(1)}`$ at level $`k`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with elements in $`P_k^+=L/(WkL^{})`$. The expression $`WkL^{}`$ is just the decomposition of the affine Weyl group into a semi-direct product of the finite Weyl group and the translations with respect to the scaled coroot lattice. Alternatively, the affine Weyl group is generated by finite Weyl reflections and one additional element, a shifted Weyl reflection. The latter is a combination of an elementary reflection at the highest root $`\theta `$ of $`𝔤`$ and a translation. This amounts to an orthogonal reflection with respect to the hyperplane $`(\theta ,)=k`$. An analogous construction can be performed with respect to the lattices $`L_\omega `$ and $`\left((L^{})_\omega \right)^{}`$. This defines the sets $`S_k^+=L_\omega /\left(W_\omega k(L^{})_\omega \right)`$ and $`B_k^+=\left((L^{})_\omega \right)^{}/\left(W_\omega k(L_\omega )^{}\right)`$. While $`W_\omega k(L^{})_\omega `$ is generated by $`W_\omega `$ and the shifted Weyl reflection at $`(\theta ,)=k`$, the corresponding shifted Weyl reflection for $`W_\omega k(L_\omega )^{}`$ is at the hyperplane $`(\theta _\omega ,)=k`$. The vector $`\theta _\omega `$ in weight space is defined in Table 1.

For each of the three subsets there is a natural choice of a fundamental domain.

* Integrable highest weights
$`P_k^+=\{\lambda =_i\lambda _i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}|\lambda _i_0\text{ and }(\theta ,\lambda )k\}`$ .
* Symmetric integrable highest weights
$`S_k^+=\{\lambda =_i\lambda _i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}|\lambda _i_0,(\theta ,\lambda )k\text{ and }\lambda _{\omega i}=\lambda _i\}`$ .
* Boundary labels correspond to twisted highest weight representations  or, equivalently, to irreducible integrable highest weight representations of the corresponding twisted Lie algebra. They are labelled by
$`B_k^+=\{\beta =_i\beta _i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}|n_i\beta _i_0,(\theta _\omega ,\beta )k\text{ and }\beta _i=\beta _{\omega i}\}`$ .

There is a distinguished vector $`\rho _\omega =_in_i^1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}`$ in the lattice $`\left((L^{})_\omega \right)^{}`$ which is a fractional analogue of the Weyl vector $`\rho =_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}`$. We denote by $`P_k^{++}`$, $`S_k^{++}`$ and $`B_k^{++}`$ the subsets obtained from $`P_k^+`$, $`S_k^+`$ or $`B_k^+`$ after dropping elements which belong to the boundary of the respective Weyl chamber, i.e. are left invariant by at least one nontrivial element of $`WkL^{}`$, $`W_\omega k(L^{})_\omega `$ or $`W_\omega k(L_\omega )^{}`$, respectively. It is not difficult to see that there exist identifications of the form $`P_k^++\rho =P_{k+g^{}}^{++}`$, $`S_k^++\rho =S_{k+g^{}}^{++}`$ and $`B_k^++\rho _\omega =B_{k+g^{}}^{++}`$ where $`g^{}`$ is the dual Coxeter number of $`𝔤`$. These are a simple consequence of the fact that $`(\theta ,\rho )=(\theta _\omega ,\rho _\omega )=g^{}1`$.

We are now prepared to state our result for the determination of twisted fusion rules. It is a generalisation of the Racah-Speiser algorithm for tensor product multiplicities (see e.g. ) and the Kac-Walton formula  (see also ) for ordinary fusion rules.

###### Theorem 1.

The decomposition of the fusion product

$`i\alpha ={\displaystyle \underset{\beta B_k^+}{}}N_{i\alpha }^\beta \beta `$
of an untwisted representation $`iP_k^+`$ of $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ and a twisted representation $`\alpha B_k^+`$ into twisted representations can be obtained by the following algorithm:

1. Compute the weight system $`M_i`$, including multiplicities, of the finite dimensional irreducible highest weight representation $`i`$ of the finite dimensional Lie algebra $`𝔤`$.
2. Use $`𝒫_\omega `$ to project the set $`M_i`$ to the lattice of fractional symmetric weights.
3. Add the weight $`\alpha `$ and the twisted Weyl vector $`\rho _\omega `$ to the resulting weights.
4. Use the reflections (1) in $`W_\omega `$ and the shifted reflection at the plane $`(\theta _\omega ,)=k+g^{}`$ to map the set $`𝒫_\omega M_i+\alpha +\rho _\omega `$ to the fundamental domain $`B_{k+g^{}}^+`$.
5. Discard weights on the boundary $`B_{k+g^{}}^+\backslash B_{k+g^{}}^{++}`$, i.e. those with at least one vanishing entry or scalar product with $`\theta _\omega `$ equal to $`k+g^{}`$. Supply each remaining contribution, counting multiplicities, with a sign depending on whether the number of reflections has been even or odd.
6. Subtract the twisted Weyl vector $`\rho _\omega `$. Adding all contributions including the relevant multiplicities and signs gives the fusion product.

We will split the proof into several steps. First, we summarise some earlier results which will be important in the sequel. It was shown in \[2, (2.57)\] that the twisted fusion coefficients for three weights $`iP_k^+`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta B_k^+`$ are given by the formula

$`N_{i\alpha }^\beta ={\displaystyle \underset{\mu S_k^+}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{S}_{\beta \mu }^\omega S_{i\mu }S_{\alpha \mu }^\omega }{S_{0\mu }}}.`$ (2)
where the matrix $`S_{\alpha \mu }^\omega `$ is given by \[2, (4.6)\]

$`S_{\alpha \mu }^\omega =(\text{phase})\left|L_\omega /(k+g^{})(L^{})_\omega \right|^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{wW_\omega }{}}ϵ_\omega (w)e^{\frac{2\pi i}{k+g^{}}(w(\alpha +\rho _\omega ),\mu +\rho )}`$ (3)
(see also \[12, Theorem 13.9\]). Note that it carries two different labels $`\alpha B_k^+`$ and $`\mu S_k^+`$. The symbol $`ϵ_\omega `$ denotes the sign function of $`W_\omega `$. As the generators of $`W_\omega `$ may be products of several generators of $`W`$, in general the sign function $`ϵ_\omega `$ of $`W_\omega `$ does not coincide with the restriction of the sign function $`ϵ`$ of $`W`$ to the subgroup $`W_\omega `$. Using Weyl’s character formula, the quotient of S matrices $`S_{i\mu }/S_{0\mu }`$ which appears in (2) may be expressed as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_{i\mu }}{S_{0\mu }}}=\chi _i\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi i}{k+g^{}}}(\mu +\rho )\right)={\displaystyle \underset{jM_i}{}}e^{\frac{2\pi i}{k+g^{}}(j,\mu +\rho )}`$ (4)
where $`M_i`$ denotes the weight system of the finite dimensional highest weight module $`i`$ of $`𝔤`$ including the multiplicities. If one inserts the expressions (3) and (4) into the definition (2) we may write

$`N_{i\alpha }^\beta ={\displaystyle \underset{\mu S_k^+}{}}f(\mu +\rho )={\displaystyle \underset{\nu S_{k+g^{}}^{++}}{}}f(\nu )`$ (5)
where we used the rule $`S_k^++\rho =S_k^{++}`$ and defined the function

$$\begin{array}{c}f(\nu )=\left|L_\omega /(k+g^{})(L^{})_\omega \right|^1\hfill \\ \hfill \times \underset{jM_i}{}\underset{w_1,w_2W_\omega }{}ϵ_\omega (w_1)ϵ_\omega (w_2)e^{\frac{2\pi i}{k+g^{}}(𝒫_\omega j+w_1(\alpha +\rho _\omega )w_2(\beta +\rho _\omega ),\nu )}\end{array}$$
(6)
which takes symmetric weights $`\nu L_\omega `$ as arguments. Note that from the property $`(\omega x,y)=(x,\omega ^1y)`$ and the definition of $`𝒫_\omega `$ it follows $`(𝒫_\omega j,\nu )=(j,\nu )`$ for $`\nu L_\omega `$.

###### Lemma 1.

The function $`f`$ is invariant under the action of $`W_\omega (k+g^{})(L^{})_\omega `$ and vanishes for elements on the boundary of the Weyl chambers, in particular on $`S_{k+g^{}}^+\backslash S_{k+g^{}}^{++}`$.

###### Proof.

The property $`f(w\nu )=f(\nu )`$ for $`wW_\omega `$ is proved by using $`(wx,y)=(x,w^1y)`$, invariance of the weight system $`M_i`$ under Weyl transformations and redefinition of $`j,w_1,w_2`$. Due to $`ϵ_\omega (w)^2=1`$ possible signs cancel. As $`𝒫_\omega j+w_1(\alpha +\rho _\omega )w_2(\beta +\rho _\omega )\left((L^{})_\omega \right)^{}`$, the property $`f\left(\nu +(k+g^{})\beta \right)=f(\nu )`$ for $`\beta (L^{})_\omega `$ is obvious. To prove the second statement let us define the auxiliary function $`g(\nu )=S_{\alpha ,\nu \rho }^\omega `$ which enters each summand of the function $`f(\nu )`$ as a factor. Similar as for $`f(\nu )`$ one shows that $`g\left(w\nu +(k+g^{})\beta \right)=ϵ_\omega (w)g(\nu )`$ for all $`\beta (L^{})_\omega `$ and $`wW_\omega `$. Let $`\nu `$ be an element of the boundary of the fundamental Weyl chamber, i.e. $`\nu S_{k+g^{}}^+\backslash S_{k+g^{}}^{++}`$. Then it is either invariant under an elementary reflection or a combined action of a translation and an elementary reflection $`wW_\omega `$. The equation $`g(\nu )=ϵ_\omega (w)g(\nu )`$ now implies that $`g(\nu )=0`$ and thus $`f(\nu )=0`$ for $`\nu S_{k+g^{}}^+\backslash S_{k+g^{}}^{++}`$. ∎

###### Corollary 1.

Eq. (5) can be rewritten as

$`N_{i\alpha }^\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|W_\omega |}}{\displaystyle \underset{wW_\omega }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu S_{k+g^{}}^+}{}}f(w\nu )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|W_\omega |}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu L_\omega /(k+g^{})(L^{})_\omega }{}}f(\nu ).`$ (7)
###### Lemma 2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a lattice and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a sublattice of the same rank as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s^{}`$ be the dual lattices to $`\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ with respect to an inner product $`(,)`$. For any $`h`$ and $`x\mathrm{\Gamma }_s^{}`$ we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{y\mathrm{\Gamma }/h\mathrm{\Gamma }_s}{}}e^{2\pi i(x,y)/h}=\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }/h\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\right|\delta _{xh\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}.`$
###### Proof.

We will use the fact that the characters $`\chi `$ of irreducible representations of a finite group $`G`$ are orthogonal in the sense that $`_{gG}\chi (g)\overline{\chi ^{}(g)}=|G|\delta _{\chi ,\chi ^{}}`$. The quotient $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/h\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ is a finite abelian group. For $`x\mathrm{\Gamma }_s^{}`$ the function $`\chi _x:\mathrm{\Gamma }/h\mathrm{\Gamma }_s,\chi _x(y)=e^{2\pi i(x,y)/h}`$ is the character of an irreducible representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/h\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ and the character $`\chi _0`$ of the trivial representation is identical to one. The orthogonality relation reads, for $`x\mathrm{\Gamma }_s^{}`$,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{y\mathrm{\Gamma }/h\mathrm{\Gamma }_s}{}}e^{2\pi i(x,y)/h}={\displaystyle \underset{y\mathrm{\Gamma }/h\mathrm{\Gamma }_s}{}}\chi _x(y)\overline{\chi _0(y)}=\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }/h\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\right|\delta _{\chi _x,\chi _0}.`$
But $`\chi _x\chi _0`$ is equivalent to $`xh\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.

We insert expression (6) for $`f(\nu )`$ into (7) and apply Lemma 2 with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=L_\omega `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s=(L^{})_\omega `$ and $`h=k+g^{}`$. This results in

$`N_{i\alpha }^\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|W_\omega |}}{\displaystyle \underset{jM_i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{w_1,w_2W_\omega }{}}ϵ_\omega (w_1w_2)\delta _{𝒫_\omega j+w_1(\alpha +\rho _\omega )w_2(\beta +\rho _\omega )(k+g^{})(L_\omega )^{}}.`$
Using the invariance of all quantities under $`W_\omega `$ we are lead to the final result

$`N_{i\alpha }^\beta ={\displaystyle \underset{jM_i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{wW_\omega }{}}ϵ_\omega (w)\delta _{w(𝒫_\omega j+\alpha +\rho _\omega )(\beta +\rho _\omega )(k+g^{})(L_\omega )^{}}.`$ (8)
The interpretation of the last formula then amounts to the algorithm of the theorem. Step 5 follows since $`\beta +\rho _\omega `$ is always in $`B_{k+g^{}}^{++}`$. ∎

Note that for inner automorphisms the sets $`P_k^+`$, $`S_k^+`$ and $`B_k^+`$ all coincide and we recover the Kac-Walton formula for ordinary fusion rules. Formula (8) directly shows that the twisted fusion rules are integer numbers but does not show that they are non-negative. (However, non-negativity follows from the general theory of symmetry breaking boundary conditions .) We have also implemented the algorithm on a computer and have verified that no negative integers appear for the first few levels in the cases listed in Table 1.

Acknowledgements — We would like to thank S. Fredenhagen and J. Fuchs for a careful reading of the manuscript. C.S. and I.R. are grateful to the Albert-Einstein-Institute in Golm for hospitality. I.R. is supported by the European Commission contract $`\mathrm{\#}`$HPMF-CT-2000-00747. The work of T.Q. is supported by the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes.