text:
# hep-th/0203017 Description of identical particles via gauged matrix models : a generalization of the Calogero-Sutherland system

## 1 Introduction

Recent advances in the noncommutative field theory have enabled us to realize that the quantum Hall system is closely related to the noncommutative Chern-Simons theories. After the pioneering work by Susskind , utilizing the fact that the noncommutative field theories can be formulated by matrices of infinite size, Polychronakos proposed a finite matrix Chern-Simons model for the description of the finite number of electrons in the quantum Hall system . Soon after, a matrix version of the Laughlin’s wavefunction  was recovered by Hellerman and Raamsdonk .

In this paper, we wish to clarify the underlying principles of the above matrix model approach to the quantum Hall system in a more general setup. We elaborate the idea that the matrix models equipped with gauge symmetry provide a natural framework to describe identical particles (see e.g. ).

After demonstrating the general prescription, we explicitly study an exactly solvable harmonic oscillator type gauged matrix model. We show the model gives a generalization of the Calogero-Sutherland system where the strength of the inverse square potential is not fixed but dynamical bounded by below.

## 2 Description of Identical Particles

One of the intrinsic properties of the fundamental particles in nature is the very fact that they are identical. Namely it is in principle impossible to identify each individual particle at different time slices. In the ordinary quantum mechanics, the conventional way of incorporating this idea is to anti-symmetrize the wavefunctions over the particle indices by hand.

Matrix gauge theories provide a more natural framework to describe identical particles. To see this we first consider the classical Lagrangian for $`N`$ electrons

$$_0=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}T(x_a,\dot{x}_a)V(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N),$$
(1)
where $`x𝐑^D`$, the $`D`$-dimensional ‘space’, and the potential is totally symmetric over the particle indices. Formally introducing a diagonal $`N\times N`$ matrix, $`X=\text{diag}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N)`$, one can always rewrite the Lagrangian in terms of the matrix

$$_0=\text{tr}\left[T(X,\dot{X})\right]𝒱\left(\text{tr}f_l(X)\right),$$
(2)
where we used the fact that the symmetric potential can be always written in terms of the traces of certain set of functions, $`\text{tr}f_l(X)=_{a=1}^Nf_l(x_a)`$. We put the proof at the end of this section. In particular, when $`x_a`$ carries no spatial index as in the $`D=1`$ case, one can simply set $`f_l(x)=x^l,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}lN`$.

Allowing the off-diagonal elements with the restriction, $`X`$ being hermitian to ensure the eigenvalues to be real, we encounter a new physical system. First, the action acquires a $`\text{U}(N)`$ symmetry for which the matrices transform in the adjoint representation

$$\begin{array}{cc}XUXU^{},& U\text{U}(N).\end{array}$$
(3)
We note that the permutation group relevant to the relabeling of the electrons is a subgroup of $`\text{U}(N)`$. As electrons are identical, the labeling is not physical so that the permutation symmetry is an auxiliary one. This suggests to gauge away the $`\text{U}(N)`$ symmetry in the matrix formalism. Namely we introduce an auxiliary matrix, $`A_0`$ and replace the ordinary time derivative by a covariant time derivative

$$D_tX=\dot{X}+i[A_0,X].$$
(4)
Then what $`A_0`$ brings new is the Gauss’ constraint or the equation of the motion for $`A_0`$, which gives the quantum generator of the $`\text{U}(N)`$ symmetry from the Noether theorem. Since we embed the discrete permutation group into the continuous group, the reparameterization of the electrons can be now realized by quantum operators. At the quantum level the constraint is to be imposed on the wavefunctions and this will mode out the auxiliary symmetry. We emphasize the point that the $`\text{U}(N)`$ symmetry (3) can be now time dependent, and physically this amounts that we are requiring the physics to be invariant under not only time independent but also time dependent reparameterization of the particles. Once again, it is in principle impossible or meaningless to identify each individual particle at different time slices.

One interesting “generalization” is to add a term into the action which is linear in $`A_0`$

$$\kappa _{\mathrm{bare}}\text{tr}A_0.$$
(5)
While writing the Gauss’ constraint at the quantum level there always occurs an ordering ambiguity, since the constraint contains the product of $`X`$ and its conjugate momentum. The ambiguity amounts to adding an identity matrix to the Gauss’ constraint up to a factor. Thus, considering the above term (5) is not a mere “generalization” but rather a natural requirement. After all, the final form of the Gauss’ constraint which is to be imposed on the quantum wavefunctions should be written in the normal ordered way with the physical coefficient, $`\kappa `$

$$\underset{\text{normal ordered}}{\underset{}{\text{U}(N)\text{ generator}}}=\kappa I_{N\times N}.$$
(6)
After all, the actual integer value of the physical coefficient, $`\kappa `$ is given by the superselction rule.

The consistency at the quantum level requires the physical coefficient, $`\kappa `$ to be an integer . At the quantum level, the Gauss’ constraint generates unitary transformations, $`U=e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }},\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on all the arguments in the wavefunction

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=e^{i\kappa \text{tr}\mathrm{\Lambda }}|\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(7)
Taking the particular choice, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\text{diag}(2\pi ,0,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ gives the identity matrix, $`U=1_{N\times N}`$, and apparently the Gauss’ constraint on the wavefunctions works successfully only for integer, $`\kappa `$. Essentially this quantization is identical to that of the coefficient in the noncommutative Chern-Simons theories .

Nevertheless, non-zero $`\kappa `$ is yet problematic for the finite matrix models. As the matrices are in the adjoint representation, the central U($`1`$) transformation would leave the wavefunction invariant, and this is clearly inconsistent with Eq.(7) for non-zero $`\kappa `$. Curing the problem requires the presence of new variables in other representations. A natural candidate is a complex bosonic vector, $`\varphi `$ in the fundamental representation so that $`D_t\varphi =\dot{\varphi }+iA_0\varphi `$. As we will see later, this new variable governs the strength of the intrinsically existing repulsive potential in the matrix gauge theories.

Introducing the complex vector, the gauged matrix model can be self-consistent and is now of the general form

$$=\text{tr}\left[T(X,D_tX)+\kappa _{\mathrm{bare}}A_0\right]𝒱\left(\text{tr}f_a(X)\right)+\text{vector parts}.$$
(8)
As worked out in  the general quantum wavefunction satisfying the Gauss’ constraint consists of $`\text{U}(N)`$ invariant part times $`|\kappa |`$ products of $`\text{SU}(N)`$ invariant parts (see Eq.(19)). Due to the latter, the wavefunction is an eigenstate of the particle exchange operator of the eigenvalue, $`(1)^\kappa `$ capturing the identical nature of the particles.

The prescription to give the physical meaning to any expectation value in the matrix model is the map

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Psi }|\text{tr}f(X)|\mathrm{\Psi }& & dx^D\rho (x)f(x),\end{array}$$
(9)
where $`\rho (x)`$ is the corresponding physical density function, while $`f(x)`$ is an arbitrary function. As we turn on the off-diagonal components in $`X`$ and introduce the vectors, the present non-matrix system is not simply equal to the initial one (1). Physically, the off-diagonal element, $`X^a{}_{b}{}^{},ab`$ corresponds to the interaction between the two particles, $`a`$, $`b`$, and integrating out the off-diagonal components generates an inverse square type repulsive potential. Thus the matrix gauge theories intrinsically contain an repulsive potential among the particles. However, this can be in principle eliminated in the matrix model by adding the counter term written in the matrix form, if necessary.

It is worth to note that due to the Gauss’ constraint on the wavefunction (7) any matrix valued expectation must be $`\text{U}(N)`$ invariant, and hence

$$\mathrm{\Psi }|f(X)|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{\Psi }|\text{tr}f(X)|\mathrm{\Psi }I_{N\times N}.$$
(10)
For the systems of kinetic terms quadratic in time derivatives in the $`D`$ dimensional space the phase space for the matrices has the dimension, $`2DN^2`$ so that subtracting the Gauss’ constraint and the gauge symmetry, the physical degrees of freedom for the matrices is $`2(D1)N^2+1`$. On the other hand the vector has the linear in $`N`$ degree of freedom. Hence when $`D=1`$ the total degrees of freedom is linear in $`N`$, otherwise it is quadratic in $`N`$. Nevertheless if we include the BFSS type potential, $`\text{tr}[X^I,X^J]^2`$ , at the low energy limit the matrices tend to commute each other making the “off-diagonal components” negligible. This will result in linear degrees of freedom at low energy. In fact, in a special low energy limit the particles form a collinear motion . On the other hand, for the kinetic term linear in time derivatives like the $`D=2`$ matrix Chern-Simons model, the dimension of the phase space is halved and the total degrees of freedom in linear in $`N`$.

The proof of the fact
Consider a symmetric function depending on $`N`$ particles’ coordinates, $`\stackrel{}{x}_a,a=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ of the form

$$F(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)=\underset{p}{}f_1(x_{p_1})f_2(x_{p_2})\mathrm{}f_N(x_{p_N}),$$
(11)
where $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_N`$ are functions of one particle coordinate and the sum is over the $`N!`$ permutations so that the function is apparently symmetric over the particle indices. General symmetric functions can be written in terms of this kind of symmetric functions. For example, the Coulomb interaction can be written as a fraction of such two functions. In the below we show that $`F`$ can be written in terms of $`\text{tr}f_l(X)`$ with $`X=\text{diag}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N)`$. We prove this by the mathematical induction on the number of non-constant functions in $`\{f_1,f_2,\mathrm{},f_N\}`$ which we denote by $`\mathrm{\#}_f`$. If $`\mathrm{\#}_f=1`$, it is easy to see

$$F(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)=(N1)!\text{tr}f_\alpha (X)\underset{\beta \alpha }{}f_\beta ,$$
(12)
where $`f_\alpha `$ is the only one non-constant function. Hence the statement holds for $`\mathrm{\#}_f=1`$. Now we assume that $`F`$ can be written in terms of $`\text{tr}f_l(X)`$ for $`\mathrm{\#}_f<n`$ cases, and consider $`F`$ in the $`\mathrm{\#}_f=n`$ case. We let with out loss of generality $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_n`$ be the $`n`$ non-constant functions and set

$$F^{}F(Nn)!\left(\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}\text{tr}f_\alpha (X)\right)\left(\underset{\beta >n}{}f_\beta \right).$$
(13)
It is crucial to note that $`F^{}`$ belongs to the classes, $`\mathrm{\#}_f<n`$ so that $`F^{}`$ and hence $`F`$ can be written in terms of $`\text{tr}f_l(X)`$. This completes our proof.

## 3 Generalization of Calogero-Sutherland System

The $`D=1`$ gauged matrix model we consider here is the harmonic oscillator type. With the column vector, $`\varphi `$, and the row vector, $`\overline{\varphi }\varphi ^{}`$, the Lagrangian is

$$=\text{tr}\left[\frac{1}{2}m(D_tX)^2\frac{1}{2}gX^2+mD_t\varphi D_t\overline{\varphi }g^{}\varphi \overline{\varphi }+\kappa _{\mathrm{bare}}A_0\right].$$
(14)
If $`g=g^{}`$, writing a $`(N+1)\times (N+1)`$ matrix $`(\begin{array}{c}X\varphi \\ \overline{\varphi }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\end{array})`$, the model can be regarded as the truncation of the bigger matrix model with the broken gauge symmetry, $`(\begin{array}{c}A\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}\\ 0\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\end{array})`$, $`\text{U}(N+1)\text{U}(N)`$.

With the conjugate momenta, $`P=mD_tX,`$ $`p_\varphi =mD_t\varphi `$ we define the following dimensionless quantities

$$\begin{array}{cc}C=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left((mg)^{\frac{1}{4}}X+i(mg)^{\frac{1}{4}}P\right),\hfill & \eta _\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left((mg^{})^{\frac{1}{4}}\varphi \pm i(mg^{})^{\frac{1}{4}}p_\varphi \right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
The standard quantization shows the non-vanishing commutators are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[C^a{}_{b}{}^{},\overline{C}^c{}_{d}{}^{}]=\delta ^a{}_{d}{}^{}\delta _{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{c},& [\eta ^a{}_{+}{}^{},\overline{\eta }_{+b}]=\delta ^a{}_{b}{}^{},& [\eta ^a{}_{}{}^{},\overline{\eta }_b]=\delta ^a{}_{b}{}^{}.\end{array}$$
(16)
Thus, $`\overline{C},\overline{\eta }_+,\eta _{}`$ and $`C,\eta _+,\overline{\eta }_{}`$ are respectively creation and annihilation operators (our somewhat unconventional notation for $`\eta _{}`$ is to keep the consistent $`\text{U}(N)`$ index notation.). The appearance of the two sets of vector-valued harmonic oscillators is due to the fact that the kinetic term for the vector is written with the quadratic time derivatives. By introducing one more vector field, one could equivalently rewrite the vector parts in the action to contain two kinetic terms linear in time derivatives having the opposite signs (see  for further generalization of the kinetic terms linear in time derivatives).

In terms of the operators, the Gauss’ constraint reads in the normal ordered form,

$$\overline{C}^c{}_{b}{}^{}C_{}^{a}{}_{c}{}^{}\overline{C}^a{}_{c}{}^{}C_{}^{c}{}_{b}{}^{}+\overline{\eta }_{+b}\eta _+^a\eta _{}^a\overline{\eta }_b=\kappa \delta ^a{}_{b}{}^{},$$
(17)
where the left hand side generates the $`\text{U}(N)`$ transformations, while $`\kappa `$ on the right hand side is now of the physical value. The Hamiltonian is

$$\begin{array}{cc}H\hfill & =\text{tr}\left[\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{g}{m}}(C\overline{C}+\overline{C}C)+\sqrt{\frac{g^{}}{m}}(\eta _+\overline{\eta }_++\eta _{}\overline{\eta }_{})\right]\hfill \\ & \\ & =\sqrt{\frac{g}{m}}\text{tr}(\overline{C}C)+\sqrt{\frac{g^{}}{m}}\left(\overline{\eta }_+\eta _++\text{tr}(\eta _{}\overline{\eta }_{})\right)+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{g}{m}}N^2+\sqrt{\frac{g^{}}{m}}N.\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
Here the second expression is written in the normal ordered fashion so that $`\text{tr}(\overline{C}C),`$ $`\overline{\eta }_+\eta _+,`$ $`\text{tr}(\eta _{}\overline{\eta }_{})`$ are the number operators and $`\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{g}{m}}N^2+\sqrt{\frac{g^{}}{m}}N`$ is the zero-point fluctuation of the energy.

The exact wavefunctions satisfying the $`\text{U}(N)`$ covariance condition (7) due to the Gauss’ constraint are for $`\kappa 0`$ and $`\kappa <0`$ respectively

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\{\begin{array}{c}G\times \left(ϵ^{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_N}\overline{\eta }_{+a_1}(\overline{\eta }_+\overline{C})_{a_2}\mathrm{}(\overline{\eta }_+\overline{C}^{N1})_{a_N}\right)^\kappa |0\hfill \\ \\ G\times \left(ϵ_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_N}\eta _{}^{a_1}(\overline{C}\eta _{})^{a_2}\mathrm{}(\overline{C}^{N1}\eta _{})^{a_N}\right)^\kappa |0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
where $`G=G(\text{tr}\overline{C}^l,\overline{\eta }_+\overline{C}^m\eta _{})`$ is an arbitrary function of the $`\text{U}(N)`$ invariant building blocks which are made of the creation operators only, $`\text{tr}\overline{C}^l`$ and $`\overline{\eta }_+\overline{C}^m\eta _{}`$ with $`1lN`$, $`0m`$. The trivial $`G`$ corresponds to the ground state whose energy is

$$E_0=\sqrt{\frac{g^{}}{m}}(|\kappa |+1)N+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{g}{m}}((|\kappa |+1)N^2|\kappa |N).$$
(20)
In particular when $`\kappa =0`$, the vacuum, $`|0`$ is the ground state, and in this case we can calculate the exact density function, $`\rho _0(x)`$ in Eq.(9). First, using the large $`N`$ behaviour,

$$0|\text{tr}(C+\overline{C})^{2m}|0\frac{(2m)!}{m!(m+1)!}N^{m+1},$$
(21)
one can check that the Fourier mode for $`\rho _0(x)`$ is given by the Bessel function, $`J_1`$. Realizing the Fourier transformation of a half circle is $`J_1`$ we get for large $`N`$

$$\rho _0(x)=\frac{1}{\pi }\sqrt{2N}(mg)^{\frac{1}{4}}\text{Re}\left(\sqrt{1\frac{(mg)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{2N}x^2}\right).$$
(22)
In fact, this density function is identical to that in the Calogero-Sutherland system . An intuitive way to see this result is to note the close relation to the matrix quantum Hall system with the confining harmonic potential , where the density function is constant on a disc. Essentially our density function is the one-dimensional projection of it. For general $`\kappa `$ at the center, $`x=0`$ we expect

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\left[\rho _\kappa (0)\right]^2}{2N}=\frac{\sqrt{mg}}{\pi ^2(|\kappa |+1)},$$
(23)
and this is an analogue of the fractional filling factor, $`\nu =1/(|\kappa |+1)`$ in the quantum Hall system. The “+1” in the denominator is again due to the zero-point fluctuation or the Vandermonde determinant.

Henceforth we discuss the classical dynamics of the system focusing on the $`\kappa 0`$ case. The equations of motion are

$`0=mD_tD_tX+gX,`$ (24)
$`0=mD_tD_t\varphi +g^{}\varphi (\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}=D_t\eta _\pm \pm i\sqrt{\frac{g^{}}{m}}\eta _\pm ).`$ (25)
As in  we choose the gauge such that $`X`$ is diagonal and $`\eta _+^a`$ is real and non-negative. For the simplicity of notation we define a matrix, $`K^a{}_{b}{}^{}\eta _+^a\overline{\eta }_{+b}\eta _{}^a\overline{\eta }_b`$. Now the Gauss’ constraint determines $`\eta _+^a`$ and the off-diagonal components of $`A_0`$ completely

$$\begin{array}{cc}\eta _+^a=\sqrt{\kappa +|\eta _{}^a|^2},& A_0^a{}_{b}{}^{}=\frac{K^a{}_{b}{}^{}/m}{(x_ax_b)^2}\text{for }ab.\end{array}$$
(26)
Substituting these into the Hamiltonian we obtain a generalized Calogero-Sutherland model (cf.)

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{2m}p_a^2+\frac{1}{2}gx_a^2+2\sqrt{\frac{g^{}}{m}}\overline{\eta }_a\eta _{}^a+\underset{a>b}{}\frac{|K^a{}_{b}{}^{}|_{}^{2}/m}{(x_ax_b)^2},$$
(27)
where $`K^a_b`$ is now a function of $`\eta _{}`$ only

$$K^a{}_{b}{}^{}=\sqrt{(\kappa +|\eta _{}^a|^2)(\kappa +|\eta _{}^b|^2)}\eta _{}^a\overline{\eta }_b.$$
(28)
Apparently the complex vector, $`\eta _{}`$ gives the novelty. Namely the strength of the repulsive potential, $`|K^a{}_{b}{}^{}|`$ between two particles is not fixed but varies. The Schwarz inequality shows $`|K^a{}_{b}{}^{}|\kappa `$ and the saturation occurs when $`\eta _{}^a`$ is independent of the particle index, $`a`$. In particular, for the finite energy configurations with the large $`g^{}`$ limit, $`\eta _{}`$ vanishes classically and the saturation occurs.

The corresponding Lagrangian is with (28)

$$\begin{array}{cc}_{\mathrm{eff}}=\hfill & \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}_a^2\frac{1}{2}gx_a^2i\overline{\eta }_a\dot{\eta }_{}^a2\sqrt{\frac{g^{}}{m}}\overline{\eta }_a\eta _{}^a\underset{a>b}{}\frac{|K^a{}_{b}{}^{}|_{}^{2}/m}{(x_ax_b)^2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
The minus sign for the kinetic term of $`\eta _{}`$ is essentially from Eq.(16). Consistency requires that the dynamics of this generalized Calogero-Sutherland model must agree with the full equations of motion of the matrix model (24, 25). Some straightforward manipulation with Eq.(26) can show that only when the diagonal component of $`A_0`$ is given by

$$A_0^a{}_{a}{}^{}=\sqrt{\frac{g^{}}{m}}\underset{ba}{}\frac{1}{2}(A_0^a{}_{b}{}^{}+A_0^b{}_{a}{}^{})(\eta _+^b/\eta _+^a),$$
(30)
we get $`D_t\eta _++i\sqrt{\frac{g^{}}{m}}\eta _+=0`$, and the matrix equations of motion reduce to those of the present generalized Calogero-Sutherland model

$$\begin{array}{c}0=m\ddot{x}_a+gx_a\underset{ba}{}\frac{2|K^a{}_{b}{}^{}|_{}^{2}/m}{(x_ax_b)^3},\hfill \\ \\ 0=i\dot{\eta }_{}^a+2\sqrt{\frac{g^{}}{m}}\eta _{}^a+\underset{ba}{}\frac{\frac{}{\overline{\eta }_a}|K^a{}_{b}{}^{}|_{}^{2}/m}{(x_ax_b)^2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
The former comes from the diagonal components in (24) while the off-diagonal components vanish due to (25), $`(mD_tD_tX+gX)^a{}_{b}{}^{}=i(D_tK)^a{}_{b}{}^{}/(x_ax_b)=0`$, $`ab`$.

Especially when the effective charge saturates, $`|K^a{}_{b}{}^{}|=\kappa `$, we get the solution for the two-particle system in a closed form

$$\eta _{}^a=ce^{2i\sqrt{\frac{g^{}}{m}}(t+t_0)},$$
(32)
and $`x_1,x_2`$ are

$$l_{CM}\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{\frac{g}{m}}t)\pm l\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}(2\sqrt{\frac{g}{m}}t+\theta )+\sqrt{1+k^2/(4gml^4)}}.$$
(33)
It would be interesting to see any quantum correction to the inverse square potential in Eq.(29). When the vector freezes it should reduce to $`\kappa ^2\kappa (\kappa +1)`$ . In any case, since $`\kappa `$ is an integer, the charge of the potential is quantized.

## 4 Conclusion

We have argued that the gauged matrix models provide a natural framework to describe identical particles since the particle indices which are not physical are gauged. The models intrinsically contain the interaction among the identical particles. Especially for $`D=1`$ or the $`[X^I,X^J]0`$ limit, it corresponds to the inverse square type repulsive potential. As an example we have considered an exactly solvable harmonic oscillator type gauged matrix model. We have obtained all the exact quantum wavefunctions and demonstrated that the model is a generalization of the Calogero-Sutherland system where the strength or the charge of the potential is not fixed but dynamical bounded by below. Furthermore, when the saturation occurs the charge is quantized.

The model we considered is non-relativistic as the kinetic term is quadratic in time derivatives, and this is essentially the reason why we get the inverse square potential. It is very much desirable to find a matrix gauge model where the intrinsic interaction is given by the inverse potential or the Coulomb interaction. In this sense, it is worth to study the relativistic matrix model and analyze its intrinsic interaction such as

$$𝒮=d\tau \text{tr}\sqrt{(D_\tau T)^2(D_\tau X)^2}.$$
(34)
Quantization of the system is analogue to that of the string theory. It would be interesting to see if the critical dimensions free of the Lorentz symmetry anomaly exists. A single particle system i.e. $`1\times 1`$ matrix model is anomaly free in any dimension. On the other hand, the generic matrix model including the off diagonal elements may be anomalous just like the string theories where the anomaly comes from the oscillators not from the zero mode. Eq.(34) is a straightforward generalization of the single relativistic particle action, and an alternative approach to write the relativistic matrix model would be the dimensional reduction of the non-Abelian Born-Infeld action .

An electron in one place seems to be “distinguishable” from one at far distance. To explain this large scale phenomenon, the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the $`\text{U}(N)`$. is to be considered.

Acknowledegement The author wishes to thank D. Bak, H.-W. Lee, M. Henneaux and K. Lee for valuable comments.


format: text

text:
# Fermi Surfaces of Diborides: MgB2 and ZrB2

## I Introduction

The discovery of superconductivity in MgB2 near 40 K by Akimitsu’s group and the subsequent intense experimental investigation of its properties and theoretical exposition of the underlying causes, has made it clear that MgB2 is the first member of a new class of superconductors. Although intermetallic like the best superconductors before 1986, it does not have $`d`$ electrons, it does not have a high density of states at the Fermi level EF, and it is strongly anisotropic in its crystal and electronic structures. In another important way, it is distinct from the other intermetallic superconductors: it derives its high superconducting critical temperature Tc from extremely strong coupling from only a small fraction of the phonons to specifically a limited part of the Fermi surface (FS). Other diborides, at least so far, are disappointing with regard to their superconductivity – a study of TaB2 reveals that the presence of Ta $`d`$ electrons in the valence band region results in a completely different electronic structure, especially the states at the Fermi level, and accounts for its lack of bulk superconductivity.

Although the properties of MgB2 appear to be described consistently, and reasonably accurately, by a Fermi liquid picture based on the band structure calculated in the local density approximation (LDA), there have been few opportunities to make detailed quantitative comparison with experimental data. Therefore there has been a broad range of alternative suggestions. Imada has suggested strong interband Coulomb exchange processes. Furukawa has raised the possible importance of half-filled $`p_z`$ bands. Hirsch and Marsiglio suggest that hole-undressing by Coulomb interaction in nearly filled bands is responsible. Referring to optical data on oriented films, Marsiglio has suggested that coupling via a high energy electronic mode is plausible. Baskaran has revived the Pauling resonating-valence-bond picture of benzene as having possible application to the graphene layers of boron in MgB2. Nonadiabatic processes strongly affecting the occurrence of superconductivity have been put forward, by Alexandrov based on penetration depth data  and by Cappelluti et al. on the basis of several experimental results that are not readily understandable in terms of conventional (isotropic) Eliashberg theory.

Although the crystal structure of MgB2 is quite simple, it is strongly layered and electronic characteristics are predicted to be strongly anisotropic. So far few single crystals have been obtained, so single crystal optical conductivity data is not available. In addition, the strong “anisotropies” mentioned above necessitate a two-band model or a fully anisotropic treatment to account properly for the data, and such interpretations are only recently being carried out. Photoemission data on single crystals allow direct comparison, and the agreement between band theory and angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy is good down to the scale of a few tenths of an eV.

The recently reported observation of de Haas-van Alphen (dHvA) oscillations on single crystals by Yelland et al. is a crucial development that provides the opportunity for detailed evaluation of LDA predictions. These measurements detected three frequencies (extremal Fermi surface areas F) and information about the orbit-averaged electron-phonon effective mass $`m^{}`$ and scattering time $`\tau `$. Comparing to reports of Elgazzar et al., who used the augmented spherical wave (ASW) method within the spherical potential approximation, Yelland et al. concluded that discrepancies with band theory are 40-80% in the FS areas. This discrepancy seems large enough to suggest the occurrence of important correlation effects beyond LDA. If this is true, our current understanding of the properties of MgB2 might need revision. Mazin and Kortus have presented orbital areas that are close enough to the observed values to give confidence in the band picture.

In this paper we provide a comparison of careful calculations of extremal areas and band masses for MgB2. To provide comparison and contrast in a related diboride, we provide similar information for the isostructural refractory diboride ZrB2, which has recently been reported to superconduct at Tc = 5.5 K whereas earlier searches observed no superconductivity. The extensive dHvA data available for ZrB2 makes this a particularly useful system to study. We find, with one possible exception that we discuss, that LDA predictions seem to provide an excellent description for ZrB2. For MgB2 there is some disagreement in FS areas that can be accounted for by a shift of $`\pi `$ (B $`p_z`$) bands with respect to $`\sigma `$ (B $`sp_xp_y`$) bands by 240 meV and readjustment of the “Fermi energies” of each of these bands by $`\pm `$ 120 meV. This result is roughly consistent with that of Mazin and Kortus. Such shifts will lead to quantitative, but most likely not qualitative, corrections in the extent explanation of MgB2 superconductivity.

## II Calculational Methods

The precision and consistency of the calculations using different methods is a concern, in light of the apparent discrepancy between the band structure results of Elgazzar et al. and the data of Yelland et al. Therefore we have applied two full potential, all-electron methods of calculation that have produced equivalent results for several other systems. One method is the full potential linearized augmented plane wave (FLAPW) method as implemented in the WIEN97 code. The other method is full potential local orbital code (FLPO)  based on local orbitals optimized to minimize the electronic energy.

There are two computational details that require attention, especially for MgB2, in order to obtain the precise predictions of band theory. Both are related to the existence of small volume Fermi surfaces \[the smallest contains $``$3% of the Brillouin zone (BZ) volume\], for which small shifts of the band edge make appreciable differences. The first issue is that the non-spherical nature of the charge density (related to the distinctly different contributions to the density from $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi `$ states) and potential is important. Comparing the FPLO method with basis functions optimized as usual (to minimize the energy) with the FLAPW results revealed that the $`k_z`$ dispersion of the $`\sigma `$ band along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-A was slightly different for the two methods. The reason is that the extension parameter $`x_0^{n,l}`$ for the FPLO basis functions is optimized only with respect to the main quantum number $`n`$ and the angular momentum $`l`$ at a given site. Increasing the flexibility of the FPLO basis resulted in agreement with the FLAPW result. On the other hand, the standard FPLO-basis set resulted in agreement with the WIEN97 code for ZrB2, suggesting that the charge density for the latter compound is less anisotropic than in MgB2. This implies as well that the discrepancy of the results of Elgazzar et al. is due to the spherical approximation of the potential they used.

The second item is the dense $`k`$ point sampling that is necessary to obtain the fraction of $`\sigma `$ band holes accurately, and hence the charge density and potential, a point noted by Mazin and Kortus. Increasing the number of inequivalent, equally spaced points in the irreducible BZ from 2000 (which already would be considered to be a fine mesh) to $``$16600 results in changes in area of the smallest orbits (see Table I) by 2-3%. Because of such sensitivities, we quote areas and masses only to 2+ significant digits. Unlike non-sphericity and k point sampling, the choice of exchange-correlation potential makes no physical difference. Using the LAPW code, we checked the eigenvalues of the unoccupied $`\sigma `$ states at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and A. Measured relative to the Fermi level, these differed by no more that 2.5 meV between the LDA of Perdew and Wang and the generalized gradient approximation of Perdew, Burke, and Ernzerhof.

## III Results and Comparison with Experiment

### A ZrB2

As in MgB2 (but for a different reason) it is not easy to prepare single crystals of ZrB2 due to its melting temperature above 3300 K. However, single crystal studies have been reported. dHvA data have been provided and analyzed for ZrB2 by Tanaka and Ishikawa, and the data are similar to those reported for the isostructural and isovalent sister compounds TiB2 and HfB2.

The band structure has been presented previously, based on a variety of computational methods, each involving simplifications that we avoid. Our calculated band structure and density of states (DOS), calculated for $`a`$ =3.170 Å, $`c`$ =3.532 Å, are similar to those presented earlier, so we do not present them here. The Fermi energy lies in a “pseudogap,” which is due to relatively large velocities in the region of EF rather than any semimetallic overlapping of bands (where there would be small FSs and low velocities). The occupied B $`\pi `$ states are mostly in the -4 eV to -2 eV region (EF is taken as the zero of energy), while $`\sigma `$ states are spread throughout the valence band region. Due to strong hybridization of the Zr $`3d`$ states with the B $`2p`$ states, the $`\sigma `$-$`\pi `$ distinction is not as clear in ZrB2 as it is in MgB2. The Zr $`3d`$ DOS shows that considerably less than 40% of the $`3d`$ DOS is occupied (which would be the case four of ten possible $`3d`$ electrons) suggesting Zr$``$B charge transfer.

The Fermi surfaces, shown in Fig. 2, consist of a K-centered barbed ring $``$ with threefold symmetry, and an A-centered dumbbell $`𝒟`$ with sixfold symmetry. We use the orbit designations of Tanaka and coworkers. For the field along (0001), the $``$ surface gives a rounded triangular orbit ($`\nu `$) encircled by a nearly circular orbit ($`\xi `$), while the $`𝒟`$ surface gives a circular orbit ($`\epsilon `$) around its waist and a smoothed-star orbit ($`\mu `$) at each end. These cross sections are also shown in Fig. 2. In addition, we consider the $`\beta `$ orbit for field along ($`10\overline{1}0`$), which is the cross section of the barbed ring $`𝒟`$ in Fig. 2. These Fermi surfaces, which are broadly consistent with those used by Tanaka and coworkers to interpret their dHvA data. The Fermi surfaces presented by Shein and Ivanovskii (Fig. 1 in Ref. ) are quite different. The origin of this difference is unclear, since the full potential linear muffin-tin orbital method they use should give the same results as our methods. We note that their value N(EF) = 0.163 eV-1 differs considerably from our results and most of the previous calculations.

The general shape of the density of states, and the low value of N(EF), was confirmed by xray photoemission spectroscopy measurements. The most noteworthy feature, in light of a new report of Tc = 5.5 K, is the small calculated value of N(EF) = 0.26 /eV-cell, corresponding to a bare linear specific heat coefficient $`\gamma _b`$ = 0.61 mJ/mole-K2. \[The value of N(EF) is somewhat sensitive to the quality of the calculation.\] The reported experimental value of $`\gamma `$ = 0.47 mJ/mole-K2, which should include electron-phonon enhancement, is smaller than our bare band structure value.

The low value of N(EF) itself and the weak coupling seem inconsistent with Tc = 5.5 K; it would require very large electron-phonon matrix elements which has been shown not to be the case in another transition metal diboride TaB2. Since all information is consistent with the observed superconductivity arising from a minority phase in the sample, and the calculations seem to make make superconductivity unlikely, we conclude that ZrB2 itself is not superconducting. These facts, and results presented below, suggest that remeasurement of the heat capacity on additional samples may be called for. In any case, the occurrence (or not) of superconductivity in ZrB2 is peripheral to the intent of this paper.

The calculated and observed areas are given in Table I. Percentage discrepancy or even absolute differences do not give the most physical indication of the level of (dis)agreement, especially when areas get small (see MgB2, below). To indicate more clearly the implication of the discrepancy between theory and observation, in Fig. 3 the orbit areas F(E) versus energy are provided. The observed areas are shown as horizontal lines, which allows one to read off the shift in any given band to bring its area into agreement with the observed area. The band masses, proportional to the derivative $`dF/dE`$, are also readily obtained from such curves.

For the orbits $`\epsilon ,\mu ,\nu `$ in the range 1.8 kT $`<`$ F $`<`$ 3 kT, the agreement is excellent, probably within the total numerical precision. For the $`\xi `$ orbit, the agreement is not good: the reported area is 10% smaller than we calculate (this amounts to 1.4% of the BZ basal plane area). Moreover, it is unlikely that even this relatively modest disagreement can be achieved by a shift of the band, because such a shift destroys agreement for the $`\nu `$ orbit and results in a change of topology of the constant energy surfaces. To investigate this discrepancy further, we have calculated the $`\beta `$ orbit around the $``$ surface, which passes through both the $`\xi `$ and $`\nu `$ orbits. This area is in excellent agreement with experiment (see Table I). It may be possible, but seems unlikely, that this disagreement could be reconciled by some non-rigid shift(s) of band(s). It is possible that this discrepancy is due to experimental conditions: the $`\xi `$ orbit is the largest, giving the fewest oscillations to fit to an oscillatory form, hence larger uncertainty in the result. An experimental reinvestigation of the dHvA frequencies is under way  to either confirm or resolve this discrepancy.

### B MgB2

To facilitate understanding of notation, we identify the orbits by their B character ($`\sigma `$ or $`\pi `$) and by the point in the BZ around which they are centered. The $`\sigma `$ Fermi surfaces, pictured in several previous publications, are two concentric fluted cylinders oriented along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-A, which give rise to extremal orbits $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }^S`$, $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }^L`$, $`\sigma _A^S`$, $`\sigma _A^L`$ for magnetic field along (0001). ($`S,L`$ denotes small, large.) The $`\pi `$ bands give rise to $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\pi _A`$ for field along (0001), $`\pi _M`$ for field along (1$`\overline{1}`$00), and $`\pi _L`$ for field along (1000).

The calculated areas and band masses are given in Table II, with comparison to the three orbits of Yelland et al. assuming the same correspondence of observed orbit and calculated orbit. For reference, an area of 1 kT corresponds to 2% of the area ABZ of the basal plane of the BZ. For the three observed orbits, the calculated areas are 0.30$`\pm `$0.04 kT larger than observed, i.e. a discrepancy equal to 0.6% of ABZ. Our calculated areas are in good agreement (usually close to significant digits) with those of Mazin and Kortus. There are differences compared to the areas presented by Elgazzar et al. (most of our areas are $``$20% smaller), presumably due to the approximations made in their augmented spherical wave method.

In Fig. 4 the orbit areas F(E) versus energy are provided. The band masses $`m_b=(\mathrm{}^2/2\pi )dF/dE`$ are seen to be insensitive to the position of the Fermi energy except for the two largest $`\pi `$ orbits. These values are in good, but not quite perfect, agreement with those of Mazin and Kortus. The observed areas (Table II) are shown as horizontal lines, which allows one to read off the shift in any given band to bring its area into agreement with the observed area. (Due to the difference in the $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi `$ densities of states at EF, charge balance requires a readjustment of EF by $``$20 meV.) The required energy shift is -115 meV for both $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }^S`$ and $`\sigma _A^S`$, and +125 meV for $`\pi _L`$, both of which reduce the sizes of the hole and electron Fermi surfaces. These required shifts imply: (1) there is a relative shift of the $`\sigma `$ bands relative to the $`\pi `$ bands by $``$ 240 meV presumably due to correlation effects beyond LDA, and (2) the $`k_z`$ dispersion of the $`\sigma `$ bands along the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-A line is described correctly in band theory (the same $`\sigma `$ band shift is required at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and at A). The data give the areas for only a single tube (the smaller one), but since the two $`\sigma `$ are degenerate along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-A, both bands must shift together.

The observed effective masses include an enhancement due (primarily) to electron-phonon coupling, which is given in Table II and is obtained from $`m^{}=m_b(1+\lambda `$). For both $`\sigma `$ orbits the enhancement thus derived is $`\lambda _\sigma `$ =1.3; for the $`\pi `$ orbit it is $`\lambda _\pi `$=0.5. These $`\sigma `$ orbit enhancements are noticeably larger than the average values over each surface $`\overline{\lambda }_\sigma =0.9\pm 0.1,\overline{\lambda }_\pi =0.4\pm 0.1`$ obtained from solution to the anisotropic Eliashberg equations with first principles band theory input by Choi et al. The difference particularly for the $`\sigma `$ bands might indicate there is some feature of strong coupling in MgB2 yet to be understood, or possibly that the $`\sigma `$ band shift necessary to provide agreement with orbit areas, when taken into account in the calculations of electron-phonon coupling, will ameliorate this discrepancy. The disagreement is small enough that the general picture – the quasiparticle band structure and electron-phonon coupling determined within conventional (LDA) band theory, then Tc determined by Eliashberg theory – seems well justified.

## IV Discussion

For ZrB2 the only discrepancy between calculated and observed areas occurs for the largest orbit that was observed, the overall agreement between the calculated and the observed frequencies is of the same order as the achievable numerical accuracy. Because of the strong hybridization between the Zr $`3d`$ and the B $`2p`$ states, ZrB2 has a much more isotropic electronic structure than does MgB2. As a result, any renormalization and shift of bands with respect to each other seems to be negligible for this compound, and the LDA single particle picture description is well justified.

While the observed dHvA areas of MgB2 are readily understood in terms of the calculated Fermi surfaces and the inferred electron-phonon coupling constants are reasonable, complete agreement of the FS areas with the data requires a shift of the $`\sigma `$ bands by 115 meV downward, and a shift of the $`\pi `$ bands upward by 125 meV. The necessary shift results in $`\sigma `$ band edges at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and A that are reduced 0.38 eV $``$ 0.25 eV, 0.76 eV $``$ 0.63 eV, respectively. The volume of the $`\sigma ^S`$ tube, proportional to the average of the two areas in Table II, then is about 30% smaller than given by the band calculation, so the number of holes decreases proportionally (from 0.146 to 0.106).

We can suggest at least two possible causes of this “beyond LDA” correction to the band structure. One possibility is related to the observation that the charge in the $`\sigma `$ bands is confined to the two dimensional B sheet of graphene structure, nearly filling those bonding states. Being of more localized character than the $`\pi `$ bands, the exchange potential in LDA may be less accurate than for the $`\pi `$ electrons; a better exchange potential would be larger in magnitude (and attractive), lowering the $`\sigma `$ bands with respect to the $`\pi `$ bands. A related viewpoint of the same physics is that there is a larger (spurious) self-interaction for the $`\sigma `$ states than for the $`\pi `$ states in LDA.

Another possible correction could arise from residual hole-hole Coulomb interactions in the $`\sigma `$-hole gas. There is some analogy with a related situation in metallic, ferromagnetic Ni, where there are $``$0.6 $`3d`$ holes/Ni in the minority bands. Unlike in MgB2, in Ni there is presumably a relatively large value of the ratio $`U/W`$ (intra-atomic Coulomb interaction U, $`3d`$ bandwidth W) making Hubbard-type correlations of some relevance. MgB2 has broad $`\sigma `$ bands, so Hubbard-like correlations should not be the problem. The strong 2D character of the $`\sigma `$ band holes may enhance many body corrections. It will require further work to determine whether it is one of these mechanisms, or perhaps some other, that is responsible for the band structure corrections.

## V Summary

The rather close correspondence of the LDA Fermi surfaces of MgB2 supports the prevalent picture of superconductivity that is based on the LDA starting point: very strong electron-phonon coupling of $`\sigma `$ band hole states to certain phonons (the E2g branch). Of the suggested alternatives cited in the Introduction, the comparison we have made tends to rule out several of them. Although the $`\sigma `$ band Fermi energy requires some adjustment to account for the observed dHvA orbital areas, it remains around 0.5 eV, large enough to render non-adiabatic processes unimportant in superconducting pairing. The half-filled $`\pi `$ ideas and resonating valence bond state idea certainly get no support from the correspondence of dHvA data to the band theory results. Other experimental data (penetration depth, specific heat, isotope shift, superconducting gap and Tc itself) are being shown in many studies to require an anisotropic (two band) model, and that most data seem to be consistent with such models based in detail on band theory results. Single crystal data, of which the dHvA data are some of the first, will serve to clarify these issues further.

## VI Acknowledgment

We thank A. Carrington, J.R. Cooper, H. Eschrig, I. Mazin, K. Winzer, H. Uchiyama, P.M. Oppeneer, and S.V. Shulga for helpful discussions. This work was supported by National Science Foundation Grant DMR-0114818 (W.E.P.), and by the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (H.R.).


text:
# Symmetries of contact metric manifolds

## 1. Introduction

There are many interesting geometric situations, which are characterized by the existence of a Killing vector field with special properties. Examples are Sasakian manifolds, K-contact manifolds or total spaces of $`S^1`$-bundles.

In this article we will study the isometry group of a compact Riemannian manifold admitting a special unit Killing vector field.

The starting point is the simple observation that on a compact Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$ a Killing vector field $`\xi `$ induces a decomposition of the Lie algebra $`𝔤:=Lie(Iso(M))`$ of the isometry group into eigenspaces of the Lie derivative $`L_\xi `$. The zero eigenspace $`𝔤_0`$ can be identified with the space of Killing vector fields commuting with $`\xi `$.

In the regular case, i.e. where all orbits of $`\xi `$ are closed and have the same length, it is easy to show (under some technical restrictions) that $`𝔤_0`$ is spanned by $`\xi `$ and the Killing vector fields of the quotient space $`M/S^1`$, cf. Lemma 2.3.

The space $`𝔤_0`$ is thus well understood, at least in the regular case. We then concentrate on the complement of $`𝔤_0`$ in $`𝔤`$ with respect to the decomposition mentioned above. Two interesting remarks can be made (cf. Lemma 2.4 below): on the one hand, each Killing vector field from this complement is orthogonal to $`\xi `$ at every point of $`M`$, and on the other hand, the non–zero eigenvalues for the action of $`_\xi `$ on $`𝔤`$ are determined by those of the field of endomorphisms $`\phi `$ corresponding to $`d\xi `$ on $`M`$. In particular, if $`\phi `$ has no constant non–zero eigenvalues on $`M`$, then $`𝔤=𝔤_0`$.

In order to study the complement of $`𝔤_0`$ in $`𝔤`$ it is thus useful to make further assumptions on $`\phi `$. In the remaining part of the paper we consider the case where $`\phi `$ defines at every point of $`M`$ a complex structure on the orthogonal complement of $`\xi `$. The manifolds admitting such a structure are called K–contact, and among them, those satisfying a further integrability condition are called Sasakian.

For these manifolds the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ splits (as a vector space) into only two subspaces: $`𝔤=𝔤_0𝔤_2`$. We provide an easy proof for the fact that a compact Sasakian manifold with non-trivial $`𝔤_2`$ has to be a space of constant curvature or a 3-Sasakian manifold. Moreover we describe the decomposition of $`𝔤`$ on 3-Sasakian manifolds.

In section 4 we characterize K-contact structures carrying Killing vector fields of constant length in $`𝔤_2`$. It turns out that these manifolds are obtained from $`SO(3)`$-bundles over pseudo-Riemannian quaternion Kähler manifolds by changing the sign of the metric. In addition we give an example of K-contact manifold having Killing vector fields of non-constant length in $`𝔤_2`$.

In section 5 we study the isometry group on irregular Sasakian manifolds and use this to obtain in the last section the classification of simply connected compact homogeneous Sasakian manifolds. Note that this classification was already obtained in  under the slightly stronger assumption that the automorphism group of the Sasakian structure (rather than the isometry group of the manifold) acts transitively.

## 2. Manifolds with unit Killing vector fields

Throughout this article we identify vectors and 1–forms on Riemannian manifolds using the metric.

Let $`(M^n,g)`$ be a compact Riemannian manifold carrying a Killing vector field $`\xi `$. We denote by $`G=Iso(M)`$ the isometry group of $`M`$ and by $`𝔤=𝔦𝔰𝔬(M)`$ the Lie algebra of $`G`$, identified with the Lie algebra of Killing vector fields on $`M`$. Since $`G`$ is compact, the adjoint representation of $`G`$ on $`𝔤`$ is orthogonal with respect to some scalar product on $`𝔤`$. In particular, the endomorphism $`_\xi `$ of $`𝔤`$ is antisymmetric, so $`i_\xi `$ is a Hermitian endomorphism of $`𝔤^{}`$. Let $`𝔤^{}=𝔤_0^{}𝔤_{\lambda _1}^{}\mathrm{}𝔤_{\lambda _s}^{}`$ be the decomposition of $`𝔤^{}`$ in eigenspaces for $`i_\xi `$, where $`𝔤_{\lambda _k}^{}`$ corresponds to the eigenvalue $`\lambda _k`$ and $`𝔤_0^{}`$ to the eigenvalue $`0`$. This induces a direct sum decomposition

(1)
$$𝔤=𝔤_0𝔤_{\lambda _1}\mathrm{}𝔤_{\lambda _s},$$

where $`_\xi |𝔤_0=0`$ and $`_\xi _\xi |𝔤_{\lambda _k}=\lambda _k^2`$. Note that all $`\lambda _k`$’s can be chosen to be strictly positive real numbers. For such a choice, (1) will be called the standard decomposition of $`𝔤`$.

From now on we will always assume that $`\xi `$ has constant length 1.

###### Definition 2.1.

The vector field $`\xi `$ is called regular if its flow has closed orbits of constant length. It is called quasi–regular if the flow has closed orbits whose lengths have jumps. Finally, $`\xi `$ is called irregular if its flow has a non–closed orbit.

It is easy to see that $`\xi `$ is regular or quasi–regular if and only if there exists some $`p>0`$ such that $`\mathrm{exp}_e(p\xi )=e`$, where $`e`$ is the unit of $`G`$.

We now study in more detail the case where $`\xi `$ is regular. The flow of $`\xi `$ defines an isometric circle action on $`M`$ and the quotient $`N:=M/S^1`$ of $`M`$ by this action carries a Riemannian metric such that the projection $`MN`$ is a Riemannian submersion with minimal fibers. Conversely, every connection $`\theta `$ on a principal $`S^1`$–bundle $`M`$ over a Riemannian manifold $`N`$ induces a 1–parameter family of metrics $`g^t`$ on $`M`$ turning the bundle projection into a Riemannian submersion with minimal fibers via the following formula:

(2)
$$g^t=g_N+t^2\theta \theta .$$

The metric $`g^t`$ carries a unit Killing vector field whose orbits are closed and have constant length $`2\pi t`$. The following ”folkloric” lemma relates the exterior derivative $`d\xi `$ and the curvature of the connection of the $`S^1`$–bundle $`MN`$.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`(M^n,g,\xi )`$ be as above and denote by $`2\pi \mathrm{}`$ the length of the orbits of $`\xi `$. On the $`S^1`$–principal fibration $`MN:=M/S^1`$ we define a connection whose horizontal distribution is $`\xi ^{}`$. Then the curvature form of this connection is equal to $`id\xi /\mathrm{}`$.

Conversely, if $`F`$ is a 2–form in $`H^2(N,)`$, let $`M`$ be the $`S^1`$–bundle over $`N`$ with Chern class $`[F]`$ and let $`\xi `$ denote the vector field dual to the connection form of a connection on $`M`$ whose curvature form is $`iF`$. Then for each $`t>0`$, $`\xi _t:=\xi /t`$ is a unit Killing vector field for the metric $`g^t`$ defined by (2), its orbits have length $`2\pi t`$ and $`d\xi _t=d(t\theta )=tF`$.

By rescaling the metric on $`M`$, we may assume that the orbits of the Killing vector field $`\xi `$ have constant length $`2\pi `$ (this amounts to take $`t=1`$ in the construction above). The infinitesimal isometries of $`M`$ which preserve $`\xi `$ (i.e. the space $`𝔤_0`$) can be easily described in the following way:

###### Lemma 2.3.

(cf. ) With the notations from Lemma 2.2, let $`A`$ be a Killing vector field on $`M`$ commuting with $`\xi `$. Then there exists a unique Killing vector field $`X`$ on $`N`$ and a function $`f`$ on $`N`$ (unique up to a constant) such that

(3)
$$df=X\mathrm{}F$$

and $`A=X^{}+f\xi `$. Conversely, if $`F`$ is harmonic and $`N`$ is simply connected, then for every Killing vector field $`X`$ on $`N`$ the equation (3) has a solution $`f`$ unique up to a constant and $`X^{}+f\xi `$ is a Killing vector field on $`M`$ commuting with $`\xi `$.

Note: For a vector field $`X`$ on $`N`$, $`X^{}`$ denotes the horizontal lift of $`X`$ to $`M`$, i.e. the unique vector field on $`M`$ orthogonal to $`\xi `$ which projects onto $`X`$.

###### Proof.

Write $`A=f\xi +B`$ with $`B,\xi =0`$. Since $`_\xi `$ preserves the decomposition $`TM=\xi \xi ^{}`$, $`f`$ is actually a function on $`N`$ and $`B`$ is projectable on some $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }(TN)`$. The condition $`A(\xi ,\xi )=0`$ is automatically satisfied, $`A(Y^{},Y^{})=0`$ for every $`YTN`$ is equivalent to $`X`$ being Killing on $`N`$ and finally $`A(Y^{},\xi )+A(\xi ,Y^{})=0`$ for every $`YTN`$ is equivalent to (3).

To prove the converse we only have to check that $`d(X\mathrm{}F)=0`$ for every Killing vector field $`X`$ on $`N`$ and harmonic 2–form $`F`$. This follows directly from the Hodge decomposition: the harmonic form $`_XF`$ ($`_X`$ commutes with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, because $`X`$ is Killing) is equal to $`d(X\mathrm{}F)+X\mathrm{}dF=d(X\mathrm{}F)`$, which is exact, so they both vanish. ∎

The previous Lemma actually shows that there is a canonical exact sequence

$$0\xi 𝔤_0𝔦𝔰𝔬(N)0.$$

We now return to the general setting and prove the following simple but very useful lemma concerning the complement of $`𝔤_0`$ in $`𝔤`$ with respect to the standard decomposition described above.

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`A`$ be a Killing vector field in $`𝔤_{\lambda _1}\mathrm{}𝔤_{\lambda _s}`$. Then

1. $`A`$ is orthogonal to $`\xi `$ at every point of $`M`$.

2. $`_\xi A=A\mathrm{}d\xi `$.

###### Proof.

1. It is enough to prove this for $`A`$ in some fixed $`𝔤_{\lambda _k}`$. As before we can write $`A=f\xi +B`$ with $`B,\xi =0`$, and from the invariance w.r.t. $`_\xi `$ of the decomposition $`TM=\xi \xi ^{}`$ we deduce that $`\xi (\xi (f))=\lambda _k^2f`$. On the other hand $`0=_\xi A,\xi =\xi (f)`$, so $`f=0`$ (as $`\lambda _k0`$).

2. Using the first part of the lemma we get

(4)
$$_\xi A=_A\xi =d(A\mathrm{}\xi )A\mathrm{}d\xi =A\mathrm{}d\xi .$$

If we identify $`d\xi `$ with an endomorphism of $`TM`$, we see that $`A`$ has to be an eigenvector of the symmetric endomorphism $`d\xi d\xi `$ for the eigenvalue $`\lambda _k^2`$. This shows that the non-zero coefficients of $`X`$ in the above “Fourier–type” decomposition are completely determined by the algebraic behavior of $`d\xi `$.

Example. If $`d\xi d\xi `$ has no constant negative eigenvalue on $`M`$, then every Killing vector field on $`M`$ is an automorphism of the structure $`(M,\xi )`$ (i.e. $`𝔤=𝔤_0`$).

Example. For the Hopf fibration $`(S^{2n+1},\xi )P^n`$, $`d\xi `$ is twice the pull–back of the Kähler form of the base, thus showing that $`𝔤`$ is actually reduced to $`𝔤_0𝔤_2`$.

Example. Let $`N`$ be equal to the product of $`s`$ copies of $`P^1`$ with the Fubini–Study metric (i.e. round spheres of radius 1/2). Take $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _s`$ to be distinct positive integers and let $`M`$ be the Riemannian manifold induced (via the procedure described above) by the $`S^1`$ bundle over $`N`$ with curvature $`i(\lambda _1\omega _1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _s\omega _s)`$, where $`\omega _i`$ is the Kähler form of the i-th factor. Then the Lie algebra of infinitesimal isometries of $`M`$ is equal (as vector space) to $`𝔤=𝔤_0𝔤_{\lambda _1}\mathrm{}𝔤_{\lambda _n}`$, where $`𝔤_0`$ is isomorphic to $`\xi `$ plus the direct sum of $`s`$ copies of $`𝔰𝔲_2`$ and each $`𝔤_{\lambda _i}`$ is 2–dimensional.

So far we obtained a description of $`𝔤_0`$ in the regular case and made some general remarks on the Killing vector fields in the orthogonal complement of $`𝔤_0`$. In order to get further results on this complement it is necessary to impose additional assumptions on $`\xi `$, more precisely on the algebraic behavior of $`d\xi `$. In the remaining sections we will consider the case where the skew–symmetric endomorphism corresponding to $`d\xi `$ defines a complex structure on the orthogonal complement $`\xi ^{}`$. This leads to K-contact structures or, with a further integrability condition to Sasakian structures.

## 3. Sasakian Manifolds

A Sasakian structure is a special contact structure on a Riemannian manifold. These structures were studied in the seventies by the Japanese school and, in the last decade, after the work of Bär  and Friedrich et al.  on manifolds with Killing spinors and that of Boyer et al. on 3–Sasakian manifolds , they turned out to constitute one of the most important special geometries, being the odd–dimensional analogues of Kähler manifolds.

###### Definition 3.1.

A vector field $`\xi `$ on a Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$ is called a Sasakian structure if $`\xi `$ is a Killing vector field of unit length and

(5)
$$_{}\xi =\xi .$$

In particular, if we apply (5) to two arbitrary vectors and then take the scalar product with $`\xi `$ we find that the tensors $`\phi :=\xi `$ and $`\eta :=g(\xi ,.)`$ are related by

$$\phi ^2=Id+\eta \xi .$$

It is an easy exercise (see e.g. ) to check that $`(M,g)`$ is Sasakian if and only if the metric cone $`(\overline{M},\overline{g})`$ defined by $`\overline{M}=M\times ^+`$ and $`\overline{g}=dr^2+r^2g`$ is Kähler. Most experts today actually prefer to take this last statement as the definition of Sasakian structures, because it is more geometrical and intuitive.

###### Definition 3.2.

A triple $`\{\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3\}`$ of Sasakian structures is called a 3–Sasakian structure on $`M`$ if the following conditions are satisfied:

1. The frame $`(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)`$ is orthonormal;

2. For each permutation $`(i,j,k)`$ of signature $`\delta `$, the tensors $`\phi _i:=\xi _i`$ and $`\eta _i:=g(\xi _i,.)`$ are related by $`\phi _j\phi _i=(1)^\delta \phi _k\eta _j\xi _i`$.

Equivalently, $`M`$ is 3–Sasakian if and only if the cone $`\overline{M}`$ is hyperkähler, and this can be taken to be the definition as before.

The next lemma gives a sufficient condition for a manifold to be 3–Sasakian. It was originally proved in .

###### Lemma 3.3.

If $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _2`$ are two orthogonal vector fields defining Sasakian structures, then the triple $`\{\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3:=_{\xi _1}\xi _2\}`$ is a 3–Sasakian structure.

It turns out that on compact manifolds, the norm of a Killing vector field satisfying (5) is a “characteristic function of the sphere”. In other words, we have:

###### Lemma 3.4.

(see ) Let $`\xi `$ be a Killing vector field on a compact manifold $`M`$ satisfying (5). If $`M`$ has non–constant sectional curvature, then $`\xi `$ has constant length (so it defines a Sasakian structure on $`M`$ after a homothetic change of metric).

The following result is a synthesis of several papers studying the isometries of Sasakian manifolds , . We will include here a short proof using the considerations in Section 2.

###### Theorem 3.5.

Let $`M`$ be a Sasakian manifold.

* If $`M`$ is neither 3–Sasakian nor a space form, then every infinitesimal isometry of $`M`$ is an infinitesimal automorphism of the Sasakian structure (i.e. $`𝔤=𝔤_0`$).
* If $`M`$ is 3–Sasakian but has non–constant sectional curvature, then there is a Lie algebra decomposition $`𝔤=𝔤^{}𝔰𝔲_2`$, where $`𝔰𝔲_2`$ is generated by the three Sasakian vector fields and $`𝔤^{}`$ consists of the automorphisms of the 3–Sasakian structure (i.e. Killing vector fields commuting with the Sasakian vector fields).

###### Proof.

1. From Section 2 it follows that $`𝔤=𝔤_0𝔤_2`$ (since $`d\xi d\xi =4`$). Let $`X`$ be a non-zero element of $`𝔤_2`$ and $`Y:=\frac{1}{2}_\xi X`$. Then $`_Y\xi =_\xi Y=2_\xi ^2X=2X`$, so taking the Lie derivative with respect to $`Y`$ in (5) yields that $`X`$ satisfies (5), too. From Lemma 3.4 we deduce that either $`M`$ is a space form, or $`X`$ has constant length (and consequently defines a Sasakian structure). By Lemma 3.3, this implies that $`M`$ is 3–Sasakian, a contradiction. So $`𝔤_2=\mathrm{}`$.

2. Let now $`M`$ be 3–Sasakian. From the first part of the above proof, we deduce that for each $`i=1,2,3`$, $`𝔤`$ can be decomposed as $`𝔤=𝔤_0^i𝔤_2^i`$. Now suppose that there is some vector field in say $`𝔤_2^1`$ which is not a linear combination of $`\xi _2`$ and $`\xi _3`$. The arguments above show that $`X`$ defines a Sasakian structure, so the cone $`\overline{M}`$ admits both a hyperkähler structure and another Kähler structure. On the other hand, the cone is either irreducible or flat (see ). In the last case, $`M`$ has to be a space form. Otherwise, it cannot be locally symmetric (being Ricci–flat), so the existence of another Kähler structure on a hyperkähler manifold yields a further holonomy reduction, which is impossible from the Berger Holonomy Theorem. This proves that for every permutation $`\{i,j,k\}`$ of $`\{1,2,3\}`$, $`𝔤_2^i=\xi _j,\xi _k`$. Denote by $`𝔤^{}:=𝔤_0^i`$. It is clear that each $`\xi _i`$ preserves $`𝔤^{}`$ and that $`𝔤=𝔤^{}\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3`$. ∎

## 4. K–contact manifolds

###### Definition 4.1.

1. A contact metric structure on a Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$ is a unit length vector field $`\xi `$ such that the endomorphism $`\phi `$ defined by $`g(\phi ,):=\frac{1}{2}d\xi (,)`$ and the 1–form $`\eta :=\xi ,`$ are related by

(6)
$$\phi ^2=1+\eta \xi .$$

In other words, $`\phi `$ defines a complex structure on the distribution orthogonal to $`\xi `$.

2. A contact metric structure $`(M,g,\xi ,\phi )`$ is called K–contact if $`\xi `$ is Killing.

3. A contact metric 3–structure is an orthonormal frame of contact metric structures $`(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)`$ such that for each permutation $`(i,j,k)`$ of signature $`\delta `$, the tensors $`\phi _i:=\xi _i`$ and $`\eta _i:=g(\xi _i,.)`$ are related by $`\phi _i\phi _j=(1)^\delta \phi _k+\eta _j\xi _i`$. Equivalently, the endomorphisms $`\phi _i`$ satisfy the quaternionic relations on the distribution orthogonal to $`\{\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3\}`$.

It is well–known (and straightforward to prove) that $`M`$ has a contact metric structure if and only if the cone $`\overline{M}`$ is almost Kähler. Using this simple observation we can easily retrieve (with a shorter proof) the following result of Kashiwada : a contact metric 3–structure is necessarily 3–Sasakian! Indeed, the cone $`\overline{M}`$ of a contact metric 3–structure $`M`$ is almost hyperkähler and a lemma by Hitchin  (see below) states that every almost hyperkähler manifold is hyperkähler. So $`\overline{M}`$ is hyperkähler, i.e. $`M`$ is 3–Sasakian.

We now construct a family of examples of Riemannian manifolds admitting 3 orthogonal (non–integrable) K–contact metric structures which will play an important role in this section. This construction makes essential use of pseudo–Riemannian geometry.

Fundamental example. Let $`(Q,h)`$ be a pseudo–Riemannian manifold with holonomy $`Sp_{p,q}Sp_1SO_{4p,4q}`$. The simplest examples of such manifolds are, as in the Riemannian case, discrete quotients of the pseudo–Riemannian quaternionic hyperbolic spaces $`H^{p,q}:=Sp_{p,q+1}/Sp_{p1,q+1}Sp_1`$ (the case $`p=0`$, which is excluded in these examples, can be thought of as being the quaternionic projective space $`(P^q,can)`$, with the negative metric). Other explicit homogeneous examples were constructed by Alekseevski and Cortes (see ).

The holonomy condition is equivalent to the existence of a parallel sub–bundle $`E`$ of $`End(Q)`$ locally spanned by three endomorphisms satisfying the quaternionic relations. The Konishi construction (see ) carries over verbatim to the pseudo–Riemannian situation. The $`SO_3`$–principal bundle $`S`$ associated to $`E`$ admits a pseudo 3–Sasakian metric of signature $`(4p,4q+3)`$. (The definition of a pseudo 3–Sasakian structure is the same as that of a 3–Sasakian structure, except that the metric is pseudo–Riemannian and the 3 Killing vector fields are time–like).

Let us now choose an orthogonal decomposition of the tangent space of $`Q`$, $`TQ=D_+D_{}`$, such that $`h`$ is positive on $`D_+`$ and negative on $`D_{}`$. On $`S`$ there is an induced orthogonal decomposition $`TS=D_+^{}D_{}^{}V`$, where $`V`$ denotes the vertical distribution. Obviously, this decomposition is invariant under each of the Sasakian Killing vector fields. We define a Riemannian metric $`g`$ by changing the sign of $`h`$ on $`D_{}^{}V`$. The Sasakian vector fields, say $`\xi _i`$, are still Killing vector fields for $`g`$, and the endomorphisms associated to $`\frac{1}{2}d\xi _i`$ via the new metric are still complex structures on $`\xi _i^{}`$.

Nevertheless, this change of metric has definitely altered the integrability of the contact structures $`(\xi _i,\frac{1}{2}d\xi _i)`$, and moreover, the three K–contact structures $`\xi _i`$ on $`(Q,g)`$ do not define a contact metric 3–structure, since the corresponding endomorphisms $`\phi _i`$ do not satisfy the quaternionic relations on the horizontal distribution (they satisfy the quaternionic relations on $`D_{}`$ and the anti–quaternionic relations on $`D_+`$). The Riemannian structures obtained in this way are called weakly K–contact 3–structures.

The following result was proved by Hitchin in the Riemannian case . The proof given in  works without changes in the pseudo–Riemannian setting.

###### Lemma 4.2.

(pseudo–Riemannian Hitchin Lemma) A pseudo–Riemannian almost hyperkähler manifold is hyperkähler.

(Three almost complex structures $`J_i`$ on a pseudo–Riemannian manifold $`(M,h)`$ define an almost hyperkähler structure if the $`J_i`$ satisfy the quaternionic relations and the associated Kähler forms $`h(J_i,)`$ are closed.)

Consider now a K–contact structure, denoted $`\xi _1`$ for later convenience, on a compact manifold $`M`$. The results in Section 2 show that one can decompose the Lie algebra $`𝔦𝔰𝔬(M)`$ as $`𝔦𝔰𝔬(M)=𝔤_0𝔤_2`$, where $`_{\xi _1}|_{𝔤_0}=0`$ and $`(_{\xi _1}_{\xi _1})|_{𝔤_2}=4`$.

###### Theorem 4.3.

Let $`(M,g,\xi _1,\phi _1)`$ be a K–contact manifold and let $`𝔦𝔰𝔬(M)=𝔤_0𝔤_2`$ be the above decomposition of the Lie algebra of infinitesimal isometries of $`M`$. Then $`𝔤_2`$ contains a Killing vector field of constant length if and only if $`M`$ admits a weakly K–contact 3–structure.

###### Proof.

The reverse implication is clear from the previous example. Conversely, let $`\xi _2𝔤_2`$ be a Killing vector field of unit length, and denote by $`\xi _3:=\frac{1}{2}_{\xi _1}\xi _2`$, which obviously has unit length, too. By the definition of $`𝔤_2`$ we have $`_{\xi _1}\xi _3=2\xi _2`$. The Killing vector field $`\zeta :=[\xi _2,\xi _3]`$ can be computed as follows. On one hand, by the Jacobi identity we have $`_{\xi _1}\zeta =0`$, and

$$\zeta ,\xi _1=d\xi _1(\xi _2,\xi _3)=2_{\xi _2}\xi _1,\xi _3=2.$$

Finally, for every $`Y\xi _1`$, we have

$`\zeta ,_Y\xi _1`$ $`=`$ $`_Y\zeta ,\xi _1=_{\xi _1}\zeta ,Y=_\zeta \xi _1,Y`$
$`=`$ $`\phi _1(\zeta ),Y=\zeta ,\phi _1(Y)=\zeta ,_Y\xi _1,`$
thus showing that $`\zeta =2\xi _1`$. Consequently, for each permutation $`(i,j,k)`$ of $`(1,2,3)`$ of signature $`\delta `$ we have $`[\xi _i,\xi _j]=2\delta \xi _k`$. Now, if we denote by $`\phi _i:=\xi _i=\frac{1}{2}d\xi _i`$, $`\eta _i:=\xi _i,`$ and take the Lie derivative with respect to $`\xi _2`$ and $`\xi _3`$ in (6) we get

(7)
$$\phi _1\phi _3+\phi _3\phi _1=\eta _1\xi _3+\eta _3\xi _1,$$

and

(8)
$$\phi _1\phi _2+\phi _2\phi _1=\eta _1\xi _2+\eta _2\xi _1.$$

Taking $`_{\xi _2}`$ in (7) and using (6) yields $`\phi _2^2=1+\eta _2\xi _2`$ and similarly $`\phi _3^2=1+\eta _3\xi _3`$. Finally, taking $`_{\xi _3}`$ in (7) gives

(9)
$$\phi _2\phi _3+\phi _3\phi _2=\eta _2\xi _3+\eta _3\xi _2,$$

which shows that the $`\phi _i`$’s are three anti–commuting complex structures on the distribution $`D`$ orthogonal to $`\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3`$. From now on we restrict our attention to the distribution $`D`$. The endomorphism $`\phi _1\phi _2\phi _3`$ has square 1, so we can decompose $`D`$ as $`D=D_+D_{}`$, where $`D_\pm `$ is the eigenspace of $`\phi _1\phi _2\phi _3`$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $`\pm 1`$. That is, the restrictions of $`\phi _i`$ to $`D_+`$ (resp. $`D_{}`$) satisfy the anti–quaternionic (resp. quaternionic) relations. If $`D_+`$ is empty, we are done, since in that case $`(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)`$ define a contact metric 3–structure, so by the theorem of Kashiwada, $`M`$ has to be 3–Sasakian.

The interesting case is when $`D_+`$ is not empty. We then define a pseudo–Riemannian metric $`h`$ on $`M`$ by changing the sign of $`g`$ on $`D_+`$. The three vector fields $`\xi _i`$ are still Killing vector fields for $`h`$ and the endomorphisms associated to $`\frac{1}{2}d\xi _i`$ via $`h`$ satisfy the quaternionic relations on $`D`$. The cone $`(\overline{M},\overline{h})`$ is then a pseudo–Riemannian almost hyperkähler manifold. From Lemma 4.2 we deduce that $`(\overline{M},\overline{h})`$ is hyperkähler, so $`(M,h)`$ is pseudo 3–Sasakian. From the construction of $`h`$ it follows immediately that $`(M,g)`$ has a weakly K–contact 3–structure. ∎

In the Sasakian case we have seen that the component $`𝔤_2`$ of the Lie algebra of Killing fields is either $`0`$– or $`2`$–dimensional, or the manifold has constant sectional curvature. Moreover, in the first case, any Killing vector field in $`𝔤_2`$ has constant length. The K-contact structures do not have, in general, such a rigidity property:

###### Proposition 4.4.

There exist deformations of the round metric on $`S^{2n+1}`$, $`n3`$, which are non Sasakian K-contact structures for which the component $`𝔤_2`$ of the Lie algebra of the isometry group contains Killing fields of non-constant length.

###### Proof.

Let $`V=V_1V_2^{2n+2}`$, be decomposed in the $`(2n2)`$-dimensional subspace generated by the first coordinates, and the 4-dimensional subspace generated by the last ones, and let $`S^{2n+1}`$ be the standard sphere in $`V`$.

Let $`𝔤𝔰𝔬(V_1)\xi `$ be the Lie subalgebra of $`𝔰𝔬(V)`$ consisting of the Killing vector fields of $`S^{2n+1}`$ depending only on the first $`2n2`$ coordinates, plus the Killing vector field $`\xi `$, defined by the standard Sasakian structure of the sphere (and corresponding to the standard complex structure $`J`$ on $`^{2n+2}^{n+1}`$). We will deform the metric on $`S^{2n+1}`$, keeping it $`G`$-invariant (where $`G`$ is the associated Lie subgroup to $`𝔤`$). Because $`2n24`$, there are elements in $`𝔤`$ which do not commute with $`\xi `$. On the other hand, these Killing vector fields do not have constant length, because they all vanish on some totally geodesic 3-sphere.

We proceed as follows: Let $`X_0,J_0X_0`$ be non-trivial vector fields on $`S^3`$, seen as the standard sphere in $`V_2^4`$, commuting with and orthogonal to $`\xi _0`$, the Killing field defined by the standard Sasakian structure on $`S^3`$ (and corresponding to the matrix $`J_0`$, the standard complex structure on $`^4`$). Such vectors exist, and are the lifts of some vector fields on $`S^2`$, the orbit space of $`\xi _0`$ on $`S^3`$. We consider now the vector fields $`X,JX`$ on $`S^{2n+1}`$, depending only on the last 4 coordinates in $`^{2n+2}`$, and which project onto $`X_0,J_0X_0`$ via the projection $`VV_2`$. The vectors $`X,JX`$ are then $`G`$-invariant. Let $`U`$ be the open set of $`S^{2n+1}`$ where $`X`$ and $`JX`$ do not vanish, and let $`F:S^{2n+1}`$ be a non-trivial smooth $`G`$-invariant function whose support lies in $`U`$.

We construct a new metric, $`g_F`$, on $`S^{2n+1}`$ defined by the field $`A`$ of symmetric endomorphisms of $`TS^{2n+1}`$ relating it to the standard metric. On $`U`$, $`A`$ has eigenvalues $`e^F,e^F`$ and $`1`$, corresponding respectively to the eigenvectors $`X`$, $`JX`$ and the vectors orthogonal to them, and on $`S^{2m+1}U`$, $`A`$ is the identity. Since $`A`$ is clearly $`G`$-invariant, $`g_F`$ is a $`G`$-invariant metric. The pair $`(g_F,\xi )`$ is a K-contact structure because $`\xi `$ (viewed both as a vector and as a 1-form) and $`d\xi `$ (viewed as a 2-form) remain the same after the above deformation, and the endomorphism $`\varphi _F`$ of $`\xi ^{}`$, identified with the form $`d\xi `$, changes on $`X`$ and on $`JX`$, but remains a complex structure on $`\xi ^{}`$ (namely, $`\varphi _F(X)=e^{2F}JX`$ and $`\varphi _F(JX)=e^{2F}X`$).

Of course, this induces an almost complex structure on $`^n`$, the space of orbits of $`\xi `$, which is never integrable, because it is not analytic (it coincides with the standard complex structure on the non-empty interior of the set where $`F`$ vanishes, and is different on the open set where $`F0`$). So the constructed K-structure is not Sasakian (this is also a consequence of Theorem 3.5). ∎

## 5. Irregular Sasakian manifolds

In this section $`(M,g,\xi )`$ denotes an irregular Sasakian manifold. Consider the exponential orbit $`O`$ of $`\xi `$ in $`G:=Iso(M)`$ and denote by $`T`$ the closure of $`O`$ in $`G`$. Since $`G`$ is compact, $`T`$ is a compact subgroup of $`G`$. As the closure of an Abelian subgroup, $`T`$ is itself Abelian, thus isomorphic to a quotient of a torus $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ by a finite subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{~}{T}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤`$ be the Lie algebra of $`T`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$.

###### Lemma 5.1.

The subalgebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is central in $`𝔤`$.

###### Proof.

As every 3–Sasakian manifold (or Sasakian space form) is at least quasi–regular, Theorem 3.5 shows that $`𝔤=𝔤_0`$. Thus, for every $`X𝔤`$ and $`t`$, $`Ad_{\mathrm{exp}(t\xi )}X=0`$. By continuity we obtain $`Ad_gX=0`$ for every $`gT`$, so $`ad_YX=0`$ for every $`Y\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. ∎

###### Lemma 5.2.

The closure of the generic orbit on $`M`$ of the Sasakian vector field has dimension larger than 1.

###### Proof.

This amounts to say that the generic orbit of the compact Lie group $`T`$ defined above cannot be a circle. Let $`\zeta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be not collinear to $`\xi `$. Suppose that the $`T`$–orbit of each point in an open set $`U`$ of $`M`$ is a circle. Then $`\zeta `$ is a multiple of $`\xi `$ on $`U`$, say $`\zeta =f\xi `$. As $`\zeta `$ is Killing as well, we deduce that the symmetric part of $`df\xi `$ vanishes on $`U`$, so $`\zeta `$ is a constant multiple of $`\xi `$ on $`U`$, and hence on $`M`$, a contradiction. ∎

A classical and non–trivial result by Boothby and Wang  states that any contact structure whose automorphism group acts transitively has to be regular. We give here a simple proof of a slightly stronger version of this result for the case of Sasakian structures.

###### Proposition 5.3.

An irregular Sasakian manifold is not homogeneous as Riemannian manifold.

###### Proof.

Let $`\zeta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be as before and consider a point $`xM`$ where $`\zeta _x`$ is not collinear to $`\xi _x`$ (the existence of $`x`$ follows from the previous lemma). Consider an arbitrary Killing vector field $`X`$. By Lemma 5.1 $`X`$, $`\xi `$ and $`\zeta `$ are commuting Killing vector fields, hence $`_\zeta \xi ,X=0`$ (trivial application of the Koszul formula). In other words, every Killing vector field is orthogonal at $`x`$ to the vector $`\varphi (\zeta )_x=(_\zeta \xi )_x`$, which is non-zero by the assumption on $`\zeta `$. Thus $`M`$ cannot be homogeneous. ∎

In the remaining part of this section we construct an example of irregular Sasakian manifold of cohomogeneity one, showing that the theorem above is optimal.

Examples of cohomogeneity one irregular Sasakian manifolds.  We use the following equivalent definition for a Sasakian structure: it is a $`K`$-contact structure for which the underlying $`CR`$ structure is integrable. Recall that a $`CR`$ structure is — in the most general setting — a field of complex structures on a field of hyperplanes, and $`J:=\xi `$ on $`Q:=\xi ^{}`$ gives us such a structure on a $`K`$-contact manifold $`(M,g,\xi )`$. Moreover, the integrability condition for the $`CR`$ structure $`(M,Q,J)`$ is given by

$$N(X,Y)=0,X,YQ,\text{where}N:\mathrm{\Lambda }^2QQ,$$

$$4N(X,Y):=[JX,JY]J[JX,Y]^QJ[X,JY]^Q[X,Y],$$

where $`X,Y`$ are extended to vector fields contained in $`Q`$, and $`A^Q`$ denotes the component in $`Q`$ of the vector field $`A`$. It is then clear that $`N0`$ is equivalent to the integrability of the space of local orbits of $`\xi `$, which is almost Kähler for a $`K`$-contact structure, and Kähler for a Sasakian one.

Let $`^{n+1}V=V_1V_2`$ be a splitting in two complex vector spaces of dimensions $`1`$, resp. $`n`$, and let $`J_0`$ be the element of $`𝔲(n+1)𝔰𝔬(2n+2)`$ corresponding to the multiplication by $`i`$ on $`V`$, and let $`J_1`$ be the element of $`𝔲(n+1)`$ corresponding to the multiplication by $`i`$ on $`V_1`$, and acting trivially on $`V_2`$. They correspond to Killing vector fields on the round sphere $`(S^{2n+1},g_0)^{n+1}`$ denoted by $`T_0`$, resp. $`T_1`$.

The first one is the Killing vector field associated to the standard Sasakian structure on $`S^{2n+1}`$ and it is easy to see that $`T:=T_0+aT_1`$, where $`a(0,1)`$ is a nowhere vanishing Killing vector field, whose generic orbits are dense in a torus generated by the action of $`T_0`$ and $`T_1`$. Moreover, $`T`$ is obviously transverse to $`Q:=T_0^{}`$ and commutes with $`T_0`$. We define a new metric $`g`$ on the sphere such that $`T`$ has unit length, is orthogonal to $`Q`$, and $`g|_Q:=\alpha g_0|_Q`$, where $`\alpha :=g_0(T,T_0)^1`$ and $`g_0`$ is the standard metric on $`S^{2n+1}`$. This new metric is $`T_0`$\- and $`T`$-invariant, so $`T`$ is a skew-symmetric endomorphism of $`Q`$.

If we extend two arbitrary orthogonal vectors $`X,Y`$ in $`Q`$ by local vector fields contained in $`Q`$, orthogonal to each other and commuting with $`T_0`$, we get by Koszul’s formula

$$2g(_XT,Y)=g([X,T],Y)g([T,Y],X)g(T,[X,Y])=g(T,[X,Y]).$$

Here the other terms vanish as $`T`$ is Killing and $`X`$ is orthogonal to $`Y`$. Similarly we get $`2g_0(_X^0T_0,Y)=g_0(T_0,[X,Y])`$, and we can decompose $`[X,Y]=g_0(T_0,[X,Y])T_0+W`$, where $`WQ`$. Then $`g(T,[X,Y])=g_0(T_0,[X,Y])g(T,T_0)`$. It follows then that $`_XT=_X^0T_0=J_0(X)`$, i.e. it is the standard $`CR`$ structure on the sphere, which is integrable. Hence $`g`$ is Sasakian.

On the other hand, the metric $`g`$ is invariant under the action of $`U(1)\times U(n)`$, where the two factors act on $`V_1`$, resp. on $`V_2`$, and the generic orbits of this group on $`S^{2n+1}`$ have codimension 1, thus $`g`$ has cohomogeneity one, as claimed.

## 6. Homogeneous Sasakian Manifolds

The aim of this section is to prove the following classification result.

###### Theorem 6.1.

A simply connected compact Sasakian manifold is homogeneous (as Riemannian manifold) if and only if it is the canonical $`S^1`$–bundle of a homogeneous simply connected compact Hodge manifold with the metric described in Lemma 2.2.

###### Proof.

If $`N`$ is a homogeneous simply connected compact Hodge manifold, we can assume (after possibly rescaling the metric by an integer constant) that the cohomology class $`[F]`$ of the Kähler form is not an integer multiple of any class in $`H^2(N,)`$. The Gysin sequence then shows that the canonical $`S^1`$–bundle $`M`$ of $`N`$ is simply connected. It is well–known that $`M`$ has a Sasakian structure, and Lemma 2.3 shows that every Killing vector field $`X`$ on $`N`$ induces a Killing vector field $`X^{}`$ on $`M`$, projectable onto $`X`$. As the vertical vector field is itself a (non–vanishing) Killing vector field, it follows that for every point $`xM`$ and for every vector $`AT_xM`$ there exists a Killing vector field $`\zeta `$ on $`M`$ such that $`\zeta _x=A`$. Thus the orbit through every point of the (compact) isometry group of $`M`$ is open, hence $`M`$ is homogeneous.

Conversely, let $`(M,g,\xi )`$ be a homogeneous simply connected compact Sasakian manifold. We can assume that $`M`$ is not 3–Sasakian, since in that case $`M`$ has to be the canonical $`S^1`$–bundle of a generalized flag manifold (see ). From Proposition 5.3, $`M`$ is either regular or quasi–regular (i.e. the exponential orbit of $`\xi `$ in the isometry group is a circle). Denote by $`\phi _t`$ the isometry induced by $`\mathrm{exp}(t\xi )`$ on $`M`$ and let $`p`$ be the least positive number such that $`\phi _p=Id_M`$. If $`M`$ is quasi–regular, there exists a positive number $`q<p`$ and a point $`xM`$ such that $`\phi _q(x)=x`$. For every vector $`AT_xM`$ there exists a Killing vector field $`\zeta `$ on $`M`$ such that $`\zeta _x=A`$. By our assumption, every Killing vector field on $`M`$ commutes with $`\xi `$, so $`(\phi _q)_{}\zeta =\zeta `$. This shows that $`\phi _q`$ has to be the identity on $`M`$, a contradiction.

We have thus proved that the Sasakian structure is regular. The quotient $`N`$ of $`M`$ by the Sasakian flow is Kähler (see ) and simply connected (by the exact homotopy sequence). From Lemma 2.3 and Theorem 3.5 we see that every Killing vector field on $`M`$ is of the form $`X^{}+f\xi `$, where $`X`$ is a Killing vector field on $`N`$. For every point $`xN`$ and vector $`YT_xN`$, take some $`y`$ in the fiber over $`x`$; as $`M`$ is homogeneous, there exists a Killing vector field $`\zeta `$ on $`M`$ such that $`\zeta _y=Y^{}`$. If we write $`\zeta =X^{}+f\xi `$ with $`X`$ Killing vector field on $`N`$, this last equation shows that $`X_x=Y`$. So $`N`$ is homogeneous. ∎

Remark. As Charles Boyer pointed out to us, the above result was also obtained in  under the slightly stronger assumption that the automorphism group of the Sasakian structure acts transitively.

Remark. The classification of simply connected compact homogeneous Kähler manifolds can be found in . Every such manifold has to be an orbit of the co–adjoint representation of a compact connected Lie group, endowed with its canonical complex structure. Note that every such co–adjoint orbit carries several homogeneous Kähler metrics, but there is always a canonically defined invariant Kähler–Einstein metric, thus at least one Hodge structure.


text:
# Is there a 1998bw-like supernova in the afterglow of gamma ray burst 010921?

## The CB model of GRBs

In the CB model, long-duration GRBs and their AGs are produced in core collapse supernovae by jets of highly relativistic “cannonballs” that pierce through the supernova shell. The AG –the persistent radiation in the direction of an observed GRB– has three origins: the ejected CBs, the concomitant SN explosion, and the host galaxy. These components are usually unresolved in the measured “GRB afterglows”, so that the corresponding light curves and spectra refer to the cumulative energy flux density:

$$\mathrm{F}_{\mathrm{AG}}=\mathrm{F}_{\mathrm{CBs}}+\mathrm{F}_{\mathrm{SN}}+\mathrm{F}_{\mathrm{HG}}.$$
(1)
The contribution of the candidate host galaxy depends on the angular aperture of the observations and it is usually determined at late times, when the CB and SN contributions have become negligible.

Core-collapse supernovae (SN of Types II/Ib/Ic) are far from being standard candles. But if their explosions are fairly asymmetric —as they would be if a fair fraction of them emit two opposite jets of CBs— much of the variability could be a reflection of the varying angles from which we see their non-spherically expanding shells. Exploiting this possibility to its extreme, we use SN1998bw as an ansatz standard candle (Dado et al. 2001a and references therein). Let the energy flux density of SN1998bw at redshift $`\mathrm{z}_{\mathrm{bw}}=0.0085`$ (Galama et al. 1998) be $`\mathrm{F}_{\mathrm{bw}}[\nu ,\mathrm{t}]`$. For a similar SN placed at a redshift $`\mathrm{z}`$:

$`\mathrm{F}_{\mathrm{SN}}[\nu ,\mathrm{t}]=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{z}}{1+\mathrm{z}_{\mathrm{bw}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{L}^2(\mathrm{z}_{\mathrm{bw}})}{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{L}^2(\mathrm{z})}}\times `$ (2)
$`\mathrm{F}_{\mathrm{bw}}[\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{z}}{1+\mathrm{z}_{\mathrm{bw}}}},\mathrm{t}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{z}_{\mathrm{bw}}}{1+\mathrm{z}}}]\mathrm{A}(\nu ,\mathrm{z}),`$
where $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{z})`$ is the luminosity distance222The cosmological parameters we use in our calculations are: $`\mathrm{H}_0=65`$ km/(s Mpc), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$. and $`\mathrm{A}(\nu ,\mathrm{z})`$ is the extinction along the line of sight. The selective extinction in the Galaxy in the direction of GRB 010921 is $`\mathrm{E}(\mathrm{B}\mathrm{V})=0.148`$ (Schlegel et al. 1998). One can use standard conversion of E(B-V) to the attenuation in our galaxy, due to dust along the line of sight to the GRB at different wave lengths. The selective extinction in our Galaxy in the direction of GRB 010921 is expected to increase the spectral slope of the observed optical light by $`0.64\pm 0.04`$.

The unextinct late time contribution of a CB to the GRB afterglow is given by:

$$\mathrm{F}_{\mathrm{CB}}=\mathrm{f}[\gamma (\mathrm{t})]^{3\alpha 1}[\delta (\mathrm{t})]^{3+\alpha }\nu ^\alpha ,$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{f}`$ is a normalization constant (see Dado et al. 2001a for its theoretical estimate), $`\alpha 1.1`$ is the spectral index of the synchrotron radiation from Fermi-accelerated electrons in the CB whose acceleration rate is in equilibrium with their synchrotron cooling rate, $`\gamma (\mathrm{t})`$ is the Lorentz factor of the CB, and $`\delta (\mathrm{t})`$ is its Doppler factor:

$$\delta \frac{1}{\gamma (1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )}\frac{2\gamma }{(1+\theta ^2\gamma ^2)},$$
(4)
whose approximate expression is valid for small observing angles $`\theta 1`$ and $`\gamma 1`$, the domain of interest for GRBs. For an interstellar medium of constant baryon density $`\mathrm{n}_\mathrm{p}`$, the Lorentz factor, $`\gamma (\mathrm{t})`$, as a function of observer’s time, is given by (Dado et al. 2001a):

$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (\gamma _0,\theta ,\mathrm{x}_{\mathrm{}};\mathrm{t})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{B}}}\left[\theta ^2+\mathrm{C}\theta ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{C}}}\right]`$
$`\mathrm{C}`$ $``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{B}^2+2\theta ^6+\mathrm{B}\sqrt{\mathrm{B}^2+4\theta ^6}}}\right]^{1/3}`$
$`\mathrm{B}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _0^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\theta ^2}{\gamma _0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{6\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}}{(1+\mathrm{z})\mathrm{x}_{\mathrm{}}}}`$ (5)
where $`\gamma _0=\gamma (0)`$, and

$$\mathrm{x}_{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{CB}}}{\pi \mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{max}}^2\mathrm{n}_\mathrm{p}}$$
(6)
characterizes the CB’s slow-down in terms of $`\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{CB}}`$: its baryon number, and $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{max}}`$: its radius (it takes a distance $`\mathrm{x}_{\mathrm{}}/\gamma _0`$ for the CB to half its original Lorentz factor).

After a correction for selective extinction in our galaxy ($`\mathrm{E}(\mathrm{B}\mathrm{V})=0.148`$ magnitudes in the direction of GRB 010921) the photometric measurements of its optical AG yield a spectral slope $`\alpha =2.22\pm 0.23`$ (Park et al. 2001; Price et al. 2002a). This slope is much steeper than the normally observed spectral slopes of GRB afterglows: $`0.5`$ at early time (the first couple of days) and $`1.1`$ later. We interpret this steepening as the effect of selective extinction in the host galaxy; a similarlly strong steepening of the spectral index, also consistent with strong extinction in the host galaxy, has been observed in the AG of a few GRBs, e.g., GRB 990712 (Bjornsson et al. 2001) and GRB 000926 (Harrison et al. 2001). Supportive evidence for strong extinction in the host galaxy of GRB 010921 is provided by the spectral index of its continuum light and by the relative intensity of its measured $`\mathrm{H}_\alpha `$ to $`\mathrm{H}_\beta `$ emission lines (Price et al. 2002a), which is different from the expected intrinsic ratio of 2.87 (Mathis 1983) and yields an optical depth at $`\mathrm{H}_\beta `$ due to dust of 1.51.

### Light-curve evidence

Assuming an intrinsic $`\alpha =1.1`$ for the late-time AG (in agreement with all observed AGs of GRBs of known redshift, see Dado et al. 2001a), the best-fitted parameters to the AG of GRB 011121 are: $`\gamma _0=1013`$, $`\theta =0.15\mathrm{mrad}`$, and $`\mathrm{x}_{\mathrm{}}=0.48\mathrm{Mpc}`$. In Figs. 1 to 3, we show the fitted light curves and the observations in the V, R and I bands, assuming a SN1998bw-like contribution at $`\mathrm{z}=0.451`$. The relative intensities were adjusted to fit the early time data. The difference between the expected intensity ratios for a spectral slope -1.1 and the observed relative intensities were used to correct the SN1998bw contribution for selective extinction in the host galaxy and in the Milky Way. The selective extinction in our Galaxy and in the host was also used to estimate roughly the overall attenuation normalization: $`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{R}2.8`$ magnitudes in the R band. The fits are clearly very satisfactory.

### Spectral evidence

The spectral index of the optical AG for most GRBs after a couple of days is approximately $`1.1`$ (e.g., Simon et al., 2001). When dominated by a supernova contribution, the optical afterglows of GRBs become much more red (see, e.g., Reichart 1999; Bloom et al. 1999). The spectral index of the optical AG of GRB 010921 steepened to $`3.5\pm 0.3`$ on day 35 and to $`4.5`$ on day 46 (Price et al. 2002b ) as expected when the AG is dominated by a supernova like SN1998bw. This is demonstrated in Figs. 4 and 5 where we compare the colours of SN1998bw at $`\mathrm{z}=0.451`$ —after extinction in the host galaxy and in ours— and the colours of the AG of GRB 010921, as measured with HST on days 35 and 46 after burst. The colours observed by HST are in good agreement with the expectation.

## Conclusions

Contrary to the questionable333See, for instance, the chapter “Uses and abuses of fireballs” in Dado et al. 2001a, and the honest and devastatingly section “Open issues and problems” in Ghisellini 2001. and inconclusive fireball-model analysis of the optical afterglow of GRB 010921, our analysis, based on the Cannonball Model, shows strong evidence for the contribution of a supernova akin to SN1998bw, seen at the GRB’s redshift. The evidence is clearly there in all of the relevant observations: the I, R and V light curves, and the spectra at the times when the supernova’s contribution is dominant.